Contextual Background
As a technical member of staff, I do not partake in formal/ summative assessment. I do, however, give informal formative feedback during taught workshops, drop-in sessions, group crits & 1:1s. The feedback I give tends to be supporting realisation of an outcome; be it learning a technique, developing a process, or a physical product for a unit hand-in. Since I am studio programme based, I witness the continued skill building and artist practice development throughout their studies.
Evaluation
The ad-hoc nature of this feedback focuses more on holistic comprehension and skill-building, rather than box-checking to complete an assignment. Danvers (2007) discusses this difference as deep vs. surface learning, the former characterised as ‘active understanding’. Additionally, as there is less of a hierarchy in place between student/technician vs. student/academic, I find students do not feel the pressure to always present their best work, but are more open to learning and growing through mistakes in the technical space. (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006).
Generally, the nature of the feedback is successful in immediately supporting their outcomes, but as technical staff we are not always made aware of marking criteria and may not get to see the project at its endpoint. For instance, I provide 1:1 tutorials with students who need technical support for their offsite show artwork. Although I am able to guide them in realising their project as well as exhibiting it appropriately, I am not always present for the installation, as well as being out the loop with unit criteria e.g. artwork restrictions, and not being involved with summative assessment. This may cause disconnect and opposing opinions with their academic tutors who hold power over their grade.
Moving Forwards
Considering how my role can develop in assessing and giving feedback, I have outlined the following reflections:
- Developing trust through contact time
The beauty of being a technician lies in being able to have more face-to-face time with students, and seeing them progress through their years of study. Offering dedicated drop-in time is something I programmed into the course, and adjusting these slots to fit the needs of the students (e.g. moving to when students tend to be more onsite,) has been a successful way to increase meaningful exchanges with students (Gibbs, 2015). Guzzardo et al. (2020) discusses the importance of student/staff interactions in achieving student success, ultimately fostering a more open and safe space for seeking out and taking on critical feedback.
2. Bridging academic-technical disconnect
To tackle this, I plan to implement constructive alignment through meeting with YLs to further discuss and integrate technical teaching with unit-specific assessments (Biggs & Tang, 2007). As mentioned before, I have begun this through 1:1s, however, implementing more structured feedback models may assist in clarifying learning outcomes, and aligning formative feedback with summative assessment. This will be developmental to that specific unit, and help me practice transparent pedagogy (Li, 2018). However, it is important for me to not lose the informal, ad-hoc nature of feedback occurring already, as this tends to be where students are most comfortable and excited about developing their practice (Addison, 2014).
3. Reciprocal feedback and accountability
Although technicians tend to foster a more equal ground for student interaction, there is still an underlying hierarchy of staff/student. Therefore, we must be careful not to allow this to affect student autonomy and critical thinking. Additionally, feedback is not only a tool to develop student learning, but “to provide information to teachers that can be used to shape teaching” (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). Implementing check-ins when I give feedback during both ad-hoc and taught sessions allows students to develop self-sufficiency over their own practice, and help me understand what students need the next time we meet (William, 2011).
4. Maximising reflective feedback & self-regulation
By motivating students to take ownership of their learning, they become less dependent on external teacher-support. To achieve self-regulation, we must facilitate good feedback practice for our students (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). For instance, by integrating technical into the course assessment model as suggested in point 2, I could implement formative feedback in a documented format e.g. digital form. This would be something that is designed to be continually referenced back to and updated from both ends, to increase student engagement by encouraging active reflection from staff and student. My concern is that this will be an additional administrative burden for students who may already feel overwhelmed, and overburdened staff. Further reflection on making this an engaging process would involve group discussion with other technical and academic staff.
References
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) ‘Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning’, in Teaching for quality learning at university. 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 50–63.
Danvers, J. (2007) ‘Qualitative rather than Quantitative: The assessment of arts education’, Networks Magazine, pp. 14–19.
Gibbs, G. (2015) ‘Maximising student learning gain’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 193–207.
Guzzardo, M.T. et al. (2020) ‘“The Ones that Care Make all the Difference”: Perspectives on Student-Faculty Relationships’, Innovative Higher Education, 46(1), pp. 41–58.
Li, S. (2018) ‘Critical transparent pedagogy in teacher education’, TESOL Journal, 10(2).
Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218.
William, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, pp. 3–14.