Alexia Singh Blog

As part of today’s cohort seminar we were set preparation that included reading an article by Allen Davies; “Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?” (Davies, 2012). This was a great read and followed on nicely from the article I refered to in a previous blog, “Assessing creativity in the creative arts” (Cowdroy and Williams, Journal Article 2003). Davies’ article also looked at assessing creativity, with a focus on how learning outcomes are set, how they are matched up to assessment criteria and importantly how they might be set up to match the demands of nurturing creative practice in students.

This is an area that is extremely relevant to me. Roughly 50% of my teaching hours are taken up in group seminars – working with photography students to help them realise their projects and then assessing them in response to a unit brief. In the Cowdroy and Williams (2003) article they laid out their response to the question of how do you assess creativity, providing clear criteria to help measure attainment from the lowest to highest level. Davies in his article questions whether learning outcomes (particularly those that follow Bloom’s taxonomy) are relevant in guiding students studying the creative arts. Davies argues that .

“The insistence that learning outcomes should be sufficiently clear ‘to be measurable’ has not helped those subject areas, such as the creative arts, in which articulating outcomes that involve the development of intuition, inventiveness, imagination, visualisation, risk-taking, etc, is challenging. In terms of meaningfulness, they equate to the notion of ‘understanding’, a cognitive term which is regarded as too complex and which should be substituted by other, more measurable, terms such as, ‘explain’, ‘analyse’, etc. Another drawback in the use for these terms, acknowledged by Biggs (2003), is that they are regarded as ‘divergent’ and as such do not invite one appropriate answer but a range of possibilities.” Davies (2012)

My takeaways from this article were:

• Learning outcomes alone are not sufficient to set up students for understanding what they need to do to progress.
• Attention must be paid to how learning outcomes match up assessment criteria
• Most often it is the ‘established learner support systems’ (Davies, 2012) of interim crits, seminars, lectures and feedback that provide the backbone of the student’s learning journey
• Learning outcomes that are based on a nested hierarchy are more suited to creative arts. Davies cites John Biggs’ book Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2003) and his SOLO taxonomy as a useful reference.

In our online cohort seminar I had a chance to discuss some of this with colleagues in a breakout room. One issue that we all encountered was that learning outcomes are often inherited and set in the course handbook by course directors rather than by unit tutors. So while we can adapt the unit guide and unit brief, we cannot adapt the learning outcomes or assessment criteria.

Having read this article I went back and looked at the UAL assessment criteria and the learning outcomes on the units that I teach. Prehaps they lean more towards Bloom’s taxonomy of a clear and concise set of expectations, rather than Bigg’s SOLO taxonomy of a nested hieracy.

I am certainly looking at this topic in relation to my own students and units with an ever so slightly more critical and dare I say it knowledgeable eye.

All of this is very new to me and I’m still adjusting my brain to reading academic texts and learning about pedagogy and the brand new vocabulary that comes with it.

However, its already clear that learning how to break down, analyse and understand pedagogy will be a huge benefit both to me and my students.

Reference list:

Davies, A. (2018). Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? – Arts and culture. [online] Arts.brighton.ac.uk.

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 24 Feb 2022].

I read a fantastic paper by Dr Kirsten Hardie, Associate Professor Arts University Bournemouth entitled “Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching” (Hardie 2015). This research not only gave me some new ideas about how to engage students, but advanced the way I think about Higher Education.

Dr Hardie writes up 3 case studies detailing innovative pedagogies that she’s developed for BA (Hons) Graphic Design students at the Arts University Bournemouth (AUB), around the use of design objects as tools for learning. Dr Hardie has ceated the Museum of Design in Plastics (MoDiP) which is a collection of mass produced design objects, all made of plastic, that she uses to develop students’ theoretical and practical skills. These objects range from milk cartons to travel irons to suitcases. Her way of bringing these objects into the classroom invites students to consider them from several different angles, but the focus is always on getting the students excited about discussing these objects. These sessions are not about learning outcomes or assessments, they are places where students can develop their critical thinking in playful and innovative ways.

In Case study one: The Power of Wow. Dr Hardie asks students to bring in an object of their choice and place it in front of their peers. The student does not talk, there is no explanation of what the object is, the sole aim of the exercise is to elicit one exclamation from their peers. The word “Wow”! I absolutely love this idea. Dr Hardie states:

“The activity encourages design analysis and critical reflection: learners are invited to consider the impact that designs can have; the messages that they can communicate, and how objects can be interpreted. Students are encouraged to think creatively; to explore their own experiences and responses to objects; and to select,
preferably, an original and unusual example.” (Hardie, 2015).

The idea that an entire session can be devoted to this kind of exercise, that is entirely student run, links to what I found most poweful about the Object Based Learning micro-teaching sessions that I took part in. That is, to let the students observe and respond without interference and let the conversation flow. There will be many learnings that occur, but it will come from the students themselves. Let the students inspire each other. As a first year lead I’m very interested in how we can build confidence in students so that they feel able to speak up in class, share opinions and importantly form relationships with each other. This is particularly important for our students who have been through extended periods of lockdown. Many are struggling with their mental health, which makes communicating in class extremely challenging. I feel that in year one, it’s as important to build up students’ confidence and mental wellbeing, as it is to ensure that they pass assessments. Helping them develop confidence in communicating with each other and in sharing their views in a safe and respectful manner is hugely important to me. This case study is a wonderful way of bringing a cohort together. I can see this being a fun exercise to introduce in the final week of the ‘Intro To unit.

I’m currently teaching on a unit called Documentary Storytelling where first year students come together to make a magazine. Next week we are running a magazine workshop where the students bring in their favourite publication and we discuss what works and doesn’t work within it in each magazine. I’m going to take what I’ve learned through OBL and reshape the session to be entirely student-led. I will refrain from sharing my own opinions and I’ll encourage them to explore critical thinking together and to find their own moments of ‘Wow’!

Reference list:

Hardie, K (2015) “Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching”. Available at https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (Accessed February 2022)