mcarless's blog

Assess or give feedback to learning

Intro

My main experience of giving feedback in my role as a technician is through exercises in class. I set exercises in my workshops to help cement the topics that we have been exploring. These are usually short filming/camera/lighting exercises after which we watch and critique the results together.

Evaluation

When holding a critique of the students’ work in my classes, I encounter two main obstacles. Firstly, how to create a safe and open space where all individuals feel comfortable evaluating each other’s work. Secondly, how to ensure students engage with the task properly. I have noticed that students can sometimes have a negative response to feedback, either becoming defensive or talking over the comments being made. At times, they may disengage or undermine what is being asked of them.

This resistance to feedback aligns with the challenges outlined by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), who emphasize that feedback should encourage self-regulated learning rather than feel judgemental. When students view feedback as a means of improving their own work rather than as criticism, they are more likely to engage constructively. Therefore structuring feedback sessions in a way that promotes reflection and dialogue is crucial in overcoming these challenges.

Moving Forward 

The idea of a critique, unless fully explained in the given scenario is the first thing to address. The word “crit” itself can be divisive, often carrying a negative connotation (Race, 2001). It is therefore important that I address this before the critique begins. I must take responsibility for defining both the parameters and the language used by myself and the students during the critique. By setting clear expectations and clarifying what good performance is, I can help calm nervous students who may be apprehensive about evaluation while reinforcing that this is a safe and open space for learning. Self critique is a valuable tool that students must develop a resilience toward as artists. To formalise this in my practice, I have begun incorporating this approach into my workshop plans, ensuring that these discussions are structured and that I set ground rules verbally before we begin the critique.

Self-criticism and critique of others’ work is a daily reality in the film and TV industry. As Race (2001) discusses, self and peer assessment can play a crucial role in developing independent learning skills, making students more accountable for their progress. By centering the class around this reality, I am helping to shift student focus from viewing feedback as criticism to seeing it as a part of their growth. Drawing from my own industry experience, I introduce examples from professional settings outside of UAL to further illustrate this point, helping students move past their defensive attitude. To formalise this, I have started developing external briefs and handouts, often repurposing old industry briefs to make it feel more relevant to them. This framing of importance helps focus students, as it makes the task feel less like “just a technical exercise.”

In the future, I want to extend these exercises outside of the classroom, getting students to use the content which they shoot in class and working on it as homework. When given a purely in class exercise which is just a technical test, students often treat it as throwaway. By reframing the purpose and assigning tasks that result in meaningful creative output, I believe this will shift student attitudes. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) highlight that effective feedback should provide opportunities for students to close the gap between current performance and desired outcomes. By ensuring that students see value in their work, they will be more likely to engage with feedback and apply it meaningfully.

Refs 

Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. Assessment Series No.9. York: Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN).

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Plan for and support student learning through appropriate approaches and environments 

Contextual Background

I deliver instruction across five BA and MA courses at UAL, teaching students how to safely operate camera and lighting equipment for both studio and on-location filming. Each course has specific needs, requiring a flexible space housing specialist equipment to accommodate varying cohort sizes and workloads. This work requires a lot of equipment, such as physical sets for the students to light and film in as well as lighting, rigging, stands and camera equipment (See photo).

Evaluation

Although I have access to dedicated studio spaces I am often assigned to generic classrooms that lack the necessary equipment. This requires me to retrofit these spaces for each workshop. The poor management of these spaces and lack of adequate provisions wastes valuable time, negatively impacting both my ability to teach and students’ learning experience. This in turn can affect the structure of my workshops, due to losing time in my sessions I am sometimes forced to cut or modify content. 

Moving forward 

Working in a live studio environment, creates a central space for teaching in art and design and playsing a vital role in structuring learning. It fosters a collaborative, social environment where students engage in discussions, create work, and receive feedback. This setup mirrors professional environments and prepares students for real-world practice (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). I am therefore trying to move all of my workshops to a consistent studio environment, ensuring when any student is onsite they have access to this resource. I have actioned this through working with my line manager and the head of the Screen School at UAL to bring about these changes when booking in my timetable in the future.

