Category: Blog

Reflections on Learning Outcomes

I thought I had it. Thought I finally grasped what was special about the learning outcomes as a tool for evaluation and assessment. Thought I had a solid plan and justification for communicating learning outcomes in a structured way. In my mind it was a “square peg into square hole, round peg into round hole” type of answer: clear and straightforward. And then I read ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’ (Davies, 2012) and remembered design education is never straightforward. The creative process, especially one that is qualitative, creative, and emergent can’t be put in a neat box. But we try anyways, for good reason: so that students understand “what [is] required of them on their course and… how and why they [are] being assessed” (Davies, 2012).

The article provides a historical overview of why learning outcome were concocted to address inherent problems and bias with assessment criteria. But still, cognitive ability and creative thinking and all of the accompanying creative attributes that are meaningful to the arts and design practice (e.g., imagination, risk taking, criticality, inventiveness, etc.) are not easily captured by learning outcomes; also, meaningful learning not easily measured, but emerges through a complex holistic practice (Davies, 2012).

Davies problematises learning outcomes to show that it is a necessary but imperfect system. Students do not have successful learning experiences because of Learning Outcomes – it’s the holistic learning journey that builds over years, established through different support systems. Nevertheless, LOs set the learning expectations and provide a map for the student to understand the “intended landscape and boundaries of their intended learning.” (Davies, 2012).

Coming back to my opening point – I’ve written about constructive alignment (see Case Study 3) and how I intend to refine learning activities against LOs and communicate to students how the learning activities intend to develop their creative attributes against the roadmap of the Learning Outcomes. My realisation is not so much an insurmountable problem or barrier, but re-recognition that the goal of mapping LOs to activities and assessment is not addressing the right objective. The paradox is that in “the search for accuracy and ‘clarity’… the more we seek to map… the more the landscape becomes ambiguous.” (Davies, 2012). Needless categorization can result in not helping the students see the forest from the trees. Therefore, the communication of learning activities to learning outcomes should focus on articulating the meaningfulness of the activity within the wider LO picture. If there’s a sense from the students that learning outcomes can be quantified by measuring activities this needs to be challenged.

Constructive alignment is still a planning objective, with more frequent communication of learning activities and their meaningful relation to outcomes. In addition, a secondary objective requires clarifying to the students that the demonstration of learning outcomes is not a tick-box exercise, rather it’s a holistic account of how they have critically an creatively engaged with the creative attributes expected within the discipline of design.

References

Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design: What’s the recurring problem?’. Issue 18. July 2012. Available at: University of Brighton (Accessed: 15 March 2025)

Reflections on “Using Things” (Ahmed, 2019)

“Using Things” (Ahmed, 2019) is a contemplative reflection on the multifaceted meanings of “use”. Ahmed dissects “use” with precision, revealing its social, cultural, quantitative, qualitative, tangible, intangible, visible, and invisible dimensions. “Use” is not merely an action in the present but a temporal history, a biography of things (Ahmed, 2019) that offers insights into the past, present, and future dynamics of societies, cultures, and ecologies.

Ahmed also highlights how the invocation of “use” wields power, grants privilege, and carries trauma. It determines who can and cannot use something, shaping access and exclusion. She describes how colonialism is justified as using what is unused (Ahmed, 2019), illustrating how “use” can function as a tool of oppression. This perspective complicates traditional understandings of design affordances, a concept typically referenced in design education through Donald Norman (1988). Norman’s approach to use is sterile and limited, focusing on usability, feedback loops, and perceived functions of objects. In contrast, Ahmed presents use as systemic and metaphysical. People can be “used up” when the world is not built to accommodate them, and the inability to use—especially being denied use—can result in real psychological and emotional trauma.

