Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice (of Kayal by Tutor Rachel Marsden)

One observation of your teaching practice by your tutor

– Rachel Marsden’s observations of Kayalvizhi Jayavel’s assessment feedbacks

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Summative Assessment Feedback

Size of student group: 10

Observer: Rachel Marsden

Observee: Kayalvizhi Jayavel

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?

The context of this artefact sits under Marking and Grades. This is the summative assessment feedback of the unit “Advanced Mathematics and Statistics to DS and AI” I taught last term to M.Sc Data Science and AI

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

These are students from M.Sc Data Science and AI. I am working with them since October as Unit leader (Tutor) and I am now handling my second Unit “Critical Data Representation and Analysis” for them.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

Expected Learning outcomes for this unit are as follows, The student on completion of this unit will be

  • LO1 Able to identify and reason about appropriate advanced mathematical and statistical methods, as well as advanced algorithms and data structures, for approaching a new data science problem (Process)
  • LO2 Able to employ advanced mathematical and statistical methods to a data science problem using code, making appropriate use of advanced algorithms and data structures (Realisation)
  • LO3 Able to use advanced mathematical and statistical methods, as well as appropriate algorithms and data structures, to gain insights about data and communicate these to others (Communication)

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

The student were expected to complete two elements as part of their summative assessment submission

Element 1: In Class Assignments A collection of assignments applying concepts and skills from the unit, as specified in the Assessment Brief (50%). Element 2: Practical Exam You will be individually asked to generate a report integrating text, code and visualisations (e.g., in the form of a Jupyter notebook) detailing statistical insights given a previously unseen dataset (50%).

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Some of the students are not from Computer Science background, so challenges exist when introducing terms related to data models like Cardinality, Referential Integrity etc.,

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

The students knew that I am a student of PgCert and this task is part of it.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

I am welcoming feedback of any kind, as I strongly believe they will drive me to improve things which may be my blind spots.

How will feedback be exchanged?

We will have a meeting on Teams to get this done or exchange emails

Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Thank you for sending over all your materials in relation to this review of summative feedback Kayal. The accompanying documents (unit brief, in class assignments and practical exam) are useful in further informing the review. Note, I looked at the first 5 examples of feedback provided in the ‘Marking notes’ word document. On first look, the feedback you provide for a 20-credit unit is extensive and detailed – approximately 1000 words (or more) for each student. This is great to see although feels above and beyond what’s required for a 20-credit unit (more like for a 60 credit) – might this create overwhelm for a student? I realise there is a need to respond to 3 individual parts of the unit brief (tasks 1 and 2, and a practical exam). Below, I have provided some reflections, questions and signposts – do not feel the need to respond to all of this in Part Three of the form, rather shared for future consideration.

In the ROT form and Unit Assessment Brief, I identified students need to meet 3 Assessment Criteria (Process, Realisation and Communication), yet in the excel document I can see grading across all 5 Assessment Criteria (?) to inform the overall grade. It’s usual to only respond to the assessment criteria as stated in the unit brief (do ignore me if I’ve misinterpreted this!). I wonder if the assessment feedback online tool hasn’t been set up properly to allow for this (if used)? Previously, have you been marking across all 5 or just the 3? Worth a check as this might impact awards if the case. In turn, how is feedback communicated to students? Do you use the assessment feedback online tool to upload and provide feedback? Or are the criteria and overall grades with feedback communicated in a different way? Say by email? Do you offer written and / or verbal opportunities for students to engage with / further digest their feedback? It is interesting to note the student who received the lowest grade of D- received the least amount of feedback overall, when they likely need more guidance, signpost and support – an observation. Perhaps you provide support via tutorials?

Looking at key terms used in the learning outcomes (LOs), I’m assuming that students will be learning about and know what ‘advanced algorithms’ and ‘data structures’ (and more) are and as such will be able to fully understand the meaning of the language used in the LOs? Is there an activity or exercise in session that enables students to demystify and translate the learning outcomes into the context of the unit and their studies? What might this activity / exercise comprise? You might have inherited these LOs from a colleague / unit / course so might need demystifying for yourself (I know that’s often the case for me!).

