After completing our weekly readings, we were asked to first discuss the benefits, opportunities, challenges, and limitations of Learning Outcomes (LOs) in Art & Design in small breakout groups, and then share our thoughts in a larger discussion.
Several key points emerged from our group discussions, but one theme that resonated with me was the lack of involvement of technicians in the process of setting briefs, defining LOs, providing feedback, or even being informed about the LOs in many cases. As noted in Reflection 1, technicians are not always valued on the same level as academic staff, with an outdated perception often placing academics in the role of “teachers” while technicians are seen solely as providers of skills and technical support, as highlighted by Savage, T and A Vere, K (2025). Our discussion underscored the importance of involving technical staff in the process, as their input would not only benefit student outcomes but also enable them to offer better support for achieving LOs.
For example, learning outcomes are frequently presented in a linear, numbered format, as demonstrated by one of my peers who listed the project brief and LOs that she designed for her group of students. However, as we often observe in workshops, LOs are rarely so linear. They tend to be more circular, involving ongoing processes of researching, testing, sampling, and reflecting. When a technical process doesn’t go as planned, additional research, testing, and sampling are required. A step-by-step, numerical list may not best capture this iterative process. A circular diagram, for instance, could be a more effective way to present LOs in a way that reflects the cyclical nature of creative work.
Furthermore, the physical nature of certain LOs can sometimes clash with the limitations of the resources and equipment available in workshops. For example, a common LO that we see in our workshop is to create an A3-sized textile, but our embroidery machines typically cannot accommodate that size. As a result, students are often asked to “scale up” their work, which may be unfeasible given the limitations of the machinery and the time constraints imposed by overcrowded schedules. Unfortunately, academic staff are not always aware of these technical constraints, and may be setting LOs that don’t take these factors into account.
Just yesterday (18 Feb), technicians at CSM had the opportunity to meet with the Vice Chancellor of UAL. One of the key themes that emerged from the discussion was the imbalance between technical and academic staff. The main takeaway was the need for more open communication and a broader understanding of the technician’s role, which should be seen as integral to teaching. As Sams, C. (2016) argues, technicians often fulfill a multifaceted role that could be better described as “technical lecturers”.
Moving forward, it may be necessary to reconsider how we define the role of technicians. A rebranding or better understanding of their contributions could encourage improved communication and collaboration among all staff, ultimately benefiting both students and the overall educational experience.
References
Savage, T. and Vere, K. (2025). Why is it problematic for technicians to say they teach in higher education? Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (33). doi:https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi33.1191., (Issue 33).
Sams, C. (2016). How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education. Spark Journal, 1(2), pp.62–69.