Assessing learning and exchanging feedback
As a technician, I have a different relationship with students. One reason is that technicians don’t assign grades for students’ work. Because of this, I feel the relationship is less hierarchical, making it easier for students to ask questions and share their work. Another aspect of my connection with students is that I don’t ‘live’ in a specific space, which promotes a more Nomadic Pedagogy emphasising flexibility, adaptability, and a willingness to explore and experiment with teaching and learning approaches (McLain, 2023). Additionally, I don’t focus on a single topic or skill to support them. Instead, I can assist them with various technical skills, ranging from analogue techniques, such as mark-making, to digital immersive technologies like Augmented Reality. This stands in contrast to signature pedagogies, which describe common approaches used across a discipline (Shulman, 2005).
The combination of not grading students and the multiskilled focus of the tutorials, held in various physical spaces, enables them to view their projects from different perspectives. For instance, when I conduct photography tutorials in the studio, the emphasis is entirely on that subject, narrowing students’ questions to one aspect of their project at a time. I have noticed that this integrative approach to technical tutorials allows students to see their work with fewer constraints from the required academic content; the tutorial transforms into a more ‘real-world’ experience (without overlooking the brief they need to respond to). Professional education is not just about understanding; it is preparation for accomplished and responsible practice (Shulman 2005).
Since I started the Pg.Cert, I’ve been considering that my tutorials with students also serve as a form of self-assessment for them. When we discuss their projects, it becomes a dialogue rather than a one-way conversation where I merely discuss potential improvements. Student self-assessment can be even more valuable when the evidence to be assessed is intrinsically personal, such as reflective logs, diaries, action plans, and so on (Race, 2001). A frequent topic that arises in my tutorials is that students receive varying feedback from different tutors on the same project, sometimes even contradictory feedback. This can confuse them because they are unsure which approach to follow. During my university experience, I learnt that no one knows a project better than the person working on it. Therefore, I remind them that they understand what is best for their project (without forgetting that they need to meet the brief). Race states that tutor assessment is not sufficiently valid, reliable, or transparent because they already know how to complete the task and have not merely learned to do it. I find this thought interesting, one that tutors sometimes forget because we are so accustomed to utilising skills students encounter for the first time. I believe this philosophy should permeate the tutorial and feedback sessions as well as the entire course. In my experience with the courses I teach, they aren’t designed that way. Sometimes, the learning outcomes are created without considering that students haven’t done this before and don’t have those skills yet.
References:
McLain, M. (2023) ‘Book review: A Nomadic Pedagogy about Technology: Teaching the Ongoing Process of Becoming Ethnictechnologically Literate by J.R. Dakers’, Brill Academic Publishers.
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre.
Shulman, L.S. (2005). Signature Pedagogies in the Professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.
https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015