Maria's blog

Inflicted Bureaucratic Systems and Fair Assessment Process

In the article Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation, Addison (2014) discusses the positives and negatives of Learning Outcomes (LOs), making a case for “a less prescriptive model”. On the positive side, and “with respect to inclusion, advocates claim that LOs provide consistency and reliability because they ensure clarity, coherence, accessible goals, a framework for assessment, measurable evidence of learning and thus fair assessment process”. However, on the negative side, “policy makers were accused of “taking away the integrity of HE teachers by inflicting bureaucratic systems for its management” (Coats 2000; Harrison 2000)” (Addison, 2014).

In my practice as a lecturer, I have found LOs both a bureaucratic obstacle to work around and a supporting guide when assessing. Just like the Assessment Criteria, I have accepted them as part of the institutional framework that I need to work with, without questioning (until now) their necessity.

Formulated how and by whom

I think the LOs usefulness depends on how they are formulated and by whom. Our course went through a re-approval process last year, with the units redesigned and the LOs updated to mirror what we want the students to achieve and produce. This was a team effort where our course leader consulted with us lecturers. However, it is inevitable that the team, the units and the context in which we work will change (for example, the onset of AI), meaning the LOs will have to remain flexible and keep evolving. By involving teachers in the LOs periodic re-evaluation, you avoid “taking away their integrity”, though you are still “inflicting a bureaucratic system” which could be stealing time from other important teaching duties.

Limitations

Despite this recent improvement on our course, the LOs expose their limitations when students do not submit work that adheres to their specifications. Although we know that they have gained the knowledge and skills desired, sometimes even excelled them, we are forced to downgrade them. Students are rewarded for interpreting a brief rather than for the quality of their work. As Addison puts it: “LOs may inhibit learning within creative domains, supporting only those students who work strategically to meet largely pre-determined, necessarily accessible outcomes. After all, LOs ‘can be decoded and preformed, resulting in dull practice that may not go on to survive’; they ‘can be over-determining, squashing invention and creativity ’(Records 2013)” (2014).

Making LOs work

Davies argues that “there is a virtue in keeping the outcomes to a minimum even if this means a loss of specificity and apparent ambiguity” (2012). In our group discussion, it emerged that we all used LOs and assessed in very different ways, despite working for the same institution. We had found ways to make the LOs work in our specific contexts, but nonetheless spent a lot of time and effort explaining them to our students. 

If heavily modified, LOs can become overly subjective and might stop providing a fair assessment process. However, we all seemed to agree that our current LOs provided us with support when we doubted an assessment, and as a guide to avoid bias. It seems that we do collectively perceive LOs as an “inflicting bureaucratic system”, but, as long as we can moderately adapt them, they also provide a helpful framework for a “fair assessment process” (Addison, 2014).

References:

Addison, N. (2014) Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation. NSEAD/John Wiley& Sons Ltd

Davies, A. (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? Networks, No 18. 18 July 2012.

Lesson Plan

Presentation and introduction of task. 5 min.

Completing task. 10 min.

Discussion: 5 min.

I start by showing a short presentation (link) explaining the meaning of the word deconstruction: “To break something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning […]” (Cambridge Dictionary, no date). We will do this by deconstructing a pair of trousers, working in pairs. I go over the aims and the task.

Peer feedback

Feedback:

• A boring garment was made fascinating by dissecting technical details. Appreciated to have an expert explain the object. Gives you respect for the object and the people who made it.
• Narrative explanations about function of features and wider context helpful.
• The act of drawing made the participant focus, paying attention to the details of the object. To make a diagram and pick out components is a specific way of drawing.
• The presentation was helpful, especially the examples and leaving the vocabulary up.

Suggestions:

• Make pre-prepared stickers with vocabulary to label the parts.
• Focus on one part of the object (e.g. the waistband or a pocket) in order to have time to examine it in more detail and unpick it.
• Have two pair of trousers prepared, one untouched and one deconstructed.
• How do you distribute your time and support in order to accommodate students of different levels?

Reflection

Time

There was not enough time for the unpicking, but the participants still achieved the aims by sketching and analysing the trousers. For a 20 min session, it is a good suggestion to supply prewritten labels for the students to place on the right components. The participants could also focus on different components, and then share their findings with each other. I can try this in the longer session as well, by instructing everyone to concentrate on each specific component for 15 min. This could help students to complete more aspects during the session. For the micro-version, letting the participants examine a pair of pre-deconstructed trousers is also a good idea.

