Reflection on Workshop 3: Assessment & Feedback – Experiences / Insights / Expectations, Assessment in the Arts, and Crits.
Summary
We read a handout: Supporting inclusive and developmental crits: a guidance for staff at UAL document, sharing our thoughts with peers. Followed by designing an Inclusive Critique process by deciding on a teaching scenario, identifying a common student challenge to respond to, considering a range of participation strategies, incorporating at least one principal from each category from the handout guide. In groups, we presented or observed the critique designs of different teams, sharing feedback.
Reflection
For the Inclusive Crit design, the challenge we chose to address was providing a healthy balance between peer reviews and tutor / teacher checkpoints, to foster a sense of independence and progress alongside, and separately, from the course leaders.
This is best supported by focusing on ‘A’ principle:
“Ask the individual: Personalising discussions by asking what an individual would find most helpful in terms of feedback helps ensure focused and constructive comments. This also recognises their agency in the space and help flatten the hierarchy.”
Our design incorporates 2 tutor crits, supplemented by 3 incremental peer checkpoints, to offer several touchpoints for comprehension and progression, and slow down the process and widen the scope for a variety of voices and viewpoints to input each other. This was a focus on ‘B’ principle’:
“Build up: It can take students time to build confidence in and understanding of the crit process. Provide scaffolding for students, in terms of how to present and give feedback, and support them to build up skills incrementally over time.”
Brooks (2008) highlights how feedback that feels vague or impersonal can alienate learners—prompting my decision to embed personalised checkpoints into critique structures.
By creating the opportunity for students to create their own peer review platforms throughout the process, this allows them to choose their preferred format and methods, and self-organise for regular peer checkpoints using these as a basis for complimentary groupings. Barrow (2006) frames assessment as a tool for reflexive self-development—this resonates with my growing interest in post-university learning spaces where identity, confidence and direction continue evolving. Principle ‘C’:
“Choice: Equality Act 2010 requires us to make anticipatory adjustments. Proactively offer students a choice of ways to participate in Crits. This might include the choice of presenting in groups, online or via video recording, or providing a text summary over verbal description. When feeding back, this might include allowing students to feedback in Post-its, in pairs or online.”
Presenting and answering questions about the design helped to formulate a better understanding for myself, as well. Being put on the spot to declare thoughts and decisions and possible development brought my confidence of the subject matter and design-thinking skills to a higher level.
Next steps to apply learning
Being in an extra-curricular, opt-in service for people who have finished their university degree, I feel detached from the concepts around assessments seeing as I associate them with grades. And so do the graduates I interact with. “Danvers (2007) argues for the value of formative dialogue in creative disciplines—an approach I now see as highly transferable to post-course employability learning.” By doing this exercise I saw that I could utilise assessment practice for post-university learning too, to mirror the learning experiences from course level into graduate employability. The principles facilitated pinpointing concepts helpful for me to introduce into peer-to-peer learning, which I have identified is a gap in my learning content and delivery, based on the workshop and readings around the positives of assessment. As Race (2001) outlines, peer and self-assessment practices enable students to build ownership of their learning journey, and gain insight into the criteria that define quality work. The first trial of this approach has been to organise professional portfolio crits, making it clear that it is not a space to develop creative practice, but instead have peers critique and learn about producing and presenting portfolios for the job market, not for graded coursework.
References
Ellis, M., Sherwood, C. and Tran, D. (2024) Supporting inclusive and developmental crits: a guidance for staff at UAL. University of the Arts London and Arts Students’ Union. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/381364/Compassionate-feedback-prompts_Final_November-2022-3.pdf [Accessed 4 Apr. 2025].
Danvers, J. (2007) ‘Perspectives on creativity in visual arts education’, Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(2), pp. 232–241.
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre.
Brooks, K. (2008) ‘“Could do better?”: Students’ critique of written feedback’, Networks, 11, University of the West of England.
Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment regimes and technologies of the self’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), pp. 63–79.