Ahmed’s argument, influenced by her expertise in feminist and queer theory, challenges us to examine who designs, who has power and agency, and for whom the world is truly designed. This echoes the themes of Invisible Women (Perez, 2019), which exposes gender bias in data collection, leading to unjust, inequitable, and even dangerous outcomes in the design of products, services, and systems. Perez illustrates how design often defaults to the average white male as its standard, ignoring the needs of women and marginalised groups. While Norman’s work remains foundational in design education, to foster more just, equitable, and human-centred design practices, students need to engage with these critical discourses on power, exclusion, and systemic bias.

A growing concern in design education at UAL is the decline in student engagement; also critical thinking due to many factors like shorter attention spans and AI tools. Many factors contribute to this trend—too many to explore in this reflection—but one possible reason is that students may not feel comfortable stepping into these complex conversations. Activities and discussions structured around Ahmed’s framing of “use” could offer an accessible entry point, allowing students to critically engage with wicked problems in design in a more intuitive and tangible way.

References

Ahmed, S. (2019). What’s the Use?: On the Uses of Use. Duke University Press.

Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. London: Chatto & Windus.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.

Don’t try to be smarter than your design… Reflections on “Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017)

“Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017), immediately resonated with my reflections on pedagogy after more than three years of teaching. Reading it felt like when you suspect your phone is listening because an ad or YouTube recommendation appears just after a conversation—reading this paper had that same uncanny relevance.

When I first joined the BA Product and Industrial Design course, I wanted to integrate opportunities to mirror professional practice and better prepare students pragmatically. My friends and I felt in some regard that our MA design course could have helped us develop mental frameworks and fundamental skills found ubiquitously in different design environments. I still believe this, but my perspective has become more nuanced. The ability to plan, think critically, and work collaboratively should be prioritised, but how do we help students make better decisions in their design work? The paper defines professionalism as “the ability to make the transition from higher education into practice… to evaluate their own work and behaviour in the context of a workplace environment and the demands of industry.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). Seeing this articulated in research reassures me about my contributions to the course and how I assess student learning.

Crits exercise critical thinking. We use crits on the course, but they are often muddled with tutorials, lacking structure. Crits should push students to defend their decisions critically—a skill that is only fully realised at summative assessments or interim concept pitches. These deadlines often trigger a last-minute rush in decision-making, but much of the process leading up to them is full of uncertainty and hesitation. In professional practice, decisiveness is crucial—you must make creative leaps and test assumptions rather than endlessly deliberate.

Despite crits being valuable, we do not do enough of them—not necessarily by choice, but due to logistical constraints. With over 100 students, parity becomes difficult, and elements like crits often get sacrificed.

Another gap is in how students reflect on development work… Many collect vast amounts of research, arranging it neatly across Miro boards or slides, yet active reflection and synthesis are often missing. Students conflate documentation with analysis, believing that compiling research demonstrates critical engagement. In reality, they delay synthesis, waiting for clarity before moving forward—this hesitation paralyses decision-making rather than helping it.

Dialogue is another challenge. Space limitations hinder informal discussions, preventing small moments of discourse that could spark new insights. Staff workloads and administrative demands further reduce opportunities to facilitate dialogue. How do we create time and resources to foster meaningful, spontaneous exchanges?

Material exploration and physical making is also in decline. Many students leave making until the final stages rather than integrating it into early decision-making. This reminds me of George Saunders’ reflection on writing:

“Every true novelist listens for that supra-personal wisdom, which explains why great novels are always a little more intelligent than their authors… The writer opens himself up to this ‘supra-personal wisdom’ by technical means. That’s what ‘craft’ is: a way to open ourselves up to the supra-personal wisdom within us.” (Saunders, 2016)

Scaling this down to design, there is wisdom in the act of making itself. My advice to students would be: “Don’t try to be smarter than your design.”

The concept of signature pedagogies acknowledges the tacit soft skills essential for professional life. This shift in my understanding has been significant—embedding these skills in teaching is as vital as technical proficiency. Teaching strategies suggest incorporating active practice into pedagogy, or developing practice within an academic framework where students are positioned on “the periphery of the community of practice” (Orr, 2017). In theory, this is ideal, but in practice, time constraints and mismatched course structures make it difficult. However, when possible, bringing vulnerability and transparency into pedagogy can be incredibly valuable for student learning.