I will make sure to allocate time for peer sharing, discussion and expanding the narrative, since this was an appreciated part of the session. 

Drawing

I have been considering if showing examples of sketches will influence students to copy others work instead of finding their own approach. I try to show varied examples, and the feedback on this was positive, so I will keep doing this. In addition, I will show an example of a classic technical diagram, to illustrate this way of recording information. The feedback also supports the importance of drawing as described by Salamon: “Drawing extends beyond traditional expectations and is used as a research tool for developing thinking, improving concentration and enhancing memory” (2018). Previously, I have given the students the choice to photograph the garment instead of sketching, but the drawing aspect is something I want to emphasise in the future. 

Troublesome knowledge

In her microteaching session, Julia focused on the quality and provenance of a pair of joggers, introducing aspects such as sustainability and social justice. For a longer session, this is something I would like to incorporate, as a way of using “object-based learning to address troublesome knowledge” ( Willcocks and Mahon, 2023). It would also be interesting to compare the trousers the students bring (often second hand production suit trousers) to a pair of cheap joggers and a pair of handcrafted bespoke trousers. These could be partly pre-deconstructed.

Accommodate different levels

In order to accommodate student’s different levels, I will continue to walk around and offer support, tailored to individual needs. I will assess levels at the beginning, and monitor students` progress. I could also introduce two vocabulary lists, one general and one more specific, to aid L2 students. When pairing up the students, I will aim for diverse pairs, to maximise knowledge exchange.

References:

Cambridge Dictionary. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deconstruct. (Accessed 2 February 2025)

Salamon, M. (2018) UAL ‘Drawing Laboratory: Research workshops and outcomes’. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal. Vol 3/Issue 2 pp. 131-141

Willcocks, J & Mahon, K (2023) ‘The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education.’ Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education. Vol. 22 Number 2.

Appendix:

Detailed Lesson Plan

Presentation and introduction of task. 5 min.

Completing task. 10 min.

Discussion: 5 min.

I start by showing a short presentation (link) explaining the meaning of the word deconstruction: To break something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning […] (Cambridge Dictionary). We will do this by deconstructing a pair of trousers, working in pairs. I go over the aims and give an example for each one.

Aims:

• Learn the technical terms for the trouser parts (components).
• Investigate the construction of the trousers.
• Think about ways to develop the construction and design.
• Practice presenting your findings.

I explain the task and check for questions:

Task One: Technical Terms.

• Make a sketch of your pair of trousers.
• Name the parts (components) with the correct technical terms.
• Unpick parts to investigate the construction and materials.
• Make notes of your discoveries.

I show examples of ways to sketch and label, and again check for questions. I leave a slide with the technical terms up so that we can refer to it while completing the task. The pairs are uneven, and the participant with the most prior knowledge of the subject volunteers to work individually. Distributing trousers and un-pickers, I give them a minute to get started and then move around checking that they are getting on with the task, ask what they are discovering and answer questions. I explain the function of the vocabulary (e.g. fork instead of crotch for politeness) and different features, and ask them to share their findings with each other. We spend time on the sketches and discussion, leaving no time for the unpicking. 

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed:

Language Development BSc_MSc_(Strategic) Fashion Management Year One

Unit: Marketing Management

Fashion Business School

London College of Fashion UAL

Monday 20^th January 2025 14:00-15:30

Room Number: EB406 LCF 

Size of student group: est: 3-5 (possibly more) Register includes 21 students from course. 

Observer: Maria Thelin

Observee: Ian Holmes

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part OneObservee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

This session is the second part of a speaking/ seminar skills series. Last term we focused mainly on research and writing, for the remainder of block 1 the focus is on speaking – along with tutorials to review written assignment: Fashion Marketing Report. Here is a link to the Padlet which contains all the materials we have covered so far, this academic year:

https://artslondon.padlet.org/iholmes9/bsc_msc-strategic-fashion-management_yr-1-8p1rv65ed0dgiive

This Padlet also contains the activities materials for today’s session – following the class I will add the main slides. This platform is accessible to students via their main course Moodle page. 

