Assessing learning and exchanging feedback
Background
In architecture education (CSM BA Architecture), the learning assessment is outcome-based and done through a final portfolio submission containing a graphic narrative that communicates the design thesis. While learning outcomes and teaching activities are designed so that students can gradually build fluency in the visual language of design and architecture, the formal assessments are summative and punctual, in February and May, and the feedback is not visual but written. There are another two opportunities for formative feedback, before the summative submissions, in the format of reviews (crits).
Evaluation
These contradictions, ‘gradual x punctual’ and ‘visual x written’, make the assessment activity and feedback writing an onerous process which is disconnected from the teaching activities and ineffective in enhancing student learning. In the diagram below, which follows Russel’s (2010) assessment diagrams, I visualised my course timetable/structure (Block 1 runs from October to January, and Block 2 from February to May). The diagram shows that, on average, teachers spent of 30% of their time on marking, moderation and feedback writing – assessment activities disconnected from the teaching or learning.
Moving Forward
To counterbalance the ineffectiveness of the current assessment and feedback formats, I have followed and further developed a dialogic (Orr & Shreeve 2017) and visual approach to teaching which incorporates informal reviews and feedback opportunities (individual 1:1 tutorial, group tutorials and collective reviews) to every studio session. In this way, I can create a pattern of frequency of ‘low stakes’ reviews (Russell 2010) where I can exercise my reflective teaching practice and offer timely and comprehensive feedback directly related to what the students are learning and producing.
While this consistent dialogic-visual approach can enhance learning by maximising the discursive situations which “prompt critical thinking and self- evaluation and develop the language of the discipline” (Orr & Shreeve 2017) during the teaching weeks, the problem that the formal assessment points are so onerous and ineffective does not go away.
I want to present this diagram to the department and maybe promote a conversation around the current assessment practice. I also would like to present this diagram to the students and collect their perspectives on this (subject to my line manager approval).
References
Russell, M. (2010) University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. [online] Available
at: < https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]
Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Chapter 6 – Teaching practices for creative practitioners [online] Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available at: >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328810465_Orr_S_and_Shreeve_A_2017_Art_and_design_pedagogy_in_higher_education_knowledge_values_and_ambiguity_in_the_creative_curriculum_Routledge> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]