Engaging in personal practice outside academia is another challenge—time, financial barriers, and even visa regulations create obstacles. Yet, the tension between education and professional practice is something I’ve wrestled with for years. Should we try to recreate the experience of practice within education? Or is that the wrong question? The paper articulates this tension well.

What I’ve settled on, for now, is that teaching should not attempt to simulate real-life practice but rather re-contextualise it. Decision-making, understanding design processes, applying methodologies, and articulating them across different challenges—this is the crux of what we should teach. The creative freedom of academia allows for knowledge creation unconstrained by industry pressures, and this should be valued rather than seen as a limitation.

Higher education is not just about curriculum-based learning; it is also about helping students discover their best, most confident, empathetic, and engaged selves. The paper reassures me that preparing students for the real world “is not solely the province of the tutor structuring learning activities.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). This recognition reminds me that our role as educators extends beyond skills training—it is about fostering ways of thinking, questioning, and engaging with the world.

References

Orr, S. & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [1 January 2024].

Saunders, G. (2021) A Swim in a Pond in the Rain. London: Bloomsbury.

Reflections on “The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy” (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019)

The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019) explores what learning the moral goods of design teaching support. It examines the activity of critique and the value it fosters in students and teachers in professional, academic and personal learning. This exploration has helped me develop a clearer, more critical, and nuanced understanding of critique and how the studio environment prepares students for professional and academic practice. At the same time, it highlights that design pedagogy should not strive to be a perfect simulation of professional practice—nor can it be.

In academia, the moral goods of design studio are enacted through critiques, which serve as a “point of access” to professional design practice (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019, p.7). My BSC experience in engineering lacked critiques entirely. When I transitioned to MA-level design education, critiques were present, but their connection to professional practice remained ambiguous. The perception was that critiques primarily influenced my grades, which, in turn, affected my employability. Consequently, I viewed critiques as a siloed academic exercise rather than a bridge between academic and professional design practices. Like many students, I only fully recognised the moral goods of education in hindsight—once professional experiences revealed how critiques had helped develop the critical thinking and interpersonal skills essential in design environments.

In my own teaching, I aim to make the moral goods of critique and studio culture clearer for students. A key objective is to help them develop a holistic understanding of critique, recognising that these activities—whether formal or informal—extend beyond academic assessment and serve as preparation for professional practice. However, it is important not to take an overly pragmatic approach by drawing direct one-to-one parallels between critique and professional practice, as education’s value and goal is broader than professionalisation alone. The relational aspects of education, such as pastoral support and the development of soft skills, have lasting impacts on students’ growth.

For example, the significance of being respected by design professionals as a student—a quality that is difficult to quantify but profoundly meaningful. Similarly, critique plays a role in self-cultivation for educators. Higgins (2010, p.191) states: “…ongoing self-cultivation on the part of the teacher is a necessary condition for fostering self-cultivation in students.” In this way, the moral goods of design pedagogy are not simply a means to an end (professionalisation) but an end in themselves. When critique is conducted respectfully, equitably, and generously, it can contribute to the well-being and fulfilment of both students and staff.

References

Higgins, C. (2010). The good life of teaching: An ethics of professional practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 44(2-3), 189-478.

McDonald, J.K. and Michela, E. (2019) ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Design Studies, 62, pp. 1-35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.02.001

Don’t try to be smarter than your design… Reflection on teaching practices for creative practitioners

Reflections on “Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017)

“Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017), immediately resonated with my reflections on pedagogy after more than three years of teaching. Reading it felt like when you suspect your phone is listening because an ad or YouTube recommendation appears just after a conversation—reading this paper had that same uncanny relevance.

