When I first started engaging with the concept of learning outcomes, it came at a time when I was myself juggling assessments, struggling with how to review creative student work against sometimes rigid and unrelated criteria. I began questioning whether these learning outcomes were limiting the students’ creativity or providing them with just enough of a framework to address the brief, all while allowing room for individual expression.
In reflecting on this, I wondered whether the learning outcomes had restricted my students’ freedom to fully explore their ideas, or if they were merely providing a scaffold that allowed them to demonstrate how they were engaging with the brief in their own way. This balance between structure and flexibility is something that has often made me pause. Addison (2014) writes about the paradox of learning outcomes in creative fields – they’re meant to guide student learning, but too often end up restricting creativity. It’s an issue that resonates with me as I see my students try to align their work with these outcomes, sometimes at the cost of their own creative expression.
A real turning point for me came during Workshop 3, when a colleague from UAL’s academic support team introduced a helpful framework for breaking down the language of learning outcomes. The exercise focused on the nouns at the start of each outcome, and how we could deconstruct them into four key parts: Topic, Instruction, Aspect, and Restriction. This approach gave me much-needed clarity, as it helped me understand exactly what was being asked of students in a more detailed way. By breaking things down like this, I could see how the learning outcomes weren’t meant to be restrictive but more of a guide that could be interpreted more flexibly within the creative context of my course.
Reflecting on this shift in understanding, I’ve gained a new appreciation for the learning outcomes at UAL. What I now value most is how my course leader and fellow tutors approach these outcomes in a more holistic way, allowing students more freedom in how they demonstrate their learning. This resonates with what Davies (2012) argues about the assessment of art and design, where a more flexible approach to learning outcomes is necessary, given the subjective nature of creative work. In this sense, the outcomes act as a guide but shouldn’t box in the creative process. They offer a framework, but there’s room for students to express their learning in their own way.
My time in industry has likely influenced my perspective, where grading is often complemented by portfolio reviews and interviews, which help provide a fuller picture of an individual’s capabilities. However, I now see that this type of assessment model isn’t always suitable for every subject or unit brief. Conversations with colleagues made me realise how fields like fine art or illustration may need a more open approach to learning outcomes that fosters freedom and personal exploration. The constraints of overly rigid criteria can stifle the creative process in such subjects.
In conclusion, my reflections on learning outcomes have led me to recognise their important role in assessment, particularly when they are used as part of a flexible and holistic approach. While learning outcomes can feel restrictive in creative fields, I now understand that, when implemented thoughtfully, they can serve as a useful guide without limiting the creative potential of students.
References
Addison, N. (2014) Doubting Learning Outcomes. London: Routledge.
Davies, J. (2012) ‘Learning Outcomes in Art and Design: A Constructive Approach to Assessment’, Journal of Art and Design Education, 31(2), pp. 179-189.