assess and/or give feedback for learning.

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Teaching on Unit 9 at Chelsea BA Fine Art on what was formerly the ‘dissertation unit’, this format has been changed following course revalidation in 2020. Rather than all students submitting an 8,000-10,000 word dissertation, they now have an option to either submit this extended essay, or instead prepare a 15 minute Presentation of Enquiry accompanied by a shorter essay of 4,000-6,000 words. Since the initial implementation, some elements of this submission has been amended and there is an upcoming revalidation which invites more drastic changes. This is a component in a larger holistically assessed unit. 

EVALUATION

The submission format currently is in many ways the most successful edition since the revalidation in 2020, allowing students to have more agency in ways they can present their engagement with research and it’s integration into practice. For a student body in which many struggle with longer written forms due to language or neurodivergent learning differences this is a more inclusive assessment of their learning. Additionally, this is more aligned with the assessment model in year 2 where the majority of their learning is not conventionally assessed, while still allowing for students who are more confident in expressing their ideas in written form to excel. However, my concern is that the lack of guidelines can often alienate students even more; some of whom do not choose until the last moment which option they will elect. This has a negative effect on their results which in turn prompts a lack of confidence moving forwards. 

MOVING FORWARDS

A major issue as I see it currently is the timing of the summative feedback. Grades are released at the start of Unit 10 (the degree show unit) which is often detrimental to their confidence as learners, damaging in their relationships with their tutors who are assumed to be the primary assessors, and a tangible way to compare themselves to their peers. There is also further issue in which they are more highly awarded in year 2 which leads to the expectation of an ‘A’ as these do not need to be proportionally allocated. The timing also requires a form of written feedback which functions primarily as a grade rationale in which the language needs to align with the terminology rather than offering guidance for development. Mark Russell’s ‘Assessment Patterns’ offers several models for the timing of feedback. By integrating a stage of formal formative assessment feedback following a draft submission, this can better allow for learning before the ‘high stakes’ summtaive assessment. However, this does not resolve the larger issue of timing. If we were to extend the essay unit to run in parrallel with Unit 10 (degree show), it could invite a more naturally integrated oscillation of research and practice, as described by Russell when discussing cross-module learning.

Both of these are dependent on hours offered to staff working on these modules. As it currently stands, there is already an expectation that you will be required to work for more hours than is contracted which already does not include time spent reviewing drafts or the assessment process itself. 

Bibliography:

‘Assessment Patterns’ by Mark Russell 

‘Assessment regimes and Foucauldian technologies of the self’ by Mark Barrow