The purpose of this teaching tip is to provide guidance on how to write intended learning outcomes (ILOs) with essential requirements (ERs) in mind. As discussed in the companion teaching tip, Writing Intended Learning Outcomes, all ILOs should be SAM (specific, attainable, and measurable), and some ILOs will also be ERs, while still others might include elements that are ERs. This teaching tip explores the connection between ILOs and essential requirements to provide guidance on when ILOs are also ERs, when ILOs might include elements that are ERs, and when ILOs are not ERs. While this can be a challenging process to work through, if implemented carefully, it ultimately makes your teaching and course design more transparent and accessible. The difference between ILOs and ERs is summarized in a table at the end of this teaching tip.
While ILOs are meant to articulate the expectations for students’ learning in a way that is specific, attainable, and measurable, is everything stated in an ILO an ER? The answer is likely no, and can depend on how you have written your ILOs. If you include the way in which students engage with and/or demonstrate their achievement of the ILOs (i.e., specific teaching and/or assessment methods), you probably included elements that are not ERs because these conditions can often vary without compromising the integrity of the ILO. ILOs that include aspirational learning are also typically not ERs.
It is important for you to be able to identify what is actually required in your course and where there can be flexibility, particularly when students require accommodations. According to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the knowledge and skills that all students must demonstrate, with or without accommodations, represent the essential requirements for your course. Depending on the types of accommodations that students in your course need, AccessAbility Services (AAS) may ask you to identify the essential requirements in your course, and this process may start by reviewing the ILOs.
ILOs and essential requirements are not automatically synonymous. For example, if an ILO states that “students should be able to collaboratively apply the best practices and protocols associated with therapeutic recreational practices,” must they do this application in a collaborative manner? What conditions are absolutely necessary for students to demonstrate this ILO? Would demonstrating their skills solo fundamentally change the task? If not, then the collaborative piece is non-essential and could be waived if a student required an accommodation to work alone. Remember that allowing a change for a student with an accommodation plan does not obligate you to offer this change to all students.
Should you remove all elements from your ILOs that are not ERs? Not necessarily. For example, if you intend to use partner or group work extensively in a course, you can include collaboration skills in an ILO. However, when you are reviewing your ILOs with ERs in mind, reflect on why you are including elements that are not required. For example, you might ask yourself: Is collaboration mandatory, and if so, why? Are contextual factors like class size affecting your particular use of this strategy? Are norms about how collaboration should occur (e.g., in person vs. online) affecting your implementation? Questions like these should help you examine whether collaboration is an ER and uncover the instructional goals that, while valuable, are not ERs. If an instructional or assessment strategy is non-essential, you should flag this for yourself, and while doing your course design, consider what alternative conditions would be acceptable to you without fundamentally altering the task(s) students are being asked to do.
Also be aware of hidden conditions that you may implicitly have in mind when drafting ILOs. For example, a public speaking course may include an ILO like “students should be able to develop and deliver persuasive speeches.” You may be thinking this means that students will have to stand up and deliver live speeches in front of their classmates as an audience. But are those conditions required? Could the speech be pre-recorded, delivered while sitting down, or given to a subset of the class to meet various accommodation needs? While the ILO, “students should be able to develop and deliver persuasive speeches,” as stated, includes only elements that could be ERs, it is helpful to start thinking about how students would be able to demonstrate it. In general, it is good practice to specify only actual restrictions in the ILOs. For example, if a chemistry lab has an ILO to “perform time-sensitive chemical reactions,” students who require time-related accommodations will have an indicator that their need for more time may not be feasible in that course.
Instructors are key to discussions with AAS about ERs, so instructors might wish to draft course-level ERs. However, all ERs must be defensible to the best of the author’s knowledge. In other words, ERs must stand up to scrutiny and be good faith requirements in that they do not exclude students based on disability or any other code-protected grounds. Ideally, ERs are determined by curriculum committees (or similar) at the program level in consideration of any institutional ERs, if available. Reviewing any established ERs is also important. Any ER can be disputed or disrupted (e.g., by a student or technological advances) and would benefit from being reviewed periodically.
Overall, being prepared up front and thinking through flexibility where possible at the time of design makes the implementation of the course more straightforward.
Comparison of Learning Outcomes to Essential Requirements
|
Point of Comparison |
Learning Outcomes (LOs) |
Essential Requirements (ERs) |
|---|---|---|
|
Definition |
Knowledge, skills, and attitudes, that students should be able to demonstrate by the end of a course or program. |
Specific learning outcomes (LOs) and/or specifically identified elements of LOs that all students must demonstrate in a course or program (including program milestones). Also the skills and knowledge all students must demonstrate to participate in course or program learning activities and assessment activities. Must be demonstrated with or without using accommodations, depending on the nature of the ER. |
|
Connection to Academic Success |
Not meeting part of an LO or some LOs may still permit passing a course or program overall. |
Not meeting an ER, or meeting it in the wrong way, entails failure of a course or program. (Note: The habitual way of doing something is often not the only acceptable way.) |
|
Connection to Course or Program Content |
Concerned with the what and the how of a subject. |
Concerned with the non-negotiable knowledge or skills of an outcome, and in some cases with how an outcome must be met or how an activity must be done. |
|
Connection to Assessment |
Should be SAM: Specific, Attainable, Measurable (directly or indirectly). |
Must be directly observable (graded yes/no, pass/fail) or measurable (assessable at the expected numerical grade threshold) |
|
Scope |
The teaching methods or assessment conditions (the how) might or might not be included in the LO statement. Might be aspirational. |
The teaching or assessment method must not be included in the ER statement unless it is the ER itself. Only what is absolutely necessary (non-negotiable); conditions that can vary without compromising integrity of the course or program are excluded. |
|
Hidden Conditions |
May imply unstated conditions (e.g., a live in-person audience for a speech) that the instructor assumes but has not written. |
Should include only explicitly stated, defensible conditions. Assumptions should be examined and either formalized (i.e., acknowledged to be ERs) or removed. |
|
Flexibility |
Non-essential elements (e.g., collaborative format, live delivery) might be able to be waived or altered for students with academic accommodation plans. |
Cannot be waived. They define the minimum standard that preserves the integrity of the academic program. Are not themselves fundamentally altered by accommodations; must be demonstrated with or without using academic accommodations, depending on the nature of the ER. |
|
Who Writes Them |
Instructors typically draft course LOs; some course LOs are determined at the program level and/or by accreditation bodies. Ideally, course LOs are aligned with program outcomes and ERs as needed. |
ERs are primarily determined by curriculum committees at the program level in consideration of institutional ERs. ERs can be drafted by instructors at the course level but must be defensible. |
GenAI was used to assist in the categorization of the content in this table based on this teaching tip.
Support
If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.
CTE Teaching Tips
- Aligning Outcomes, Assessments, and Instruction
- Bloom's Taxonomy
- Course Design Heuristic
- Rubrics: Useful Assessment Tools
- Writing Intended Learning Outcomes
References
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
- Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: D. MacKay.
- Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2018). Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities.
This Creative Commons license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as they credit us and indicate if changes were made. Use this citation format: Understanding the Connection Between Intended Learning Outcomes and Essential Requirements. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo.