CASE-STUDY I: Knowing and meeting the needs of diverse learners
Introduction and background
The professional practice studios are an off-site space designed to support students in developing their practice beyond the university environment. The space comprises three areas: a project space, a studio space, and an exhibition/event space. I oversee the operations of the space and also provide guidance to students in realising their projects, whatever form they may take. Since the space opened in February 2023, the process has largely been one of discovery: understanding what students need and identifying how best to support them in their learning and creative endeavours.
Evaluation
Feedback and Student Engagement
My approach to feedback has been largely informal. I engage in direct conversations with students, asking why they do or do not use the space and how they perceive its value. I made a formal feedback form available on the space’s website, but no students have used it. As a result, the feedback I receive is limited, though I actively respond to what they request. The absence of structured feedback presents a challenge. It means that even if I adapt the space and my support based on what I observe, I lack an understanding of student needs.
Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners
Students engage with the space in different ways and with varying levels of experience. Some students are confident in the way they approach the space and their activities, while others may struggle in ways that only become apparent too late in their project timelines.
For instance, one student planned an exhibition but had no prior experience in exhibition-making. She struggled to write the risk assessment, partly due to unfamiliarity with the English terminology and processes, and faced difficulties identifying suppliers and understanding the steps required to install her exhibition and organise the drinks reception. This only became apparent during her preparations when issues surfaced, leaving little time for me to support her.
I think there might be a lack of communication channels in which I am not succeeding in passing the messages and the other way round a lack of students communicating with me to tell me what they need.
Moving Forward
Show availability: Although I encourage students to approach me and always welcome them into the space, my focus on daily tasks – whether administrative work or meetings with staff and students, both in-person and online – may create the impression that I am unavailable. Implementation: Introduce designated drop-in hours where students know they can find me specifically for project-related discussions. Ensure my availability is clearly communicated through signage in the space and online.
Communication About My Role: Students may not be fully aware of the support I can offer or how to access it. Implementation: Clarify my role and the ways I can assist students by making this information more visible – website for those accessing information online and within the studios, through posters or direct announcements.
Establish More Structured Check-Ins: Without a formalised way for students to share their progress or challenges, issues often surface too late in the process. Implementation: Introduce periodic check-ins – either as informal group discussions or one-on-one sessions – to understand student needs early and address potential challenges before they escalate.
Accessible Feedback System: The existing feedback is not an effective method for gathering student input. Implementation: Explore alternative anonymous feedback methods, such as a suggestion box in the space or a visual survey where students can place dots next to statements they agree with.
CASE-STUDY II: Planning and teaching for effective learning
Introduction and background
As part of their first-term assessment, students are required to submit a portfolio containing various materials, including images of their work, an artist statement, research, and reflection on their work and development. To help students understand the task and expectations – without being overly prescriptive and limiting creativity – examples of past students’ portfolios with varied qualities and approaches were provided as references. These portfolios are not meant to be followed literally, but for students to understand the possibilities, differences, and the way in which they reflect past students’ art practice. This inadvertently led to confusion among students, who produced submissions that did not align with their potential or the assessment criteria. Some lacked key components, such as research context and reflections, while the standard of documentation was lower than expected at MA level.
Evaluation
Retrospectively, the inclusion of past students’ portfolios was intended as a self-regulation tool (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, p.199), helping students grasp the standards expected by tutors. However, according to Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s seven principles of good feedback practice, students should have a clear understanding of what constitutes good performance. In this case, the portfolio examples did not achieve their intended purpose of demonstrating diverse approaches; instead, they inadvertently led to imitation and failed to effectively communicate the expected standards (p.205). This was partly due to our assumption that students would be familiar with creating a portfolio, having done so for course applications and final assessments. Conversely, some students may have been overconfident in meeting the required standard. However, as this was their first time undertaking a Fine Art course at the postgraduate level, the expectations were significantly higher than those they had previously encountered.
