For workshop four I was assigned the ‘Doubting learning outcomes’ text by Nicholas Addison which outlines the history of Learning outcomes (LOs) how it was made mandatory in the 1990’s and the backlash and critics associated with it (Addison, 2014). Addison goes on to present a series of tables that examine the pros and cons of LOs in relation to different categories from curriculum design to Inclusive principles and art and design, Addison suggests alternatives based on constructivist principles and diverse sources such as group discussions (Addison, 2014).
One method I was intrigued by mentioned in the article is the cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) model rooted in Vygotskian theory and realised by Yrjö Engeström in 1987. It is a framework that looks at the wider social implications of learning, and the interactions and realisation processes formed through learning (Addison, 2014). It was not explained how the CHAT framework worked in the article, so I sought out an explanation through some online videos (Boardman, 2013).
I decided to try the CHAT model through a students viewpoint when going through the submission and learning outcomes for Unit 2 of the MA Biodesign course (p19) (Collet, 2021).
Using the CHAT framework for analysis like this was quite difficult without much guidance, what it did enable me to map out all the important actors that enable learning to take place, if there is a break in the triangle, for example, no grow lab technical space, this will not allow for a student to expand on their practice or position their design work, or enable them to engage with living systems or meet the brief causing a knock on effect for their learning (see diagram above). Though of course they could use this as an important limitation and find ways around this to navigate their project, a colleague of mine on the course states to students that they didn’t have access to a grow lab space when they were doing their masters and the fact that students have a facility like this is valuable, but do limitations create opportunities? What the CHAT frameworks makes us aware of is how everything is linked together, to harness an environment for successful learning to take place (Addison, 2014).
Taking a quick look at the unit 2 learning outcomes (above) through the CHAT lens, for LO1 and LO3 the wider community can play a big role here whether that be through communication of ideas to framing a project idea. For LO2 there are many opportunities that CHAT has mapped out in order to advance on knowledge. Addison mentions that LO’s negates the sociality of learning and open frameworks like CHAT can help student motivations and social needs (Addison, 2014). A next step would be to adapt the CHAT framework as a reflective worksheet my students could use to map out their own unique learning and project environments.
References:
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: From performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325. Available at: https://doi:10.1111/jade.12063.
Boardman, D. (2013) Activity theory. 3 December. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5i0wB9Jfmk (Accessed: 24 February 2024).
Collet, Carole. (2021) MA Biodesign 2021/22 Course Handbook. UAL Central Saint Martins. Unpublished. Available at: CSMMABIOX01 MA Biodesign 202122 Course Handbook.pdf
Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit