Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? By Allan Davies
I do find issue with how the LO’s which are already established by the course are then somehow ‘tagged’ with UAL’s 5 criteria. Often it just get tagged with all 5 criteria, rendering it meaningless. Alongside our LO’s we also have a breakdown of ‘how this will be evidenced against the criteria,’ which we, the unit leaders fill out. Perhaps this is an example from Davies’ ‘nested hierarchy’ which is meant to make things more clear but actually adds to the complexity because as Davies states, “The greater the number of outcomes and the more elaborate the assessment scheme the more likely the whole thing will be sidestepped.
Really, it’s the 5 criteria that is a better fit with our practice in Branding and Design and it is what the assessors use to mark the student. I could either mark using either the LO’s or the 5 criteria but altogether, it seems tricky to attempt to tick all the requirements.
The assessment briefing is always a tricky one to help the students understand what is expected of them. We’ve tried workshopping to break it down for them but the academic language makes it difficult for many – especially international students where English is their second language.
Another issue we have on the course is showing the students the submissions from the past to demonstrate what we’re looking for. It’s a similar issue to the article in that we feel it limits their creativity – we’ve had examples in the past where they copy what they see. But we always get asked the question/pressured by the students to see examples. This year we’re attempting to stick to our guns and not show them anything. This approach can may mean more polarised results – it can be sink or swim – but we can allow for them to be imaginative as to how they want to present their work.
Seems to be more of a focus on academic writing than the design itself. Employability? Would this hold up in the industry? Although question of HE only for employability or something more?
“Inevitably, unit briefs will combine creative expectations with more specific, often skill-based outcomes.” (Davies 2012) Should MA be skills-based LO’s? Seems like a rather capitalist way of thinking.
26 Wed Session Notes
What are we fostering or enabling? (Fava 2022) Great question. Need to be more mindful of this.
“The sector seems to use metrics much as a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination.” – Roni Bamber, in Wonkhe 2020
Restrictive vs. empowering? (Fava 2022) Very relevant to our course, ongoing discussion of whether we are spoon-feeding, especially at masters level. High percentage of Chinese students who are used to a very different educational system but also a lot of young students who look to the tutors for the answers.
Group Discussions
– Students 2nd language – assessment criteria Communication. Something I’ve recently noticed/become aware of working on BDP’s assessment.
– Briefing assessors to maintain parity
– Tutors are just ‘advanced learners.’
Reading
Bloom’s Taxonomy – Useful for assessment
https://www.utica.edu/academic/Assessment/new/Blooms%20Taxonomy%20-%20Best.pdf