Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice
Teaching Material: Dialogic assessment for Unit 1 and Unit 2, BA1 Textile Design Chelsea College of Arts.
Observer: Carys Kennedy
Observee: Claudia Catzeflis
Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.
Part One
Unit 2 – 14 week – Rotation around of specialist textile areas (knit, weave, print, stitch)
The unit was pass-fail.
What would be great to get feedback on: The documents I have prepared for staff to support a dialogic assessment of this unit; I have pioneered this method to our course and it is the second time we have run it.
It could also be useful to get feedback on my written assessments from this unit. Students were seen in person and the assessment was written with them present.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Thanks for talking me through the dialogic assessment practice you implemented for Unit 2 of your course. You talked me through how you briefed colleagues about dialogic assessment, and screenshared some relevant documents including guidance notes and learning outcomes.
From my perspective, the dialogic assessment practices you shared for this particular unit sound like great pedagogic practice, and were underpinned by a clear rationale:
- This is a Pass/Fail unit, which affords opportunities in approaches to assessment feedback.
- Unit 2 is an important point to offer pastoral support, such as signposting to Student Services or Language Support. This is appropriately included in the ‘Tutorial guidance notes’ you shared with colleagues.
- The students are rotating between specialist areas, and will have to pick their specialism. Having a supportive conversation about this based on their assessment will support the student in making an informed decision.
There are a range of other benefits afforded by this approach. It can help to demystify the assessment process for students (especially if, like you, tutors write up the feedback there and then). Written feedback on its own can be open to interpretation, so having a discussion around this allows for clarification in real-time. There are also potential benefits for colleagues, who may find this a more achievable way of providing feedback.
You shared a suggested assessment tutorial structure, and I noticed that you encourage colleagues to let students to start the conversation, sharing what they found interesting in the unit. I felt this is good student-centred practice, and allows students to ‘self-assess’ and have agency in this discussion.
We talked about the role of ‘attendance’ as it relates to LO3 in this unit (timekeeping and attendance). You explained that if attendance had been low, this might be discussed within the assessment tutorial. We chatted about the distinction between engagement and attendance (i.e. a student might have barriers to attendance, but be very engaged; a student might attend every day but not be engaged), and you reflected about how you might explore this with other tutors.
I asked a couple of questions in our meeting too:
- I asked if students are required to attend the assessment tutorial. You explained that they don’t have to, and will get feedback in writing anyway. Choice is always positive – although am pleased to hear that attendance has been good at these valuable assessment tutorials, and students have responded positively.
- I asked how colleagues find this mode of assessment. You explained that some like it, and some find it stressful. This has been taken into account in number of tutees and timetabling, which is a sensitive approach. You also explained that colleagues don’t have to write up the feedback there and then – which is good, as that might be tricky for some colleagues.
One of the themes in the written materials you shared was ‘translating’ or clarifying key documentation, such as the learning outcomes and assessment requirements (e.g. what students are required to submit). This clarification is really helpful, and reminds me of the TPP Assessment Checklist and ‘Make the Grade’ intervention we’ll be talking about in Workshop 2B.
I did find myself wondering if there’s future scope to change or develop the materials (e.g. the LOs, assessment requirements) to make them clearer in the first instance, so they wouldn’t need this ‘translation’? I acknowledge this might not be in your control, and would also link to possible revalidation/minor modifications – but I’m wondering what it would look like to create this clarity from the outset? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
I found it beneficial to have the time to talk through the dialogic assessment practice I implemented for Unit 2 of my course. It is a new approach for the team, and we are still in process of developing the idea and ironing out any issues, so it was good to speak to someone outside them team to get another point of view. The positive comments gave me confidence that we are on the right track with exploring this method of assessment, and the reflective comments I found helpful, and gave me stuff to think about.
I plan to expand the discussion around the distinction between engagement and attendance with my line manager and wider team.
I will also bring the idea of how we might alter the learning outcomes at a future date (when minor or mayor mods are possible) making the wording more direct and relatable to the project.
For Reference Unit 1 document
Unit 1
LEARNING OUTCOMES
LO1 Evidence of understanding studentship through engagement and participation with the course, your student colleagues and the study material and resources introduced (Enquiry)
- Group work
- Personal engagement in the workshops and tasksLO2 Evidence of a critical, foundational understanding of the practices and knowledge base of Textile Design as introduced in the unit (Knowledge)
• Task/ design methods introduced in the unit: Macro Micro, Colour task
LO3 Evidence of critical engagement with the course delivery and a commitment to personal and professional development (Process)
- Development of work: Editing and selecting of ideas in final presentation
- How they progressed their design work, series of designs
- Reflective statementLO4 Evidence of effective learning skills and effective communication of ideas, arguments and critical reflection in visual and written forms (Communication)
- Reflective statement
- Notes on work
- Presentation and layout of ideasPastorale check point