How might (learning) outcomes and assessments be related to the student experience?
There was research to support outcome-led learning, i.e written form, such as essays and reports, was a predominant mode of evidencing achievement. However, there is even less literature on these topics within art and design.
There was broad consensus on the value of learning outcomes and how they might be articulated. – avoid ambiguity in the writing and presentation of learning outcomes
assessment criteria have always been a requirement of the validation of courses in universities.
Focussing on student-centred learning highlighted the impact of assessment on learning, self- and peer assessment and so on.
“… became clear was that the developmental histories of learning outcomes and assessment criteria, for most institutions, were quite different.”
- During my teaching at different institutions showed me how different institutions and what is priorities within them – experimentation, conceptualisation, knowledge, etc.
- They also prioritise different forms of feedback – Sheffield Hallam preferred formal (recorded) audio feedback where as UAL encouraged written feedback when it comes to assessments.
Most Uni assessment criteria comes from Bloom’s taxonomy (1956)
Six major categories: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.
Brief explanations of these main categories in from the appendix of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Handbook One, pp. 201-207):
- Knowledge – the recall of methods and processes and information
- Comprehension – individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material
- Application – use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations.
- Analysis – breakdown of a communication, hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit.
- Synthesis – putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole.”
- Evaluation – judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes.”
HOWEVER, not unusual for departments to adapt the taxonomy to suit their disciplinary requirements or for universities to create extra levels to further differentiate the classes.
Terminology, such as ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘excellent’ and often ‘outstanding’, were, and still are, used to differentiate levels of competence although in themselves provided no insight into their meanings – It is really vague and often subjective, especially in Art and design.
Bibliography:
Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
Image: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Blooms-original-1956-Taxonomy-12_fig1_325857565
Davies, A. (18/07/2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. what’s the recurring problem?, Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? – Arts and culture. Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem (Accessed: December 27, 2022).