This week I read Addison’s ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation’ (2014). The article critically analyses the benefits and disadvantages of Learning Outcomes (LOs) in an organised manner. Addison uses themes of accountability, inclusive principles, curriculum design, learning, specifics around art and design, and beginning and developing teaching to analyse LOs. I mostly agree with the theory and principles shared in the article, and I see its value in the case of reimagining higher education systems. Where I hesitate is idealism versus practicalities.
I have found that in my research and practices, I tend to be a pragmatist. I believe in the power of collective action and I hope for idealistic futures. But I am also a cynic and don’t believe that meaningful change is possible when it comes to large-scale structures and systems – at least in my lifetime. I still remember the hope so many of us felt in India during the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in 2011 (Biswas 2013) by activists in an anti-corruption movement. For the first time in my life, I witnessed people from my generation – in their teens and early 2os – donning the symbols of the movement, on the streets, campaigning against corruption. Fast-forward (through a tumultuous, complex decade-and-a-half) to today, and the AAP leader and former Chief Minister of Delhi has been caught in corruption scandals himself (Choahan 2025).
Even in my research, which examines the postcolonial impact of British book publishing practices on the ‘Global South’, I offer pragmatist solutions – steps we can take today in the systems that already exist – to improve the situation. My fear is that if we keep rigid about widespread structural change, our idealism may stop us from helping people who are impacted today. Addison critiques the LOs for their ‘neoliberal “performativity”‘ (2014, p 315). One could argue that UAL’s policies around social, racial and climate justice can fall into this ‘performativity’ – but I am glad that these social principles are being embedded into organisational policy. Whether intentions are sincere or ‘performative’ at different stages of funding, hiring, curriculum design, or teaching, emphasis is being laid on social justice, so staff is being made to tick that box in their work. Social justice is already core to my research, practice and teaching, and the changes to LOs and Assessment Briefs make it easier for me to incorporate my research and knowledge on social justice into my teaching. For others, it may be more of an ask. While we can question the authenticity of their changes to meet UAL’s social justice principles, we can admit that including teaching and assessments on social justice are creating an environment for our students to consider these debates and become more critical thinkers and practitioners.
I think back to the quote we discussed in Workshop 2A by Paulo Freire: ‘Education does not change the world. Education changes people. People change the world.’ There are those who campaign for change on the streets, and some of these people are our colleagues. Their contribution is valid and needed for a better future. But, as Freire says, perhaps the primary role of the teacher is to create change in the classroom so that our students can go out into the world and enact societal change.
References
Addison, N (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation’. John Wiley & Sons, pp 313-325.
Biswas, S (2013) ‘A spectacular debut by a new Indian party’, BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25296412 (Accessed 11 March 2025).
Choahan, N (2025). ‘India’s “anti-corruption champion” loses Delhi election as $6m reno of official residence surfaces’, ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-13/india-anti-corruption-champion-arvind-kejriwal-loses-delhi-votes/104917860 (Accessed 11 March 2025).