Contextual Background (c. 50 words):
As a visiting practitioner, I do not assess students. In this case study, I evaluate my one-to-one tutorials with second-year MA Performance & Design students. They are working towards their final projects and have completed an interim performance show called Scratch performance. The Unit 2 assessment involves a reflective journal documenting the development process of their work. While I have not read any of the written assessments, I have watched all 25 students’ shows.
Evaluation (c. 100 words):
Evaluation is conducted through verbal feedback in person. I often use sketches and engage in brainstorming sessions with students to discuss strategies for their next steps. Meeting students face-to-face works well, as it allows for nuanced communication. I frequently ask students to share their sketches and inspirations as part of the brainstorming process. I focus on understanding what they feel passionate about, rather than solely focusing on the theories they are engaging with.
However, a limitation is that my feedback is based solely on what I observe during the performance. It is not my responsibility to read their written assessments, but this sometimes makes it difficult to provide comprehensive suggestions. For example, I once encountered a student whose work I did not find engaging, despite knowing it was based on an established dance method. Without understanding their research, I could only offer honest feedback based on my observations, which the student seemed to find offensive.
Moving Forward (c. 350 words):
I believe that assessment—or even feedback in my case—should evaluate multiple aspects holistically, rather than solely focusing on learning outcomes (O’Reilly, 2023). During a workshop discussion, I sought advice on how to provide feedback on work I did not find compelling. A peer suggested that it is important to review the student’s research process and evaluate their work holistically. This aligns with O’Reilly’s perspective in the journal, which emphasises the importance of understanding the broader context of a student’s work.
Moving forward, I plan to read students’ research journals when providing feedback, particularly for works that I find challenging to engage with. This will allow me to offer more informed and constructive comments. However, I also believe that honest feedback is essential. While I will not shy away from sharing my subjective impressions of a student’s work, I will ensure that my comments are balanced and considerate. As a qualified practitioner, I believe it is important to provide candid feedback, even if it may not always be well-received.
At the same time, I will encourage students to seek opinions from other practitioners and lecturers. When I was a student, I found this approach helpful, especially when receiving harsh but constructive criticism from my tutors. By fostering a culture of diverse feedback, students can gain a more rounded perspective on their work and develop resilience in responding to critique.
References (additional to word count):
O’Reilly, J. (2023) ‘“See you on the other side”: Researcher identity, threshold concepts and making a ritual of confirmation’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 6(1), pp. 10–22.