Reflection on Neil Currant’s lecture by Mikha Mekler
I reviewed the session by Neil Currant on compassionate assessment and found it mind-opening. I always struggle with over-empathy and over-compassion especially as I teach 100% international student cohorts and understand the extra challenges my students take on. My students are largely very bright but being away from home and often combatting a fairly new second language and a new system adds layers that I often feel the university has not fully addressed.
The way I show compassion aside from being truly interested in the students and their cultures and backgrounds is that I give my students all of the knowledge and experience I have and facilitate easy access to me and my knowledge. I broaden and update my own knowledge through a range of means and gather it for the students to tab into freely and generously. I share all I have with individuals, small groups and classes. My strategy is that if I give them everything I have and they act on it and process then they are set for success.
I am however left to trust in the institutions’ policies and processes in implementing Learning Outcomes and quality assurance and we operate within those frameworks. Sometimes we come across students who do not always fit the structure. At times this is challenging as they are clever and talented in their own way but not when they are here to be formed within our process and the system does not wholly fit them.
This comes to a head when the Learning Outcomes are ambiguous and students are unsure of what they are required to do (Davies, 2018). This happened to me a few times and since then I make sure that I have clarified with the course leader which of the Learning Outcomes are addressed by the components the students are submitting and I can help them shape those around their personal expertise and interests. I am however resolute in thinking that the language in the Learning Outcomes could be simplified in some units I teach on and hope to be able to work into this when it comes to reevaluating the units.
Questioning the function of assessments during the lecture was an interesting excursion revisiting practices of the pandemic of pass/ fail assessments and this assessment practice takes away a large portion of the measurability of the work which Davies (2018) states is the foundation of constructing Learning Outcomes. It is impossible to understand the position of the students if a range is not given which I am sure is more disconcerting to the students than to the tutors. We are an awarding body said Neil and I am adding that the award might need to be earned at a university hence we need to be structured so we can produce talent ready for a challenging industry. This makes good sense and is an internal reminder for me to lean on when constructive feedback is given.
I typically try to lay out the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria very clearly over the unit and refer back to them often especially when I find gaps in students’ work so the student is able to construct their assessments according to what is required. In order to understand what this would look like I enjoyed and exercise during Seminar 1 when I was paired with Andrew Goldberg and we worked on expectations in order to be able to assess, moderate and benchmark the assessments.
Andrew and I were really well aligned in what we expected and could draw the above table up with relative ease. I was relieved at this and take faith that with some thought we can achieve at least fairness. Neil explained via Arthur (2023) that fairness is constructed if everyone starts at the same place which our students do not. Students come with a range of talents, challenges and privileges and do have not got an even starting plan.
Students will have to work harder at individual elements of their assignments depending on the education they have had prior but are we able to balance the challenges against talents and privileges? The procedure of implementing learning outcomes and assessment criteria is a function of devising fairness by treating everyone the same.
Lastly, I was really interested in thinking about the function of feedback. Feedback as a motivator was mentioned by Neil. In my view, this is all it should be, an opportunity to review the work and understand how to improve the work. This realisation helps as an overriding attitude when assessing next time. What is helpful to the student and what is not. I am trying to think about how my feedback is perceived. Sometimes too positive, sometimes perhaps a little too factual referring back to the Learning Outcomes and the assessment brief, reminding them what they needed to do while I push the square peg hopefully gently into the round hole. I worry that I cannot change the hole as I get in trouble with fairness and in conflict with other tutors marking the same unit. So all that is left is changing the peg.
What would happen if we just passed or failed students? Is pass/fail a motivator enough and perhaps to the detriment of the better students and the benefit of the less confident students. Of course in the industry the higher achieving students have better initial access to the workplace but does this mean that the student at university must be trained to be competitive? The disjointed place we are in as tutors are that we would like to work collaboratively but as a world-class institution, we are under pressure to produce world-class talent for the industry and make the education pay off for the students. Another conundrum that we need to navigate and balance.
Neil mentioned that for feedback to work trust is key. The trust of the student in our ability, trust in our knowledge and trust that we want the best for the student. In this case, how can we build trust between students and tutors – when our system encourages distrust between tutors and students through penalties and a punitive and unforgiving system? Can we uncouple that? Can trust be built outside of the assessment so this can be detached? Can students feedback on the feedback provided and form how tutors approach feedback? When I input the grades in the marking criteria in the OATS sheets I am pleased that the sentences are prewritten for me as they are not attachable to me as a person. The written feedback is different in the assessment and I stay on the factual side assessing the projects and not the student but often I feel removed from the people and from myself.
I am choosing in my practice to deliver constructive feedback in person and with a solution attached e.g
Problem: The layout is not communicating well and it is hard to know where to look for information in your portfolio.
Solution: Have a look at these graphic and layout resources and decide on a style you like and follow through with it in your portfolio.
If a student has gaps I identify those and tell them proactively how to plug the gaps. I realise that this is often overwhelming too especially when there are a lot of gaps. I realise that I am doing this as I would like to give all of my students the same opportunity to get the best grade possible. I am questioning if this is compassionate or counterproductive as at times it can feel that I load more work onto them.
REFERENCES
Davies, A (2018), Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? – Arts and culture (no date). Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem