Contextual Background
I work on the Unit 10 module for dissertations across the Fashion, Jewellery, and Textile programme. To ensure parity, we use a process of double assessment: the primary supervisor is the first marker, and this is marked in relation to a secondary grader. If there are major discrepancies or disputes, the assessment is forwarded to a third marker, sometimes fourth. In this 24/25 co-hort, there was one dissertation that was marked with an A, B, and third mark of C – illuminating the problems of parity, judgment and subjectivity in the process.
Evaluation
What I have learned from this process and my own shifting patterns of assessment is how much the assessor’s experiences and relations shape the final mark. For example, in my first year, I abided by standards that were comparable to my own undergraduate education from a school that had a bell curve, and did not have more than one or two papers at an A. I was insecure about my authority, thus instead of reaching diplomatic conclusions about the final assessment, I was dogged about my opinions, perceiving discrepancies as a comment about my skillset. Now, in my fifth year of assessment, I rely heavily on diplomacy and the secondary eyes of experienced and inexperienced assessors. I always try to reach a medium ground. In the case mentioned now, however, I was the primary supervisor, and my own expert knowledge in the field compelled me to try to push the grade higher.
Moving forwards
Having now read more pedagogical theory on assessment itself, I am moving forward with an increased sense of ambivalence. I write about this in my final blog post, through Barrow’s work particularly, understanding how assessment acts a tool of discipline, that may or may not lead to the student’s resistance against the institution itself (2006). Oftentimes assessment reflects how the instruction was understood (see Barrow, 2006; William, 2011, p. 3); in the case of the dissertation, this would have taken place over the whole course of Cultural Studies, where we taught critical reading and research skills. There are also institutional power dynamics – constituted by colonial histories – which reward linguistic achievements (Broadfoot, 1996, p. 30), disproportionately undervaluing students that do not have English as a first language. Moving forward, I will ask more questions.
Broadfoot argues that the debates for the reform of assessment practices reveal the ‘tension that exists between, for example, educational goals defined by industry and those of teaches’ (1996, p. 25). In my classes, the students largely prioritise practice-based learning, as their tutors in those pathways emphasise their vocational training. CSM as an institution is a source of talent for the fashion industry, which is an industry that seems to prefer obedient and uncritical workers. As someone who has worked in it, I saw first-hand how critical research skills, and understanding theory was necessary to make a strong practitioner. I witnessed too many problematic moments with designers and creative directors appropriating marginalised cultures, reinforcing sexism in the workplace, and misunderstanding capitalist directives. Assessment thus offers a check point to critical self-evaluation, but also reinforces capitalist relational dynamics of competition, ranking the students in an order that would reflect their plausible success in industry. It also can shape the possibilities for future trajectories as academics, should they want to pursue a postgraduate degree.
Going forward, I think assessment of praxis would be an interesting step to push for, but unfortunately these lie in administrative conversations, which I have not been privy to. In the meantime, I think the opportunity for the students in the Unit 10 dissertation lies with the formative feedback, as it offers encouragement or critical intervention.
Moving forward for me, is not necessarily about resolving this problem of parity, but rather I am seeking to understand how assessment works on an ideological level, so I can better understand and inform myself about how to practice assessment through critical engagement. There is not a clear quantifiable process for this, but rather to assert my own decolonial aims and practices as intervention into the institutional policies. This is how I aim to move forward.
References (additional to word count)
Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, 31:3: pp. 357-372.
Broadfoot, P. (1996) Education, Assessment, and Society: A Sociological Analysis. Berkshire: Open University Press.
William, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’ Studies in Educational Evaluation 37: pp. 3-14.