Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education - Volume 5, Issue 2, 2007

This article reflects on the learning value for students of formative assessment feedback in the large studio crit. A variety of research studies have established that formative assessment and feedback can affect the quality of learning (Black and Wiliam 1998; Crooks 1988, 2001; Gibbs 1992; Harlen and James 1997; Ramsden 1992; Sadler 1989, 2005; Torrance 1993; Torrance and Pryor 1998).

The article draws on the findings of a small focused study (Blair 2006) and references other research studies into the studio crit in art and design and architecture. The study premises that the learning value of feedback students receive at the large crit is often affected by their perception of self. This, the study evidences, results in much of the verbal formative assessment feedback literally falling on deaf ears.

This paper follows the authors' and their faculty colleagues' experiences in developing an innovative approach to creative design teaching and assessment. Failure to adequately explain to students how they were to be assessed in creative design had led to a formal appeal by students and an inquiry which focused attention on how difficult it was to define creativity and creative ability. The inquiry led to University pressure for objective or transparent assessment that conformed with the University's quality assurance protocols. From the teachers' perspective, however, creative ability was associated with conceptual ideas that were higherorder thinking activities that could not be adequately assessed objectively or transparently in the conventional meanings of these terms. Subsequent investigation showed widespread disagreement among the various design and creative arts disciplines (within the University and beyond) on what constitutes creativity and what constitutes creative ability; whether creative ability is essentially intuitive or essentially rational or procedural; whether creative ability could or should be reduced to quantifiable parameters for assessment; and whether the most important aspects of creative achievement reside in the initial thinking (creative ideas) or in the subsequent process of development of the idea (crafting a work of art, design, etc.) or in the creative work that is the end product (the work of art itself).

The paper follows, from the perspective of the authors as teachers, curriculum developers and researchers, how a new approach to the problem unfolded, and how a basic empirical research project tracking the psychological processes of inspiration and complex decision-making (and other applied research) contributed to the evolution of an innovative approach to creative design education that recognized multiple levels of creativity and engaged multiple forms of assessment, and that has satisfied both teachers' pursuit of realistic creative thinking objectives and the University's transparency and accountability agenda.

The increasing audit culture of quality in universities based on simplistic quantitative performance indicators of quality is the enemy of creativity. Hence issues of quality assessment are important, particularly in the face of the traditionalism of university teaching and examining, but in practice quality assessment has had little, if any, effect on this traditionalism. Instead it has led to a shift from unjustified total trust to equally unjustified total lack of trust and a corresponding shift from collegial to top down management. The latter is now so firmly entrenched in universities that the first step towards the general introduction of a component of creativity into university curricula (isolated examples of creativity can readily be found) may well require an academic revolt.

There have been aspects of creativity in the most traditional curricula even in the sciences for a long time, but really hopeful signs pointing to the introduction of aspects of creativity into whole curricula are in:

The move from teacher-centred to student-centred learning

The expression of this move in the form of problem-based and enquiry-based curricula

A move from positivist to interpretivist assessment and, in particular, assessment in general from unseen papers to portfolios

This paper discusses research that is being conducted using visual representations as a method for understanding students' experiences of the assessment process in art and design. The preliminary analysis of drawings has highlighted a number of factors including: a negative reaction to assessment; the use of metaphor and simile in drawings and the effectiveness of using visual representations to successfully convey experience.

Using visual representations is proposed as a means of furthering our understanding of the student learning experience; and as a method for students to reflect on their experiences, such as within a Personal Development Planning (PDP) process. The drawings have highlighted an overwhelmingly negative reaction to assessment and this paper suggests that the prejudicial effects of assessment need further investigation, due to potentially detrimental consequences on students' creative abilities.

The starting point of this piece of research is that the review, as a learning and teaching tool, is a fundamental component of architectural education. We also recognize that the traditional review that is part of our current practice is educationally flawed. All too often, the perception, and unfortunately the reality, of the review is one of conflict, an event that is intimidating and unnecessarily gruelling, and can lead to students feeling demoralized and humiliated. Attendance can be poor and participation non-existent. Hardly a positive event and questionably one in which effective learning can take place. However, we recognize that what verbal dialogue and analysis offer in learning and teaching in architecture are essential.

Currently, our research in progress aims to identify the main problems that inhibit learning, and to design and test mechanisms of resolving them. The study aims to conclude with an educational model for a general review situation, where effective learning and positive teaching can occur, in a fair, productive and positive environment.

Assessment, Learning and Employability, Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (eds.), (2003)

Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press, ISBN 0-335-21228-X

Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Cordelia Bryan and Karen Clegg (eds.) (2006)

New York and London: Routledge, 234 pp., ISBN 0-415-35642-3, 24.99

Educational Development, Discourse, Identity and Practice, Ray Land (2004)

Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 232 pp., ISBN 0-335-21328-6

Towards Strategic Staff Development in Higher Education, Richard Blackwell and Paul Blackmore (eds.) (2003)

Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 232 pp., ISBN 0-335-21209-3