Summary

Making room for active learning can be challenging for lecturers, especially if they are starting from a content-delivery approach to learning and teaching. Moving from content-based learning outcomes to task-based ones can open the door to active learning. Depending on their prior assumptions, a lecturer may need to go through an iterative process to make this mental shift, but it’s worth it.

Task-based learning outcomes focus attention on the things students need to be able to do after completing a lesson, module, or study scheme, rather than facts they should know. Once the task is identified, it becomes easy to design in-class activities that give students a chance to interact with each other, practice skills and knowledge retrieval, and apply what they are learning to meaningful scenarios and real-world challenges. Authentic assessment has a natural alignment with task-based learning outcomes and active learning, providing an integrated learning experience.

As leader of the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching in HE (PGCTHE) and the Generative AI Working Group at Aberystwyth University, I’ve developed training sessions in which teaching staff design task-based learning outcomes for real teaching scenarios and then build active learning experiences around them. I’ve used this approach in workshops on general learning design and sessions about designing learning in the AI age.

This case study examines contexts where I have used task-based learning outcomes myself and taught others to use this method. I draw on pedagogical literature and the wider community of practice to explain how this approach works and why task-based learning outcomes help us foster a rich learning experience for our students.

What I did and why

In my dual role as a lecturer and educational developer, I train staff in applying sound pedagogic principles for the modules they teach. I also teach credit-bearing modules in the PGCTHE scheme. I thus support staff and apply the principles myself. Task-based learning outcomes are now a standard element in my practice.

This concept came into focus for me in my Aligned Teaching workshops where participants design learning outcomes for their real teaching contexts. I noticed that some types of learning outcomes make it easy to design active learning and meaningful assessment, while others do not. Kay Sambell and Sally Brown (2020) emphasise the importance of using active verbs in learning outcomes. Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins’ Understanding by Design framework also requires going beyond just comprehension to develop ‘the ability to effectively use content knowledge and skill’ (2011). Inspired by these scholars and my own observations, I have come to categorise learning outcomes as either ‘task-based’ or ‘content-based’.

Content-based outcomes align with a content-delivery approach in which the lecturer’s main role is to transmit knowledge. Such outcomes foreground topics, often framed in abstract language such as ‘Students will be able to demonstrate a knowledge of’ or ‘demonstrate a familiarity with’ or even simply ‘discuss’ a topic. While it is easy to design a transmission-style lecture around such outcomes, this approach can foster passive learning with little opportunity for students to engage. It lends itself to a scenario where students listen to lectures but do not interact with the material or classmates. Assessments built around such outcomes often require students to regurgitate content delivered through lectures or set readings, not going beyond lower-order thinking such as Remember and Understand (Shabatura, 2022).

In contrast, task-based learning outcomes focus on higher-order thinking and active engagement. Students are required to do more than just understand the content; they must use the new knowledge to do something meaningful (Jacob, 2023). In contrast to content-based outcomes, which can be abstract and general to the point of vagueness, task-based outcomes are framed concretely. Lecturers then design activities where students practice relevant tasks and develop target skills. Assessments measure attainment of those skills.

To carry out the tasks, students need to use higher-order thinking (Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, Create or Synthesise) in addition to Remember and Understand. Basing the activity and assessment on real-life tasks that students might encounter in the workplace fosters authenticity. As Villarroel et al. (2018) note:

Authentic assessment aims to replicate the tasks and performance standards typically found in the world of work, and has been found to have a positive impact on student learning, autonomy, motivation, self-regulation and metacognition; abilities highly related to employability.

Reynolds and Kearns (2017) elaborate, saying that when carrying out authentic assessments, ‘students demonstrate their knowledge and skills through real-world tasks such as debates, exhibitions, experiments and presentations’. This provides observable evidence of learning.​Making clear how students will use their new knowledge in future helps motivate them to engage, such as contributing to class discussion or doing preparation tasks before class.

My first step was to design task-based learning outcomes for the modules I teach. I considered what tasks my students should be able to carry out, for example, ‘Critically evaluate pedagogic literature and CPD to develop your personal teaching philosophy and practice’. The first half of that outcome gives a broad outline and is somewhat abstract. Without the second half, it’s open to interpretation what ‘critically evaluate’ looks like in practice and why students should do it. The second part, however, provides concrete detail and a purpose behind the task. Once I had this outcome, it was easy to design activities where students engage with pedagogic literature. For their assessment, they submit a personal teaching philosophy, providing observable evidence of learning. Moreover, I explain how they can use their teaching philosophy in their careers, thus making the assessment authentic.

Then, I wanted to teach my students how to do something similar in their own modules. I facilitated activities where they design or reframe a learning outcome for their own context and then build activities and assessments that align with it. Being transparent about my rationale not only helps motivate them to do the tasks but also models methods they can use themselves. This cascade of practice empowers them to apply and adapt the principle meaningfully.

Once task-based learning outcomes were embedded in the PGCTHE, I then incorporated them in workshops for general staff, including the Active Learning and Student Engagement session and the Aligned Teaching series. In responding to artificial intelligence (AI) in the higher educational landscape, I devised workshops for designing learning in the AI age.

