Such staff may have difficulty interpreting the learning outcomes as they are currently worded and Alt would welcome a more flexible framework. At the same time, it is vitally important that the assessment criteria for accreditation of portfolios are made explicit. In all, these should take into account the interplay between pedagogic knowledge, subject-based expertise, competent implementation, evaluation and reflection. Given the existence of 24 outcomes, Alt feels the ILT might take this opportunity to provide guidance as to the weighting of a given set of outcomes. This is especially valid given that the number of outcomes varies from one area to another.
Some outcomes are perhaps essential while others are desirable.
Furthermore, the evidence supporting the outcomes should incorporate the pedagogy of specific disciplines. Such clarification may assist categories of teaching support staff to compile and map of evidence of meeting outcomes from their specific activities. ILT might consider that the distinction between Associate and Full Member be based on depth as well as breadth rather than solely on a set number of achieved outcomes. In other words, Full Members should have a range of experience from which demonstration of the outcomes is drawn and a level of sophistication of the analysis above that provided for Associate level. In general terms, this equates to the second and third columns of the outcomes table using different evidence.