Writing effective learning outcomes for art and design higher education
This reflection responds to Theories, Policies and Practices Workshop 2b, which focused on the purpose and language of learning outcomes. Drawing on my experience revising learning outcomes during course revalidation, I argue that prescriptive and hierarchical frameworks – particularly Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) – can constrain curriculum design in studio-based disciplines, limiting early engagement with practice and creating tensions between institutional policy, student expectations, and employability goals.
As Davies (2012) observes, the use of “measurable” verbs such as identify, explain, or analyse often generates more difficulties than it resolves. These terms are highly discipline-specific and can remain opaque for students who have not yet been immersed in the language and conventions of the industry. In the context of our course, their strict application offered limited guidance for staff designing curriculum or assessing project-based work, oversimplifying complex design practices into discrete cognitive levels and narrowing the scope of learning, particularly regarding assessment and employability.
The hierarchical structuring of learning outcomes across all three years further constrained curriculum pacing and project ambition. In Year 1, which I lead, outcomes focused almost exclusively on remembering and understanding, prioritising knowledge recall over engagement with design processes. While intended to scaffold learning, this underestimated students’ capacity for meaningful creative work early in the programme. Dare (2018) critiques this approach in art and design education, noting that traditional cognitive frameworks may inadequately support curiosity, critical thinking, imagination, and the creative risk-taking essential to studio-based practice.
Student feedback confirmed these limitations, highlighting dissatisfaction with the predominance of theory over design-led, hands-on activities. In response, I introduced additional opportunities for ideation, design, and development. Although these initially felt somewhat surface-level and late in the schedule, they improved alignment with student expectations and professional practice. However, these adjustments also revealed that learning outcomes themselves require upstream revision to better reflect iterative and practice-led creative processes.
To address this, I have explored the Design Council’s Double Diamond framework (Fallin, 2022) as a tool for curriculum and assessment design. By emphasising divergent and convergent thinking, iterative prototyping, and problem framing, the framework provides a transferable model for structuring outcomes that support both creativity and assessment coherence. It demonstrates potential for reframing learning outcomes in ways that encourage embodied, iterative learning while remaining measurable for evaluation purposes.
While these refinements have enhanced engagement, challenges remain in aligning intended outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment criteria. This experience underscores the need for greater flexibility in interpreting and applying learning outcome frameworks within studio-based disciplines. Effective outcomes should support iterative, creative, and embodied learning, enable students to produce portfolio-ready work, and maintain coherence with assessment, employability, and professional practice expectations.
References
Bloom’s Taxonomy (n.d.) Bloom’s Taxonomy | Center for Teaching Innovation, Cornell University. Available at: https://teaching.cornell.edu/resource/blooms-taxonomy (Accessed: 28 February 2026)
Dare, E. (2018) ‘Out of the humanist matrix: Learning taxonomies beyond Bloom’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(1), pp. 44–51. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/79 (Accessed: 28 February 2026)
Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, Networks, Issue 18, July 2012. Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem(Accessed: 28 February 2026)
Design Council (n.d.) Framework for Innovation. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/framework-for-innovation/ (Accessed: 28 February 2026)
Fallin, L. (2022) The Double Diamond: Fixing higher education challenges with human‑centered design. Available at: https://leefallin.co.uk/2022/08/the-double-diamond-fixing-higher-education-challenges-with-human-centered-design/ (Accessed: 28 February 2026)
Theories, Policies and Practices (2026/2027) Workshop 2b, 26/27 PgCert Academic Practice in Art, Design and Communication, online workshop, 18 February 2026, University of the Arts London.