Introduction and Background
Within the BSc/MSc Fashion Management 24/25 course, I am working with a new cohort of first year students as Unit Leader on Product Management, which looks at the entire lifecycle of a product, incorporating theories such as Triple Bottom Line Theory (Elkington, 2004), and Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Everett Roger, 1962).
Evaluation – Evidence
There is a bias towards holistic summative assessment at the end of the 12 week unit, with one mid-point formative assessment. Having taught the unit last year, with some students achieving below the required attainment rate, affecting the overall grade average, it is clear that this approach needs to change. Part of the problem seems to be that there is not enough time allocated for students to practise core elements of the assessment portfolio, and gain feedback before final submission. The other issue here stems from the fact that formative assessment does not count towards the final grade for the unit, and is therefore regarded as optional. The resulting poor attendance at formative assessment is contributing to low attainment at summative.
Deep learning: “It is widely accepted in educational circles that ‘deep’ learning is what educators should be developing in their students, as opposed to surface learning” (Danvers, 2007). In reality, the endeavour is to instil active understanding, as opposed to the passive accumulation of information, to be learned and repeated. I have noticed that the deep learners in class, who have taken on responsibility for their own development, turn up to every class & formative assessment, make good use of the reading and resources, ask questions and challenge me to generate such active understanding of the subject, develop improved skills in critical analysis and consequently perform better at the summative assessment. The question I asked myself when planning the unit for this year, was “how do I inspire all students to develop such engaged learning?”
Moving Forwards
Constructive alignment: In order to maximise engagement and attainment across the group, I am building in more problem based teaching during seminars, in an acknowledgement that such a diverse cohort will learn in different ways, and achieve at variable rates throughout the unit. At the beginning of each seminar session we will discuss and agree key objectives and clear learning criteria (Biggs, 1999), taking into account any questions or concerns the students may have. I anticipate that encouraging the students to participate in generating the objectives will lead to a greater level of motivation, and develop learning at a deeper level through a focus on key tasks, facilitating peer to peer discussion & collaboration.
Organisation of assessment: In addition to the above I have instigated a second formative assessment and stressed with the students that these formatives are not an ungraded ‘test’, as appears to be the perception, but an opportunity to receive feedback and reflect on their work prior to summative submission, helping them to achieve a better grade overall.
“Assessment should facilitate reflective practice, enabling students to evaluate their own learning process and apply feedback effectively.” (Davies, 2012, p. 10)
The formatives will be organised in small groups of up to 6 students. It will give them increased opportunities to practice core elements of the summative assessment, gain peer to peer as well as tutor feedback, and hone their presentation skills in a smaller group environment.
As a tutor, this approach will give me greater opportunity to reflect on and assess each students progress more clearly, leading to an understanding of who might need a greater level of support prior to summative submission.
Referencing
Davies, Allan (2012), Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? University of Brighton, Faculty of Arts. Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem
Elkington, John (Ch 1) The Triple Bottom Line : Does It All Add Up, edited by Adrian Henriques, and Julie Richardson, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=430036. (Accessed 28 Feb 2025)
Rogers, Everett M.. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition, Free Press, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=4935198. (Accessed 5 March 2025)
Danvers, J., 2007. Assessment in the arts: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Teachers’ Academy Papers, p174. Available at: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/52619356/TA_book-libre.pdf?1492171700=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DExPLORING_THE_LINKS.pdf&Expires=1741171891&Signature=XI6-8cfhTcRQLjLjk06IsJ6-837LZgSkhPVkpRFWD3Bcjl00VSwf4-kIFT3a~c1Dgcys00ggEWwci~gAi1XG8X1vGAVMD0HwAnFMmPixdDKUtuA7ExlL9adUUeq71X5wsGbBao50UUfLDfMYn4AlCSE8CFL5myLrj8ZqNGmHtJiCam1JMHeJ6Z-RVqYigOiNzMSWIGc5stFw270h0fvmzTz~roQ0aKVVdBtmqCFqiHS8uMokGGdwHLMY0tM67CGSEGborkzNOXiGCj–qtXV5hXvVBJUCghR~6hAx6sHUwt1uHyerg1Qy73hp8f-gB3UeP8auEiMStN5dmAuYM4gfA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page=175 (Accessed 5 March 2025)
Biggs, J. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol.18, No.1. 1999. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0729436990180105 (Accessed 5 March 2025)