In these sessions, I first present the principle of content-based versus task-based learning outcomes. I summarise the two types of outcomes very simply (see Figure 1) and then give participants an activity in which they evaluate and revise a learning outcome from one of their modules, applying the principle to their own practice (see Figure 2).

Questions on their worksheet prompt critical thinking and include the pedagogic rationale:

Once they have reframed their outcomes, they work in groups to co-design a learning activity or assessment that aligns with them. This gives them practice in applying the principles to a real-world context. The collaborative element promotes emotional engagement with the learning process. Offering options for engagement (they can use the printed worksheet, flipchart paper with coloured markers, or their own devices) gives them agency and makes the activity more inclusive for neurodivergent students and others.

The form of an activity or assessment can be a barrier for some students. Task-based learning outcomes focus on the thinking and learning functions of the task, rather than the format of the submitted assignment. Separating form and function lowers barriers to engagement.

For example, a content-based learning outcome such as ‘Demonstrate an understanding of shallow water environments’ (adapted from our workshop) lends itself to writing a report. Students with specific learning differences may struggle with the writing element even if they have mastery over the knowledge.

Translating this into a task-based outcome, we might have something like ‘Evaluate specific shallow water environments to promote aquatic conservation’. This type of outcome makes clear how students should be able to use that new knowledge. The task, then, requires gathering and interpreting data from rivers. The form of the output can vary – some students might write a report, while others make a podcast or poster. These formats are all used by professionals, so this is authentic assessment. Separating form and function in this way makes the task more inclusive by providing ‘multiple means of representation’ (CAST, 2024).

Responses from participants have been positive. For example, at the end of one session, a participant said this mode of working would help her team coordinate their teaching. Other participants noted that, when they applied these principles, their students came to class prepared and contributed to class discussion, rather than resisting group activity as is often the case (Deslauriers et al., 2019). A common thread is that lecturers set expectations right from the start of the module, explaining the reasons behind the task-based teaching.

How others can adapt this approach

Shifting to task-based outcomes may require more thinking time at first but makes the activities and assessments easier to design. Once staff have made the mental shift, designing learning becomes smoother and faster. This approach is easy to sustain over time.

It isn’t necessary to carry out a full curriculum redesign. A good strategy is to start with one key part of an existing module, reframing the outcome as a task by translating it into concrete language.

For another example adapted from our workshop, if a given learning outcome is ‘Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Postwar American Fiction’, that defines the topic but doesn’t explain how students should be able to use that knowledge. The lecturer might reframe the outcome as ‘Analyse key works of Postwar American fiction, showing how the authors responded to the socio-political context in their fiction’ or ‘Apply critical theory to place works of Postwar American fiction in the history of modernism and post-modernism’. ‘Analyse’ and ‘apply’ reflect higher orders of thinking. Students can practice the tasks during class and choose from a range of formats for their assessment, such as a traditional essay or a video.

Once a lecturer is familiar with this approach, designing new modules becomes faster because the structure supports them in asking the right questions straightaway. It is especially effective when the leader of a course team supports colleagues in using task-based learning across modules, giving students a consistent learning experience. Similarly, where different lecturers lead sessions for the same module, task-based learning outcomes help them understand what colleagues are teaching and how their own sessions fit in the module as a whole.

Active learning requires time in the classroom for students to engage with the task, ideally receiving some form of feedback from the teacher and/or peers. This is where the real learning takes place. Lecturers who previously used a lecture-only style of teaching can have students engage with content before class to prepare for active learning in the classroom. This can be as simple as having students read an article or watch a video and think of real-world examples where the principle is applied.

Whichever specific implementation lecturers choose, shifting from content-based to task-based learning outcomes can support students in learning effectively.

Key takeaways

• Tell students from the start what you expect them to do and why.
• Designing learning around tasks rather than content shifts the focus from the teacher to students, increasing student motivation and engagement.
• Once you make the mental shift from content-based to task-based thinking, learning design gets faster and easier.

References

CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Callaghan, K., Kestin, G., McCarty, L. S., & Miller, K. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Jacob, M. (2023). Active Cognitive Tasks: Synthesising frameworks for active learning online. In W. Garnham & I. Gowers (Eds.), Active Learning in Higher Education: Theoretical Considerations and Perspectives, SEDA Focus series. Routledge.

McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2011). Understanding by Design Framework. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/UbD_WhitePaper0312.pdf

Reynolds, H. L., & Kearns, K. D. (2017). A Planning Tool for Incorporating Backward Design, Active Learning, and Authentic Assessment in the College Classroom, College Teaching, 65(1), 17-27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1222575

Sambell, K. & Brown, S. (2020). Writing better assignments in the Post-Covid19 era: approaches to good task design. Covid-19 Assessment Collection. https://sally-brown.net/download/3179/

Shabatura, J. (2022). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Effective Learning Objectives. Teaching Innovation and Pedagogical Support, University of Arkansas. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/

Villarroel V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, B., Bruna, C. & Herrera-Seda C. (2018). Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The Understanding by Design guide to creating high-quality units. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

About the author

Dr Mary Jacob is a Lecturer in Learning and Teaching, responsible for the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching in Higher Education (PGCTHE) programme and the ARCHE scheme for Advance HE Fellowship. She seeks out events and resources useful for teaching staff and shares them via the Weekly Resource Roundup.

msjacob123@gmail.com