Search

In this paper we outline the review and iterative refinement of assessment procedures in a final year graphic design subject at the University of Wollongong. Our aim is to represent the main issues in assessing graphic design work, and informed by the literature, particularly 'notions of creativity' (Cowdroy & de Graaff, 2005), to develop and incorporate assessment procedures that allow creative ability to be assessed with greater transparency and objectivity. In the first iteration we developed a structure to standardise and clarify the existing model for the subject. Once this structure was in place we identified issues that would benefit from a review of the literature on assessment in the creative disciplines and the broader field of pedagogy. We marked the shift from surface approaches to learning to deep approaches to learning (Moon, 1999) at the point where we identified gaps in the learning outcomes. Our response was to move the focus from the outcome to the process and to introduce a staged assessment procedure with a stronger emphasis on formalised reflection, cycling throughout the design process. We divided the learning process into two streams: thinking and making as a means to clarify facets of learning. As we continue to refine this model we note and respond to the relationship between assessment and learning. We propose ideas for future investigation, based on identifying levels of design thinking achieved by students in the most recent iteration of the program, and how these might be improved. G r a p h ic D e s ig n E d u c a t i o n : A r e v i s e d a s s e s s m e n t a p p r o a c h to e n c o u r a g e d e e p l e a r n in g G r a n t E l lme r s , Ma r iu s Fo l e y & S u e B en n e t t Journal of University Teaching and Learning PracticeVol 5/1, 2008 78 Introduction Most programs in design education are based on principals of studio-based and project-based learning (Davies & Reid, 2000). These approaches traditionally typically engage learners in increasingly more complex design projects as they advance through the course, guided by feedback from teachers and other students. The final project product or artefact is typically used as the primary measure of learning, thus focusing students on the outcomes of the project rather than they process by which that outcome is achieved. Critics argue that this de-emphasises the design process and as a result marginalises the important learning opportunities it presents (Kvan, 2001; Ehmann, 2004). To address this limitation, educators in the Graphic Design program at the University of Wollongong have developed a revised approach to teaching and learning that integrates critical reflection, informed by the work of Schon (1987). ‘Notions of creativity’ (Cowdroy & de Graaff, 2005) were employed to structure our approach, leading to an increased emphasis on the design process. This is articulated in two streams – thinking and making. Design thinking occurs throughout the design process, from idea generation and formation (via prototyping) through to completion and review. Design making is the physical, iterative formation of the final design artefact. The integration of this revised approach, in turn, led to a re-evaluation of existing assessment practices and highlighted key issues of particular relevance to design education. These include the challenge of assessing creative ability in a more explicit manner, and the need for strategies to improve transparency and objectivity within the assessment process. This paper details developments to date in what is an ongoing process of review and enhancement of assessment as an integral part of improvements to the overall teaching and learning approach. In particular, we focus on a shift from an approach that encourages surface learning towards one that encourages deep approaches to learning (Moon, 1999) and one which aligns assessment with learning objectives (Boud, 1990). Analysis of Previous Assessment Strategies In addition to accrediting appropriately qualified graduates that meet the needs of employers and responding to current political and system imperatives, assessment in higher education must have ‘educative value’. In other words, assessment should be part of and feed into the learning process, and not simply be a quantifiable measure of it. The critical role of assessment in the learning process is well documented (Ehmann, 2004; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Drew & Shreeve, 2005) and there is a growing body of evidence highlighting the relationship between assessment and learning. Boud (1990) argues that because students focus on what is assessed, assessment drives student learning. Thus, learning objectives must align with assessment tasks to direct student learning (Boud, 1990; Rust, 2002), and the assessment process G r a p h ic D e s ig n E d u c a t i o n : A r e v i s e d a s s e s s m e n t a p p r o a c h to e n c o u r a g e d e e p l e a r n in g G r a n t E l lme r s , Ma r iu s Fo l e y & S u e B en n e t t Journal of University Teaching and Learning PracticeVol 5/1, 2008 79 should be ongoing and aligned to goals of subject, course, discipline, profession and higher education (Raison & Pelliccione, 2006). An initial analysis of the existing assessment in the University of Wollongong Graphic Design program was framed using the concepts of deep and surface