Neil Currant’s lecture provided an insightful summary of research from UAL, Glasgow School of Art, and Leeds Art University into assessment practices in higher education, with a particular focus on creative courses.

The lecture challenged the assumption that there is fairness in assessment procedures. Neil explained that he had found evidence that rigid procedures could lead to or compound issues within social justice, as different people have different modes of learning, and assessments which are specifically linked to a graded system, may not always reflect a fair representation of where a student is at.

Something I found really interesting was a discussion on the hierarchical relationship between lecturers and students, which is seemingly reinforced during the assessment period. Someone in the group made an interesting point that learning might not necessarily come out during an assessment, but that it can be something that happens later on, or can be internalised without being demonstrated.”

Neil proposed that giving more responsibility to students and focusing on feedback rather than grades to enhance student learning could eliminate the issues of students “hoop scoring” or prioritizing grades and academic achievement over genuine learning, as this often takes over from conceptual thinking and risk-taking, which are two essential aspects of creative learning. There was also a brief discussion about going back to a pass/fail system, from the idea that grades hold too much importance for students and negatively affect the creative learning process.

As a technician, I don’t feel like I assess in a structured way as academics do, and I found this conversation really interesting. Assessment can be used to take account of learning and develop students work, but it is often used as a standardized system that fits into a culture of attainment, credit, and awards. However, in the workshop, a compassionate evaluation or feedback is the only style of assessment I ever make, and I always see students work improve either immediately, or over time as they start to value their skills more highly.

For me, the lecture raised some thought-provoking questions about assessment practices in higher education. It highlighted the need for assessment to be compassionate and responsive to the diverse modes of learning, and for students to be given more responsibility and focus on feedback rather than grades. It is essential to recognize the impact of assessment procedures on student learning and to adopt a more holistic approach to assessment that supports and fosters creativity, risk-taking, and conceptual thinking.

Met with John quickly this morning in between Wi-Fi issues.
He asked me to generally give an overview of where i am, and what my thinking is so far with the course. I mentioned that I have an almost intrinsic aversion to the scholarly language, but that I am really enjoying the in person teaching, as I can feel this almost osmosis of the language rubbing off on me, which is something I have often felt lacking in, as I didn’t have anything close to that in drama school

I explained my puppetry / performance background, and John was interested in the ability to embody a role, (or puppet) and how a heavily embodied practice might express itself. We discussed that it is, like Book Arts, a world of Tacit knowledge, and how perhaps embodied ways of being, or bringing performance in to the workshop could take shape.

I brought up that I truly fell into teaching, though I find it to be more fulfilling and rewarding that being an industry binder, I had no prior experience, other than leading workshops with primary children.
I likened the beginning of my time delivering workshops at UAL as like following a script, that it was a performance I could repeat, but that as time has gone on, I no longer rely on that script, and it is more like stand up. This brought up that perhaps even the students participating are following a ‘script’, or scripted ways of being. What does an Art student look like? How does an art student behave? How does someone in this workshop specifically behave? Perhaps I can bring a performative/puppet pedagogic angle, and see how this manifests with student encounters.

The cafe-like culture of the afternoons in Book Arts might be a more appropriate forum for experimentation in these behaviours, and i suspect this is in fact already how I function. We encounter such a wide variety of abilities in the workshop, those who have completed a full foundation, and those who have never used a pair of scissors. It is nicer to imagine it more, as though they have a lot yet to discover. There are then a lot of different expectations of the space, and what the space holds for these students. What concept or idea does Book Arts serve?

I read also this article, which came up in discussion for Staff Development opportunities with Rahel about Mildreds Lane, Reassembling Time: The Alternative Pedagogy of Mildred’s Lane. Not sure, but did enjoy the read. Though I do think it is very “scholarly” in the most Third Bird sense of the word.

PgC IRL. Our first face to face session in the PgCert with our full tutor groups.

In this seminar we were to consider approaches to designing and planning for learning across a number of levels. From large groups of whole courses, to smaller sessions, and individual activities. we looked also at approaches to teaching that address the challenges and capitalise on the opportunities of different teaching modes, aims, and environments. 

