Our cohort met for the first time in person at LCC on the 27th January. In groups of three we examined an artefact from our teaching practice and considered its aims, how it is used, what is assessed and how it is assessed. To complete this activity, Tonia, Irti and I looked at the unit brief for one of Irti’s modules at the Creative Coding Institute. We talked about the difficulty of assessing the module because, on the one hand students are intended to learn technical skills from the module, but on the other more profound level the aim is for them to understand how they can use within the context of their creative practice. This certainly chimed with the points Davies makes (see this blog post) about creating effective learning outcomes for art and design. Irti spoke about how the module formerly had tests, making it similar to common approaches to learning computer science, but how ultimately the assessment has changed to become more project based.
We were then asked to create a poster to explain how we might redesign the artefact. We spoke about how unit briefs are often long documents that students don’t often read although they might benefit a lot of they did, as they contain key information about the course structure, learning outcomes and assessment. In the context of the creative computing frameworks module, we considered whether there is further risk of this, as the technical terminology may further dissuade students from reading. An additional consideration is that lengthy course documents are not an inclusive way of presenting this information for those with dyslexia.
In our poster, we therefore wondered if there was a way of visually presenting the same information so that it is more accessible to students. We attempted to convey the learning outcomes visually (below) although this was difficult to pull off in the time we had!
I do certainly thing that there is something in this approach though. Even if the information was presented in a flow chart stye with a template that could be re-used across different courses and programmes. It may encourage a greater engagement with this key information from the outset.
TPP’s learning outcomes
- LO1: Interpret theories, policies and pedagogies in the context of your evolving practice. [Knowledge]
- LO2: Critically evaluate your approach to planning, teaching and assessment using self-reflective frameworks and observations/reviews of practice. [Process]
- LO3: Appraise your ongoing personal and professional development. [Realisation] LO4: Articulate your pedagogic ideas, experience and expertise for the benefit of the programme community. [Communication]
- LO4: Articulate your pedagogic ideas, experience and expertise for the benefit of the programme community. [Communication]
In the face to face session we focused on LO1 for the course and how this blog could be assessed to measure our mastery of the LO. In my group of three, we struggled with applying UAL’s level 7 assessment criteria to the blog activity. Initially we thought a D would apply to the bare minimum in terms of submitting 4 X 250 word blog posts that align with the topics on the course. Building on that a C would have a more critical element rather than purely being descriptive. But as we continued to discuss this, it felt as though criticality as well as inclusion of practical/conceptual/technical knowledges was also the minimum requirement. We then couldn’t understand how to practically decide how, once a student has submitted all of this, that someone could be marked as excellent while another might just be very good.
We therefore felt that a pass and a refer system made more sense. And that this allowed for everyone to be excellent, as excellent will be different for each individual person… specifically in the context of this module where we are engaging with theories and reflecting on our practice, this process will be individual and different for every member of the course, so provided everyone meets the criteria they should pass.