Assess and/or give feedback for learning
Contextual Background
Throughout my time working with different colleagues across the course team over several years, it became evident that approaches to assessment and written summative feedback varied inconsistently between tutors. This highlighted the need for a shared framework that could introduce greater rigour and consistency in marking, provide clearer guidance on the tone of feedback, and more effectively unpack the learning outcomes in relation to assessment outputs.
Evaluation
In an effort to improve alignment and reduce irregularities in assessing and giving feedback practices, I developed an assessment matrix that mapped unit learning outcomes against the required assessment outputs and the types of evidence students were expected to demonstrate within their submissions. The matrix aimed to make explicit where and how evidence for each learning outcome could be identified, supporting greater transparency and consistency in assessment and feedback. In addition, it provided guidance on tone of voice and included sentence starters to help standardise and contextualise written assessment feedback across the teaching team, whilst allowing for tutor-specific feedback too. Although the rigour of this matrix was certainly a step in the right direction, it highlighted the need to provide more structure in earlier stages of the unit – i.e. at unit briefing and mid-point/formative assessment – and more clarity in the leaning outcomes.
Moving forwards
Feedback and feedforward: Reflecting on the assessment matrix and feedback from colleagues highlighted the value of focusing feedback forward, not just backwards. Wiliam (2011) points out that feedback is most useful when it helps students understand next steps and improve their work, rather than simply explaining a grade. Biggs (1999, 2007) also notes that learning works best when students are actively involved with the criteria, outcomes and expectations before completing a task. Incorporating this approach encourages a more proactive learning mindset, where students see feedback as an ongoing dialogue rather than a final judgment. By engaging with feedback early, students can identify gaps, refine techniques, and build confidence in their work progressively. Using these ideas, I now see feedback as part of a continuous cycle that links briefings, formative checkpoints, and summative assessment. This cycle fosters a sense of ownership over learning, helping students internalise standards and better anticipate the requirements of final submissions.
Peer review and formative feedback: To support learning ahead of summative assessment, I plan to build in more structured formative tasks and peer review sessions, especially through pin-up crits. Biggs (1999, 2007) stresses that students learn more effectively when they interact with criteria and outcomes throughout the process, not just at the end. By including regular formative checkpoints, students can practice judging their own work and planning improvements independently with more ease. In addition, structured peer review encourages collaborative learning, allowing students to articulate their understanding and evaluate alternative approaches critically, thereby deepening comprehension and analytical skills.
Blair (2007) and Blythman et al. (2007) note that studio crits can be useful for learning but sometimes feel inconsistent or intimidating if students are unprepared. Peer review provides students a valuable opportunity to practise giving and receiving feedback in a lower-stakes environment. Wiliam (2011) highlights that feedback works best when it is actionable, helping students know exactly how to improve. To support this, peer review should be structured with talking cards and prompts, ensuring all students can contribute confidently and meaningfully, promoting reflective and inclusive feedback practices.
Formative and peer review feedback opportunities have the potential to increase students’ confidence in crits and provide multiple opportunities to “feed forward” into their final projects. Ultimately, these strategies aim to develop independent learners who can assess their own progress critically, adjust their work, and approach feedback and assessment with resilience. It is of upmost importance to ensure peer feedback is constructive at all times, and connected to learning outcomes, which may require further guidance and support. When embedded consistently, these activities could help students understand assessment criteria, use feedback to guide improvements, and approach summative assessment with greater independence and confidence.
References:
Biggs, J., 1999. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (1), pp.57‑75.
Biggs, J. (2007) Constructive Alignment, in Biggs, J. & Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd edn. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, pp. 11–33.
Blair, B. (2007) Design Studio Crit: Move from Judgement to Dialogue. London: University College London, Institute of Education.
Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B., 2007. Critiquing the crit. Project report. Brighton: Higher Education Academy, Art, Design and Media Subject Centre.
Wiliam, D. (2011) Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
UAL (2024) Supporting Inclusive and Developmental Crits. London: University of the Arts London.
Danvers, J., 2010. Making marks: Assessment in arts education. Networks Magazine, Issue 10, Summer.
Orr, S. (2010) Assessment in Art & Design. London: Routledge.