Contextual background
As a teacher who works primarily in one to one tutorials with students I am often concerned that I am only giving one form of feedback. Not only does this mean that teaching sessions could become one-dimensional and unengaging for students but it also means that I may not be meeting the specific needs for different students by using a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
Evaluation
I recently carried out a teaching session under observation, it was the first time I had gone through this process and I was surprised to receive feedback from both my tutor and course peer which discussed a number of feedback methods I had used in addition to individual tutorials. I began the session by setting out the tasks we would be working on and what the intended outcomes would be, then allowed opportunity for questioning and discussion of this. I also gave feedback on group work which they had carried out since I last saw them, here questioning them about where they collectively felt the work should progress to and interjected where I felt the conversation needed guidance. Finally I asked students to pin up their individual work from the past week in order for the students to see, comment and gain inspiration from one another’s work.
Upon reflection I was working with students individually and as a group whilst attempting to foster an atmosphere where they could give peer to peer feedback. I hope that this gives a range of responses to student work that gives them a well-rounded understanding of how to progress, however I feel I can now take a more active approach to this, both in terms of planning individual sessions and in thinking about assessment across a whole project.
Moving forward
In the context of the diagrams set out by Mark Russell in Assessment Patterns: a review of the possible consequences I could consider the layering of feedback at different ‘stakes’ levels to ensure ongoing commentary on student projects and their continual engagement. I feel that weekly tutorials can be categorised as low stakes, but I would like to encourage more peer feedback through students presenting their work for discussion as a form of medium stakes assessment. This could be through pairing with another studio so that they are seeing work they are unfamiliar with, and coordinating peer feedback rather than focussing on tutor feedback. By removing myself to an oversight role I hope students wouldn’t expect or wait for me to contribute, whilst allowing space to do so where I felt it was necessary to ensure responses were in line with learning outcomes.
I would also like to integrate object-based learning into my teaching practice as I found the microteaching sessions very useful in contextualising wider narratives associated with the course. Interactions with an object give tacit feedback which can be more openly interpreted by students allowing them to give unique and critical responses.
References
Hardie, K. (2015) Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching | Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/wow-power-objects-object-based-learning-and-teaching (Accessed: 8 March 2024).
Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.
Russell, M. et al. (2018) ‘The ESCAPE Project: Background, Sustainability and Transferability’, in International Trends in Educational Assessment. Brill, pp. 40–50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393455_004.
XPE Jan 2024 Part 1 (no date). Available at: https://ual.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=434432c5-f0b3-49ea-9a8c-b10600e46c3e (Accessed: 1 March 2024).