As an Academic Support Librarian I am not tasked with any student assessment but in my student support activity I often need to help them interpret defined learning outcomes to help identify and interpret learning resources. The tension between meeting the outcome and producing creatively satisfying work often proves testing for the student. Over the last calendar year library staff have adopted guidance on setting information literacy learning outcomes, these are loosely structured under the UAL Creative Attributes Framework. This has been a welcome development in great part for the understanding it offers library staff of the structures obtaining on academic units and sessions, it has resulted in better informed librarian engagement at revalidation meetings and clearer communication on collaborative sessions with academics. However, without the clarity offered by the breakdown of Workshop 2B and an awareness of Bloom’s Taxonomy and other frameworks that might be fitting to information literacy it is at the broad level of CAF categories, not the session specific level of learning outcomes, that discussion has taken place leaving their setting a somewhat inconsistent practice.
However inconsistent or not the learning outcomes we define are shared with our students at or before (via Moodle) the point of delivery. The guiding document states that this ‘enables us to more easily match our teaching to the aspirations of the courses themselves and to more persuasively explain the employability benefits of time given to information literacy teaching.’
Fig. 1. LCC Student Sessions 2025-26 spreadsheet.
Reflecting on content of Workshop 2 I have rewritten the learning outcomes for my microteach.
Learning outcomes: Indicate evidence of physical changes and continuities between manuscript and print culture with reference to design features of the books on show.
Image list:
Figure. 2. Clarke, G. (2026) LCC Student Sessions 2025-26 spreadsheet [Photograph].