When I first joined the BA Product and Industrial Design course, I wanted to integrate opportunities to mirror professional practice and better prepare students pragmatically. My friends and I felt in some regard that our MA design course could have helped us develop mental frameworks and fundamental skills found ubiquitously in different design environments. I still believe this, but my perspective has become more nuanced. The ability to plan, think critically, and work collaboratively should be prioritised, but how do we help students make better decisions in their design work? The paper defines professionalism as “the ability to make the transition from higher education into practice… to evaluate their own work and behaviour in the context of a workplace environment and the demands of industry.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). Seeing this articulated in research reassures me about my contributions to the course and how I assess student learning.

Crits exercise critical thinking. We use crits on the course, but they are often muddled with tutorials, lacking structure. Crits should push students to defend their decisions critically—a skill that is only fully realised at summative assessments or interim concept pitches. These deadlines often trigger a last-minute rush in decision-making, but much of the process leading up to them is full of uncertainty and hesitation. In professional practice, decisiveness is crucial—you must make creative leaps and test assumptions rather than endlessly deliberate.

Despite crits being valuable, we do not do enough of them—not necessarily by choice, but due to logistical constraints. With over 100 students, parity becomes difficult, and elements like crits often get sacrificed.

Another gap is in how students reflect on development work… Many collect vast amounts of research, arranging it neatly across Miro boards or slides, yet active reflection and synthesis are often missing. Students conflate documentation with analysis, believing that compiling research demonstrates critical engagement. In reality, they delay synthesis, waiting for clarity before moving forward—this hesitation paralyses decision-making rather than helping it.

Dialogue is another challenge. Space limitations hinder informal discussions, preventing small moments of discourse that could spark new insights. Staff workloads and administrative demands further reduce opportunities to facilitate dialogue. How do we create time and resources to foster meaningful, spontaneous exchanges?

Material exploration and physical making is also in decline. Many students leave making until the final stages rather than integrating it into early decision-making. This reminds me of George Saunders’ reflection on writing:

“Every true novelist listens for that supra-personal wisdom, which explains why great novels are always a little more intelligent than their authors… The writer opens himself up to this ‘supra-personal wisdom’ by technical means. That’s what ‘craft’ is: a way to open ourselves up to the supra-personal wisdom within us.” (Saunders, 2016)

Scaling this down to design, there is wisdom in the act of making itself. My advice to students would be: “Don’t try to be smarter than your design.”

The concept of signature pedagogies acknowledges the tacit soft skills essential for professional life. This shift in my understanding has been significant—embedding these skills in teaching is as vital as technical proficiency. Teaching strategies suggest incorporating active practice into pedagogy, or developing practice within an academic framework where students are positioned on “the periphery of the community of practice” (Orr, 2017). In theory, this is ideal, but in practice, time constraints and mismatched course structures make it difficult. However, when possible, bringing vulnerability and transparency into pedagogy can be incredibly valuable for student learning.

Engaging in personal practice outside academia is another challenge—time, financial barriers, and even visa regulations create obstacles. Yet, the tension between education and professional practice is something I’ve wrestled with for years. Should we try to recreate the experience of practice within education? Or is that the wrong question? The paper articulates this tension well.

What I’ve settled on, for now, is that teaching should not attempt to simulate real-life practice but rather re-contextualise it. Decision-making, understanding design processes, applying methodologies, and articulating them across different challenges—this is the crux of what we should teach. The creative freedom of academia allows for knowledge creation unconstrained by industry pressures, and this should be valued rather than seen as a limitation.

Higher education is not just about curriculum-based learning; it is also about helping students discover their best, most confident, empathetic, and engaged selves. The paper reassures me that preparing students for the real world “is not solely the province of the tutor structuring learning activities.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). This recognition reminds me that our role as educators extends beyond skills training—it is about fostering ways of thinking, questioning, and engaging with the world.

References

Orr, S, & Shreeve, A (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum, Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [1 January 2024].

Saunders, G. (2016). A swim in a pond in the rain: in which four Russians give a master class on writing, reading, and life. London: Bloomsbury.