Here are the materials activities for the session: 

https://artslondon.padlet.org/iholmes9/seminar-skills-2_marketing-management-joq0qfpzp7ehgzsk

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I have been working with this group specifically since November 2024 as Language Development Tutor. However, during October I lead the Language Development element in the ‘Into to Fashion Business’ course, which was a large cluster of a number of BA/BSc courses in the Fashion Business School, of which this current course was a part of. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

MAIN AIMS

• Learners acquire/revise lexical items for managing seminar discourse – agreeing/ disagreeing.

• Learners to improve confidence in talking about the issues relating to their practice.

• Learners to improve ability at managing conversation/ seminar discussion.
• SUB AIMS 
• Learners gain greater awareness of cultural differences which affect communication
• Learner’s practice asking critical questions of source material

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

Engage in conversation (1:1) – producing target language: agreeing and disagreeing 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

• Attendance – non-compulsory course – means the majority of cohort will usually not attend (actual numbers are difficult to estimate + the composite of attendees re language groups and abilities) 

• Active participation – Some students may lack confidence/ some students will be more introvert others more extrovert (also see below) 

• Ability range – L1 speakers – and competent L2 speakers and less competent/confident L2 speakers of English – creates possibility for dominance L1 and anxiety/ reluctance to participate L1. (L= Language) 

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

The students were informed in the previous week’s lesson – they will also receive notice via Moodle announcement – email as part of my communication with them re content and materials ahead of the lesson. 

What would you particularly like feedback on?

• Students’ interaction/ engagement with the tasks and each other 
• Production of target language in scaffolded tasks (pair work) and open discussion (whole/small groups). 

How will feedback be exchanged?

Via email (form) 

Verbal – following Observation (TBA) 

Part Three- Observation feedback 

Architecture and delivery

Your delivery is clear, engaging and relaxed. But at the back of the room there is a noisy fan, which made it difficult to hear you. Closer to the students I could hear well, and you made sure all students gathered at the front. But if you have a bigger group of L2 students, you might want to consider speaking up slightly more.

The small group of students sat in the front row of tables. When a student arrived late, you made sure that they sat next to the others and could join in the discussion straight away. For a discussion exercise you moved the tables, creating a square so the students could face each other. Maybe you could try this layout from the beginning of the class? 

Students can look at the presentation on their own devices as well as on the big screen. You helped them find the right resources and checked that it worked. Despite this, one of the students got distracted by a glitch during the first task, and I think some personal notifications. You also offer the students paper and pens to take notes, and most opt for this. Maybe you could try a session without personal devices?

Achieved goals

You explained new vocabulary, and the students also helped each other find the right words. You put common terms before academic ones in you presentation, e.g. body language (kinesics), making it more approachable.You wrote down vocabulary on a paper pad and a white board. I like how these stayed up during the session, as opposed to notes on a slide which quickly gets replaced.

You greeted the students as they entered the room, asking how they were and creating a relaxed and safe setting from the start. When you gave the students a question or task you allowed them time to reflect and find the right words without interruption. You noticed if a student didn’t engage in the task or the discussions, and gently encouraged them to contribute, which they did.

In the open discussion, the L1 students were first to speak, but the L2 students were paying close attention and soon joined in. The L2 students brought their cultural perspectives, and experiences of the global fashion market into the discussion. The conversation grew organically, everyone participated, and it is clear that they had grown in confidence and conversational ability thanks to your tasks.

Summary

Your session was clearly structured and the students achieved the aims that you had set out. It is a shame that your sessions are not compulsory. I know they would greatly help my students to complete the work for their compulsory units. Having visited your class, I will encourage them to attend with a new enthusiasm.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Thank you, Maria, for the useful feedback on the lesson.

Architecture and delivery

I agree that the volume of delivery on my part would need to be louder for a bigger group – especially in competition with the air conditioning system in that particular room. I anticipated that the number of students would be 3- 5 (however – it is always an unknown). 

The arrangement of the furniture would have been better early on as you have suggested. My rationale for leaving the tables arranged in a line was because a lot of the work at the beginning was plenary, and I wanted the group to focus on the presentation. However, in retrospect I feel that it could have worked better, as per your suggestion, by having smaller tables for pair work – where the students could face each other and then bring the tables together for the whole group discussion.  

