The friction problem: why learners don’t read learning outcomes and what design can realistically fix
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi41.2000Keywords:
learning outcomes, cognitive load, learner engagement, instructional designAbstract
Learning outcomes are everywhere in higher education. Many learners do not engage with them. This piece argues that friction in design contributes to this gap: the cognitive effort created by sentence length, syntactic complexity, and abstract performance criteria. Psycholinguistic evidence and the limited empirical literature on learner engagement support this claim. When friction exceeds perceived benefit, learners choose more efficient paths. They scan assignment briefs, consult peers, or draw on prior experience. This is one layer of a multifactorial problem; learner maturity, motivation, and context also matter. Seven evidence-informed design principles are proposed to reduce friction and increase the probability of engagement. Better design does not guarantee changed behaviour. Poor design creates an unnecessary barrier. This piece is a provocation: are our well-intentioned instruments actually usable by the learners they are meant to serve?
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801928
Bartek, B., Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Smith, M. R. (2011). In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1178–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024194
Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J. J. A., Rawlinson, M., & Norman, R. I. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: The student perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901964
Carr, J. (2017). Deontic modals. In T. McPherson, & D. Plunkett (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaethics (pp. 194–210). Routledge.
Henville, L. (2019, November 8). Reducing the weight of your words. University Affairs. https://universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/reducing-the-weight-of-your-words/
Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending the strengths of Bloom’s taxonomy and Webb’s depth of knowledge to enhance classroom-level processes. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517804
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The trouble with learning outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787402003003003
Johnson, I. (2018). Driving learning development professionalism forward from within. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (13). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.v0i0.470
Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. University College Cork. http://hdl.handle.net/10468/1613
León, S. P., Panadero, E., & García-Martínez, I. (2023). How accurate are our students? A meta-analytic systematic review on self-assessment scoring accuracy. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09819-0
Maier, U., & Klotz, C. (2025). Students ignore their mistakes: Elaborated error feedback processing in a digital learning system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 82, Article 102395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102395
Norman, S., Kemper, S., & Kynette, D. (1992). Adults’ reading comprehension: Effects of syntactic complexity and working memory. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.4.P258
Perrault, E. K. (2026). Syllabus information and the relative importance of content they can contain. College Teaching, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2026.2612968
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2022). Toolkit: Making the language of assessment inclusive. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/membership/collaborative-enhancement-projects/assessment/making-the-language-of-assessment-inclusive
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
