My favorite “learning outcomes” apply as well to teacher(s) as they do students.
Together, we will:
1) have epiphanies
2) change our mind about stuff
3) sit comfortably (and uncomfortably) in our not knowing
4) share stuff we learn with folks outside the course
Together, we will:
1) have epiphanies
2) change our mind about stuff
3) sit comfortably (and uncomfortably) in our not knowing
4) share stuff we learn with folks outside the course
None of these presume students are receptacles to be filled. None presume teachers can (or do) know what students don’t know (especially before they’ve met them). None can be measured in quantifiable ways. You can’t neatly rank students against one another by these metrics.
I’ve been thinking more and more about @slamteacher’s excellent thread about learning outcomes, especially what he writes about the presumptions that come along with so much of #edu’s talk (and implementation) of outcomes.
I’ve been thinking even more about some of the responses to the thread, the (as I see it) bizarre way that a critique of learning outcomes is mistaken for a call-out of the idiosyncratic practices of individual teachers.
To be clear, most of the response to Sean’s thread is a productive dialogue about the when and how of outcomes, both what works and what doesn’t.
But this particular response has me thinking. 
Why are learning outcomes something deserving of our generosity? Why would a critique of learning outcomes be equated with questioning whether or not faculty are sufficiently *loving*?
Learning outcomes have an almost revered place at many #highered institutions. I would go further to say that the administrative structure of many institutions have made them compulsory and unimpeachable. So, why would questioning them be described as “throwing down a gauntlet”?
Given how learning outcomes are being increasingly positioned, I would equate a critique of them more with civil disobedience ... or even just critical thinking about tacit presumptions about the work of teaching and learning.
Critique of ubiquitous, tacit, or compulsory teaching practices is sometimes described as “shaming teachers.” Or even just as “ungenerous.”
I see the opposite. Questioning compulsory teaching practices is advocacy. For students but also for teachers.
I see the opposite. Questioning compulsory teaching practices is advocacy. For students but also for teachers.
Questioning ubiquitous, tacit, or compulsory practices (like outcomes, grades, or even Turnitin) is a way of championing the autonomy and idiosyncrasy of teaching practices by standing in the gap between teachers and administrations, institutions, predatory edtech marketing, etc.
The work of teaching is increasingly precarious and our ability to carve our own paths through the work is under threat. It is the presumption not the existence of learning outcomes I see @slamteacher questioning. Of course, they don’t necessarily do harm. Their ubiquity does.
As an “expert” — or just a researcher — in higher education pedagogy, the work is not to dictate practices or pedagogies to other teachers. The work is to ask hard questions, to stir conversation, to teach teachers.
The best “learning outcomes” in that work (for both teachers and teachers of teachers) are: epiphanies, changing of minds, valorizing not knowing, and sharing what we learn (about our own work) with others.