Some resources used in the workshop today.

• The Allan Davies article i discussed in this post
• The Course Design Toolkit
• UAL assessment Guide
• Learning Outcomes regulations assessments
• Eight Quotes used in the session and Bibliography

Preparatory work
In advance of the session we were asked to select and have to hand a “unit brief, session plan, teaching artefact or details of a learning activity from a course you teach on.” We’re going to stick things on the walls, so a print out is useful (but not essential). 

I chose to prepare an explanation of grain direction, and the two books we use in the workshop to demonstrate their difference between the two, and how it affects the book

We used these documents as a springboard for discussion, on what could be improved to help communicate the ideas or principles each object brought up, and questions that arose that could lead to perhaps a redesign. I spoke with Matt Denney and we had a broader discussion about what happens if the students don’t understand, or choose to ignore the concept of grain direction. What is the role of failure then in the context of making? How much is learning that needs to come from past failures, and how do we as teachers negotiate this “failure” or error ?
How long / how many attempts does it take for this information to “click” with students, and when it dies, does this information impact on their conceptual decisions? Could they opt for “wrong” grain or materials to aid an idea? For example, a book that doesn’t want to be read, opening poorly and breaking quickly due to the wrong grain direction being used in the binding, or pairing a binding style with a page count that isn’t sympathetic.

In regards to Matt’s object, which was the UAL learning Outcomes for his course, we discussed the idea of “Micro-Assessment”
Do the students know we are checking in at tiny intervals to see if they understand before we move on or impart more information? Do they react honestly to let us know how much they understand? or do they give us the answer they think we want, so that they may get on with thier lives in peace?

I noticed during the session that Lindsay and John would walk to the other side of the room when someone in the group was asking a question, or speaking out loud. It never felt like they walked away , but it meant that the speaker always had to project their voice across the room to communicate to the “safe” person- the teacher.
In our workshop, we demonstrate to groups with us (teacher) behind our workstation, and the students observing from the other side. This means that everyone can see, and everyone is close enough to ask a question if they so wish, but I do notice that I can loose them to the ‘herd’ of the class and often students ask the peer next to them if they missed something, or didn’t understand.
I wonder if there is a way of incorporating something like this to encourage the groups I teach to speak out more, or not to rely on their friends understanding rather than to ask a question.

I noticed in the discussion, that the aim of a lot of these conversations is to “end with questions”. As a technician, with a very problem solving focus to my role, this feels alien, and uncomfortable. I have been taught to find the answers to every question that is brought up. I trust this feeling will subside as I begin to understand the value of learning over longer periods of time again.

The discussion of the session moved then towards assessment, and the learning objectives for both ourselves, and our students. I remembered the Albert Einstein Quote – “Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it would live it whole life believing that it’s stupid.”
A cartoon has since expanded on this idea, in regards to standardised testing, saying that if you compared standardised testing to asking a fish, a monkey, a giraffe and an elephant to climb a tree, only one would graduate, and the rest would be failures.

We discussed further how even an understanding of this concept- at art school, can still show itself up. The students know they need to experiment, so they all do the same three things to show that they have been experimenting. The experimentation itself, becomes formulaic, and nothing more than a tick-box exercise. I see this in the workshop, when students have an idea, but want it to be finished as soon as possible. I often encourage them to test, make dummies, try different materials out to find the one that works best with the concept, and so often the reality is that they take whichever option will have the project finished fastest.

Somewhat ironically, the class was then lead to discuss our own learning objectives for the PgCert. I was thankful to be paired with a vert “scholarly” peer, as I find distilling the jargon in these elements almost unbearable.

In the spirit of finishing with questions, here is what came up for me today.
– What does it mean to split people up into A,B,C,D?
– What is the purpose of grades, and putting someone into a grade? What does that person get out of it?
– What does A+, or excellent mean? Does everyone want to be excellent by the predetermined standards?
– How might all of this have an effect on the conceptual and physical work my students are making?

