‘The Advantages and Disadvantages of Assessing learning and exchanging feedback in a Fine Art Context’.
Contextual Background
In my role as a tutor within the Foundation Painting specialism at Camberwell, I encounter diverse student needs and learning preferences. This environment comprises students from various cultural backgrounds, skill level, artist aspirations, language proficiencies, prior educational experiences, and personal motivations, necessitating a flexible and inclusive approach to assessment and feedback.
Evaluation
There are evidently advantages and disadvantages to assessing learning and exchanging feedback in Fine Art. The Criteria and learning outcomes (Los) are outlined within project briefings, tutorials and assessments. However, student’s preferences for structured verses autonomous learning styles vary Kolb (1984) believed we cannot perform both variables on a single axis at the same time (e.g. Think and feel). Moreover, the nature of Fine Art education, which involves exploration, trial and error, more unpredictable learning, adds complexity to aligning a standardised curriculum within individual learning paths. How we deal with a curriculum applicable to everyone yet meeting each student in a different way is crucial.
Moving forwards
Drawing from experiences, observations, and literature, I explore strategies in assessing learning and exchanging feedback in Fine Art Education ensuring focused learning for all:
Formal Tutorials and Formative Assessments: as learning play crucial roles in guiding student progress providing; structured, compassionate, constructive, rich, personalised feedback, better understanding their strengths and areas for improvement. Incorporating verbal and written feedback establishes connections, guides student progress toward feeding-forward, and allows for reflection. However, challenges arise in checking student learning, clarity and consistency. By clearly addressing the learning gaps between the assessment criteria, students know what’s required of them giving agency. Additionally unpacking assessment questions verbally and visually, where what’s missing, builds on consistency and planning.
Critique: offers valuable opportunities for students to receive feedback. Addison (2014), remarks on the necessity to balance assessment practices in Arts Education, between valuable insights and clear criteria and expectation, yet allowing for artistic exploration so both structure and freedom support the student learning journey.
As Sherwood (2022) indicates (Crits and Inclusive learning at UAL), addressing power imbalances and ensuring inclusivity within group discussions are essential.
Implementing various crit formats throughout the year seek to cater to diverse learner needs, achieve logistical parity and less bias. Smaller, partially peer-led crits can add value, promoting collaboration and offer alternative perspectives and interactions.
Self-Assessment: can be a powerful tool for generating meaningful feedback leading students research by joining up dots themselves, although tutor feedback is often missed where there is no tutor input. One approach is incorporating self and peer-assessment, as suggested by Race (2001), allowing students to take ownership of their learning processes and receive feedback exchanges or conversations, from multiple perspectives. Implementing structured criteria here can help students develop critical thinking skills and improve their ability to assess their own work.
I facilitated group discussion around assessment criteria enhancing students wider understanding, clarifying uncertainties and empowering them to self-assess prior to summative assessment. Gaining deeper understanding of how criteria related to their work and course objectives inspired connections between their learning. Additionally, implementing self-assessment within Crit contexts encourages active reflection.
I plan to refine formative-assessment practices based on ongoing reflection and feedback. Continuous evaluation and adaptation will create a more inclusive and effective learning environment.
References
- Addison, N. 2014). Doubting learning Outcomes in Higher education Contexts: from performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation. NSED/John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Lyon. C. (2023) CCW FAD Attainment data and our awarding gap, UAL
- Race, P. (2001). A briefing on Self, Peer, and group assessment.
- Sherwood, C. (2022). Crits and Inclusive Learning at UAL. Discussion Paper Arts SU Policy Team.