In our third TPP workshop, we spent significant time discussing assessment and how critique is used in our work. As a technician, I am not heavily involved in determining when technical skills are introduced within the courses I support. However, in my time working in higher education, I have noticed a recurring pattern in how university modules are structured. Typically, each year progresses with an increase in either the quality or quantity of equipment available to students.
This structure of equipment progression serves two main purposes. Firstly, it mitigates the inevitable student demand for “more equipment” as they advance through the course. By creating a clear incentive—where access to higher-end equipment is gradually unlocked—staff can manage expectations. If students at Levels 4 and 5 express dissatisfaction with equipment availability, staff can justify this by pointing to future access: “That is ring-fenced for your graduation shoots.” This implies that the progression is not just an arbitrary institutional decision but an intentional part of their learning journey.
While this staged approach has practical benefits—such as ensuring students develop the necessary experience before handling high-value equipment—there is a notable lack of input from the technical department regarding when students gain access to, and develop proficiency with, advanced camera and lighting equipment. This lack of coordination can lead to inefficiencies in skill development.
Russell (2010) outlines how assessment can be designed as a cumulative process, where feedback and critique build progressively across multiple modules. Instead of treating each module in isolation, they propose a holistic approach that ties assessments together, fostering both technical skill development and resilience to critique.
Typical Assessment Model
Improved Assessment Model
If this approach were applied to technical skill development, it could significantly enhance students’ learning experiences. Taking a broader perspective—where the timeline of technical skill acquisition is mapped across multiple modules—would allow for stronger connections between different learning experiences.
Currently, many of the technical exercises I design exist in isolation from the wider curriculum. I am often unaware of what the academic team delivers outside of my sessions. Even when I am, there is minimal communication regarding what skills students should have already developed or what they are expected to achieve by the end of a session.
By using this model as a framework, we could address these gaps. Breaking down the technical roadmap for each module would allow us to strategically sequence exercises, ensuring that each session builds upon the last.
For instance, consider a group of Level 4 film students. They need to develop a vast array of skills to take a film from concept to completion. If every module follows a traditional assessment model, technical bottlenecks emerge at the end of the semester, creating a last-minute rush for technical support. This increased demand, combined with limited technician availability, means some students inevitably miss out on the guidance they need.
Instead, by designing a series of interlinked technical exercises, we could alleviate this crunch. For example, video content created in one session could serve as material for a separate module, allowing students to apply their skills in a progressive, interconnected way. This structure would not only distribute workloads more evenly but also give students more time for lateral thinking, self-study, and early engagement with technical support. By spreading out these learning opportunities, students would have greater flexibility to request assistance when they need it—rather than in a last-minute rush at the end of term.
Ref
Russell, M. (2010) Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. ESCAPE Project, King’s College London. Available at: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf