Terms:

SOLO Taxonomy: The structure of observed learning outcomes as described by John Briggs referring to the increasing levels of complexity in student’s understanding of subjects. The different stages of SOLO Taxonomy are: Pre-structural level, uni-structural level, multi-structural level, relational level, extended abstract level. The following offers an example of the evolving level of understanding across this hierarchical structure:

Pre-structural: “I’m not sure about this subject”

Uni-structural: “I have one idea about this subject”

Multi-structural: “I have several ideas about this subject”

Relational: “I can link my ideas together to see the bigger picture”

Extended abstract: “I can look at these ideas in new and different ways”

Really interesting discussion re the ambiguity of LOs and if/how students understand them. The ideal situation is of course that students understand the LOs and the communication of the LOs is clear and unambiguous. Davies makes an excellent point that whether or not LOs are ambiguous or unambiguous, the key is in providing students with the appropriate support framework to ensure they understand what they need to do. Much of what I am reading makes me wonder if, when briefing my students, I ought to break down the briefing into two or three parts, spread across a longer period of time. Perhaps I brief students, we take a break, cover some of the technicalities of the brief (submission requirements/Scheme of Work (SoW) and answer any questions arising from the briefing, then reconvene a day later to go over LOs and the assessment criteria? If I am being totally honest, I am not sure students full understand/get to grips with the assessment criteria and LOs during the briefing because A) perhaps I need to do more to explain these areas, and; B) students are more interested in getting on with the project and being creative? Although myself and my team do remind students of what is required of them in terms of assessment criteria and LOs throughout the course of a project, perhaps more ‘formal’ contact points to discuss the requirements of the brief much earlier on in the project would be useful. That being said, I believe (particularly given that my students are practice-based) that they generally take in the information through action/doing. I wonder in a way whether connecting the ‘thinking’ and ‘doing’ is what is happening in Davies’ “top right cell” in his paper where the LOs are ambiguous yet students claim to understand what they need to do. As Davies’ says: “A lack of clarity in the learning outcomes, it seems, does not mean that students are not clear about what they have to do”. Perhaps this is owed (in part) to the creative processes that drive learning in practice-based courses.

Really fascinating points raised in Davies’ paper re the clarity of LOs and how this has not necessarily been useful for design students who rely on instincts, tacit knowledge, intuition and creative risk-taking. It is not always possible to articulate outcomes that revolve around student’s ability to visualise, as my fashion students have to and are encouraged to do. I wonder if this is what has contributed to the often vague language used in LOs – a ‘catch-all’ approach that ensures we can be as accommodating as possible in our assessment process? Perhaps our more ‘open’ LO language does ensure students have the freedom to respond to the brief using approaches that are appropriate to them? I am copying and pasting the below for my own reference, as I found it really useful:

“I would argue 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.

An example of this is art and design students’ ability to visualise. This cognitive ability is a cornerstone of creative thinking. It requires the use of imagination and judgment and we expect all art and design students to develop it as they progress in their study. Fashion students develop their collections by visualising what comes next, furniture design students visualise their products individually, together and in a context, graphic design students visualise alternative layouts and so on. Nevertheless, this concept is not easily captured in learning outcome form. It’s not the kind of thing that can be measured easily. It is, in fact, developed within the whole complex process of the practice and over time.”

Further observations:

“The requirement that all learning outcomes should use terms, particularly verbs, which are ‘measurable’ creates more challenges that it resolves. To insist on using terms such as ‘identify’, ‘explain, ‘analyse’ and so on does not make the task of assessment any easier since explanations and analyses, etc, are discipline specific and are likely to be equally ambiguous for students who have not been yet been inducted into the language of the discipline.” This is really interesting and I could not agree more. Whilst people might argue that the ability to analyse is something we should all be able to understand, it is the ability to analyse in the context of the subject that is tricky if a student has begun a project with no prior experience of analysing in the context of the given subject area. For example, in terms of fashion, analysis can follow more ‘obvious’ or more easily recognisable approaches e.g analysing a piece of writing – something students will have likely done during their school years. But do they know how to analyse an M65 jacket? Do they know how to analyse a painting? Do they know how to analyse the fit of a garment? These things, although often intuitive, are skills that can be strengthened over time and through practice.