Assessments and learning outcomes: A restrictive or empowering structure? How can we demystify the learning outcomes? Metric vs. ambiguity – the language of the learning outcomes is important, and we need to design for the most disadvantaged.
This week we were meeting fellow students (online) in a more engaged way and were asked to bring something to present and share with our fellow learners, a ‘learning artefact’. I brought one of my favourite seminar lectures about storytelling which included some exercises my students had previously enjoyed. One of the other lecturer/learners (Jayoon Choi) had brought along a peer review form which had been acting like an unofficial formative assessment, and a way of enabling the students to engage with the learning outcomes and also be critically reflective. This made me think of the formative assessment I had undertaken in last term and the ones I had to do this term for the LCC (see screenshots below). Interestingly I have only ever done formative assessments at UAL – Royal Holloway University, Westminster University, Falmouth University do not appear to do them on the modules I lecture on, modules which I took over from someone else. This has made me wonder whether a self-assessment form of some description (whether its an official formative assessment or simply an exercise in a seminar or workshop) could enhance the students critical analysis and reflection skills as well as enabling them to understand the learning outcomes and assessment process more clearly.
The session was incredibly provocative, during the session we also discussed the ethics of teaching as well as the assessment processes. I have never considered the assessment process from this perspective before, as a young associate lecturer on a zero hours contract at all the institutions I teach I have never considered the impact I could have on the assessment system and the ethics of teaching. After doing some of the reading for the PgCert I do question the ethics of a zero hours contract for an associate lecturer and how this indirectly impacts the students, I do not see any positives of this type of contract – I personally do so many hours at UAL across Chelsea and LCC, that a salaried position would make more sense. The reading suggests that lecturers need to feel supported by their institutions in order to have time to reflect on their teaching practice, raised by Kay Livingston in their chapter ‘Pedagogy and Curriculum – Teachers as Learners’ (Wyse, Hayward and Pandya, 2016); however time for reflection is time I cannot always afford on a zero hours contract as an associate lecturer.
Many questions came up from the session…
What are the ethics of teaching?
What are we fostering or enabling?
Coming from how you deliver it rather than the content, ‘The Hidden Curriculum’ – How much do you talk? How much do you listen?
How can you prepare students for the language of the learning outcomes?
How can you make the language more inviting? Language of the LO can discriminate, language is a barrier and gate keeps.
Who is the grading system for?
What are the ethics of grading?
Could the feedback be audio rather than written?
How can we reduce discrimination in the assessment process – diversity of lecturers assessing the work? Benchmarking?
Are we preparing students for the industry today or preparing them to shape the industry?
Reference list
Berg, M. and Seeber, B.K. (2017). The Slow Professor : Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Davies, A. (2012). Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in Art and design. What’s the Recurring problem? – Arts and Culture. [online] arts.brighton.ac.uk. 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.
Wyse, D., Hayward, L. and Pandya, J. (2016). The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. Los Angeles: Sage Reference.