John Wood 2013. This draft paper is intended to inform the development of more ethical learning/examination procedures in universities
Approaching Reykjavik from the air
SEE Assessment in Year ONE| SEE Assessment in Year TWO| SEE Working NOTES
Approaching Reykjavik from the air
SEE Assessment in Year ONE| SEE Assessment in Year TWO| SEE Working NOTES
A more joined-up approach
This novel assessment system is intended to foster a more joined-up learning experience that gives students more responsibility for directing their aims and achieving their goals. Instead of taking the student's studio work and essays as the central focus of assessment, this system records how well students have managed their whole learning process. They are expected to map their role and self-identity and to keep their own record of interests, ambitions, strategies, successes, failures and what they have learned from these. The whole process is monitored, supervised and, ultimately, assessed by staff, using a simplified, but comprehensive, model that maps four key considerations and the six relationships that hold them together.
A long-term vision
This assessment system offers a longer-term perspective (i.e. beyond the timescale of the course) in which risk taking is encouraged. It reminds students that a graduate program may be their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to undertake grand experiments. It assumes that learning from failure is more important than succeeding using the most facile, or conservative methods. By reducing the fear of immediate failure (grades) it seeks to enable learners to be bolder, and more ambitious. It therefore suggests that examiners might want to be less generous with students who opt for 'quick-fix' skills without reflecting upon deeper issues. It presents a larger-than-usual model of the design process and assesses how well the student manages his, or her, development within it.
A learner-centred model
Most conventional assessment systems are highly dependent on the skilled professional judgement of academic staff. By contrast, this system evaluates how well the student has managed his, or her, own development. Therefore, it is each student's responsibility to provide explicit evidence for his, or her, level of self-awareness, 'client empathy', motivation, predilections, cognitive style, learning strategies, etc.. Making students responsible for more of their learning process is intended to encourage them to identify and to manage their limitations and strengths. This also helps them to identify, and to work with, other team types, whose capabilities and interests are complementary with their own.
SOME ADVANTAGES OF THIS APPROACH
- 1. It encourages more self-reflexive awareness.
- 2. It encourages entrepreneurial resourcefulness.
- 3. It makes ethical aspects of practice more visible and assessable.
- 4. Its learner-specific nature makes plagiarism virtually impossible.
- 5. It encourages a more realistic (professional) approach to practice.
- 6. It encourages students to be more ambitious without fear of losing marks.
- 7. It relieves examiners from making 'absolute' quality judgements on coursework.
- 8. It encourages a stronger sense of student self identity (individually & professionally).
The student's perspective
From the learner's point of view, assessment will derive from how well he, or she, has aligned herself with four interdependent factors that s/he chose and managed in his, or her, own way. In generic terms, these can be imagined as:
- A = Me, and who I want to become
- B = My work and ideas
- C = The bigger context for A, B and D
- D = My work's current intended user
- 1 to 6 = Each of the relations between A to D
The University's perspective
Academic examiners would be asked to evaluate how well the student explained and showed how he, or she, has managed the four factors:
- A = How well the student managed her self-identity & effectiveness (etc.) as a designer
- B = The student's ideas, research, studio output and essays
- C = What the student deems to be the philosophical, ethical, environmental and professional, context behind A, B and D
- D = The student's nominated (or potential) mentor/s, collaborator/s, stakeholder/s, funder/s or employers.
- 1 to 6 = Each of the relations between A to D
Mapping in 3-D
Although the above elements are shown (above) as lists, this system has no fixed hierarchy. Rather, it consists of 4 interdependent factors including the learner. As many design thinkers (e.g. students) seem to prefer a 3D form, rather than a linear (e.g. list-based) presentation, the framework for visualising the assessment criteria is the tetrahedron.
The tetrahedron
This works as a four-fold map depicting 'players' (i.e. the silver spheres) and the 'relations' between them (i.e. the coloured rods that connect them). Assessment is based on the student's creation and development of 'players' (i.e. A, B, C and D) and how well s/he has managed the relations between them (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). The student's presentation of his, or her, creation of, and understanding of, the 10 elements (A, B, C and D and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6) becomes the main basis upon which grades are awarded. (N.B. Programme teams may choose to give more weighting to some criteria than others, according to the specific educational needs and aims of the institution).
File not found. | File not found. | File not found.
|
File not found. The 4 key 'players' | File not found. | File not found. Their 6 relations
|
File not found. | File not found. | File not found.
|
| A = THE LEARNERas private citizen / masters student / future professional designer | File not found. | File not found. = THE LEARNER'S ENGAGEMENT WITH HIS/HER WORK (A relating to B) - including finding his/her purpose / element / studentship / style / approach etc.
|
| B = THE SUBMITTED WORKas portfolio / texts / reports that clearly include reference to A / C / D | File not found. | File not found. = THE LEARNER'S ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WORLD (A relating to C) - including curiosity management / ethics / self-identity / resourcefulness
|
| C = THE WORLDincluding what we owe to it & what it can offer us as a resource | File not found. | File not found. = THE WORK'S DEPTH & RELEVANCE (B relating to C) - including its possible environmental, social, cultural effects and impact, within/beyond the brief
|
| D = INTENDED RECIPIENTe.g. mentor / collaborator / nominated 'reader' / 'client' / 'end user' | File not found. | File not found. = THE LEARNER'S DEALINGS WITH THE RECIPIENT (A relating to D) - including level of empathy shown / communication skills / diplomacy / ingenuity
|
File not found. | File not found. | File not found. = EMPATHY WITH THE RECIPIENT (C relating to D) - including creative opportunism / ability to show new perspectives or opportunities to another
|
File not found. | File not found. | File not found. = ENTREPRENEURIAL SKILLS (B relating to D) - including creative opportunism / ability to interest another in a new worldview, perspective or opportunity |
Another way to represent the system
How the system is mapped may change the way it is used. By using an X-Y grid that repeats the 4 criteria along vertical and horizontal axes it is possible to show how each criterion has its own integrity (e.g. 'me-to-me'). In the example shown below, only the ten criteria are mapped. This leaves 6 empty boxes. If required, the X and Y axes might be differentiated as 'active' and 'passive' versions of the criteria. The whole system would work slightly differently. For example, it would add an additional 6 criteria for assessment. This version was designed for clarity and simplicity, although some staff or students may like to develop it further, in this way, for their own purposes.
A 2D map of the assessment criteria
POSSIBLE CHALLENGES
Suggestions welcomed by John Wood: email:
E.g.
- 1. Is it more complicated?
- 2. Is it more bureaucratic?
- 3. ?
- Using the tetrahedron as a non-linear format for Writing (download it here) by John Wood
- A quadratic approach to ethics by John Wood and the metadesigners team
- Is Rigour a No-Brainer? by John Wood
Go to Year ONE outline
Go to Year TWO outline
Return to home