HEA Enhancement Academy Workshop, Queens University, Belfast 13.09.10
PROJECT AS JOURNEY: STUDENT AS ORIENTEER
‘It is impossible to overstate the role of effective feedback on the students’ progress in any discussion of effective teaching and assessment’
(Ramsden, 1992)
Although the broad theme for the workshop is that of Assessment, we all recognise assessment and feedback as two sides of the same coin, and it is the latter, feedback, that this presentation focuses on.
In broad terms. the centrality of feedback to the learning process, and to the development of self-critical, reflective learners is broadly accepted. However, I hesitate to say that it is well understood as I contend that there is much still to comprehend about the dimensions of feedback, and indeed the notion of ‘feed forward’, that determine its efficacy.
At a national level responses to the NSS in the subject of Architecture have demonstrated a relatively poor perception of feedback practices. Yet the phenomenon of design studio as a learning environment is one in which dialogue is continuous, and feedback from formalised events frequently instantaneous. So what might lie behind these generic perceptions? On the face of it, the fact that in the NSS the general perception of feedback amongst architecture students is poor, is at least interesting if not perplexing. I suggest that there may be many reasons for this. For example, the fact that dialogue is relatively continuous in studio, sets up an expectation for non-studio-based modules. But there are also a number of fundamental areas that demand further understanding, and it is here that I turn to the analogy with orienteering or trekking.
My main contention is that consideration of feedback processes and mechanisms is central to the fundamental design of a project, or any element of learning. Arguably, it is the most important aspect, yet is generally not afforded this status at the stage when learning activities are designed.
Indeed, if feedback design is thoroughly considered in terms of how it is most effective to the student, the design of projects is greatly simplified.
To illustrate this, the metaphor of the hill walk or mountain trek is used to illustrate the value and relevance of designing learning as a student journey.
Route and Destination
We are all familiar with the notion of the learning outcome and the project brief. In essence these describe the purpose and broad path of the journey, whilst the assessment criteria in some way measure the ability to reach the destination in terms of achieving a defined outcome, as well as evaluating the process undergone in achieving this goal.
In considering a project it is commonplace to consider interim stages of the learning process, and a brief will typically map out a skeleton route achieved by reaching sign posts at defined points in the journey. We must remember that learning often represents navigation through the complex terrain of a place new to the student. To staff, the landscape is familiar. There is no need to consult the map as its all in our heads; it is tacit. Yet arguably this is the initial point at which clarity can become clouded, specifically because we do not revisit the route of the journey and reflect sufficiently on its detail and array of challenges.
Generally, without any prior introduction to the subject area of architecture, there is evidence from student feedback to suggest that the learning process is initially opaque and surrounded in mystique (Anthony, 1999).
Indeed, I would suggest that clarity of purpose and clarity of performance / progress are two sides of the same coin. The results of a longitudinal study of the perceptions of architecture students conducted over a 4 year period revealed the following as key academic challenges in transition to Higher education:
· Clarity of guidance + expectation
· New ways of working
· Assuming responsibility for own learning
· Workload / time management
· Feedback and understanding progress
The first and last points bear a close relationship to one another.
In design, the degree to which the route requires articulation is dependent on the level of skill and independence of the student, influenced also by the degree to which the student has individually determined or selected their own remit, or path. Depending on the level of study, tutors may wish to define tutorial points along the route to offer guidance and facilitate student achievement. Such tutorial points are key points of feedback. Thinking about a project as a learning journey, as the student progresses over time, so we move the stage posts apart commensurate with ability, level, and capability for self-propulsion and self-direction. In other words, the programming of the learning process undertaken through the project is founded on, and revolves around, feedback opportunities.
Returning to the metaphor, in planning a journey we naturally take into account the level of experience of those in the party. How skilled or knowledgeable are they, how confident, what safety nets may be required?
So far, all this may seem very obvious, but there are pitfalls that can mar the apparent clarity of the learning journey.
The principal of these relates to the dichotomy in design between product and process. For understanding of the journey to be clear, the fundamental purpose must be agreed and clearly articulated – collectively agreed by tutors, and with / by students.
During the 1990s, understanding of the cognitive properties of design was advanced, offering new potential for the development of this field. However, as observed by Marda (1997), it still remains the case that the importance of the designed output in education remains the dominant focus, with matters of process playing a lesser role in our judgements. In relation to assessment, it is equally argued that the Achilles heel of studio as traditionally approached, is that evaluation focuses on the final output or product rather than on the measurement of ‘increments of knowledge’ acquired as a result of studio.
This brings me back to the issue of clarifying the fundamental purpose of the learning. In a subject, such as architecture, where the academic programme is intertwined with the profession’s requirement for demonstration of competence – the focus becomes very readily placed on output. This can recall the days of the Beaux Arts and of highly prescribed training in which the student followed the master, and the dictat of the pattern book, in doing so undertaking a particular learning journey. Today, we talk of pluralism and exist in a period of rapid professional change, and critically, we increasingly describe the fundamental learning as the students ‘being able to think’. The Beaux Arts served a clear purpose within its historical context, but continuity of its methods would be inappropriate for a landscape in which the student must become equipped to define their own position and journey, and navigate new terrain – terrain that perhaps their teachers have never experienced. In other words, learning must be about the method, and feedback should therefore enable the student to construct method as well as commenting on design as entity. Therefore, my next question is do we make sufficient distinction in feedback between design as object and design as process or method? Indeed, are we as educators constantly self-aware of the impact of our own attitudes and approaches on the individual’s learning and ability to position themselves on the journey that their learning represents?