Book recommendation: RESEARCH FOR PEOPLE WHO (THINK THEY) WOULD RATHER CREATE by Dirk Vis

What is artistic research? What is a research document? How do these relate to the making process, invention, and creativity? What exactly is expected of me? If you have ever asked yourself any of these questions, then this book is for you. Research For People Who (Think They) Would Rather Create addresses all relevant aspects that need to be considered during a research and documentation process, such as: finding the right topic and approach; formulating your research question; working out your methods; choosing one or more suitable writing styles; and considering the possible roles of visual, virtual, auditory, embodied, and spatial materials.

Research For People Who (Think They) Would Rather Create shows a multitude of examples from the field of art and design – each of which illustrates one specific aspect of developing a thesis, essay, paper, research document, or however else it may be referred to in your own setting. You can read this book from cover to cover, or you can immediately flip to those subjects which you find most relevant at any given moment. Ultimately, Research For People Who (Think They) Would Rather Create is an invitation to contribute – quite literally, with your own projects, examples, and questions – since the ultimate goal is to help you develop your own research.

Footnotes on Feelings

I was excited to meet my peers today, but also nervous due to the feeling of not being scholarly enough. I was worried that this feeling would amplify in a group setting, as seemingly all the other students could discuss and keep up a discourse, that I felt i was having to translate before i could join in.

Luckily though this feeling dissipated almost immediately, as everyone in the group is very friendly, and though there is a real difference to the experience of teaching for technicians, this difference was welcomed, as exposure to a new and distinct style of teaching, which has as much to offer as any academic background.

In preparation for the course seminar on Wednesday I read Allan Davies article Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?
Alan led UAL’s Centre for Learning & Teaching in Art & Design several years ago and the article below was described as ” offer[ing] a balanced critique of outcomes-based learning and assessment from a position of considerable experience working with art and design HE institutions.
I was asked as I read the article to:

• nod sagely at the things you knew already
• raise your eyebrows at anything that is new to you
• google things you’ve never heard of (e.g. Bloom’s taxonomy, SOLO, Constructive Alignment, QAA)
• OPTIONAL: you might want to write, sketch or speak a blog post about how—and to what extent—the author’s observations and examples of art & design assessment correspond with your own experience.

Nods – 5
Eyebrows – 6
Googles – Hussey and Smith
– Norm referenced vs Criterion Referenced
– John Biggs SOLO taxonomy
– Bloom Taxonomy

I was trying to read this while working in the workshop, so was interrupted a lot through the day with student enquiries. However, as this is such horribly dense material, it was actually refreshing to come back to a paragraph i had left, and find i had more understanding once i had returned after a small break doing something irl with a student.

Speaking with Andrew today, we discussed how a lot, if not all the material of the course so far feels very directed towards the academics, and it is hard to understand how to apply this to my role as a technician.
I was not sure of should try to relate it to technical work, or to understand it theoretically as an academic. I have no problem following it theoretically, but i have been struggling to feel motivated as it is all so far from my actual role.

We discussed that though to asses a student, and create learning outcomes doesn’t exists in the same way in our roles, we are constantly assessing students abilities, in as much as “are they capable of doing this on their own?” and guiding them towards objectives – leaving the workshop with a piece of work finished to a professionall standard.

On the bus on the way into work this morning, I listened to one of my regular Podcasts, Culture Vulture by Shit You Should Care About.
In this episode they were discussing Intrinsic vs Extrinsic motivation.
This itself was an unremarkable episode, but at 26mins 32seconds they discussed the effect this had on them at school, and how the teachers opinions had an effect on their motivations and interest in various classes

Culture Vulture – Why do we do ANYTHING? – 26:32

In Book Arts, we are teaching a series of workshops with Library Special Collections staff this term, and as they are new, I sat in to listen to their part of the talk. I have now sat in on two workshops with two different speakers from the Library. One of these sessions was for a first year course booked session, and one was an open access, all students sign up session.

It was interesting to observe consciously this morning, after Lindsay’s talk yesterday about Peer Observation, and notice the difference in student engagement, due to the delivery of the talk, different levels of interactivity, as well the distinction between those students who had been asked by their tutor to come, vs those had signed up for themselves.