Assessing learning and exchanging feedback
Contextual Background
Within my teaching context three main challenges I have within summative assessment on MA User Experience Design, LCC, are outlined below:
- Marking submissions when I have taught very little on a unit.
- This particularly expresses for the many units which specify group-work.
- The mundanity and overwhelming repetition I feel in marking many students.
Due to the scope of this text, I will focus on the first point.
I feel an emotionally and psychologically challenged by marking summative assessments without really being there for much of the unit. Being present within and around the students allows me to absorb the minutiae of their character which can aid understanding of the context in which they submit their work. There is an anonymity of marking students I have only taught once or twice that can feel uncomfortable. Almost as though I’ve taken a position of an anonymous external examiner, although I don’t have a direct experience of this, but from my understanding there appears to be a positional overlap.
Evaluation
My current main strategies are as follows:
- I try and triangulate what happened within a group project, essentially by looking over multiple group members blogs (all who should document their project development in varying styles and methods) and see if there any nuances to what was said in class, or tutorial feedback they received, etc. This allows me to understand group decision making more contextually, or how others perceive what challenges might have occurred. Of course, I only mark my student and only use their evidence has been submitted to assess, but this practice increases my situated understanding of the project.
This is, however, very time intensive.
I ask the CL or Lecturers what has generally gone on across the cohort and if there is any need-to-know, or divergences, for example previously a student had needed substantial pastoral support but I wasn’t aware and marked without an understanding.
Moving forwards
I believe I’m most affective when I utilise empathetic teaching and marking, and there are some strategies I’d like to employ.
More rigorous referencing of assessment criteria — to discuss deeply and comprehensively understand with the CL where and how the assessment criteria match up with the intended learning outcome in a constructively aligned approach (Biggs, 2007).
Acknowledging that although I do enjoy the nuance and variation afforded through qualitative marking and perceptual feedback (blog post 3), I feel need to encourage trust in myself. To believe what Danvers (2007) is saying — a mark given in assessment is specific to both that timely moment and specific to that tutor/student combination. Over time that assessed perspective might shift, as in it remains permanently unfixed, and that’s ok — how works are perceived should evolve. What I’m saying here is that I should trust more in my own judgement and understanding, as its all situational.
Biggs (2007) continues to encourage me in the realm of trusting my own perception — suggesting the nuanced difference between first-class and second-class honours might have the same quantity of marks, but the 1st class student expresses and shows evidence for a certain quality which the second class simply doesn’t.
Of course, ideally, I would simply like to see the students more, and I do intend to suggest being there for the final crit or presentation. Phil Race (2001) goes on to makes some valuable suggestions about assessing group work, such as dividing them, asking for peer review, or asking verbal questions. However, these although shrewd, are based from within the classroom rather than as an abstract other being handed over submissions. Looking ahead these assessment challenges might be further aided from reading more about the position of an external assessor.
References
Biggs, Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S.-K. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Danvers, J. (2007) “Assessment in the arts: qualitative and quantitative approaches,” Networks, University of Brighton, (1), pp. 14–19.
Race, P. (2001) “A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment.” Available at: https://phil-race.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Self,_peer_and_group_assessment.pdf (Accessed: March 19, 2024).