Consider the trek – one of the first things that people normally do is huddle around the map to discuss and agree an understanding of the undertaking. This is the first feedback opportunity – a point of orientation and clarity, of understanding the route, setting the compass and confirming direction and destination, nurturing confidence. How well do we provide the equivalent opportunity for students to enter into a dialogue with us at this initial point? How well do students understand what is expected of them?
But there is a further, critically important role of this initial engagement – the initiation of peer dialogue. Through collective discussion of the route, it becomes a common journey or common learning experience, albeit ultimately managed in a myriad of different ways. Student will fundamentally cover the same ground in order to demonstrate achievement of learning outcomes, but they do so through a diverse range of intellectual and mental processes in which individuals mentally orientate themselves to the project, or learning activity, in different ways. This orientation will be influenced by dialogue with tutors and peers.
So the kernel of the feedback process, the seed of the process, should be established before the task is commenced. In design studio, we are familiar with rich social dynamics and exchange, but there is much we can do to facilitate this phenomenon, harnessing it to valuable effect, and propagating conversation through processes other than mere physical proximity. Indeed, as many schools are compelled to introduce hot-desking arrangements and more transient studio configurations, we can no longer rely on the traditional hothouse of studio to organically develop – instead it must be constructed.
The Compass
If the compass is the tool of navigation, what in the context of the metaphor, is the learning equivalent? I would argue that it is represented by feedback, the mechanism by which direction is gauged, the need for corrective action identified, and by which the forward trajectory is determined. But feedback has a role for both students and staff – there is a place for dialogue between tutor and student, student and student, and tutor and tutor. These relationships depict the 3 strands present in a rich feedback and feed-forward dialogue.
Tutor and Student
The results of my research clearly demonstrated the critical role that feedback plays in learning, with student perceptions of the degree of academic challenge closely corresponding to views on the effectiveness of feedback. The principal aspects of feedback concerned regularity, timeliness and speed of response, and specificity. The relationship of feedback to motivations levels and the generation of student confidence was also noted, these aspects being key to developing the student as an independent learner. The importance to students of grades was evident, perhaps because they represent a definite indication of progress and performance in a process that is unfamiliar, lacks clarity, and involves dimensions of subjectivity. Of course, for the vast majority, grading is a recognisable measure from their prior learning, and its importance to the student is thus obvious. Yet, grading on its own is meaningless unless the student can equate feedback commentary and dialogue to the quantified measure. Indeed, I would argue that a further role of feedback is to enable the student to understand the grading currency, and the value attributed to aspects of process and product. In this way the grade is an addendum to the feedback rather than vice versa.
In the context of the indeterminacy of the design process, much has been written about the challenge that different, sometimes contradictory tutor opinion, presents to the student, and this too emerged in my research. Fundamentally, this underlines the importance of articulating the tutor role, and of cultivating an understanding of the learning process. However, instances where feedback was considered negative in nature appeared to be of greater concern, particularly in the review setting, an area that has undergone considerable scrutiny over the last 20 years. In his observations on ‘barriers to reflection’, Goatly (1989) asserted that negativity, along with stressful forms of assessment, fatigue and low confidence levels, discourages ‘deep’ learning. This returns us to the issue of the approaches, attitudes, and behaviours that we adopt, and the need for our own awareness of the impact that these potentially have.
Student to Student
Much has been written about what Thomas Dutton termed ‘power asymmetries’ in architecture education, and the fact that these can distort, lead and bias dialogue. This has commonly been discussed within the context of the review, although not exclusively, and I would argue that the nature of dialogue is pivotal in relation to feedback. Whilst the observations about power by Dutton and others relates to architecture, I have little doubt that the phenomenon has broader relevance. A significant finding from my research related to the role of the peer group as a forum for discussion and comparison, effectively removing the negative potentials of the power asymmetries that can stifle dialogue, and ultimately engender Schön’s counter-learner behaviours. This recalls the importance of group dialogue on a regular basis, especially at the outset of a project, as a mean of promoting and constructing this interactive support mechanism.
Ultimately, where subjects are indeterminate, I would suggest that, in order to gain an accurate understanding of the student’s position, we need to rethink our interaction with them, generating feedback that creates a closer alignment between the objective of the tutor / course, and the intentions and approach of the individual student.
Whatever the specifics of the pedagogy employed, for the educational process to be truly effective, students must be able to understand and recognise the criteria against which their work is assessed. Fundamental to this is the development of an understanding amongst the students that criteria are open to debate, challenge, and scrutiny. Herein lies the true value of studio in that it represents a community of individuals who broadly share similar interests and motivations, and who jointly develop an understanding of the criteria and the broader educational process through their shared experience. Such an understanding relies on the existence of open, constructive dialogue.