Dr Venda Louise Pollock amp Chris Jones Fine Art Sandy Alden amp Brenda Wilkinson Student Wellbeing with James Ricketts as student lead Creative Difference CONTEXT Assessment amp feedback identified as problematic within AampD subject areas Vaughan amp ID: 540467
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Creative Difference: Feedback and Assess..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Creative Difference: Feedback and Assessment in Fine Art
Dr Venda Louise Pollock & Chris Jones (Fine Art)Sandy Alden & Brenda Wilkinson (Student Wellbeing) with James Ricketts as student leadSlide2
Creative Difference
CONTEXT
: Assessment & feedback identified as problematic within A&D subject areas (Vaughan &
Yorke
2009; Orr 2007; Mason & Steers 2006)
Attention tends to focus on alternative assessment methods, particularly for written elements (e.g. see
Middlemass
2010; writing-pad)
but
other recent research (e.g. Pollock & Alden 2012) looks toward an empowering and inclusive learning
process
as a means to a positive student experience
Research has been undertaken into summative assessment (
e,g
, Vaughan and
Yorke
2009) and interest in discipline (HEA STEM/HEA A&H workshop 2012)
Within studio-based subjects, multiple forms of feedback but understanding of their impact upon assessment is unclear (Blair 2006; Fortnum, Houghton &
Sim
2009). Important because learners in creative disciplines shown to excel in learning but often struggle with assessment (Robinson 2001)Slide3
Creative Difference
Despite investment in feedback, many complain they do not receive enough feedback on their work (Bright 2010; Gladstone 2010; Gladstone 2013) > perception problem?
“
Follow up of the analysis of NSS comments has made institutions more aware that feedback in general, whether formative or summative, is often not
recognised
or understood by many students. This led one institution to comment that ‘Our students wouldn’t
recognise
they were receiving feedback even if we all went round wearing
Tshirts
that said ‘You are now getting feedback’’. Another commented that it appeared that the only form of feedback students in Art & Design
recognise
is that tailored to them as individuals ‘what do I have to do to get a better mark (i.e. 1
st
or 2:1)?”
Yorke
and Vaughn 2009: 17Slide4
AIM
: identify, investigate & improve means of formative and summative feedback
Creative Difference
STAGES
:
Investigate current perceptions of what constitutes feedback, from staff and student perspectives to improve understanding of feedback and its mechanisms
Identify current methods of recording and using feedback and to look at potential alternative methods, such as smart technologies
Evaluate
Open Studios
in relation to formative and summative feedback to gain insight into the effectiveness of the feedback/assessment loop
Revisit and redevelop
Open Studios
in light of findingsSlide5Slide6
Creative Difference
METHODOLOGY
Interviews with staff (own institution and broader sector)
Interviews with students (own institution and broader sector)
Focus groups with students
Module evaluations and further discussion groups
Sector questionnaire
TPSRS session
QuiLT
/Blackboard discussion group
Discussions with staff/students at Teaching and Learning Committee
Day-long staff/student workshop with c.20 stage 1 students looking at feedback/transition (included mock assessment exercise) Slide7
Creative Difference
FEEDBACK MECHANISMS IN FINE ART
One-on-one tutorials
Group
Crits
Peer-review
Visiting Lecturer tutorial
Assessment tutorial
‘Studio cruising’
Written feedback
End of year tutorial
Technical feedback in workshops and from techniciansSlide8Slide9Slide10
Creative Difference
Characteristics of THE STUDIO
:
Defined as learning through action – investigative and creative process driven by research, exploration and experimentation
Milieu for creative action with:
(a) A culture (people) who build a creative community
(b) A mode of teaching and learning
characterised
by processes of critical reflection, small class sizes, face-to-face contact
(c) A series of projects and activities that reflect and integrate professional practice
(d) A physical space or constructed environment, teaching and workshop space, tools and equipment and technical assistance appropriate to project needs
www.studioteaching.orgSlide11
Creative Difference
THE STUDIO
:
Distinctive: ‘signature pedagogy’ –
habitual, routine, visible, accountable, interdependent, collaborative, emotional, unpredictable and affect laden
(
S
hulman 2005)
Koch
et al
2002: 16: [a] challenging studio environment contains many aspects: relating knowledge to student experience and vision, a multiplicity of pedagogical and learning styles. A variety of student-faculty and student-student encounters, an ability to take risks, and an opportunity to share power to construct new knowledge and to transform thinking.
