Introduction and Background
Effective learning requires outcomes that are focused more on collective knowledge generation than individual knowledge acquisition; learners having gained cognizance of the processes necessary to become effective – i.e. learning to learn (Watkins, 2002, p.4).
However, this requires the motivation of the individuals to engage in this practice. My EAP (English for Academic Purposes) challenge is to navigate the tension between the paradigms of education and training (Widdowson,1983); educate students a capacity to manage a range of disciplinary possibilities and not purely train them to meet defined specific outcomes (Tibbets and Chapman, 2023).
Evaluation
Learning Outcomes enable students to know what they must do, through which activities, with what resources and how and when they will be assessed; however, since they were imposed in late 1990s there has been a question mark over their efficacy (Addison, 2014, p.314). I devise LOs for each session, however, I also work with other people’s LOs for units – deconstructing them and encouraging learners to analyse them from a linguistic approach so that they more fully understand what is required- the product.
My current procedure is, at the beginning of each unit, asking learners to identify the instruction (imperative) verbs in the LOs – and then, to understand what they mean in terms of cognitive domain, we explore (the revised) Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Next, we break down the other components – using a frame originally designed for analysing essay questions (Gillet, n.d.) – to identify the topic – the aspect on the topic – and any restrictions or expansions on the topic (see examples 1 and 2 in appendix).
Learners’ ability to do this varies and reflects (in my view) how well they are written, and sometimes it is also necessary to verbalize the abstract nouns that are sometimes used by course leaders for instruction.
Moving Forward
My rationale for showing learners how to use these tools is firstly so that they can more effectively visualize the product offered via the learning outcomes – however, as I have begun to reflect on (and verbalize to students) is how these tools might also be used to analyse their own writing – especially those students at post graduate level who need to devise working titles, aims – objectives and research questions of their own.
I have taken a more collaborative approach to working in recent lessons – whereby the ideation in the design of possible avenues for research can be explored through language and ‘collective disruption’ (a term that emerged through the experience of a colleague’s microteach). This is an approach which is essentially more process focused, although it begins with the deconstruction of product.
A new procedure that I have applied recently (see Teaching Practice – Tutor observation) is to analyze previous student example aims for their components – (see fig 1 and Advanced Research Methods – ARM2 in Appendix) – then removing this content leaving only the frame. Before returning to the frame – students then generate other possibilities (as freely as possible) – this is done on a Padlet wall – and an actual wall (see figures 2 and 3). Once we have generated lots of potential content students work together to create a new example aim from the newly generated possibilities of content. The intended purpose here is to develop greater flexibility with the generic language and, through a ‘collective disruption,’ with the possibilities for research.
Fig.1 Analysis of who, what, where, how, why of student example research aim.
Fig.2 Padlet Student Aims example generator
Fig.3 Post Graduate Fashion Marketing students generating content ideas using same categories as Padlet wall above- LCF classroom.
Fig. 4. Frame for students to apply generated ideas.
We are experimenting with this approach of foster the capacity of students to co-construct knowledge, which Freire (2005 [1970], p.72) defines as that “hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other,” and restore those affective relationships underpinning social learning (perhaps) denied by LOs (Addison, 2014, p.325). Below is some useful student feedback on the lesson helps me understand how future iterations of this lesson might be designed.
Figure 5. Student Feedback on Lesson Padlet.
Action Points:
What: Implement ‘collective disruption’ approach to research aim and question development lessons
When: February/ March 2025
What: Gather feedback from students and peers – PG Cert and Language Development departmental observations – to evaluate efficacy of approach
When: March/ April 2025
Appendix
EXAMPLE 1_Analysing LOs_BSc_MSc_(S)FM_Product Management.pptx
EXAMPLE 2_Analysisng LOs_PG Marketing_Advanced Research Methods.pptx
References
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation,’ The International Journal of Art and Design Vol 33- Issue 1- pp.313-325
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Friere, P. (2005 [1970]) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuem
Gillet, A. (n.d.) Understanding the question Available at: https://www.academia.edu/122158876/Understanding_Essay_Questions (Accessed on 6th March 2025)
Tibbets, N.A., Chapman, T. (2023) A Guide to In-sessional English for Academic Purposes, New York: Routledge
Watkins, C. (2002) ‘Effective Learning’ NSIN Research Matters Institute of Education. Issue 7 London: University of London
Widdowson, H.E. (1983) Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: OUP