Student views on marking criteria in history of art, architecture and design

marking criteria history of art, architecture and design

By Student Voice

Marking criteria are at the heart of academic assessment, yet they often stir mixed feelings among students. This blog post looks to shine a light on common concerns students have with the assessment standards and how these might be bettered to ensure fairness and clarity. Deciphering the marking criteria is an important process for students starting their academic pursuits in these creative disciplines. By integrating student voices through surveys and text analysis, this examination identifies gaps between student expectations and the realities of grading practices. Engaging with these insights, the subsequent sections of this blog will provide a detailed analysis of the key issues found in current assessment methods, followed by a suite of recommendations aimed at refining these practices for staff and institutions. Through this collective insight, we aim to foster a more inclusive and equitable learning environment where marking becomes a doorway to learning rather than a barrier.

Understanding Marking Criteria

In the area of art, architecture, and design education, understanding marking criteria is key for both students and staff. These criteria form the foundation of how work is assessed and help clarify what educators expect from students’ projects. Firstly, it's important to note that these guidelines are often specific to each course and can vary significantly. Staff members usually outline these expectations at the start of the course, detailing the rubrics that will guide the grading process. Typically, these include aspects such as creativity, technical skills, conceptual depth, and overall presentation. For students, getting to grips with these standards is key to navigating their learning process successfully. They need to look into how each element of their work aligns with the expected standards to aim for higher grades. On the side of the institutions, it's equally important to ensure these criteria are communicated clearly and effectively. Regular workshops or review sessions can be a great way to achieve this, allowing students to ask questions and receive additional guidance on how to meet or even exceed the set standards. Thus, both students and staff benefit from a shared understanding of what constitutes success in their respective courses.

Transparency Issues

A frequent issue highlighted in student surveys relates to the lack of clear marking criteria in the areas of art, architecture, and design. Many students find themselves confused and, at times, frustrated by the ambiguous standards by which their work is assessed. This issue of transparency is not just a minor inconvenience; it significantly impacts students' abilities to meet and exceed expectations, affecting their overall academic success and satisfaction.

The impact of this obscurity is most felt by those just starting their courses, who struggle to understand what is expected of them. Furthermore, without clear criteria, feedback can often appear subjective and unhelpful, leaving students without the constructive advice needed to improve. For creative disciplines, where subjective judgment plays a role, it's even more important that the criteria include understandable and specific guidelines to anchor that judgment.

Institutions and staff should prioritise clear communication of assessment guidelines right from the start. Consideration could be given to incorporating these explanations into orientation sessions or the initial classes. Regular open discussions and revisits to the criteria can help maintain clarity and address any ambiguities that might arise during the course. This proactive approach ensures that students feel more confident and engaged in their academic and creative endeavours.

Inconsistency in Grading

One of the key challenges highlighted by students in art, architecture, and design is the inconsistency in grading. This issue often stems from the various ways different lecturers interpret the same marking criteria. Such discrepancies can lead to significant confusion and discourage students, as they try to understand the expectations for their work. When one lecturer may prioritise creativity over technical execution, while another does the opposite, students are left puzzled about what is essential for securing higher grades. This inconsistency can heavily impact student motivation and their view on the fairness of the assessment process. Institutions need to look closely at how criteria are not only set but also applied across different modules and lecturers. Regular training sessions for staff might be one way to align understanding and application of grading standards. Equally, creating more refined and detailed rubrics could help ensure a more uniform application of marking across the board. Both these steps could help smooth out the grading process, making it more consistent and transparent, thereby helping students know precisely what is expected from them and how they can achieve it.