Feedback in the studio (M. Price
et al
2010): In an environment espousing a focus on the development of independent thinkers, feedback can only be positioned as advice rather than instruction. Students have a choice about whether to act on feedback. Their motives to do so or not may result from positive responses such as deep consideration of the feedback and reasoned rejection of it, or negative responses such as distrust of the feedback provider.Slide12Slide13
Creative Difference
Characteristics of THE CRIT
:
group discussion with peers and tutors
Flourishes if : outcome matters to those involved; where criteria for judging are open to scrutiny, debate and transformation; there is accountability; there is willingness to take responsibility to express and take honest opinion (
Soep
2005)
BUT: can cause anxiety that reduces its effectiveness
As normative feedback it is important as it helps students to develop critical awareness of their own and peers’ work (
Schute
2008); helps to shape students’ evaluative skills (
Juwah
et al
2004)Slide14Slide15
Creative Difference
STAGE 1:
Investigate current perceptions of what constitutes feedback, from staff and student perspectives to improve understanding of feedback and its
mechanisms
CONTEXT:
Research shows there remains student confusion about feedback and different interpretation of assessment feedback by students and staff (Blair 2004, 2006, 2009; Davies 2000, 2002; Crooks 1998; Fleming 1998; Kent 1995; Oak 1998; Sadler 2005; Askew and Lodge 2000; Baume,
Yorke
and Coffey 2004; Biggs 2003; Black and William 2003; Harlem and James 1997; Rust 2002)
Cantella
2001: 319:
The particular character and activity that goes into making of art does not fit comfortably into any system of general assessment criteriaSlide16
Creative Difference
CONTEXT
:Our students on Assessment:
Art can’t easily be measured by exact
numbers;
[
a percentage mark]
means very little in terms of you pushing your ideas and working practice. It’s also just to satisfy an institutional mold, not the individual’s
practice
;
important
as benchmark but not necessarily important to
practice
Students want feedback (Hyland 2000; O’Donovan, Price and Rust 2001)BUT students don’t necessarily understand or use feedback (Gibbs and Simpson 2004; Lea and Street 1998; McCune 2004)
More feedback doesn’t necessarily mean more learning (
Kulhavy
et al
1985)Slide17
Creative Difference
OUR FINDINGS
: STAFF – WHAT CONSTITUTED FEEDBACK
Written after assessment
Feedback is the response to assessment (verbal or written) but generally ‘I think everything we do is
feedback’
A distinction between feedback in teaching and feedback for assessment
Formative
ie
one-to-one tutorial, visiting tutor sessions, peer discussion in the studio,
crits
All dialogues between student and tutor whether written, oral, formal or informal
There was one comment about feedback being the ‘foundation of what we do’ but with no explanation of this in context to practice. Similarly defining feedback as ‘all mechanisms of responding to students’ work’
.
Various opinions on whether the staff or student’s voice should be dominant – some saying it altered whether the feedback was formative or summativeSlide18
Creative Difference
OUR FINDINGS
: STAFF – GOOD FEEDBACK
Individual
Evidenced
Responsive
Honest
Clear
Concise
Feed-forwardSlide19
Creative Difference
OUR FINDINGS
: Student – WHAT CONSTITUTED FEEDBACK
No consensus on what constituted feedback
Most students, particularly early stages, focused on written feedback (but evidence of shift in perceptions by Stages 2/3)
Most Stage 1 students used to directive feedback and found adjustment to facilitative feedback difficult
Most students made notes during tutorials in a sketchbook but found it difficult to articulate how they applied feedback [e.g. Crisp 2007; Higgins et al 2002): receiving feedback and being able to act on it should not be equated]
Contrary to much of the literature (Smith and
Gorard
2005; Crisp 2007) most of our students more interested in the feedback than the mark – particularly in the mid-stages of the degree
programmeSlide20
OUR FINDINGS: Student –
FEEDBACK PREFERENCESPreference for oral forms of feedback, or oral combined with written (if post-assessment)
Peer review and written feedback seen as least useful: written feedback no point for discussion, can just throw it away and forget about it, constantly there to be interpreted (good/bad); peer review:
Peers might not be honest enough
One-on-One tutorials and group
crits
seen as most useful: more conversational and greater understanding,
allows conversation and dialogue where ideas can be thought out verbally rather than having to find the words to write down;
group
crits
: more chance to explain yourself and see how your work is received by an audience; range of views and ideas
Creative DifferenceSlide21
Creative Difference
STAGE 2
: Identify current methods of recording and using feedback and to look at potential alternative methods, such as smart technologies
TECHNOLOGY:
Students not interested in using smart technologies (NB: right technology might not be there yet) and fast-paced evolution of technology – difficult to embed/habituate
Recording feedback – seen as useful (supported by research in other disciplines)
in conjunction with sketchbooks ‘I’m left with a general sense of what was said and try to scribble it down after but I forget.’)
