Vikki brought my attention to Tracey’s work around negotiated assessment/meta assessment. I reached out to her via Instagram and we swapped emails and arranged a zoom meeting. We had a really interesting chat for about 45mins.
I’m not very good at listening, talking and writing so my notes are very sketchy and all over the place…but at least I remembered what we talked about!
We had a very interesting chat about her project and how she went about it. She implemented a student centered marking process for yr1 and yr2 students, where students and staff marked work together, and agreed a final mark together. Students were allowed to bring one representative with them (could be a peer or another staff member), and interestingly they did frequently request technicians to be present as their representative. They did so because they felt technical staff were able to advocate for them and perhaps use more complex language and terminology to describe thier work, which also helped them learn. She said this had a very positive effect on the students as they were essentially coached on the marking process through those 2 years and by the time it came to third year they knew what to expect and there was a lot less upset about final degree marks. This was done in person, face to face. This was really good to hear, this was a tried and tested way forward as to what technical involvement could look like. It seems so far away from what the Performance students do…especially during COVID.
I spoke about my struggle with my question. The more I thought about it the more I was thinking that I don’t agree with the marking policies and procedures the department uses…so why would I want to be involved in something that didn’t align with my teaching beliefs. I talked about the lack of humanity involved in a digital log book submission, and the lack of face to face feedback (as opposed to written). She suggested I read ‘Reclaiming conversations in a digital age’. I found this YouTube talk of the authors which was more accessible for me. I’m struggling to read at the moment.
I really felt a conflict, and questioned what I was doing. Do I want to ask this question any more?
Tracey encouraged me not to accept the norm and to turn it around and flip it. To do the same with my question. I talked about the authentic trace of the making process, and how I feel there is a loss of value placed on that- and that’s one of my motivations for adding in the technical voice to marking- especially since log book submissions were digitised and page numbers becoming more and more limited by submission size, and technicians are the most student facing teachers. In fact in some cases their only contact with academics was online. I find that problematic. Why shouldn’t these technical spaces be assessed? But then would that change the authentic relationship and safe-space between tech staff and students? The no-judgement area into a judgment area? The trust we have with students is something I love about my job the most. I’m still searching for my question.
We finished up the conversation by talking about methods. I talked about a staff survey and student focus group. She suggested a focus group with all staff and students present, because i’m interested in the richness of what happens in these spaces when they come together- I’m interested in transparency, and creating a community of practice rather than segregation. I talked about my idea of bringing an artefact and she suggested prompt words and giving participants things to draw with. So much food for thought.
Post Chat
I’m thinking about my question a lot. I’m starting to re-jig it based on some of the interesting things that came up in our conversation. Things I’m trying out:
What can academia learn from the technical space?
What can academics learn about student engagement in technical spaces, and how should participation in these valuable spaces be assessed?
Re-claiming the technical space: Are we losing the authentic trace of making in the marking process?
hmm…WIP still not hit the nail on the head yet.