Contextual Background: On the MA in Illustration and Visual Media at LCC, we use crits to formatively assess student learning and match feedback to relevant assessment criteria to help students prepare for summative assessment, in line with the view that crits are “the glue that connects learning, teaching and assessment” (Blythman et al, 2007, p. 6).
Evaluation: This comes with a challenge. On one hand, crits help students understand and apply criteria to navigate HE assessment and “many commentators have observed that curriculum elements where students have been involved in self- and/or peer-assessment are found, through formal assessments such as exams, to have been learned much more deeply” (Race, 2001, p. 22). On the other hand, the “learning which takes place is variable” (Blair 2007: n.pag.). Consequently, only some students are benefitting from crits.
Moving forwards, I want to ensure greater parity for students. To do this I could:
Discuss relevant assessment criteria with students at the beginning of the session in accordance with the view that “students need to be given agreed criteria to critique against” (Blythman et al, 2007, p. 5). Furthermore, I can involve students in choosing the criteria to help them “relate much more directly to the targets they need to achieve and to be more self-aware of their progress towards achieving them” (Race, 2001, p. 19). For example, asking students to identify criteria they find challenging and using these to guide the critique. This would also help establish a shared framework and goals.
Students’ verbal participation and understanding of what has been said often varies, this can result in an unequal experience. Using a glossary could “give common sense meanings to students, including those who may not have English as their first language” (Blythman et al, 2007, p. 18). I can print words and put them up around the classroom to help students share language. I will join in as students “find it helpful when lecturers explicitly model the types of feedback and dialogue that they hope to inculcate” (Blythman et al, 2007, p. 20). There is a very good glossary in Critiquing the Crit (Blythman et al, 2007) which I can borrow from.
I wholeheartedly agree that “the relationship between self-confidence and the quality of the student’s creative performance is critical to the quality of the learning experience of the individual student” and that “a negative experience or misunderstanding of the formative feedback . . . can result in the level of learning being affected” (Blair 2007: n.pag.). Creating a supportive environment is therefore essential. Blythman et al (2007) recommend crit pairings so students can review work together before the larger group crit. This is a clever way of building confidence and something I would like to explore (although I will need to be mindful of time).
Finally, I can incorporate feedback from crits into written summative assessment feedback. This will promote ipsative learning which “can be very powerful”, as “students who have engaged conscientiously with self-assessment and then receive feedback from a tutor on how objectively they have self-assessed, take the feedback very seriously” (Race, 2001, p. 14).
Taken together, these approaches can increase parity in crits – allowing more students to have a meaningful experience, prepare for assessment and “develop skills invaluable in later lifelong learning contexts, and their own ongoing continuing professional development” (Race, 2001, p. 23).
References:
Blair B. (2007). Perception/ Interpretation/Impact. Networks Magazine: 1:10-13. Art, Design Media Subject Centre. Brighton
Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B. (2007) Critiquing the Crit. Project Report. Higher Education Academy.
Race, P. (2001). A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre, Assessment Series No. 9.