Engaging through pedagogy. How do learning outcomes do it?

Families. Arts and Culture in Education Research Repository. CC BY-NC-ND

In the process of development of heritage educational projects four dimensions are included: the communicative dimension, the social dimension, the emotional dimension, and the pedagogical dimension of the educational materials.

In the pedagogical dimension, the way of teaching or the techniques the educator implements in the learning space is really important but also it is crucial to develop achievable aims, objectives, and learning outcomes for each activity and the collaboration between professionals.

Understanding the learning outcomes

In formal education, learning outcomes are defined as “statements of the knowledge, skills, and abilities individual students should possess and can demonstrate upon completion of a learning experience or sequence of learning experiences” (Linn & Miller 2005).

These learning outcomes are created and assessed by the teacher and also their progress can be judged by others and the aim is to acquire some external standard of knowledge (Moussouri 2002)

By comparison, the learning outcomes in informal education are understood as a result of learning but in an individual way but not depending on a strict assessment. They are adaptable and co-created by the staff, no one can judge each other because the learning process depends on the participant and everyone can establish their limits and the aim is to get new knowledge but moving at their own pace (Hooper Greenhill et alli 2003)

Both definitions of learning outcomes have a positive impact on the meaning-making process of learning and the capacity of understanding reality but both need to be reconfigured.

It is needed to develop specific learning outcomes in a collaborative way implying teachers, museum educators, museum content producers, and participants in the process.

It also needs to set a way of assessing these statements in an open and adaptable way where participants do not feel uncomfortable and judged as part of the activity using engaging elements (i.e. gamification techniques).

The capacity of working together in the development will help to adapt the formal statement in an informal way, to show museums and schools can work together for developing educational programs useful for both environments and to evidence that including cultural heritage in education is a powerful way of engaging young people with educational contents and understanding their daily life.

In the case of museums specifically to have online transparency with the publication of the whole educational planning and work plans with the learning outcomes help teachers to organize the content and increase the opportunities of coordination and working together. For example, in the Digital Heritage Education Case Study, only a pair of the bigger 46 European museums included have the learning outcomes of their activities accessible online.

Also, related to heritage learning outcomes, the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries at the University of Leicester (UK), developed the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) as a way to assess the impact of learning in cultural heritage institutions, (Hooper-Greenhill 2007).

The Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) are divided into five categories each one with a list of associated statements and a purpose: Increase in knowledge and understanding; Increase in skills; Change in attitudes or values; Evidence of enjoyment, inspiration, and creativity and evidence of activity, behavior, progression (Kling 2010: Appendix 2; Hooper Greenhill et alli 2003)-

This model of assessing heritage learning outcomes is suggested to be flexible and generic, not thought of as any specific program, to use a common language, and to have categories adapted to the statement of the users. It can be combined and used with the improvements cited above for the definition of learning outcomes to have effective use of this methodology.

The role of the stakeholders in the development of the learning outcomes

As the design of learning outcomes, the implementation of digital heritage educational resources with these statements in the most engageable way and the assessment process tasks must be done through collaborative work between teachers, museums educators, museum content producers, and young people, now the role of the stakeholders must be defined.

• Teachers

Teachers can be useful in these tasks due to their proximity to the young people, the continuous evaluation of their knowledge and the educational contents, and the knowledge from what is expected from the formal learning outcomes.

• Museum educators

Museum educators can be useful in these tasks due to their proximity to the young people in an informal context, their knowledge from which contents can be important, and their experience from informal learning.

• Young people

Young people can give information about what they are interested in, how they engaged with digital activities, and what they know about cultural heritage. It would be useful to implement a gamified digital activity on the homepage or at the beginning of an exhibition to test their knowledge as the educators can take information about their knowledge to design the learning outcomes and to program the contents.

• Creatives (museum content producers)

The museum content producers know how to reflect the learning outcomes and all content and outcomes educators have discussed in a digital way to be engaged with young people and connect with their interests.

Tips for writing heritage learning outcomes

According to the Stanford University Guidelines collected by Boston University, an effective learning outcome must be:

• Specific and well-defined in the goal they must achieve.
• Realistic with time and effort. It can be useful for the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable/Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound).
• Simple.
• Focused on learning products, not the learning process.
• Aligned with the educational program.

These tips can be really useful in the development of heritage learning outcomes where a specific view of the resources must be taken aligning formal and informal education and adaptable on time and effort of the participants.

Bibliography

• Moussouri, Theano (2002): A context for the development of learning outcomes in museums, libraries, and archives. The Learning Impact Research Project Team, Research Centre for Museums, and Galleries, University of Leicester (Leicester, UK). Report. Available at https://leicester.figshare.com/articles/report/A_context_for_the_development_of_learning_outcomes_in_museums_libraries_and_archives/10077575/1 [Reviewed on 9 May 2021]
• Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Moussouri, R., Jones, C., Pickford, C., Herman, C., Morrison, M., Vincent, J., Toon, R. (2003) ‘Measuring the outcomes and impact of learning in museums, archives, and libraries. End of the project of the Learning Impact Research Project. Leicester, UK: Research Center for Museums and Galleries, University of Leicester. Available at https://le.ac.uk/-/media/uol/docs/research-centres/rcmg/publications/lirp-end-of-project-paper.pdf [Reviewed on 8 May 2021]
• Hooper-Greenhill, E (2007): Museums and Education. Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance. Abingdon: Routledge)
• Kling S. (2010), Assessing Heritage Learning Outcomes. How Do We Do It — and Why? In Proceedings from the Heritage, Regional Development and Social Cohesion International Conference. Östersund, Sweden. Available at https://relevantmuseum.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/kling-sofia-assessing-heritage-learning-outcomes-how-do-we-do-it-e28093-and-why.pdf [Reviewed on 8 May 2021].
• Linn, R. L. & Miller, M. D. (2005). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching (9th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson