I was first introduced to learning outcomes as a tool or concept on the short Thinking Teaching course and adopted them quickly as introductory content for my library research, information and referencing sessions. In one of this week’s group discussions we were lucky to have a course leadership colleague in our breakout room who explained their approach to leaning outcomes and shared a current set with us, including some context around their discussions for improvements to these.
While I had understood the efficacy of building a micro-level learning outcome into my individual sessions I had not previously considered how these might dovetail with, or support, the wider learning outcomes of the unit or even course. I’m sure this is something that has been thought about strategically by the libraries service but it had not translated to my delivery. While this question was fresh in my mind I attended a unit briefing the day following the PGCert discussion. This solidified the question for me, and a suggested new route as I watched the year-group leader present the unit brief with clarity on the learning points and assessment criteria. I now feel that my content and teaching fits neatly into the unit objectives and outcomes but I had not planned my session adequately for this to be clear to students. On the day I made the connections verbally but I think this will be more effective if it is consistent and explicit in future, so that what the students need to learn to achieve in their assessment is preferenced over what I planned to teach (Biggs, 2011, p.97).
As a service department libraries seem to twist ourselves into some knots justifying our presence and asking for space in the timetable to talk to students. I wonder if this is because I am positioning myself as outside of the core learning outcomes rather than as an enabler or support in achieving these. Why am I setting solo micro-outcomes rather than understanding the macro learning outcomes and delivering my sessions clearly in line with those? Giving clarity to our connection to text based units has hopefully been a leap forward but if we can work in sync with the learning outcomes and assessment criteria for all units it should ensure students perceive the value of using the library more holistically.
Davis (2012) attests that within the art and design environment it is not solely a matter of constructive alignment and learning outcome documentation. Student experience and attainment are directly related to, and dependent on, ‘established learner support systems and … supportive scenarios’ of which library services are very much a part. Addison (2014) lists ‘parity’ and the ability to ‘move towards equity: diminish exclusivity, elitism, self-reproduction, thereby widening participation’ amongst the advantages of Learning Outcomes. This sits comfortably for me with my efforts to move research support to be delivered to full cohorts rather than on an asked-for 1:1 basis. Syncing my session introductions with unit level learning outcomes is now one of my key objectives, whether in sessions or in Moodle resources.
References
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol.33(3), pp. 313–325.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12063.
Biggs, J. B., and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed., Maidenhead UK : Open University Press.
Davies, A. (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?. Networks (18). University of Brighton Faculty of Arts. 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 on 21/02/2024).