Question: What is wrong with these band descriptors?
The grade from D/C to B describes judgements from sound to astute. I think they mean the same thing.
The use of the word judgement seems difficult for the student to grasp.
It seems like the grade from D/C to A means that D/C is in the current (status quo) point-of-view where A grade seems more “future or forward thinking” !
Communication and Presentation
The word “Audience” is mentioned frequently and its seems like they are “general” and not focused on the specific area of study for E grade. However, it seems like in D/C there is a distinct difference between specialists and general audience. In A grade, there is no mention of specialists but only the audience’s needs. What is audience’s needs?
In B grade, personal style seems to take centerstage but not in A grade.
Collaborative and Independant Professional Working
What is “professional” when students might not know that as they hasn’t start their career. How about artists?
F grade seems to suggest that he/she is unproductive. This seems not relevant to the context of this category.
Self direction and autonomous seems to be repeated often from D/C to A grades.
I think this band should be split into individual and collaborative – 2 bands.
Question: Is there anything good about the band descriptors that you would like to retain?
The original band descriptors have some keywords that are useful for my rewriting my version of the band descriptors. I have listed them below in this chart. I have also attempted to write this before the group session but using these keywords. My idea is that keywords will have varying degrees of description but constant throughout the criteria.
We also started to look at how we peer assess each other using the same matrix. Mine is the red tab.
Here, I have always understood that verbal communication is not my forte and has been working on writing down before putting into words. This helps me construct what i want to say and also allows me to go deeper into the conversation with peers.
Are UAL’s Creative Attributes more like Barnett’s ‘qualities’? Or his ‘dispositions’? Is it just a question of phrasing? Comment on a couple of examples.
The keywords sound more like qualities and the supporting sentences are more like dispositions. This policy allows the students to understand some of the aspects it describes. I think self-efficacy seems to be the least understood amongst students when I discussed this with them in my questionnaire on co-writing the Product Design Manifesto, using guidelines from the CAF.
The Creative Attributes are explicitly focused on employability and enterprise, i.e. on preparing students for socially useful occupations. What valuable attributes (‘creative’ or otherwise) can you think of that aren’t employment-focused?
Style character -this is mentioned in Barnett’s text
Autonomous/self-start – this is mentioned in CAF
How are these attributes taught in UAL ?
I will reply this question in the context of my course where i teach. In stage 2 and 3, students will be exposed to these values through live client projects. The ability to work on these projects allow the student to build up valuable attributes like communication, agility and resilience. I have also used aspects of these (curiosity and enterprise) in my lectures.I do so by using case studies of companies and cite examples of emerging techniques/technologies.
Barnett’s “qualities and dispositions” are about learning, and the CAF is about creative practice. Are they more or less similar than you would expect, given this difference?
Barnett focused on learnings. I think learning is underpinning all creative aspects in the teachings that we do in our course. Processes and typologies are evolving constantly (so learning will be changing as well.) The CAF is written both for an outward facing audience and also our own UAL students. I have used the CAF and our PD course manifesto as context for my studies in the Academic Leadership Elective Unit. If you read these Barnett’s and CAF together, I would say that the CAF is taking a few references from Barnett’s writings.
How do these ideas connect with the theory you’ve been encountering on your elective unit (if you are doing one)?
As I have highlighted earlier, the elective i am working on is Academic Leadership and I have been trying to use the learnings in this session for the portfolio and texts that i am submitting. These are very relevant and the message that we deliver to the students will have an impact on attainment and recruitment. I am currently investigating how the Product Design manifesto can be articulated, using the CAF and co writing it with peers/students.
How do you recognise Barnett’s ‘qualities’ in the context of a course you work with? Think of a couple of examples
– Integrity. Spotting plagiarism in student’s work is difficult. We are aware that some students have been doing that and we do not have evidence. Recently, a student has been caught “soliciting” project-related work. How can we ensure that we “instill” integrity in our students and ensure they produce work and thinking that originates from them?
– Respect. I work with a team of very cooperative peers. We have Monday Morning Meetings which is an opportunity for us to discuss issues (face to face.)This allows us to disseminate any issues to associate lecturers on Thursdays and Fridays. I believe it is this mutual respect that we get up early and be there in time for every meeting!
– Courage. The students have been plagued with sexual harassments issues and we take these very seriously. It is an ongoing thing which we have been monitoring and reporting for years. The ability to stand up and speak for themselves is truly courageous in times like today.
To what extent do you recognise Barnett’s ‘dispositions’ in your own approach to learning? Assuming this varies, what influences them?
They are very relevant in what I am learning in T&L now. As I started teaching only in January 2017, this allows me to learn and reflect critically in my Action Learning Tutorials in my Academic Leadership Elective Unit. Barnett’s writings has influenced me in “a sense of “prepardeness” in listening to others“. I have always neglected listening to students and this disposition that Barnet has been proposing allows me to reflect what my feelings were if I am a student asking questions. I felt I should listen to them more attentively. Although my large cohort puts me at a disadvantage, some of Barnet’s values have also influenced the way my teaching methods has in my peers in my course when i describe what i do in T&L. For example, the use of physical objects in a lecture and using a shared google questionnaire in a co working environment to gauge prior understanding before the start of lecture.