I think that the overreliance on personal devices in terms of my classroom activities is certainly an issue for reflection. The use of Padlet – to share the activities – which mirror the presentation slides – has become a staple format for delivery. This in part has been driven by an attempt to make my lessons paperless from an ecological perspective – in terms of the resources; I am trying consciously to avoid wasting paper. It is also through my assumptions about the learners and how I perceive their preference for working- i.e. in the digital space. However, this then does require students to be able to access and use the platform – and there is always the possibility that technical problems will arise which then create barriers to the learners engaging with the tasks. Where possible I do try to give students alternatives – like using pen and paper. This will usually need to be supplied as students will not have pens or paper. I think I need to try to resource more ‘scrap paper’ ahead of sessions (and pens) so that I can offer alternative ways of engaging with the tasks. 

On reflection – in terms of getting to understand the needs and preferences of learners, it might even be worth me surveying them regarding this. I feel like there are benefits to using Padlet as a way of delivering activities – but it does also present barriers. The other issue that you picked up on was the student then becoming distracted by personal messages – this also happened several times with other students – even with devices that they weren’t using to do the tasks – i.e. smart phones. This is an issue which I observe across all my teaching experiences – but honestly, I really don’t know how I should deal with it – rather than take the devices from them – which is something I do not feel comfortable doing. I point for further reflection and research, I think – both from literature and peers. 

Achieved goals

I always try to make use of the whiteboard (where available) for highlighting vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation items – that come up during the class. Reflecting on your comment- that you liked that the board work stayed visible for the duration of the lesson, this is something that I will make a conscious effort to do more of in future. I think there is value in having the ad hoc language items visible for reference for the whole duration of session (after they have been written), as these points of learning reflect the emergent language in the room, as well the scaffolding that can help learners to communicate their ideas more effectively (especially in speaking focused lessons such as this one). 

Encouraging students to participate is always a tricky balancing act – with regards to students’ levels of confidence – preferences for interaction etc., however, I’m glad that, in this instance, I encouraged this learner to engage – as she was able to produce cogent language and make a valid contribution to the discussion. An aim of the lesson was to build confidence through participation, and it is my belief that through having the (encouraged) opportunity to participate, that this student will be more confident about doing this in future discussions – e.g. the seminar sessions in their main course – BA (Hons) Fashion Management. 

I was also happy with the level of engagement between the L1 and L2 students, the exchange of cultural knowledge and increased cultural awareness was a sub aim of the session – but one which I think has a greater value beyond this session and the language Development programme. This is a strategy which I will adapt for other courses that I teach in the Fashion Business School at LCF. It was very useful to have an external observervation of the interactions between participants in this session. 

Summary

My core approach with Language Development is to provide learners with the skills and strategies with which they can successfully apply to the compulsory and assessed elements of their course. I agree that it is unfortunate that the sessions are not compulsory – as this reflects the attendance, however, this is beyond my control (and as a non-credit bearing course it would seem unlikely that Language Development would been given that status. However, what is within my control is the (strategic) marketing of what I can offer, determining when the best time is to address certain foci, e.g. skills – writing – reading – speaking and listening – for the students during the term/block – communicating to students in their main course sessions  (where possible) the value of these sessions, and communicating and collaborating with course leaders as best I can. 

Originally from Sweden, I moved to London in 2009 to study Bespoke Tailoring at LCF – the course I am now teaching. I began lecturing the first year students in 2020. This was right in the middle of the pandemic, between the two lock-downs. It took a while before I met my colleagues  and line manager IRL, which made for an relatively independent and sometimes lonely start to my time at LCF. Now, many team meetings and trainings later, I am looking forward to developing my practice doing the PGCert. We moved to East Bank last year – with an incredible view from our  11th floor classroom windows and the building teaming with students from different programs, 2020 feels like a very long time ago.

When I am not teaching, I make bespoke coats for Huntsman in Savile Row, specialising in women’s tailoring. I am happy that I can continue to explore my craft, and I think it is vital that I keep up-to-date with industry practices and stay connected to the trade. This allows me to both develop my own making and better support my students in their training.

I am looking forward to doing the PGCert – to meet colleagues and discuss all aspects of teaching and working at the university. I hope we will reflect on different approaches to teaching, the diversity of student needs, the purpose of education, the sometimes limited resources and much more. I am hoping to learn new teaching methods and theories, and ways to apply these in my own practice. I am also hopeful that experiencing the student perspective again will deepen my understanding of my own students’ needs.

This last aspect has already been realised. During the introduction session we made sure we could access the Moodle pages, set up the blog, get the passwords to work, along with deciphering the unit assessment brief. It was very helpful to have this session in person, and be able to solve technical problems straight away. This is something I think would be really helpful to introduce to our first year students.