Category: Case Study

Assessing learning and exchanging feedback

Contextual Background

Currently, the unit learning outcomes (LOs) exist primarily as an artefact in the handbook, rather than a practical tool that is equally utilised and understood by both students and tutors. Additionally, the formative assessment process in BA Product and Industrial Design is essentially a standard design forum or tutorial under a different name. There is no explicit requirement for students to evaluate and their learning outcome progression at this stage.

A more structured approach, ensuring constructive alignment between learning outcomes, curriculum delivery, and planned learning activities, may allow formative assessment to become a meaningful milestone for student learning. It could serve as a formalised opportunity for students to present their enquiry, knowledge, and process in relation to the learning outcomes, rather than an informal progress check.

Evaluation

There are three key issues that need addressing:

1. The lack of explicit intention in how learning outcomes are embedded in unit learning activities.
2. A lack of transparency and clarity for students and tutors regarding how LOs connect to learning activities.
3. The gradual trivialisation of formative assessment, which reduces its impact as a learning opportunity.

The first issue will require an analysis of current activities, including lectures, Design Forums, and assessments, to see how they map to the learning outcomes. To improve transparency and clarity between students and tutors, the integration of learning outcomes into the unit must be iterative—meaning they are revisited regularly throughout the unit rather than being mentioned once in the unit briefing and again at submission. Finally, the formative assessment process should be restructured. Instead of mirroring a Design Forum or tutorial, it should be reframed as a curated presentation, requiring students to demonstrate their learning in direct relation to the unit’s LOs. This differentiation would encourage reflection and help students see formative assessment as a distinct, structured milestone, rather than just another tutorial.

Moving Forwards

Constructive Alignment. Biggs (2003) describes constructive alignment as a model where, “students construct meaning through relevant learning activities” and teachers “set up a learning environment that supports the learning activities appropriate to achieving the desired learning outcomes.” At present, our learning activities are loosely aligned with learning outcomes but tend to be structured more around the stages of the design process. This raises the question: Are we truly aligning learning outcomes with student development?

Our goal is to help students develop “functional knowledge”, which is the ability to “…reflect, hypothesise… and generate new alternatives” rather than simply describe or identify.” (Biggs 2003). This is particularly relevant to design forums and tutorials, where students often default to describing what they are doing and presenting unsynthesised information. While understanding the ‘what’ of their process is important, formative and summative assessments should require deeper reflection, showing how students interpret their learning and how it informs their critical decision-making.

To establish this shift, formative assessments should be structured as a reflective and evaluative learning opportunity, distinct from the lower-stakes, informal nature of tutorials. This could help students better gauge their own progression in relation to the learning outcomes.

Visualising Assessment Patterns. Mark Russell (2010) introduces a way of diagramming assessments across multiple modules, categorising them as low-stakes, medium-stakes, and high-stakes assessments. While BAPID does not currently operate with overlapping modules in the same way as Russell’s models, we do have concurrent design research and development activities, which could benefit from similar structuring.

One persistent issue is that students struggle to connect their Reflective Paper to their self-initiated project research. Each year, many students focus solely on the Reflective Paper, pausing hands-on design research and concept development instead of conducting these activities in parallel with the paper.

Reframing the Reflective Paper as one strand of a concurrent learning process—rather than a standalone task—could help students integrate it more effectively into their overall design practice. If we were to visualise the Reflective Paper as a module with distinct low or medium-stakes assessments running in parallel with hands-on design research, students might better understand how the two areas inform one another.

At present, our assessment model is linear, depicting a start-and-stop progression between design research and design development activities. By shifting to a concurrent model, we could create clearer connections between contextual research and practical design work, making assessment more meaningful and integrated into the learning process.

