During the discussion for our readings about assessments and feedback, I had a really lovely conversation with the rest of the people in my group that made me feel frustrated but also validated. I was sharing my thoughts on “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice” (Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006), and fed back to the group how my view of the paper was impacted by my job role as a technician (as stated in a previous blog post). I was the only technician in the group, so I was surprised at their surprise that in my department technicians are not a part of assessments and final marking. This led to a really interesting conversation about how we feel the university’s goals don’t always align with what they are advertising. I know that that is a hefty statement to make, but in my experience and those of others in the group, the final physical item(s) or the process of how items are made are usually not what’s marked at the end of a unit. The London College of Fashion is a technical college that has practical degrees, how is that appropriate? We are trying to teach our students how to make things and yet that is not at all what they are being marked on. If a course produces physical final items but the marking is based on a digital submission, how does that enforce to the students that the quality and the process of the making is just as important? I personally feel that one of the reasons why our students may not feel prepared for industry, as I so often hear from final years and returning alum, is that our assessments place importance on the wrong part of the process. Or maybe it’s that it’s just too much importance on that part, and that the importance needs to be equally spread. Either way, I do not hold the answers to this, and I certainly do not hold the power to change assessment or unit criteria, but it is something I feel strongly about and probably deserves more ruminating.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, Volume 31 Number 2, pp. 199-218.