Feedback Quality

Discussing feedback quality, particularly in the context of marking criteria, is key for enhancing student learning and progression in art, architecture, and design disciplines. In these creative areas, the process of receiving detailed and constructive feedback is highly important. For students, understanding how their work measures against specific marking criteria enables them to identify areas needing improvement and areas where they excel.\n\nHowever, many students express concerns over the quality of feedback being either too vague or delayed. Important feedback that aligns clearly with set criteria not only boosts a student's ability to refine their art but also deepens their understanding of course expectations. An effective approach could involve staff providing feedback that is timely and rich in constructive criticism, specifically pointing out how the work meets, or fails to meet, the pre-established criteria.\n\nFor instance, in a design project, feedback might detail aspects of creativity and technical execution, offering clear examples of both strengths and weaknesses in relation to the criteria. This method promotes a straightforward way for students to view their grades as a reflection of detailed, criteria-based evaluations, not as arbitrary scores. Truly effective feedback thus becomes a cornerstone of the learning process, where each piece of advice helps bridge the gap between student output and marking expectations. Staff are encouraged to continually refine their feedback delivery to be more aligned with these goals, fostering an environment where students feel genuinely supported in their creative journeys.

Subjectivity and Bias in Marking

In the area of art, design, and architecture education, the subjective nature of creative work poses unique challenges in assessment practices. The worry that personal bias might influence grading decisions is a common concern among students, and rightly so. As staff members, we acknowledge that everyone has personal preferences which could, unintentionally, colour their judgments. To address this issue and promote more objective standards, it's important to implement clear and specific marking criteria.

These criteria should be detailed enough to provide a common framework for all work evaluation, aiming to minimise the room for subjective interpretation. For instance, defining exactly what constitutes 'creativity' or 'technical skills' in projects can help ensure that all students are assessed equitably, regardless of the staff member marking the work.

Additionally, employing a double-marking or moderation system, where more than one lecturer reviews significant assignments, is another effective method to balance personal biases. This process helps staff members to discuss and align their marking approaches, striving for consistency and fairness in grades awarded.

By taking these steps, educational institutions can foster a setting that supports fair evaluation and bolsters student trust in the grading process, essential for a productive and inspiring educational atmosphere.

Student-Tutor Communication

Effective dialogue between students and tutors is key to demystifying the marking process in courses related to art, architecture, and design. Regular interactions help clarify what is expected in terms of meeting marking criteria and adjusting student work to align better with these standards. It's vital for students, particularly those new to their studies, to feel confident in approaching their tutors with any doubts or questions about their grades or feedback. Establishing a transparent communication channel allows for ongoing support and guidance throughout the academic process.

Educational staff should actively encourage students to engage in discussions about their assessments. Scheduling regular advising sessions can be a tremendous help as these provide a platform where students can gain deeper insights into how their work is evaluated. During these interactions, tutors can explain the nuances of different criteria, such as what distinguishes a pass from a merit or a distinction. This open line of communication further enables tutors to tailor their teaching strategies to better suit individual student needs and needs, making the learning experience more personalised and effective.

Thus, nurturing a proactive communicational environment not only helps students understand what's required but also fosters a collaborative atmosphere where students and staff together foster academic and creative excellence.

Recommendations for Improvement

To advance the clarity, consistency, and fairness in the marking process for art, architecture, and design students, several improvements can be implemented. Firstly, creating clearer and more detailed rubrics would help align student projects with expected standards. These rubrics should communicate not only the boundaries for expected performance but should also include examples of work meeting various grade tiers. This approach would assist students in understanding how to align their work with the marking criteria effectively.

Secondly, institutions should consider embedding the explanation of marking schemes into induction sessions. This ensures that from the very first day, students have a firm grasp of what is anticipated of them. Incorporating regular review sessions or Q&A opportunities concerning marking criteria throughout the term can also play a vital role in keeping students aligned with the expectations.

Lastly, increasing marker training is imperative. This training should focus on providing staff with a common foundation not only in understanding but also in applying the marking criteria. This way, regardless of the module or instructor, students receive a consistent assessment experience. Implementing these changes will go a long way in enhancing student satisfaction and academic success, fostering a more transparent and equitable learning environment.

Student views on marking criteria in history of art, architecture and design

More posts on marking criteria:

More posts on history of art, architecture and design student views: