Category: Cognitive Load

The hidden curriculum

When I very first started teaching (not at UAL) I was completely taken by surprise at the lack of joined-up thinking across the unit on which I was teaching. I couldn’t make sense of what the course roadmap looked like, how all the units fitted together and how my teaching needed to connect. 

My very first contract was to undertake some marking with very little guidance or understanding of the course.  I took the work on more out of curiosity and because I was interested in moving into higher education. When exploring the apparent disconnect with the course leader, I was told that it was for the students to piece together the learning, to connect the dots across various content.  At the time I didn’t question or challenge this as I was new to education but felt uncomfortable about the quality of the teaching and learning that this approach created.  I did not really know how to articulate this. 

In preparing my planning and design case study, this topic came up again and I tried to find reading around the topic of disconnected curriculums (my own words for how it felt) this quote from Faculty Focus seemed to support what was an intuitive feeling for me.

Another reason why learning doesn’t seem to last long for many students is because they don’t see how each “part” of the instruction fits into the “big picture.” Teachers often choose to teach their material in discrete units for ease of course organization. This often leads students to compartmentalize, cram, and then forget as they turn their attention to the next unit.

Using Context to Deepen and Lengthen Learning Tyler Griffin is an assistant professor at Brigham Young University

The idea that this is for ease of course organisation does not seem to support a student-focused learning environment.  My experience at UAL is that this is less of an issue, however, I have only taught on one course and have a long and positive relationship with the course leader who is very inclusive with our team and encourages all of us to input to unit and course design and ensures we have a clear understanding of the ‘shape’ of the course. 

However, this seems to happen by default due to personality and leadership rather than being systemised as part of ‘how we work’ at UAL.  I am aware of teaching staff who have moved to other courses who still feel this sense of disconnect and lack of joined-up thinking regarding learning outcomes and teaching inputs.

On discussing my case study topic with Lindsay she mentioned the concept of a ‘hidden curriculum’ which is a new phrase for me.  We also discussed the idea that this creates a sink or swim situation for many students, which has implications for inclusivity – some students may be capable of making those connections enabled by factors such as previous educational context or language, for others it will be much more challenging and may reinforce and exacerbate inequalities.  I was interested in this idea of a hidden curriculum so read further about it. 

I found Unpacking the Hidden Curriculum published by the Quality Assurance Agency and downloaded the guide for educators and will discuss with our course lead whether this is currently part of our planning, it may be covered in sessions in which I am not involved.  I also feel it connects to ideas around cognitive load  – if international students are navigating so many mentally competing situations and environments when they first arrive in the UK and at UAL, we could aim to reduce some of that through extra support on the hidden curriculum.  I intuitively feel that this issue is probably the most difficult for them to navigate as it is, by definition, opaque and hidden!

The ‘hidden curriculum’ of higher education refers to certain unspoken ‘rules of the game’ about the norms, processes, and language of higher education that students are implicitly assumed to have but are not explicitly taught or explained (Hubbard et al, 2020; Semper and Blasco, 2018).

https://www.qaa.ac.uk/news-events/news/unpacking-the-hidden-curriculum-for-students-new-guidance-launched-for-staff

Unpacking the Hidden Curriculum – a guide for teaching staff


I followed up by listening to a podcast from the developers and authors of the guide, Pam Birtill, and Richard Harris, amongst the points made, were the ideas of confidence and cultural capital bringing advantage to some students.  They discuss the idea that some students are ‘just surviving’ their university experience and that even by the final year of a degree some topics are unclear.  This ‘survival’ mode can deeply affect stress levels and a sense of belonging which in turn can impact learning and outcomes.

Podcast note-taking




Reflections:  I am currently unclear how much of the hidden curriculum thinking is explicitly covered in the Design Management course, and even if work has been done to address this, my own experience of dealing with students on a one-to-one basis in workshops and FMP tutorials would indicate there is more that could be done.  On the DM course, 100% of our students are international, many of whom are living away from home for the first time and whilst they all have previous experience of university it will often have been totally different in the cultural norms and rituals that exist vs UAL / studying in the UK.   Birtill and Harris discuss the differences between universities in terms of language, terminology and rituals and that applying a local context for their hidden curriculum guide is critical – at a university level but also at a course level.

Additionally, I feel I could integrate some of the principles of the hidden curriculum into how I design my topics or units, for example, checking understanding of terminology using padlet or whiteboards (for anonymity if students don’t feel confident speaking up) at the start of a teaching session

I would like to run a more explicit session on elements of the hidden curriculum with students at the start of my FMP supervision process. I usually ask/check if there are any questions but I think I could do a deeper dive to assess levels of understanding and make it a much more interactive session – again using padlet, asking them to work in groups to identify areas that are unclear or confusing.

Micro-teaching reflection

“Object-based learning (OBL) is an experiential pedagogy concerned with the close and tactile study of material things, such as artworks, specimens, texts and artifacts… Like its historical antecedents, object lessons and object teaching, contemporary OBL practice draws its strength from the power of sensory experience.”(Barlow, 2017, p.27)

Barlow, 2017, p.27

first thoughts

On reading the Moodle brief for this exercise I had three immediate questions

1. what is object-based learning and why have I never heard of it before?
2. what constitutes an object in this context?
3. how could this be relevant to the course I work on?

