Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: BA Magazine Journalism & Publishing Year 2 Option Unit Assessment Brief
Size of student group: 11
Observer: Dr Rachel Marsden
Observee: Dr Sonali Misra
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 One
Observee 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 artefact is the Assessment Brief for an Option Unit that I created and executed for the first time in 2024–2025. I was given the Brief template that was being used for other Option Units. I could not change the wording of the Learning Objectives, but I did have to create the Evidencing of the Learning Objectives as well as what the Unit’s assessment submission was and what elements it should include.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
This was the first time I taught this group as I did not teach them in their first year. I created this Brief without having much engaged with the student group, apart from one information session about upcoming units in Year 2, wherein I introduced this new Option Unit.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
The ones detailed in the Brief (I have attached with the email).
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
For the Unit Assessment, the students had to submit 1500 words of creative magazine writing, 1000 words of critical evaluation of that creative magazine writing, a Bibliography and a Style Sheet.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
- I adapted the style of evidencing from the other Option Unit (that brief has been attached as reference). While marking the assessment, I found it a bit complicated to do the dot grades as the criteria are often repeated across different Learning Objectives.
- I had some international students in class whose first language is not English. I dedicated a lecture to editing and grammar basics, as well as signposted them to other resources. I also edited their work through 2 workshops/crits sessions where the students submitted 500–750 words of their writing using the learnings from the classes. However, I was unsure how to fairly assess their writing and editing skills – especially when ‘grammar’ is not mentioned in the Brief.
- 1500 words of the assessment was dedicated to creative magazine writing and 1000 words to critical evaluation. Yet, I felt like the Brief paid more weight to the critical evaluation and their research. Also, Realisation is not one of the criteria, so I was unsure how to assess the quality of their creative magazine writing.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
As this is not a review of teaching but of materials, they needn’t be informed.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
- The structuring of the Brief and the evidencing of the Learning Objectives
- Whether things can be amended so that more attention is paid to their creative magazine writing
- How to approach students’ diverse English-language proficiencies in a class aimed at writing in the English language for the purpose of publishing it. Won’t some students have advantage over the others, and won’t this be disheartening to some?
How will feedback be exchanged?
Via email
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Thank you for sending over the unit assignment briefs (PU002879 and PU002880) for review. For the ROT, only the PU002880 brief was selected and reviewed. Below are some reflections, suggestions and prompts provided as questions to help think about different aspects of the unit brief – an opening up of possibilities and ideas. Note, if updates are made to the unit brief, these might need to be considered as formal modifications so please discuss within your team. I have been mindful and respectful of the fact you are working with a legacy brief (structure) and have a feeling it likely uses the approach referenced in the LCC Staff Guide to Unit Assessment and Project Briefs. Therefore, I wonder if any of the ‘Templates and Useful Information’ section might be useful here?
On first look, page 1 includes a range of different font sizes between the title, subtitles and main information. It can be difficult to read and delineate between the 9 sections. I wonder if more clear subtitling, or background colour variations, would make a difference? Is there an order to the reading of the 9 areas? Also, the summative deadline seems to get lost in the table and doesn’t stand out – what do you think? This makes me think about the Dyslexia friendly style guide, which might provide some pointers on readable fonts, headings, structures, colours, layout and more (there is also a PDF guide here). I’ve also provided some further links below about creating accessible digital content and documents that might inform the brief:
The ‘Assignment Title’ states project and 1,000 word evaluation (p. 1), which is helpfully/ consistently reiterated in the ‘Your assignment’ area (p. 2). In the ‘Project brief’ section (p. 2), ‘portfolio’ is stated, though not earlier on in the brief – is the portfolio familiar to participants? Could the ‘Creative writing’ and ‘Critical evaluation’ sections go into more practical step-by-step depth to describe more of the key elements? I wonder if terms such as ‘critical’ and ‘descriptive’ need a definition? This makes me think about the ALDinHE ‘Instruction words in essay questions’ document (and how UAL doesn’t have such a document that I can find). Therefore, is there an opportunity to provide information on academic skills in the guidance?