approaches to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1984; Moon, 1999). Whilst a deep approach is associated with a student's intention to make sense of the tasks in hand, a surface approach is associated with a focus on the ‘signs’ of learning, often with the intention of memorising them in order for them to be used at a later date. Deep approaches to learning occurs when students seek to understand ideas for themselves, as opposed to surface approaches to learning, which is motivated by an intention to cope with course requirements. Moon (1999), drawing on the work of Entwistle (1996), outlines the following characteristics of deep and surface approaches to learning (see Table 1). Table 1: Characteristics for deep and surface approaches (adapted from Moon, 1999, p. 122) Surface approaches to learning Deep approaches to learning • Studying without reflecting on either purpose or strategy • Treating the course as unrelated bits of knowledge • Memorising facts and procedures routinely • Finding difficulty in making sense of new ideas presented • Feeling undue pressure and worry about work • Relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience • Looking for patterns and underlying principles • Checking evidence and relating it to conclusions • Examining logic and argument cautiously and critically • Becoming actively interested in course content In this initial analysis we considered how the assessment criteria might be linked to particular student behaviours, which we had identified through observation and student evaluation. We then considered how these related to characteristics of deep or surface approaches to learning. Through this process we were able to identify how the existing assessment encouraged students to adopt a surface approach. The results of this analysis are summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Assessment criteria alignment to surface approaches to learning descriptors Existing assessment criteria (prior to revision) Typical student behaviour Surface approaches to learning characteristics (Moon, 1999) Demonstrated ability to initiate a self-set project that is relevant to the student's own career intentions Without an explicit and informed connection being made between the project and career intentions, the student relies on assumptions based on employment outcomes and proposes design ideas that are outcome-based, rather than processbased. Assessment is limited to technical and stylistic considerations. Finding difficulty in making sense of new ideas presented; feeling undue pressure and worry about work Demonstrated ability to conduct appropriate visual and text research to support their project The student makes assumptions about the value of research and more likely to limit the scope of research and direct their attention towards stylistic considerations instead of developing knowledge about design process. Memorising facts and procedures routinely G r a p h ic D e s ig n E d u c a t i o n : A r e v i s e d a s s e s s m e n t a p p r o a c h to e n c o u r a g e d e e p l e a r n in g G r a n t E l lme r s , Ma r iu s Fo l e y & S u e B en n e t t Journal of University Teaching and Learning PracticeVol 5/1, 2008 80 Existing assessment criteria (prior to revision) Typical student behaviour Surface approaches to learning characteristics (Moon, 1999) Demonstrated ability to articulate ideas and to maintain an ongoing reflection on the work in progress Without explicit teaching of reflective practice strategies, the student tends to dismiss articulation and reflection as ‘academic’ pursuits and fails to transfer knowledge from one project situation to another. Studying without reflecting on either purpose or strategy Demonstrated ability to negotiate a design idea through to completion The student begins at the end point, that is, the final outcome is moved forwards without consideration of the process involved in testing and substantiating the idea. This often results in work that cannot be defended against the criteria. Treating the course as unrelated bits of knowledge Key Influences in the revised approach Two key considerations influenced the revision of the assessment practices: enhanced feedback, and authentic assessment.

In this discussion, an Australian sound artist/radio producer and a new media educator debate the potential for a radio-web project that enables new forms of radio content, production and distribution. The radio-website will offer two levels of interaction: digital media producers can use it as an ‘open studio’, and the public can interact with published works. The project explores the ways in which radio artists, who now find limited avenues for research and development in broadcast radio, can exploit new forms of listening made available through internet services. The site is intended to offer content appropriate for convergent media, thereby demonstrating how latest technologies can be used to extend content approaches beyond accepted broadcast forms.

This article reviews the early days of an Australian public broadcaster's open studio Web project. It raises important issues for software developers and Web media makers about the need for software and collaborative structures that can facilitate community building in an open and responsive way. This project could be of interest to software developers working in Drupal.