Learning outcomes remain central to our courses. They influence course proposals, underpin accreditation documents, guide course reviews, and enable curriculum mapping across units and assessments. Institutionally, they are vital. They ensure coherence, provide reassurance, and uphold accountability. They enable us to confidently articulate what a graduate of a specific course knows and can do.
And yet, for many students, learning outcomes seem far removed from what occurs in the classroom.
Ask a student what they are working on this week, and they usually reply clearly. Ask them what skill they are trying to improve or what they need to do to succeed in their next assessment, and they can describe it practically. But ask them to explain the course learning outcomes, and they often hesitate. The language feels abstract, formal, and disconnected from their everyday learning.
This disconnect does not indicate disengagement; rather, it often reflects the audience. Course and unit learning outcomes are usually written to satisfy institutional and regulatory requirements. They are carefully crafted using approved learning verbs, aligned with qualification frameworks, and designed to pass external review. They serve this purpose well. However, the same statement that satisfies an audit does not automatically serve as a meaningful guide for students.
Students are not asking if an outcome matches a framework. They are asking what it means for them. They want to understand what success looks like in practice, which capabilities they are developing, and how their work across units contributes to something bigger. When learning outcomes remain in highly formalised language, they risk becoming compliance artifacts rather than useful guides.
Institutional Outcomes and Student Reality
Course and unit learning outcomes serve vital institutional functions. They ensure compliance with national standards, demonstrate coherence, and facilitate accreditation. They allow mapping across units, assessments, and underpin discussions about quality and progression. In many ways, they are essential elements of contemporary higher education.
The challenge comes when we assume that a single version of a learning outcome can fulfill every purpose equally well.
An outcome written for regulators is not necessarily clear for students. A statement intended to show academic level might not clearly communicate expectations to a first-year student. When students cannot see themselves reflected in the language of the outcome, it becomes something found in the handbook rather than part of their learning journey.
This is not an argument to lower standards or oversimplify complexity. It is an argument to consider translation. Alongside the institutional articulation of a learning outcome, we might give a student-facing explanation that makes the capability tangible. The academic expectation remains unchanged, but the pathway becomes clearer.
For example, a formally written outcome might state that students will “critically evaluate theoretical frameworks in complex professional contexts.” A student-centred explanation might clarify that this means being able to use key theories to analyse real-world problems, justify decisions, and clearly explain reasoning. The capability remains the same. The clarity improves.
Course Learning Outcomes and Graduation
This conversation becomes particularly significant at the course level. Whilst unit learning outcomes are usually linked to specific assessments and weekly activities. Course learning outcomes appear distant and cumulative. They attempt to describe the graduate’s capabilities as a whole, rather than the learning that occurs in any single unit.
Arguably, these course learning outcomes are more important than grades. When a student graduates, we do not announce their GPA. We do not narrate their grade distribution. We state that they have successfully met the Course Learning Outcomes. Graduation ceremonies are not celebrations of percentages; they are affirmations of capability, growth, and readiness.
If course learning outcomes define what it means to graduate, then they should not be confined to the margins of the student experience. Instead, they should be visible in assessment design, referenced in feedback, and embedded in conversations about progression. Students should be able to articulate how their learning across units contributes to achieving those outcomes well before they cross the stage.
Design, Mapping, and Coherence
There is also a practical aspect to this reframing. When course learning outcomes are expressed in language that clearly describes observable capabilities, mapping to unit learning outcomes and assessments becomes more meaningful. Instead of concentrating on matching verbs within a spreadsheet, course teams can focus on developmental progress.
They can inquire where a capability is introduced, practised, deepened, and demonstrated independently. They can see how first-year units lay foundations, how second-year experiences increase complexity, and how final-year assessments demand integration and autonomy. Mapping becomes a design conversation rather than a compliance exercise.
More importantly, this discussion has nothing to do with grades. Grades are temporary markers of performance at specific moments. Learning outcomes, on the other hand, define the skills that last beyond graduation. If those outcomes are what truly determine success, then we must ensure students see them as meaningful commitments rather than distant statements.
Perhaps the task is not to rewrite learning outcomes completely, but to ensure we have two versions where needed: one that meets institutional requirements, and one that speaks directly to students. If learning outcomes describe transformation, then students should be able to recognise that transformation happening throughout their course.
Reflection Questions
- How visible are your course learning outcomes in the everyday experience of your students?
- Could a graduating student clearly explain how they have met each course learning outcome, using examples from their units and assessments?
- Do your current learning outcomes function primarily as compliance documents, or as tools that guide learning and progression?
- What might a student-centred articulation of your course learning outcomes look like alongside the formal institutional version?
- If grades were removed from the conversation, would your learning outcomes still clearly define what it means to succeed in your course?
Latest Posts
- What If Failure Isn’t Failure? Rethinking Learning in Higher Education
- Content Can Be Delivered Anywhere. Teaching Cannot.
- Seeing the Thinking: What Creative Arts Assessment Practices Can Offer Other Disciplines
- Creativity Belongs to Every Discipline: Why Access Matters
- Closing the Gap Between Learning Outcomes and Student Learning in Higher Education
