Introduction
Curriculum design plays a pivotal role in shaping the learning experiences of students. The emergence of outcome-based curriculum design (OBTLA) has sparked discussions and transformations in educational institutions worldwide. But questions still remains whether OBTLA suitable for the arts? This blog post will examine the promises and complexities of OBTLA in in arts education.
Understanding Outcome-Based Curriculum Design
OBTLA is an educational approach that emphasises clear, measurable, outcomes of what a student can do. It offers a structured framework for the developmental conception and planning of students’ progress over an entire programme of study, and focusses assessment around predefined learning goals (Spady, 1994; Biggs and Tang, 2011). Learning outcomes are defined in terms of phrases starting “Students will be able to….”, which outline clearly assessable criteria for success.
The approach is often overcomplicated, frequently because faculty attempt to mix it with previous approaches. Learning outcomes should define the minimum expectations of attainment for a student to pass a course (Cox, 2007, pp. 13–14). In a constructively aligned system, completion of course outcomes should collectively ensure attainment of programme level outcomes, so it is important that students demonstrated attainment of all course outcomes in order to pass at the programme level.
The intention is that students will exceed the defined outcomes in most cases, learning outcomes define foundational expectations (frequently aligned with government expectations of learning at each level). In order to differentiate between the highest and lowest attainment, so that summative grades can be ascribed to each learner, assessment rubrics containing differentiated criteria must also be used. Ideally, students are made aware of the learning outcomes and the content of rubrics at the start of each course of study, enabling them to self-assess their own progress in a transparent manner.
It is also important to note that OBTLA also emphasises experiential learning, the application of knowledge, and the desire to recognise student’s potential (Killen, 2000). It is born out of a recognition that learning in higher education must be more than the regurgitation of knowledge from lectures. In this sense, the practical nature of arts education immediately fits with the underpinning ethos, in a way that is more challenging for those teaching other disciplines.
The Arts Education Landscape
Arts education, thrives on creativity, artistic expression, and practical skills development. However, in higher education, academic (cognitive) skills are also important, including the abilities to synthesise and analyse ideas arrived at through practice and theory. Unlike traditional academic subjects, arts education requires a curriculum that aligns with the distinctive characteristics of the arts taught through means that align with the types of knowledge and skills being explored, and the ways in which they are best communicated (Ng et al., 2022).
Pros and Cons of OBTLA in the Arts
The integration of OBTLA in arts education brings forth a range of opportunities and challenges (Spady, 1994; Davis, 2003).
Advantages
Clarity in Learning Goals: One of the primary advantages of OBTLA is its ability to promote transparency and clarity in learning (Spady, 1994). In the arts, this is beneficial for both educators and students. It allows for a precise understanding of what is expected and what can be achieved.
Considering this in light of teaching and learning, it enables course leaders, to subdivide learning outcomes into bite size pieces in their planning, enabling more coherent, clearly articulated, learning trajectories to be expressed to students. It can also be used to promote student ownership of learning, as outcomes are articulated in ways that enable students to recognise the expectations emerging from learning (Biggs and Tang, 2011). Indeed, in the best examples, students are actively encouraged during the learning to self-assess their own learning, and that of their peers, throughout the course.
Alignment with Accreditation and Assessment Standards: OBTLA aligns seamlessly with accreditation and assessment standards, ensuring that arts programs meet established quality benchmarks. This alignment fosters consistency and accountability in arts education.
Challenges of OBTLA in Arts Education
Defining Non-Cognitive Outcomes: A prominent challenge in implementing OBTLA in arts education lies in the realm of non-cognitive outcomes. Arts education, unlike traditional academic subjects, involves the development of affective and psychomotor skills that extend beyond cognitive abilities (Ng et al., 2022). However, many traditional learning taxonomies, and many national and international accreditation and assessment standards, do not adequately capture these essential aspects of artistic pursuits. Descriptors used to define learning at the level of higher education, all too often preference more academic ‘thinking skills’ that artistic institutions can struggle to align with, and find relevance from.
Whilst arts academies have had to align with the cognitive nature of national and international accreditation standards to enable the awarding of degrees (thus the move towards increasing the academic elements of these programmes over the last 30 or more years), perhaps a greater practical challenge lies in finding adequate frameworks and language to articulate, assess, and evaluate these non-cognitive aspects of arts education. Affective outcomes, such as the development of artistic sensibility, emotional expression, and the cultivation of an artistic identity, are intricate and deeply personal. Psychomotor outcomes, involving the physical mastery of techniques, movements, and gestures, demand a different set of assessment tools and criteria. This is an area which would certainly benefit from further work, and arts educators have much to offer, based upon their first hand experiences of working with learners.
Process v Outcomes: Whilst the production of an artistic output is central to professional artistic pursuit, the process of arrival at that end point also carries vital importance. In the context of outcome-based learning, the assessment of ‘process’ is littered with potholes into which a curriculum designer can fall; put simply, even the name ‘outcome-based’ suggests something of the focus of the approach. Considering how processes can be assessed against clearly defined criteria, and captured in ways that enable effective moderation without placing undue burdens on faculty, is challenging.
These are questions require careful consideration, innovative approaches, and collaborative efforts in the realm of arts education. They will be the focal point of future discussions in this series of blog posts, in which we attempt to wade far into the long grass of teaching and learning, and how it is affected by the curriculum design approach that is used.
Bibliography
Biggs, J.B. and Tang, C.S. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. Philadelphia, Pa.]; Maidenhead, Berkshire, England; New York: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education ; Open University Press. Available at: http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=798265 (Accessed: 4 June 2020).
Cox, J. (2007) AEC Handbook: Curriculum Design and Development in Higher Music Education. Brussels: Association Européenne des Conservatoires, p. 44. Available at: https://aec-music.eu/publication/aec-handbook-curriculum-design-and-development-in-higher-music-education/ (Accessed: 3 January 2023).
Davis, M.H. (2003) ‘Outcome-Based Education’, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 30(3), pp. 258–263. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.30.3.258.
Killen, R. (2000) ‘Outcomes-based education: Principles and possibilities’, Unpublished manuscript, University of Newcastle, faculty of education, pp. 1–24.
Ng, R.Y.-K. et al. (2022) ‘Beyond Perfection: Technology as an Enabler to Promote Higher Order Skills in Performing Arts Education’, in R.C. Li et al. (eds) Blended Learning: Engaging Students in the New Normal Era. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pp. 325–335. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08939-8_28.
Spady, W.G. (1994) Outcome-based education: critical issues and answers. Arlington, Va: American Association of School Administrators.