Summary of Experience/Resource
In this post, I reflect on Addison (2014). Addison describes the history of learning objectives (LOs) and their goal of (supposedly) adding transparency in university teaching. In line with the framework of constructive alignment, LO “enables students not only to know what they have to achieve[…] but also how and when they are to be assessed.” (pg. 314).
The teaching context is preparation of a new Level 5 course for Computer Science students, titled “Global Perspectives on Computer Science’’. The module’s concept is to invite many guest lecturers to cover various computer science topics, fostering student’s curiosity across the subject, and to consider the variety of ways technology can shape the future. In designing the curriculum, I’m using LOs set by the course leader, two of which I reflect on below:
- LO1: Practice sociotechnical optimism in your work along with humility, vulnerability, and a sense of curiosity
- LO2: Evaluate the efficacy of historical, current and future international computing trends considering inequalities and diverse, complex practices, concepts and theories.
Reflection on its Relevance and Application to Context
Addison’s (2014) suggestion that “once published, it is almost impossible for teachers to revise outcomes to meet immediate needs militating against development” (pg. 317) resonates with my experience.
In workshop 3, we discussed how, as phrased, LO1 is challenging to assess: it focuses on personality characteristics and not student’s work (Furnham, Nuygards and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). As I can’t change LO1, I;ve asked students to blog for each guest talk, to steer assessment towards their reflection on moments they found meaningful in talks. How to connect this to the LO1’s emphasis on and curiosity whilst retaining inclusivity is an open challenge. Next Step: I plan to run an activity with the students to co-create the assessment rubric for LO1 cf. (Queen Mary Academy, 2025). I reason that a mutual understanding of what the criteria means across the class will help to ensure inclusivity in the assessment of this criteria, despite its focus on personality.
With LO1 aspiring to spark curiosity, I sourced several guest lectures: from space-craft design to robotics. Whilst I considered students interests, the talks were restricted to concepts I felt would spark thinking on LO1. Given the breadth, it is impossible that all the talks will spark student’s interests. How to retain student’s engagement across talks is an open challenge? Next Step: I plan to assess students for each blog post individually, so that posts which they are more naturally curious about will be balanced by the others where they might feel be less engaged. I will also steer the rubric design to allow for students to reflect on connections to their own interests, awarding them for reflection on their professional identities.
For LO2, students must think about each lecture in the context of computing history. LO2 is very broad: it is difficult to cover a complete history within the module’s scope. I’m concerned that students might spend time not reflecting or following their curiosities, instead continually revising their understanding of different areas of computing history. Next Step: I will run a student-led activity where students co-create a timeline of computing history (see Blog X). Viewing the timeline as an object-of-learning (Hardie, 2015), the students could references this in their blogs instead of having to conduct vast independent research.
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.org/10.1111/jade.12063.
Furnham, A., Nuygards, S. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013) ‘Personality, assessment methods and academic performance’, Instructional Science, 41(5), pp. 975–987. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9259-9.
Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative Pedagogies Series: Wow: The Power of Objects in Object-Based Learning and Teaching. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Queen Mary Academy (2025) ‘Co-creation in assessment and feedback’. Available at: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/queenmaryacademy/educators/resources/assessment-and-feedback/resources/co-creation-in-assessment-and-feedback/.