Using subheadings of ‘what worked well’, ‘what needed improvement’, ‘what to consider next time’ is really valuable in guiding students – a nice touch – the latter subheading often providing practical / pragmatic solutions for feedforward. Again, how might these three areas be directly related to the LOs / how much feedback do you provide in relation to each of the 3 LOs and assessment criteria? This is an expectation as part of ‘Inclusive Marking’ at UAL, under communicating feedback: “Set comments explicitly against the learning outcomes and relevant assessment criteria.” I can see that through your feedback you begin to make some connection to the LOs (say ‘Communication’) – this can be made more explicit.

A helpful tool I often use to reflect upon writing feedback is a word cloud generator to look at the language used and / or being leaned upon. In seeing your summative feedback visualised and reordered below, what do you identify?

In turn does the above word cloud highlight the types of positive and more critical, feedforward language in use? You often focus on ‘understanding’ and ‘improvement’, what’s ‘missing’ and ‘demonstrated’ – this helps to both evidence their learning and consider what more they can do in the future (great to see). I feel there is an opportunity to really celebrate the successes of their work more (you often use ‘good’) within the ‘what worked well’ section – perhaps reference language in the Postgraduate Marking Criteria Matrix (link below). It’s brilliant to see the word care present here too both used in the context of student work (and in an ethical dimension) and your recommendations – what might care look like in the context of assessment and feedback, and further in teaching and learning?

I’d also say you sometimes use more complex or descriptive words and phraseology like ‘decent’, ‘appreciable’, ‘beating around the bush’, ‘elegant’, ‘transcend’ and more – I’d reflect on whether these words clear to students in their meaning. The use of idioms can often be challenging to decipher for some students. Some of these words and phrases might have already been made clear in formative feedback or feedforward moments prior to summative assessment for the unit. I’d avoid using shorthand such as etc. and be as specific / detailed as possible, and be aware of using positioned / direct language too e.g. ‘You have reused…’ (unless fully evidenced).  

Another suggested activity /exercise might be to review feedback with colleagues; a team exercise to look at each other’s feedback. We often do this in the Academic Practice team to both think about the parity, effectiveness and equity of feedback, alongside an opportunity to learn with different styles and approaches to feedback. In turn, does your team have any collective or “guiding principles” – see QAA link below – to assessment and feedback? Just a suggestion. Thanks again for allowing me into this space of feedback Kayal.

Some helpful links documents to help guide your approach to assessment and feedback include:

Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

I never thought that way “credits proportion to feedback word count”, but it makes sense once you spotted that, will be conscious from next time

The students are communicated via the Assessment Feedback tool has no customization it is all 5, as you rightly spotted. And as all my peers follow the same, I was inclined to do the same, but will bring this up in future meetings with the concerned team, as I see meaning in what you say.

And it is a good observation “Low grade, Less Feedback”, Will consider it next time to be a bit more detailed

Regarding LO’s, you are right, sometimes they sound a bit generic until it is debriefed, so I attempted to deliberate during the first two week class sessions, so they understand it to the context of unit, but will also explore if there are other ways to further demystify

With respect to “how much feedback do you provide in relation to each of the 3 LOs and assessment criteria?”, I actually do this in the https://assessmentfeedback.arts.ac.uk/ which has separate sections for it, which I am unable to share as they were textbox entries.

And initially when you asked a question as what you observe from the word cloud? I was not quite clear, but you yourself hinted as what my own words means was fantastic, Thanks for the efforts to support me to understand.  And your motivation to think of how the relationship of my use of word “care” in the context of assessment and feedback and teaching and learning is something I would ponder up on. And also thanks for sharing the Postgraduate Marking Criteria Matrix to have a better vocabulary to play it right.

This “Set comments explicitly against the learning outcomes and relevant assessment criteria”, this goes on to the https://assessmentfeedback.arts.ac.uk/ in a separate section mapped against LO/Criteria and the feedback sheet I gave mostly goes under “More Feedback” Textbox.

Page 3 (last but one para) had some useful pointers for improvement. Specifically, the choice of words, though I don’t have a replacing vocabulary handy (but I hope will get some in the links you provided), but will be a bit mindful of these. And would definitely avoid positioned / direct language in future unless I am super confident.

Regarding reviewing feedback with colleague, what done so far is sit with the Moderator, but will explore more in this space.

And Rachel, I thoroughly respect the time and efforts you have put in to help me improve. Huge thanks.