Additionally, I’ve been reflecting on my own teaching approaches and have been adjusting them to better recreate a ‘co-teaching’ environment. Having a consistent classroom structure to work with gives me more time in the planning of my classes. Spending less time retrofitting unfit spaces allows me more time in the sessions to react to my students’ needs. As Cook and Friend (1995) state, “classroom design and teaching approaches must be flexible and responsive to the needs of all students” to ensure engagement. Each student’s background and needs differ, by ensuring I have consistency in my provision, I can better adapt my teaching approach where necessary to support my content being understood by the students. 

Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010) emphasize that “co-teaching allows instructors to tailor their approaches to the unique learning needs of students, ensuring greater inclusivity.” To support this, I’ve incorporated more group exercises and discussions into my workshops, providing students with opportunities to learn from one another and assist each other during tasks. This approach centers each student in the learning process, ensuring active participation within the session. By moving away from a more transmissive approach and avoiding the ‘top down’ model of teaching, the students can engage more with the content. Having a consistent studio space with access to all the equipment I need at hand, means I can focus on building the teaching environment which is best for my students. Without having their learning suffer from lack of provision or retrofitting classrooms that aren’t fit for purpose. 

References:

 Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Co-teaching in higher education: A model for creating inclusive classrooms. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(7), 23-30. 

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Use evidence-informed approaches to know and respond to your student’s diverse needs.

Background and Context

I’m a specialist technician at UAL’s Screen School, teaching camera and lighting for BA and MA courses. Every year in student feedback, they request more technical instruction, but some struggle to attend due to work commitments. UAL is an international university, so our student body is diverse, with a wide range of economic backgrounds.

Evaluation 

A major issue in BA courses is the shared camera and lighting provision, limiting student access compared to other competitive programs. This restricts self-directed study, as most equipment used is confined to on-site learning. Camera and lighting equipment is generally very expensive and not something most students will have access to outside their course. Less affluent students often have to work to afford their course/rent/life in London, a city with high cost of living, while some can purchase more time and access outside our learning environment. At times lower income students cannot access these workshops due to outside commitments and jobs. 

Unfortunately this disparity inside UAL is mirrored within the UK arts and creative industry sector as a whole. “The story of social class within this story is one of exclusion. Every sector… has an over-representation of those from upper middle class social origins, with those from working class origins making up far less of the workforce” Brook, Orian & O’Brien, Dave & Taylor, Mark. (2017). With this being the future for my students, I must ask how I can help ensure every student is given equity of access when studying in my classes.

Moving forwards 

With my workload spread across five courses, I’ve yet to establish a consistent way for students to book one-to-one support. So far, this has been on an ad hoc basis through email or in-person requests. To improve this, I’ve set up an online booking system and added a fortnightly day for one-to-one sessions in the studio. With one-two-one sessions students can then request more specific support, if they have had to miss additional workshops due to work commitments for example.  Research by Brooks and Kelly (2006) highlights the emotional and motivational benefits of one-to-one tutorials, noting that many students feel alienated during the transition to university. I believe by increasing the provision of one-two-ones I’ll be better equipped to support my students at UAL. As they can access these one-two-one sessions both in person and online.

In addition to this I have begun to enhance the current online resources available to my students. At present, there is no dedicated online content for the production side of each BA course in the Screen School. I currently rely on third-party walkthroughs, while useful they can lack the precision of in-house content, particularly since some equipment shown doesn’t match our own. I’ve created a visual guide for my MA students I work with, which have received positive feedback (see appendix A). This is at this time a basic version of what I will in time create, my aim moving forward is to produce instructional videos in the future. This means that any students who miss my workshops can still access support when they need it, inside or outside of the institution.

Refs

Brook, Orian & O’Brien, Dave & Taylor, Mark. (2017). Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries.  
Brooks, K. (2006) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback. University of the West of England, Bristol.

Appendix A – MA Visual guide – https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zOmHVDVzQEhCt-b1DFJ84-23N0uu6rQeIKulqX2_nNI/edit?usp=sharing