My intervention focusses on the presentation and format of feedback during in-person reviews. I have been teaching architecture for a number of years with a key component of the curriculum being formative and summative reviews or crits. Students have an opportunity to present their work, personally reflect upon it and receive verbal feedback from their peers and tutors. Each student will receive hand-written feedback from a tutor and a peer (Appendix Fig. 1). This must be produced during the review so it requires reviewers to simultaneously listen, reflect, write and speak in order to keep to the limited times each review is afforded. As a result the feedback is sometimes disjointed or illegible because it is based on the writers’ handwriting and ability to write quickly and logically whilst taking in and responding to stimuli.
The potential lack of clarity in the feedback places a disadvantage on students with dyslexia, multilingual students, and students with ADHD who may have difficulty keeping track of physical documents (NHS, 2017). I studied architecture myself and received feedback this way, even as a British person with English as my primary language and no diagnosed neurodivergence I sometimes struggled to interpret feedback if it wasn’t recorded clearly. I teach a broad spectrum of students with a variety of learning requirements so I recognise that it is necessary to recognise exclusionary practices and build anti-exclusion methods to accommodate the whole (Noel and Paiva, 2021).
I propose to change the feedback format from physical to digital. This would have a number of advantages:
- It would enable me to write faster and copy universal feedback from other students therefore spending more time engaging with the student’s presentation.
- The resulting text will be clear and readable.
- Multilingual students will be able to easily copy and translate the text if necessary.
- I could pass on the feedback in a way which makes it easy for students to find and hard to lose.
- Prior to sending out feedback it would be easily editable.
- I will be able to include links to references making them easy to find for students.
This could be a simple switch to using the same form as is used currently but writing feedback digitally, however the Universal Design for Learning Guidelines emphasise that, regardless of whether or not a students has diagnosed learning difficulties, every student will be suited to learning in a different way and giving options is important to cater to each individual (CAST, 2018). Therefore feedback could use other platforms/media such as Miro or Padlet, in which feedback can be presented non-linearly or more visually, enabling connections to be made between multiple sources and references to be easily seen (Appendix Fig. 2, 3). The use of these platforms is already supported by UAL so students would simply need to create a login and have access to a phone or computer. Given the majority of university correspondence is via email or Moodle it is safe to assume this would not be considered a barrier to access. Feedback could even be given as a recording, either a video/audio recording of the conversation in the review or as a follow up to the review which summarises the points raised. Although this might improve accessibility for some students it does not have the added benefit of interactivity that the other models offer.
It is also important to recognise that there is a correlation between being both multilingual and from an ethnic minority. The 2021 census found that 9.2% of the English population don’t speak English as their first language, with London having some of the highest concentrations of other predominant languages in the country (Office for National Statistics, 2022). Within the BA Architecture course 43.2% of students are B.A.M.E (the diversity terminology used for data measurement) and 39.2% are from the EU or Overseas (UAL Active Dashboards, 2024). This means that a number of students are both multilingual and from an ethnic minority establishing intersecting disadvantages which may contribute to the current attainment gap of 16% between home White and home B.A.M.E students in BA Architecture.1 In addition an intersectional understanding of race and dyslexia puts ethnic minorities at a disadvantage due to the embedded racism present in IQ testing which forms a part of dyslexia screening, something which in itself is financially inaccessible to many who don’t qualify for home student subsidies (Davies, 2022). Within my own context if I assume an ongoing average of 12 students whom I teach, statistically five will be B.A.M.E and two will have a declared disability, based on 18.2% of students declaring a disability in BA Architecture (UAL Active Dashboards, 2024) (Appendix Fig. 4). Changes in the presentation and format of feedback would therefore be of benefit to a broad spectrum of my students both now and in the future.
Freire advocates for a move away from the ‘banking’ model of teaching in which teachers convey information for students to absorb and towards a dialogic exchange of knowledge between student and teacher in which both develop the students work in collaboration and learn from the experience (Freire, 1970). Within the review itself I often ask students to give verbal feedback on one another’s work before I give my own in an attempt to breakdown the perception of hierarchy with the tutor as the only ‘expert’ present. This in addition to the written peer feedback is a move towards empowering student’s critical voices and giving them a sense of ownership over their education. However it comes with it’s own challenges in the social interactions between students and having the confidence to be critically constructive about something so personal as a peer’s project. By opening up the feedback format the aim would be to enter into a student/teacher collaboration that further empowers them as self-regulated learners (Nicol and Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). A digital format in which students are able to contribute collectively could enable anonymity if that were preferred, and remove another layer of hierarchy between teacher and student or even within student relationships.
