Inflicted Bureaucratic Systems and Fair Assessment Process
In the article Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation, Addison (2014) discusses the positives and negatives of Learning Outcomes (LOs), making a case for “a less prescriptive model”. On the positive side, and “with respect to inclusion, advocates claim that LOs provide consistency and reliability because they ensure clarity, coherence, accessible goals, a framework for assessment, measurable evidence of learning and thus fair assessment process”. However, on the negative side, “policy makers were accused of “taking away the integrity of HE teachers by inflicting bureaucratic systems for its management” (Coats 2000; Harrison 2000)” (Addison, 2014).
In my practice as a lecturer, I have found LOs both a bureaucratic obstacle to work around and a supporting guide when assessing. Just like the Assessment Criteria, I have accepted them as part of the institutional framework that I need to work with, without questioning (until now) their necessity.
Formulated how and by whom
I think the LOs usefulness depends on how they are formulated and by whom. Our course went through a re-approval process last year, with the units redesigned and the LOs updated to mirror what we want the students to achieve and produce. This was a team effort where our course leader consulted with us lecturers. However, it is inevitable that the team, the units and the context in which we work will change (for example, the onset of AI), meaning the LOs will have to remain flexible and keep evolving. By involving teachers in the LOs periodic re-evaluation, you avoid “taking away their integrity”, though you are still “inflicting a bureaucratic system” which could be stealing time from other important teaching duties.
Limitations
Despite this recent improvement on our course, the LOs expose their limitations when students do not submit work that adheres to their specifications. Although we know that they have gained the knowledge and skills desired, sometimes even excelled them, we are forced to downgrade them. Students are rewarded for interpreting a brief rather than for the quality of their work. As Addison puts it: “LOs may inhibit learning within creative domains, supporting only those students who work strategically to meet largely pre-determined, necessarily accessible outcomes. After all, LOs ‘can be decoded and preformed, resulting in dull practice that may not go on to survive’; they ‘can be over-determining, squashing invention and creativity ’(Records 2013)” (2014).
Making LOs work
Davies argues that “there is a virtue in keeping the outcomes to a minimum even if this means a loss of specificity and apparent ambiguity” (2012). In our group discussion, it emerged that we all used LOs and assessed in very different ways, despite working for the same institution. We had found ways to make the LOs work in our specific contexts, but nonetheless spent a lot of time and effort explaining them to our students.
If heavily modified, LOs can become overly subjective and might stop providing a fair assessment process. However, we all seemed to agree that our current LOs provided us with support when we doubted an assessment, and as a guide to avoid bias. It seems that we do collectively perceive LOs as an “inflicting bureaucratic system”, but, as long as we can moderately adapt them, they also provide a helpful framework for a “fair assessment process” (Addison, 2014).
References:
Addison, N. (2014) Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation. NSEAD/John Wiley& Sons Ltd
Davies, A. (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? Networks, No 18. 18 July 2012.