‘What do I need to do?’ (Helen, Unit 6: 2025)
The Unit 6 assignment within MA Performance; Society includes a reflective journal, visual essay and presentation. These multiple parts are designed to offer inclusive and flexible modes of engagement. Whilst this design has been commented on positively by both the students and the external examiner, it is not as straight forward as a singular final exhibition or thesis, and students can be unclear about what is expected from them.
In their article examining good feedback practice, Macfarlane & Nicol (2006) argue that independent learning requires students to be able to identify the relationship between their present levels of achievement and what is required by the assignment. Without a clear understanding of what the assignment goals are it is impossible to learn, i.e. self-regulate and develop your own work towards this. They go on to point out that understanding assignment requirements (aligned with course learning outcomes) is not a simple process of ‘transmission’ (Macfarlane & Nicol 2006:200) and supporting this can be challenging.
Evaluation
With Macfarlane & Nicol’s work in mind, I have been reflecting on two key ways students understand the Unit 6 learning aims: reviewing past work and engaging in peer/tutor feedback.
At the start of the unit, students requested previous examples of work to help them understand the assessment requirements. Initially, I hesitated, as I have observed that while exemplars can be useful, they sometimes lead to emulation rather than deep understanding. Care was taken to advise us on the PG Cert, for example, to engage critically with the sample work shared with us. To support critical engagement in MAPS, I provided past examples of Unit 6 work alongside a series of workshops on critical reflection and postgraduate expectations of depth, which is central to the assignment. So far, students have found this approach helpful.
Macfarlane & Nicol argue that if feedback is solely tutor-led, it does not promote self-regulation—the ability to refine work in response to external goals. I agree that pointing out that a student needs to go ‘deeper’, within formative or summative feedback, does not necessarily help them understand what ‘deeper’ means concerning their own work and how this might be achieved? Liz Bunting also points out that feedback needs to be developed relationally and that what she terms ‘compassionate feedback’ (Bunting, 2022) which honours students’ positionality and expertise, is key to fostering the sense of belonging explored in Case Study 2.
Currently, formative feedback is generated both within group sharing sessions, where students present early work for peer discussion, and individual tutorials with me as the unit leader. However, although peer and tutor contexts are employed, I am aware that there is a distinction between tutor-led feedback, where work is discussed in relation to the assignment criteria, and peer feedback sessions where the discussion is less anchored to the criteria.*
Going forward
I plan to align some of the peer feedback sessions more closely with the assessment criteria so that students can explore how each other’s work meets or engages with these benchmarks.
I will bring in a peer feedback exercise that directly employs the Unit 6 assessment feedback format.
I will consciously aim to co-produce feedback with students in tutorials rather than arriving with it fully formed.
References
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’. Studies in Higher Education, Vol 31: 2, pp 199-218.
Amina Akhmedova, A., Bunting, L. et al. (2022) Interrogating Spaces: Compassionate Feedback. UAL Teaching, Learning and Employability Exchange. [Podcast] October 11, 2022.