The introduction of intended learning outcomes programmes within Glasgow School of Art has been largely without incident or change to student success rates. In the five years since, they have become embedded in Stage inductions, Studio briefs and introductions. They appear in the Definitive Programme documents, Course handbooks, specific project briefs, and are the focus for assessment. They are what we reach for to remind ourselves what we claim we set out to teach our students and expect from students in return. Why then our anxiety? The use of learning outcomes should have made the curriculum more transparent to learners, and by implication improve student progression rates. Looking back to Course documents prior to this, it is difficult to reconcile how little information students were given to describe what they were expected to learn. While the incorporation of intended learning outcomes has countered this, there are still other areas for concern. Staff remain uncomfortable about the generic language - we don’t yet feel we have ownership over our own documents and by implication their intentions. We are also unclear how closely outcomes translate into assessment criteria. While it is true to say that ILO’s have become a critical part of learning and teaching within the institution, it is equally true that we are less than fluent in their use and therefore missing opportunities their development would present. This paper documents action research undertaken with student groups to test these assertions, and to better understand and reflect of the viewpoints of staff and students towards learning outcomes and their role in the structuring and delivery of a studio based programme.

• http://connected2010.eproceedings.com.au...