Contextual Background
Implement strategies to allow students to understand Assessment Criteria (AC) at a deeper level and contextualise them within larger frameworks, defining what makes a good architectural project. Examining AC applications and relevance beyond the boundaries of the University.
Evaluation
The teaching of AC in design studio is ineffectual, largely due to time constraints. I attempt to weave in key words and concepts relating to AC to my tutor group, but these are informal, unstructured and with no supporting recourses. There is little communication on the subject between the wider department and hourly paid lecturers (HPL’s), I do not know how much students know about AC. We heavily rely on them to provide feedback to students year-round and yet there is a dissonance between using them within marking protocols versus their comprehension by the student body.
Moving forwards
‘Attempts to blur the boundaries between the ‘real world’ and academia are the essential characteristics of signature pedagogies’ (Shreeve, 2017) is the gold standard for teaching practices for creative practitioners. This is a good lens with which to view the relevance of AC as often their role can be seen as a reductive measuring stick rather than the basic hallmarks of a good architectural project. Going forward it is critical to map the language and definitions of AC with good corresponding examples of work beyond the University. A programme of events, including lectures by external practitioners, workshops and activities would be an effective way to communicate key ideas, at the same time to reinforce how the AC is located within wider contexts of practice. A diluted version of this would be to create short presentations for my tutor group on the above themes.
‘Learners who are more self-regulated are more effective learners; they are more persistent, resourceful, confident and higher achievers’ (Race, 2001)
A strategy to increase self regulation is to involve the students in clarifying ‘what good performance is’ (Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). For example ‘AC Enquiry’ could be investigated from multiple perspectives in a workshop setting, contrasting primary and secondary modes of research through productive tasks. Tutors could help facilitate the definitions of quality but essentially students design their own criteria for best practice. It is important this is formalised into a document to use as an ongoing resource and tool for measurement. More beneficial than at a formal review, is the use of such a resource during informal group pin ups (as well as individually away from class) where it is hoped students lead exchanges in critiquing their own and each others work.
The above would benefit from being part of a repeat process as subsequent years grow in ambition and complexity. Not all AC are created equal, some are extremely large like ‘AC Knowledge’ which measures the overall success of a design and its relationship to context. It can take designers years to understand this. It is also at its highest level, a moving target with plastic qualities, where sometimes magic resides. It is important to make room for these kinds of nuanced and complex conversations within new strategies.
Some pilot research into the benefits of new workshops might encourage implementation of activities year wide. Otherwise, some brave planning in collaboration with stage leaders could lead to partitioned teaching days and a blended approach.
References
- Macfarlane-Dick, D. N. &. D., 2006. Studies in higher education- formative assessment and relf regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback. s.l.:Routledge.
- Race, P., 2001. A briefing on self, peer and group assessment, s.l.: LTSN Generic Centre.
- Shreeve, S. O. &. A., 2017. Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Milton : Taylor and Francis Group.