I believe Learning Outcomes (LOs) are a valuable tool for providing the frame in higher education. According to Addison (2014), LOs were developed to create consistency, increase clarity, and promote inclusivity. They serve as a guide for students and educators, ensuring clear goals and expectations for courses or programs.
However, the Learning Outcomes framework faces a lot of challenges. While it aims to standardise education, this emphasis on uniformity can restrict spontaneous and diverse learning experiences. LOs are often tied to bureaucratic systems that prioritise measurable performance over meaningful educational engagement (Addison, 2014). This focus on compliance can stifle creativity, particularly in creative disciplines like art and design.
For example, during an open day for prospective students, our course leader chose not to use the standardised PowerPoint provided by the university. Instead, they showcased live work and engaged directly with the audience. This approach resonated more with students, and our course attracted more applicants than others. While the course leader’s charisma played a role, this example highlights how standardisation can overlook the value of authenticity and spontaneity.
Although this scenario doesn’t directly relate to LOs, it illustrates how standardisation in large institutions like UAL can fail to recognise alternative, dynamic approaches. This raises broader questions: Are LOs being used primarily as a bureaucratic tool to measure administrative success, rather than fostering critical thinking, innovation, and risk-taking? If LOs encourage students to be critical and innovative, why does the university’s management seem reluctant to take risks in its operations? At times, UAL feels more like a corporation, prioritising numbers and buzzwords like “innovation” while lacking transparency and uniqueness.
I understand that large institutions like UAL must compromises a lot in order to stabilise the business and recruit large amount of students. However, there’s a disconnect between the purpose of LOs—encouraging critical and creative thinking—and the university’s actions. While LOs aim to empower students, the institution’s focus on external metrics can overshadow their needs, making its approach feel superficial.
In art education, I’m concerned about the impact of admitting large numbers of students, which can lead to a lack of quality education and support. While this contradicts UAL’s business plans, the reality is that higher education is heavily influenced by government funding and economic conditions. These factors are beyond our control, leaving us to focus on improving smaller, more manageable aspects of the system. Well, PgCert might be what I am talking about here. It could be just another educational bureaucratic measurement, but it might change something!?
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 275–285.