Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice         

 

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed:

Size of student group: 18

Observer: Taylor Rapley

Observee: Matthew Plummer-Fernandez

 

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

Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

This is Assessment feedback for BA Fine Computational Arts, year 3, Unit 9 element1. The submission criteria for element 1 is to exhibit new work(s) at an external gallery (Southwark Park Galleries) and then hand in:

• 300 word artist statement
• Documentation of the work and another work generated during the unit

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

Although I am Course Leader, my teaching time is fully devoted to year 3 towards the practice and presentation elements of their units. Six of the students were my students during the first year of their studies, when I was the only member of staff on the BA.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

I’ve attached the assessment Brief document. Please note that the brief and learning outcomes span both element 1 and element 2. Element 2 is the dissertation, so the learning outcomes lean more towards that.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

After this, they will commence unit 10 element 1 – their degree show. 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

My feedback comes from a place of really caring about the students, so I’m balancing providing practical advice with aligning to the marking criteria.  

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Not applicable, I don’t think.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Any feedback is welcome.

How will feedback be exchanged?

On this form?

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Marking:

Positive:

• Personalised and thoughtful feedback for each student. The care for your students and their work is very apparent and I am sure dynamic and responsive feedback is appreciated by students.
• Honest feedback and critique are provided but always with positive and clear directions for improvement, even when a maximum grade has been achieved.
• I really appreciated that you gave areas for improvement not just for the artwork (and artistic statements) but also reflected on the student’s engagement with their process and gave clear direction in how they can improve in areas that affect their artwork such as engagement with tutorials and the support available to them.

Feedback/potential areas of improvement

• Although, the Learning Outcomes (LO’s) are based towards their dissertation, I think it would be useful for marking and for students to know the primary learning outcomes that they should focus on for each element or where they overlap. I gather that all would be relevant for element 2 but are there some solely focused on the E1 (physical work and supporting statements/images). I also wonder how much each element is weighted (% for E1 and % for E2) and your process of marking the overall unit and how a student’s grade in E1 would impact the entire unit.

• It would be interesting to know if you have any personal frameworks or criteria for each learning outcome too, and/or how they may vary across elements.
  • As outputs are varied, I understand having a dynamic approach is essential but are there any common/essential requirements or expectations that coincide with each LO. Maybe this could also assist in ensuring all required learning outcomes for the element have been mentioned in the marking to give students comprehensive validation on each aspect that what went well and also would highlight the clear areas for improvement, especially as some of the learning outcomes such as process and communication could be widely interpreted and as students are entering their final show the more clarity they receive the better.

• Have you spoken to or do you think it might be useful to speak to students to gain feedback on how useful marking was to them, and/or do you track their improvements from unit to unit? I gather this would happen during tutorials.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

• Taylor’s observations have been very helpful, especially in conjunction with having seen and reviewed Taylor’s approach to marking, which responds to each LO clearly. 
• Taylor’s question is here is great “are there any common/essential requirements or expectations that coincide with each LO?”
• On units that have two elements such as Unit 9 and Unit 10, pairing practical work with a written thesis or essay, I think it would be very helpful for me to gain further clarification on this from the Programme Director and other course leaders in Fine Art. If the LOs are to be fulfilled by both elements together, does that mean for example, that ‘communication’ isn’t critically important to evidence on the practical element, given that the student develops this outcome by writing a thesis?   
• Taylor makes a good suggestion that the needs of the student should be considered:
• “maybe this could also assist in ensuring all required learning outcomes for the element have been mentioned in the marking to give students comprehensive validation on each aspect …” 
• Once I have consulted the Fine Art on this, I will be able to tailor my feedback on Unit 9 Element 1 to respond to the LOs that are weighted towards the practice. As Taylor does, I could create a template response that helps markers (including myself) identify the aspects of the student work that evidences the corresponding LO.