Case study 3
Assessing Learning and exchanging feedback
Peer-to-peer feedback and Removing Hierarchy
As a specialist technician on MA FDT WW/MW course, it allows me to spend time with students doing workshops and supervised studios space. This allows me to work closely with the academic team to allow the learning outcomes to be achieved by the students.
Moving to the new campus in Stratford has somewhat had its positives and negatives. I have more peer-to-peer conversations and learn different varieties of machinery that we have at the university. This is helping me with my teaching practise for the students, especially in giving formative feedback in the studio, the fitting sessions, and in my role.
Studio space: -are known at LCF as supervised studios spaces. This allows students to drop in when they’re not timetabled with academic staff, and work with technicians like me. I am assigned to a specific MA course, this allows me to know all my students, so this gives a chance for students to have one to one formative feedback with me on what they stand for as designers and how are they going to have a voice in fashion. I can refer to my own industry background working for several fashion houses and creating my own bridal brand. Students enjoy this time together as it allows them to relax and feel more free about discussions or problems that their facing with their projects.
Fitting sessions: -it is a time when students can see their 2D work (drawings) created into 3D (garments). This allows academic staff, fitting models (he, she, them) and myself to give feedback to the students. In the sessions students work alongside other peers and the rest of the staff team. On the course we asked students to bring a list of problems that they are facing with their garments that they have created and to give job descriptions to all who are attending the fit sessions (e.g., design assistant, fabric sources, technical problems, product wearability/comfort) to create an industry environment. This helps students remove hierarchy between academic staff and me and other peers. This has been successful on peer-to-peer feedback and staff feedback, with fun time and laughter for all, as our roles change through the sessions. To make this more successful, we could build upon this model by using it in tutorials.
Amelia et al (2023) found that: Peer assessment promotes learning and improves academic performance in….higher education. It helps students better understand assessment criteria, develop communication skills, and receive timely, varied, and appropriate feedback.
On reflection: -in the future it would be good if technicians like me, who have over 27 years of industry experience, to give summative feedback as at the moment I feel that we can only give formative feedback to students. As student numbers increase over courses, academic staff have less time per student. Using more of the knowledge from technicians, like myself who spend most of my time with the students, this could help with the marking system, as suggested by Pham and Williamson (2020) Removing hierarchy in teaching practise (Given & Julien, 2005) – “On the one hand, the role of academics is to teach students, as well as to assist in the creation of knowledge, through research in their area of expertise. On the other hand, the role of librarians is to provide services and support to academics and students. The differences in these roles have resulted in differences in status and unequal power relationships between academics and librarians”.
Reference List
Amelia, K., et al (2023) Experiences in Teaching and Learning, Assessment of the validity of peer scores and peer feedback in an online peer assessment platform (Kritik): Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning Volume 15, Issue 4, pp400-407. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2023.04.004 (Accessed 22 March 2024).
Pham, H., & Williamson, K., (2020) Towards effective collaboration between academics and library staff: A comparative Australian/Vietnamese study, Library & Information Science Research (Volume 42, Issue 2). Introduction. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101015 (Accessed 22 March 2024).