What Are Learning Outcomes, and Why Do They Matter?
My recent Law:Fully post described changes to the ABA accreditation standards regarding learning outcomes and assessment of students’ attainment of those outcomes. This post unpacks the concept of learning outcomes a bit more and describes the relationship between course-level learning outcomes and programmatic learning outcomes.
First, a workable definition of learning outcomes: learning outcomes describe what students should be able to do at the end of a course or a program of education. I also think of learning outcomes as a promise from a teacher to their students about what they will gain from taking a given class. Learning outcomes have been embraced by other academic disciplines but have been slow to make inroads into legal education.
When I work with schools on learning outcomes, I frequently get a response along the lines of, “What about academic freedom? We don’t want to do this just because the ABA says we should.”
And I agree. As to the first issue, I think the academy needs to have a thoughtful conversation about what exactly academic freedom is, what it applies to, and what it does not apply to. It certainly cannot mean that we teach the way we want to without regard for students’ learning experiences, and I doubt anyone would contend that.
As to the second issue, it is true that we should not only adopt learning outcomes because the ABA says we should. We should do so because we agree with the following foundational propositions: (1) students should achieve certain competencies by the end of a course; (2) students should know what those competencies are; and (3) students should be tested (assessed) in a way that demonstrates whether they have achieved those competencies.
From this perspective, adoption and publication of learning outcomes should not be controversial.
Prior to the adoption of the new ABA requirements, there was quite a bit of confusion about the relationship between course-level learning outcomes and programmatic learning outcomes. This was somewhat clarified by the new language.
In brief, programmatic learning outcomes represent the competencies a student should have attained upon their graduation from law school, and course-level learning outcomes (unsurprisingly) represent competencies they should have attained by the conclusion of a course.
In Standard 302(a), the ABA identifies four minimum programmatic learning outcomes: “(1) [k]nowledge and understanding of substantive and procedural law; (2) [l]egal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem-solving, and written and oral communication in the legal context; (3) [e]xercise of proper professional and ethical responsibilities to clients and the legal system; and (4) [o]ther professional skills needed for competent and ethical participation as a member of the legal profession.”
You will notice that these are relatively broad categories. Standard 302(b) further provides that, “A law school shall establish minimum learning outcomes for each course it offers. The learning outcomes shall be specific and measurable.” The programmatic learning outcomes listed above, on their own terms and without further interpretation, are not sufficiently specific so as to be measurable. But course-level learning outcomes should designate sub-competencies that further elaborate on the broad categories identified at a programmatic level. This is also referred to as alignment between course-level and programmatic learning outcomes. And it is the course-level learning outcomes that should be specific and measurable. (This is not to say that programmatic learning outcomes cannot be assessed at or near the conclusion of law school, but there is some drilling down that needs to happen for that to be possible.)
So, if a programmatic learning outcome is “written . . . communication in the legal context,” an aligned course-level learning might be the ability to draft an objective memorandum evaluating the likelihood of success of a Section 1983 claim, to name just one example. This sub-competency is objective and measurable.
What is not contemplated by the standards or best practices is that course-level learning outcomes will simply be a repetition of programmatic learning outcomes, although this is something I have seen quite a bit of.
In addition to alignment, scaffolding — another concept not often deployed in legal education —should be a goal of learning outcomes across the curriculum. That is, competencies developed in the first year should be reiterated and built upon in the second year, and so on.