Gladstone 2013 – digitally recording feedback: addresses differences in perceptions between staff/student; improves students’ understanding of formative feedback; students can receive feedback when ready and review; spend more time with feedback than if written (Higgins et al 2002)
Parkin
et al
2012: online publication of grades and feedback/adaptive release of grades were found to significantly enhance students’ engagement with feedbackSlide22
Creative Difference
STAGE 3/4:
Evaluate Open Studios in relation to formative and summative feedback to gain insight into the effectiveness of the feedback/assessment
loop. Revisit
and redevelop
Open Studios
in light of findings
OPEN STUDIOS: assessment model
Students display work in their studio space for assessment
Open Studios was focussed on Stages 2 and 3, now likely to be Stages 1-3
Studios open to all year groups, staff and the general public – evening viewing with invitations sent
Discussion encouraged between peers and via
crits
, and cross-year
crits
Assessment via assessment tutorial and staff assessing work
External experts (artists, curators, theorists
etc
) run group
crits
Written feedback given after assessment tutorial with assessment grade.Slide23
Creative Difference
OUR FINDINGS
: OPEN STUDIOSGenerated constructive discussions about work
Students thought about the ‘relationship between how you display your work and its content’
Welcomed the diverse interactions surrounding the event
Sense of professional practice in thinking about display and receiving diverse opinions (Candy et al 1994: …
if students are to be encouraged to be lifelong learners, they must be weaned away from any tendency towards over-reliance on the opinions of others. Ultimately, in real world contexts, they must be able to judge or evaluate the adequacy, completeness or appropriateness of their own learning, so whatever assessment practices are used must be comprehensible to the learners so that they can be internalized as criteria for critical self-evaluation.
Slide24
Creative Difference
OUR FINDINGS
: OPEN STUDIOSDemonstrated the complexity of the learning environment in which assessment takes place – provided a valued
situated
assessment with clear links to other feedback mechanisms experienced in the year and to the final degree show
Students are not overly focused on assessment criteria/grades but
Open Studios
provides a valuable point to introduce and develop thinking around criteria and assessment through an iterative assessment model.
Value involvement of external actors for different feedback content and range of approaches
In experience a range of feedback mechanisms around one assessment/focal point, students develop their skills in becoming more discerning learners.Slide25
Creative Difference
OUTCOMES
:Improved understanding of feedback in Fine Art pedagogy, including types and purposes of feedback, recording and reflecting on feedback, and feedback’s relationship to assessment
Shift in student perception in what constitutes feedback: from viewing it as assessment tutorials and related written feedback to perceiving a variety of kinds of discourse around practice as feedback
Better practice for integrating feedback into the curriculum, particularly in relation to assessment
A clear, evaluated and developed example of an assessment integrating a variety of feedback modes and professional practice experience
Enhanced approaches for discussing feedback and assessment with students through staff-student workshopsSlide26
Creative Difference
OUTCOMES
:Advantages of taking a multidimensional view of feedback where
situational and individual characteristics of the instructional context and learner are considered along with the nature an quality of the feedback message
(
Schute
2008: 176)
COMING SOON:
Fine Art’s staff/student co-authored Feedback Sketchbook