References

Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. (Second edition)

Russell, M. (2010) University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. Available at: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf (Accessed: 14 March 2025)

Planning and teaching for effective learning 

Contextual Background

Students value one-to-one tutorials, but in terms of policy and course management, this format does not optimise student learning time (SLT). While student experience improves with one-to-one tutorials (based on NSS results and anecdotal feedback), many students do not utilise these sessions. The challenge in course approval and planning is to modify the delivery of tutorials to maximise SLT while ensuring that all students benefit equitably.

A logical solution is to introduce mandatory small-group tutorials, which raises key considerations:

• What learning outcomes (LOs) can be intentionally supported through mandatory group tutorials?
• How can we differentiate mandatory small-group tutorials from other similar learning activities, such as Design Forums?
• With an average of 110 students in their final year on BAPID, delivering longer-format mandatory small-group tutorials will need to be spread over several weeks, even months.
• A practical concern is that students will be at different stages in their projects, and some may prefer to meet with tutors at specific points—for example, during design development rather than early-stage research.

Evaluation

A key strategy in addressing these challenges is to analyse learning activities in relation to the intended LOs. This includes assessing the distinct roles and overlaps of supervised studio group work (at various project stages), Design Forums and small-group tutorials.

By mapping these activities against learning outcomes, we can clarify how they contribute to student learning and where they build on one another.

Another goal is to foster a more cohesive learning environment that encourages students to engage critically. A common issue is that students often remain passive in group activities. While we must be sensitive to student anxieties and experiences that may affect participation, a multi-modal approach to small-group tutorials could offer alternative ways for students to engage comfortably.

Moving Forwards

Peer Learning Opportunities: In Peer Learning, “students take responsibility for their educational experience, rather than being dependent on, and subordinate to, the teacher (Rubin & Herbert 2010)” (Coorey 2016). Small-group settings have the potential to catalyse peer learning, but do not guarantee participation. Developing strategies to ensure active engagement is critical, as peer learning supports both student thinking and professional development. Coorey (2016) highlights that peer learning is a critical skill, as it enables students to take turns as both teacher and learner, strengthening communication and collaboration skills. Research indicates that students working in small groups “tend to outperform their peers in key areas, including knowledge development, critical thinking and social skills, and overall course satisfaction” (2016).

In addition, peer teaching fosters confidence and self-esteem (Coorey, 2016). However, individual characteristics such as introversion, anxiety, intelligence, and sociability can impact participation in peer learning situations. It is the tutor’s role to facilitate cooperation and tactfully address barriers to engagement. Five essential elements must be utilised for peer learning to reach its full potential: positive inter-dependence, individual and group accountability, face-to-face interaction, appropriate use of social skills and group processing (Johnson & Johnson 2008). We will explore how these elements might be achieved in a hypothetical example: 

Structured Crits and Small Group Tutorials. The challenge of providing 1:1 tutorials equitably with large class sizes (100+), means small group tutorials are an opportunity to better support specific learning outcomes and augment student experience. In BAPID Unit 9, LOs 1, 3 and 5 (as they are currently written) can be developed through structured small group tutorials. Assuming an example of small groups of 3-4 students and 1 tutor, students can be asked to prepare a short agenda for the group in advance for what they would like to review with their time (i.e., individual and group accountability). In addition, questions prompts for eliciting and receiving feedback can be provided by the tutor in advance to students, supporting those who might be anxious or unsure how to constructively engage (i.e., appropriate use of social skills and group processing). Furthermore, advanced agenda-setting and allowing students to define what they would like to get out of the peer learning session (i.e., positive inter-dependence), can hopefully help students think critically about their work and develop invaluable group communication skills, whilst helping them understand communication styles that are personally useful.

References

Coorey, J. (2016) ‘Active Learning Methods and Technology: Strategies for Design Education’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(3), pp. 337–347. doi:10.1111/jade.12112.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (2008) ‘Cooperation and the use of technology’, in Spencer, D. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 3rd edn. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 401–418.

