Revised A&F Strategy

• What are your initial ideas about different components you would like to include as part of this new A&F strategy?

  
  

To encourage a more diverse assessment strategy into the level 4 Contemporary Arts Practice programme I would like to incorporate two assessment tasks which will be weighted differently (weighting to be decided) within this formative assessment. I aim for this A&F strategy to show how the students can work both in individually and collaboratively with their peers, supporting students to meet the five Intended Learning Outcomes deeper (ILO 1- 5).

This module covers plaster mould making, touching on practical skills such as: slip casting, press moulding and sprig mould making. Students learn the mould making skills through workshops, create ceramic objects and touch themes on the display and exhibition of ceramics. Workshops support students with upskilling technically and enable them to make their physical ceramic artefacts around their themes of their own personal practice.

To reach the ILO 3 (Evaluate different modes of display for creative work and reflect upon the most effective method for your work.) Also, ILO 2 (Experiment with a range of methods, materials, and processes, to develop your own individual creative practice showing evidence of risk taking and problem solving.) Students will be divided into small groups to curate a small mini show of their hand made artefacts – this could be set up in the studio, or displayed visually through a computer image mock up.  In groups students will have the opportunity to present their ideas, giving rationale from what they learnt from the artist visit at the beginning of the module.  Falchikov (2007) suggests that students often need structured frameworks to provide meaningful peer feedback. By taking this into account I will ensure there is guidance provided in their questioning and will ensure there is a tailored criteria for them to follow, enhancing the processes’ educational value and ensuring consistency of peer reflection. For example asking questions like: Do the ‘Reflections on Making’ include evidence of risk taking and problem solving? This allows students to meet. Or ‘Does the Portfolio and Context Folder (Research) look at a range of approaches and ideas for display/presentation?’ These are specific to ILO2 and ILO3.

To reach the ILO 1 (Evaluate your own processes and outcomes using your understanding of relevant subject knowledge within your chosen Creative Arts Practice discipline), ILO 4 (Record and communicate your ideas relating to your creative practice, clearly in a visual form) and ILO5 (Identify and reflect on current debates relevant to your chosen) I have decided to incorporate a 1:1 between student and teacher after the group exhibition and peer reflection task. This more informal reflective process within the student’s studio, not only allows teacher to look through the student’s portfolio, context folder, but also to have a conversation with the student. Sambell et al. (2013) suggest, formative assessment is crucial in developing self-regulated learners. Here, there is potential to ask specific questions which identify whether ILO’s have been met and visually see if for example the portfolio is clear and well-presented showing any additional research items that show a deeper knowledge. It also gives private space to speak through and reflect on the group peer reflection process.

• What is your rationale for wanting to include these different components in your strategy?

  
  

The inclusion of these different components has been a balancing act between ensuring that meet all ILO for the formative module and seeing if I can push the A&F strategy in order to bring further inclusivity and provide something new to the students. Different formats and styles of assessment benefit certain types of learners, so by supplying a range of assessment methods or a choice it can be seen as more inclusive (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). I hope that with this newly developed A&F strategy it will motivate, surprise, and encourage deep learning outcomes.

Further to this, according to the ‘Bath Spa Programme Specification Document’, as tutor, I am to facilitate students with both individual, collaborative, and transferable skills that will enhance employability as a practitioner or employee in the creative industries.  I believe that my A&F strategy does this by involving students in their own learning through assessment and prepares them further for lifelong learning.

• What have you learned so far about assessment and feedback from this course, and from your engagement with different sources of scholarship, that would also support these ideas for your strategy outline and your rationale?

  
  

I have found the forums particularly engaging in terms of allowing me to see different working strategies explained by my peers, allowing me to relate to my own practice. This motivated me and gave me the confidence to approach the senior head of programme, in which I am currently visiting lecturer, and question her about the process implemented on their current course.  Scholarship has of course supported my ideas and enriched my teaching knowledge. For instance, I have selected a few points from my initial A&F strategy below:

I have decided to incorporate the mini exhibition assessment task to provide students with real life work experience. As Bloxham & Boyd (2007) summaries, it is important to contextualise and link what students are practicing with theory. Although there is limited research on students’ perception, Struyven et al. (2002: 4– 5) outlines how the act of providing various assessments where tasks are authentic, real world and meaningful, it resulted in them being more engaged because they could see past the context of education. It will demonstrate diversification in action (Maclellan 2001: 308).

By weighting the marks I aim to improve inclusivity. I will ensure that weightings are time considered and will reflect how complex or difficult a task is (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007).

The group and peer assessment aspect will not only encourage social learning, supporting common understandings motivate students (Hounsell 2003: 3) and meet the desired programme specifications.

References:

Bloxham, S. & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher EducationLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.

Falchikov, N. (2007) 'The place of peers in learning and assessment', in Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (eds.) Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term. London: Routledge, pp. 128-143.

Hounsell, D. (2003) Student feedback, learning and development, in M. Slowey and D. Watson (eds) Higher Education and the Lifecourse. Buckingham: SRHE/ Open University Press.

Maclellan, E. (2001) Assessment for learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and students, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4): 307– 18.

Sambell, K., McDowell, L. and Montgomery, C. (2013) Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F. and Janssens, S. (2002) Students’ perceptions about assessment in higher education: a review. Paper presented at the Joint Northumbria/EARLI SIG Assessment and Evaluation Conference: Learning Communities and Assessment cultures, University of Northumbria, 28– 30