It is interesting to hear you (in the ROT form) wrestle with the distribution and understanding of the learning outcomes and their weighting – when this is a holistic assessment – which makes me think, if you’re wrestling to sense-make then it is likely participants will be too. It is often preferred that only one criterion is set against a learning outcome rather than two combined as it can make the learning outcomes harder to interpret and assess. I think the (your) evidence of the learning outcomes are well grounded and start to make linkages to the practical outputs expected – what are some of the practical ways the learning outcomes and criteria will be shown? For ‘Knowledge’ is this theory, literature, books, journals(?)…in addition engagement with our intended platforms and readership. In addition, I wonder if there’s an in-session opportunity to map and work with the assessment criteria and learning outcomes to understand them in practice, which could be periodically revisited throughout the unit? Furthermore, is there further scaffolding you could state in the unit brief to support students in the development of their writing and academic skills. For example, links to academic support online, or library/ Academic Support sessions. This also draws me to UAL’s work on:
Some additional notes include:
- Could PCSAs also be stated and linked to in conjunction with ISAs?
- Is it helpful to provide the names/ email addresses for the teaching team specific to the unit (this might vary hence the general email address)?
- ‘How you will receive feedback’ doesn’t actually state what format – In writing? Verbally?
- Are there any formative opportunities to receive feedback or is this delivered via crits (as mentioned earlier in the ROT form)?
- Might a link to information on applying for additional time/ Extenuating Circumstances be provided on page 1 and/ or on page 4 under ‘Assessment Guidance’ (similarly PCSAs)?
- Under ‘costs associated,’ might digital equity be considered? For example, where might participants borrow laptops/ access software?
Overall, I want to reassure you this is a good unit brief Sonali. I wonder if (some of) the above might serve as an opportunity and give agency to open up conversations within your team about writing assignment briefs? Feel free to select/ choose areas to respond to in ‘Part Three’ of the ROT form below (rather than responding to it all) and I hope it’s been helpful.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thank you for your detailed comments, Rachel. You have touched upon bits that I didn’t even realise I could question. As a result, I feel like this ROT has opened up a whole new world (or maybe a Pandora’s Box – depending on how my team reacts!).
Many of the points you have picked up on would need to be discussed with my team. I have not seen the Assessment Briefs of other programmes, and this is precisely the template that my Programme uses. Specifically, I mean: the variation in typefaces on page 1; the exclusion of PCSAs; the exclusion of digital equity in costs associated, etc. But these are all valid points and things I can discuss with my team so we are more inclusive in our Briefs.
While I end up with a grade that makes sense holistically (it has not been a problem while second-marking/reviewing grades), I think my brain still tries to create a mathematical equation for the dot grades to end up with an overall grade. My worry is that if I am asked why a student has received B and another B-, I should have a precise rationale for it. That is something I can work on to stay truer to the nature of holistic grading, as you have picked up yourself in your comments.
I do discuss the differences between ‘critical’ and ‘descriptive’ in class and on the lecture slides that I upload on Moodle, but I take your point that this can be clarified in the Brief itself. Similarly, I signpost the students to Academic and Library Support in class and on the lecture slides uploaded on Moodle, but this can be included as a helpful addition in the Brief too. I have raised my doubts regarding a Learning Outcome having more than one dot grade criterion with the Course Lead, and it is something we will consider in the course revalidation.
I am curious about the one query (quite a large issue and may not be apt for this ROT, I realise!) that I raised in ROT Part One, ie, my doubt about teaching and assessing an English writing-based unit to students whose first language is not English. If you have some time, it would be great to get your perspective on this too.
This ROT was a lot of valuable food for thought, so thank you again for your comments and for all the resources you have linked here. I will organise your feedback into what I can do to improve the Brief specifically for this Unit vs changes our programme can make in all our Briefs (as they follow the same style) to continue maintaining consistency but also be clearer and more inclusive. I can then take points from the latter to a programme meeting/Away Day to hopefully enact some change.