During the COVID-19 pandemic I was unable to teach students in-person so we used Miro to create digital platforms in which students could see one another’s work and attach comments to it. This established a continuously developing digital space for students to record their projects, reflect upon its development, view it in the context of other portfolios and produce drawn or written annotations to assist one other. Although this was arguably in a heightened atmosphere of collaboration given the pandemic and lack of alternatives, it showed that such digital formats were effective in establishing a non-hierarchical classroom structure which Freire advocated for.
I have not had an opportunity to test these forms of feedback with students as it is out of term time but drawing upon this previous experience I feel confident that a streamlined version of what was previously used could be of benefit. Prior to reviews with my next cohort of students I could give out a short questionnaire which asks students how they would like to receive their feedback to give a more tailored approach to each individual (Appendix Fig. 5). I could also ask them to reflect upon their own work – either privately or as part of the review – aligning with Freire’s definition of praxis as the “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1970). Their feedback is then established as a collaboration between themselves, their tutors and their peers from early stages through to their final reviews.
In discussing my proposal with fellow design tutors as well as Language Development professionals at UAL they have generally agreed it would be a positive change. They confirmed issues with students misplacing physical feedback as well as understanding that handwriting is not always legible enough for everybody. Some suggested that it was their preference to work by hand as this made it easier to integrate sketches into the feedback which I agree is a barrier if one is required to scan sketches into feedback, though not insurmountable. One colleague said that they didn’t use a laptop because of physical difficulties, highlighting an allowance which I hadn’t anticipated. This could potentially be addressed by using a phone, tablet or university provided equipment. It was highlighted that it would be important to link feedback to Learning Outcomes in each feedback format which may be more difficult in less linear presentations. Finally several highlighted that this might create more work for tutors, something which I agree with and struggle to find a solution for without a change in feedback requirements or contracted hours from the university.
In my working environment assessment is a regular point of contention for Hourly Paid staff in precarious employment positions who across universities in the UK are already proven to be working significantly over their contracted hours. A 2021 UCU report found that when multiplying working hours up from fractional working weeks HPLs and those on zero hours or term-time only contracts worked an average of four additional unpaid days per week (UCU, 2021). The largest respondent demographic for this report were teaching staff in Humanities and the Arts. It is important when considering adaptations to teaching for the sake of student welfare and engagement to also consider our own. The improvement of teaching practices is essential in creating a fair and equitable environment for all students to learn, but this needs to be built upon appropriate support for staff and an institutional culture focussed on engaging all students if it is to be sustainable and effective in the long term.
1 This data does not take into account EU and Overseas students so I am unable to comment on how attainment would be affected by their inclusion.
References:
Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2014) ‘Challenging students: enabling inclusive learning’, in A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 4th edn. Routledge.
CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/representation/ (Accessed: 1 July 2024).
Davies, M. (2022) ‘The White Spaces of Dyslexic Difference: An Intersectional Analysis’, in S. Broadhead (ed.) Access and Widening Participation in Arts Higher Education: Practice and Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 143–158. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97450-3_7.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by M.B. Ramos. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
NHS (2017) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – Symptoms, nhs.uk. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-adhd/symptoms/ (Accessed: 28 June 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.
Noel, L.-A. and Paiva, M. (2021) ‘Learning to Recognize Exclusion’, Journal of Usability Studies, 16(2), pp. 66–72.
Office for National Statistics (2022) Language, England and Wales. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/
bulletins/languageenglandandwales/census2021 (Accessed: 5 July 2024).
UAL (2023) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report 2022/23. University of the Arts London.
UAL Active Dashboards (2024) Student Profiles: Characteristics. Available at: https://dashboards.arts.ac.uk/dashboard/ActiveDashboards/DashboardPage.aspx?dashboardid=5c6bb274-7645-4500-bb75-7e334f68ff24&dashcontextid=638557725396496203 (Accessed: 5 July 2024).
UCU (2021) Workload survey 2021. University and College Union. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/12905/UCU-workload-survey-2021-data-report/pdf/WorkloadReportJune22.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2024).
Appendices:
Figure 1 – Currently used feedback form.
Figure 2 – Examples of Miro
Figure 3 – Example of Padlet.
Figure 4 – UAL Dasboards data (BA Architecture 2023/24)
Figure 5 – Feedback questionnaire for students.