As someone who feels the need to ‘ground’ concepts and make them relevant and meaningful, I needed to clearly understand in my head what a potential outcome might be from an object-based teaching session and I was struggling to see an outcome.  In my professional practice, I work with organisations where the workshops I run are very outcome oriented and I’m learning that there is a mindset shift for me to make with regard to the difference between commercial facilitation and higher education teaching.

unlocking an approach

I read an article by Dr Francesca Baseby on Edinburgh Universities ‘Teaching Matters’ blog that offered a moment of clarity on how to structure the session and how an object could be used.  Dr Baseby comments that ‘it is about looking beyond the object as a container of information (whether textual or graphic) and considering what its physicality can tell us about the context in which it was created, consumed and preserved’. 

I decided to structure the micro-teaching as if the audience were students on my course. The idea was to teach how objects can be another way of helping them think differently about inquiry and design insights, this would be as part of the Design Management Research and Critical Practice unit.  

Approaching it in this way meant that the object did not need to be connected to any particular topic – it needed to pique curiosity, prompt questions and then help the students stretch their considerations of what ‘research’ may consist of and encourage them to think about how to use objects in their own contextual research or as inspiration starting points. 

The core thought:  when we do research, we often have a linear process, starting with data gathering through to insight, inspiration and leading to a designed outcome, I wanted to explore ‘if we start with the designed outcome and think backward, what different conversations or insights might we open’?

My intention was for the students to learn one way of using an object in their research approach, to reflect on the usefulness of this technique, and to stretch their perceptions of what research might be.

designing the teaching session

My core design principles were as follows:

  1. have clear learning objectives
  2. give context
  3. assess the learning from the group   
  4. choose an object to pique curiosity and create conversation to give a sense of fun and energy in the room. 
    I am interested in the idea of playfulness in higher education as based on Lisa Forbes’s work and her findings that ‘play is  under-utilised  and  devalued  in  higher  education, and the idea of play seems to intuitively connect to object-based learning
    https://jtl.uwindsor.ca/index.php/jtl/article/view/6515/5264
  5. keep the content simple. 
    I watched the UAL Thinking Learning video on Sweller’s work on cognitive load and whilst I always aim to keep content simple I sometimes feel I overload with detail
    https://ual.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=e61926f0-70e7-489a-a4da-af960124573e

the object

the object

the object ‘in action’

clarity and direction

I created a short PowerPoint deck to support the session as I wanted to be clear on the learning objectives, to ensure students understood what we were planning to do, and to give some context around how we do research and where this exercise might fit in that process.

Learning Objectives


I gave the session the name ‘Thinking Backwards’.  Naming something can give identity, indicate purpose, and give meaning from the start, so I wanted to test if that was the case for this session.

To give some context I created one slide to demonstrate how we often approach research in a linear way, explaining we were going to use an object to reverse that process and think from the outcome backward.

Context of research practice


I then placed the object on the table. Without touching it I asked the students a simple open question “what do you think this is”?.

I was interested to see how the conversation progressed from only being able to view the object through to touch and a more sensorial engagement. So, I then invited the students to pick up the item, touch, feel, and build on their initial assessments, this created a different relationship with the object and we started to discuss what its purpose might be and what design inspiration may sit behind it

At this point I told them that the object was a product called The Ostrich Pillow, one student knew the object, but the others did not.

I then posed the following question to the group:

Group Discussion – around the table

This opened up discussion around insights and human needs, and indeed expanded out into more considerations about work & society, and I captured the discussion using a mindmap technique

To assess learning I had a separate question, in all honesty, this felt like a slightly loose and unstructured way to assess learning or value. I felt I had rushed my thinking on how to assess the learning – I was so relieved to think of a way to use an object that I didn’t give the assessment process the attention deserved.

Final assessment question

reflections / what I feel took place

I had some very insightful and useful feedback from my group, which was positively delivered and constructive, this feedback combined with my own reflections is synthesised below.

Overall the feedback indicated it was an immersive experience, partly from ‘teasing’ the item first, creating a lower-risk situation for exploration and conversation, and having a playful structure to the session. There was a sense of relaxation as no one knew what the object was and this seemed to have an equalising effect as the students built on each other’s guesses and suggestions and it seemed there was no risk in speaking up or participating. Additionally starting with an open question seemed to bring immediate contributions – the question was not based on students’ knowledge, simply a point of view.

I felt that starting with the learning objectives should help the group understand the purpose of the session and this clarity of aims and objectives was appreciated.

My concerns about assessing learning were realised, in that we ran out of time to address the final question, and feedback from the group indicated bringing this question forward would have been helpful. Finishing with a summary or key takeaways would have rounded off the learning effectively in place of exploring the final question.

Additionally, clarification on some terminology would have been helpful, I had felt this might be a concern and had included an image to help with the understanding of the research process which the group felt had been useful.

The object analysis did seem to open up both specific design considerations with regards to what human needs may have led to its creation, and also a more wide-ranging discussion on societal expectations of the culture of work, why a product such as this may be needed, and what that means for society?

what to do with this learning?

My key takeouts would be

  • building on the idea of play to de-risk learning, and to encourage more equal participation
  • continuing to simplify using visual language for concepts in line with theories on cognitive load
  • always include learning objectives at the start of each teaching session
  • further consideration on how to build assessment of the learning objectives a session into the design of the learning activity
  • with more time I would ask students to capture their own thoughts but in the interests of time I participated as a facilitator of the discussion as shown below.