Moving Forward
- Clearer communication regarding the purpose of the portfolio examples is essential. We need to explain why these specific portfolios were chosen and what students should take from them. A dedicated session where students critically evaluate these examples – identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement – could be helpful for them. This would also help students engage with the assessment criteria without directly using their own work.
- While we held workshops on specific portfolio elements (such as the artist statement), we did not dedicate sessions to the portfolio as a whole, despite its significance – it is one of only two ways students demonstrate they have met the learning outcomes for that unit. Adjusting the “assessment pattern” (Mark Russell 2010) by distributing high-stakes assessment activities across different weeks could give students a better grasp of expectations and help them develop the necessary skills to produce a strong portfolio. For instance, introducing a structured portfolio session where students create a first draft and receive feedback would allow them to refine their portfolio in alignment with their art practice and research and meet learning outcomes and assessment criteria. This approach – allowing time for feedback and building a strong tutor-student relationship (Barrow, 2010) – would also align with Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s seven principles of good feedback practice, particularly by clarifying what constitutes a successful outcome, providing students with tools to self-regulate their learning, and giving tutors information to help shape their teaching (p. 205).
References
Barrow, M. (2010) Assessment and students transformation: linking character and intellect
J. Nicol, D.; Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice.
Russel, M (2010) Assessment Patterns: a review of the possible consequences
CASE-STUDY III: Assessing learning and exchanging feedback
Introduction and background:
One of the key challenges in summative assessment for me is not knowing the full context of students’ learning journeys. This is because my contact with students is limited, due to my type of contract and also because some students do not work in their studios or miss tutorials with me. I also often miss the formative stages of their development, including discussions with other tutors and the course leader about the learning activities delivered. Without this context, it is difficult to determine what feedback students have already received and how it has shaped their responses to the work they need to complete for the assessment. Without a clear understanding of their progress, challenges, and prior feedback, assessment risks being disconnected from their development, potentially reinforcing gaps rather than addressing them.
Evaluation:
I have graded and feedbacked students based on their final submissions, following the assessment criteria and learning outcomes. However, with limited understanding of their learning process, I had to bridge gaps between many unknowns, making it harder to fairly, and to a certain extent objectively, evaluate their progress and acquired knowledge. Summative assessment must be objective and standardised, yet I may lack enough insight to fully contextualise the work.
- Without knowing how tasks were introduced, it was unclear whether students were responding to prior feedback or unaware of gaps in their understanding.
- There was a discrepancy between output and learning journey. Some have performed well during the unit, but struggled to evidence it, while others presented polished work that did not fully reflect their learning.
- It was almost impossible to evaluate outputs without knowing individual challenges, progress, and thinking behind.
- Without context, feedback risked reinforcing gaps rather than addressing them.
Moving forward:
Briggs has written extensively on the alignment of assessment criteria and learning outcomes in evaluating student progress (reference). However, the way these are structured remains beyond my control. Given the limited feedback available, how can I, as an individual tutor, actively support student learning within my remit?
David Nicol (2010) critiques traditional feedback as a monologue, a one-way process that frustrates both students and tutors. He advocates for a dialogic approach, where feedback becomes an interactive process that supports student reflection, self-regulation, and active participation. Some of his proposed strategies that could be effective in this context include:
- Engaging students in brief one-to-one check-ins before submission, even via email for those who do not use their studios.
- Providing specific, actionable guidance to help students understand how to improve in the next stage of their work and continue encouraging dialogue with them.
- Asking students to include additional materials, such as a short written reflection, to contextualise their decision-making. This could be facilitated through structured prompts.
Encourage students to document key moments of their development in a learning log or short reflection as part of their submission. Some already use Instagram to share their process, which could serve as a communication and contextual tool—incorporating images of their work, process, and interests alongside commentary. This approach would help students take ownership of their learning and provide valuable insight into their decision-making.
Work with other tutors and the course leader to provide more context for student work and understand shared expectations and consistency in assessment.
References
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559