Let’s talk about learning outcomes, that topic that spark a lively (and perhaps slightly frustrated) discussion during our last workshop. We all dived into the challenges of guiding students and then grading them based on what some might consider vague learning objectives.
The conversation highlighted a fascinating tension: the desire for flexibility in fostering creativity within the arts versus the need for structure and clear expectations.
Here are some key takeaways from our discussion:
- Flexibility: While Flexibility allows for personalized feedback and caters to the unique nature of the student, it can also lead to confusion for students and a lack of concrete criteria for assessment.
- Unclear learning outcomes : can leave both teachers and students vulnerable. Teachers might face accusations of unfair grading, while students struggle to understand exactly what’s expected of them.
- Airy Approach: Let’s be honest, a certain level of looseness can be the charm of an arts education. It allows for exploration, experimentation, and the unexpected magic that often arises in creative spaces.
- Structure vs. Spontaneity: While I appreciate the value of on-the-fly adjustments, I, for one, find comfort in a more structured approach. Clear learning outcomes alongside flexibility in feedback can provide a strong foundation for informed decision-making.
It seems the struggle with not clear learning outcomes isn’t unique to our department. It’s a common thread across the university. Perhaps this shared experience can be a springboard for collaboration. Can we create a framework that embraces the inherent flexibility of arts education while providing a touch more structure to guide both students and instructors?