Knowing and meeting the needs of diverse learners 

Contextual Background

In my teaching context, I work with a diverse cohort of design students—home and international students, as well as students from marginalised communities. A key challenge is ensuring that the curriculum is inclusive and reflective of diverse experiences. Part of the challenge is knowing how to identify and challenge the outsized influence of Western-centric, Eurocentric, and Global North notions of what is considered “good” design. Many students may feel disconnected from dominant design narratives, which often exclude non-Western perspectives and historical contributions from ethnic minority and marginalised groups and people.

Evaluation

To address these challenges, a decolonisation of the design curriculum is needed. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Friere, 1970), Paulo Freire argues that education should not be a top-down process of knowledge transmission but rather an interactive dialogue where students critically engage with knowledge. My aspiration is to introduce more student-led discussions, where learners critically analyse and challenge dominant design histories.

Additionally, referencing The Black Experience in Design: Identity, Expression, and Reflection (2022), I aim to explore ways to embed intersectionality and plurality for a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive design discourse. This text provides insights into how design education might move beyond a Eurocentric framework, ensuring students see themselves and their cultural identities reflected in design practice.

There is also a need to support students and staff with varying levels of confidence in discussing race, identity, and power in design. Some students are open to engaging in these discussions, while others find it difficult to move beyond traditional models of design education. Structured support and frameworks will be needed to make these discussions more accessible and productive.

Moving Forwards

The strategies and practices will be in reference to Unit 9, which is the self-initiated project brief.

Helping students analyse their intersectionality, positionality, and situationality in the identification and framing of design research directions is a priority. Much has been written on these aspects, but all lead to what Freire describes as a “problem-posing education” rather than a “banking education”, where in the former, “people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality but as a reality in process, in transformation.” (Freire, 1970, p.56).

The goal is not to replicate existing paradigms, but rather to help students find value and confidence in their lived experience. This might also encourage students to seek out authentic marginalised voices and ideas to frame new areas for their design exploration.

As a starting point for their self-initiated project, students could begin a “thematic investigation”—a process Freire (1970, p.80) describes as striving “towards awareness of reality and self-awareness”, that serves as “a starting point for the educational process or for cultural action of a liberating character.”

This investigation could be introduced at the end of the year to Stage 2 and DPS students through lecture and thematic investigation workshop, allowing them time for informal reflection over the summer, before formalising their approach when they begin Stage 3. The aim of this critical approach is to help students question paradigms or the everyday seemingly mundane – the practices, processes, interactions, and ways of doing that visibly or invisibly influence our lives. Using their personal experience as a starting point, and critically examining why things are the way they are, students might look beyond their experience to inquire about what it might take to improve conditions or establish alternate discourses on any variety of issues or challenges, on both micro or macro scales.

In addition to supporting students, staff must also evaluate how our academic design spaces and practices perpetuate cultural bias. In The Black Experience in Design, Jennifer Rittner describes the fallacies of “cultural fit” in design workspaces. As academic studio culture aims to, in part, professionalise students, we must be cognisant of our potential bias towards a Eurocentric cultural hegemony. Rittner writes:

“In design spaces, the challenges of identity have manifested more insidiously, as a preference for an aesthetic defined by European Modernism – which draws as much from African, Black, and global diasporic cultures as it does from strictly European traditions. European Modernism came to define excellence in the field, and so to seek acceptance as a designer has required mirroring European Modernism and its disciples as closely as possible.” (Berry et al., 2022, p.40)

This systemic problem is difficult to address. While the course is generally aware of the historical social and cultural biases in design, we must remember to focus on how the student evidences the learning outcomes. In doing so we must be ready to vigilantly question ourselves and other staff regarding potential bias when feedback veers into subjective preferences, as these might be informed by a “default whiteness” (Berry et al (2022); p.40) in design culture.

References

Berry, A., Lu, A., Rittner, J., & Simmons, A. (2022). The Black Experience in Design: Identity, Expression, and Reflection. New York: Allworth Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.