Case Study 3

Assessing learning and exchanging feedback

Contextual Background

As part of the MA Performance: Screen final major project (U6) at CSM, students participate in a series of feedback sessions at various stages to help them refine and develop their projects. Towards the end of the research and development phase, students take part in a ‘pitching’ session where they present their ideas to the cohort and four tutors, receiving feedback on aspects such as form, practicalities, and content. The format of this session is intentionally structured so that the student presenting cannot respond to the feedback in the moment. The goal is to allow them to hear different perspectives on what works well and what might need further development or clarification, encouraging the student to refine both their pitching strategy and the content of their project.

This feedback format offers several benefits:

• It provides students with the opportunity to hear multiple voices and perspectives on their project, encouraging peer support and critical engagement.
• Peer learning, as students get to observe and learn from each other’s work.
• The co-facilitation model, where multiple staff members participate, allows tutors to grow by learning from each other’s feedback styles.
• This format is a time-efficient way to critique the work of all the final-year students.
• It mirrors industry pitching practices, offering valuable preparation for post-graduation scenarios.
• For the unit assessors, this session provides a deeper understanding of each student’s project and process.

However, this feedback format does present challenges:

• Students might feel anxious or stressed about presenting their work to a large group, especially when they are unable to immediately respond to the feedback.
• Students diversity, such as international backgrounds, language barriers, or neurodiversity, can also make this format more challenging for some.
• Additionally, the range of feedback offered can sometimes be difficult to process, especially when there are contradictions between the comments provided by different tutors or peers.

Evaluation

In it’s current format, these sessions have been successful and student satisfaction with this approach has been excellent. As a tutor, I have also learnt so much by sharing the space with the students and with colleagues, as the session was co-facilitated by myself, the Course Leader Gabi Tropia, The Professor of Possible Film Andrea Luka Zimmerman and the Dean of Academic Programmes Paul Haywood. Each of us brings a different perspective, enriching the feedback experience for both students and staff. We also found that dividing the students into 3 groups at different stages of the day, to offer specific feedback on Form, Content and Practicalities, allowed opportunities for students to feedback in meaningful ways to their peers, and to think constructively and specifically when listening to each others presentations, rather than making ‘vague or self absorbed’ comments (Blythman et al. 2007). By ensuring that everyone had a chance to speak, we were able to create a more equitable space. This process aligns with the benefits that Phil Race describes, including “life-long learning” as it models industry practice, and the opportunity to “gain much more feedback than would otherwise be possible” (2001). Our approach also reflects Kate Brooks notion that ‘tutors need to become facilitators of the learning process rather than gatekeepers of knowledge, and students need more encouragement to reflect on their own learning journey” (2008). Learning how to give feedback aids students understanding and openness when receiving it.

Moving forwards

As this is a formative feedback session, the challenges stated above can usually be mitigated by explaining the purpose of the pitch to students in advance, but also by offering other feedback sessions at different stages of the project which use alternative formats (such as dialogic, feedback sandwiches, written feedback etc). Additionally, 1-to-1 tutorials are available the week following the pitching sessions, which allow students to process and reflect deeply on the feedback in a more private and less immediate context. Sometimes the frustrations of not being able to respond during the pitch have highlighted to the student what is missing from their presentation/project, and it means they can meaningfully refine their work and the communication of their ideas.

The anxiety some students feel about presenting is lessened by the supportive environment created during these sessions, where all of the cohort is in the same position. We do, however, offer the option for students to pre-record their presentations if this is more comfortable or if they have an Individual Support Arrangement (ISA). So far, all students have opted to present live, demonstrating their trust in the process and their understanding of it’s benefits.

Moving forward, I think that ensuring that there is a clear briefing that outlines the benefits (including some of Phil Races assertions) ahead of this session will further build students confidence and enthusiasm for this feedback format.

As the number of students in the program grows, it may become challenging to offer 1-to-1 sessions for everyone, so it would be useful to coordinate with colleagues to share the responsibility. This will ensure that students still have the opportunity to reflect on their learning in a meaningful way.

I also reflect on how grateful I am to work on a course where feedback methodologies are deeply considered and articulated from the beginning of the students time with us. Speaking with my peers on the TPP Unit has highlighted to me that this is not the case across all courses and colleges. I feel privileged to share space with students and colleagues who care deeply about supporting one another’s ideas and creativity in a thoughtful and considerate way.

References (additional to word count) 

Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Blair, B. (2007). Critiquing the Crit.

Brooks, K. (2008). ‘Could Do Better?’ Students’ Critique of Written Feedback.’

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). ‘Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice,’ Studies in Higher Education, 31: 2, 199-218.

Orr, S. (2010). Making Marks: Assessment in Art and Design.

Race, P. (2001). A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment.