On reading this article I was pleasantly surprised at Davies (not pictured) dissilution with the assessment process. Although it is of course a necessarry evil it is sometimes hard to overlook how much the college project context differs from the real world. I pulled out a few quotes I wanted to respond to:

“…art and design students’ ability to visualise. This cognitive ability is a cornerstone of creative thinking. It requires the use of imagination and judgment and we expect all art and design students to develop it as they progress in their study… “

This made me think of an email from a student I recieved today. He’d proposed a laser cut project outcome but he’d left it too late and the machine was fully booked. He asked if a plan was sufficient to which I instinctively responded, ‘No.’ In hindsight what difference does it actually make? A digital production process like laser cutting vs the artwork prepared and plans made are literally the difference between pressing a button or not pressing said button. Perhaps what I should be more concerned about is his design process and the creative nature of his visualisation? In the ‘real world’ you would rarely be expected to manufacture the things you design. Of course there is an element of bad time management that has to be considered but perhaps in future i’ll be more open.

“…the most accurate map of a region would have a one-to-one relationship with the terrain. That is, the map would be as big as the region and, hence, useless.”

I think I just love the poetic nature of this point however poignant it may be. In a way it arguably relates to the previous point. Perhaps the representation of an outcome through detailed annotations and iterations could in fact be more useful for the purpose of an assessment anyway?

“In art and design, outcomes are not achieved once and that is it. They are regularly returned to …Therefore, assuming that outcomes, once addressed, are completed does not reflect the ‘spiral’ nature of the pedagogy…”

I totally agree that often the pressure of creating ‘finished’ outcomes can impede on the creativity of student’s ideas and the conversations as educators we can have around them. I would also argue this is true of a professional context, artists and designers always re-use themes, inspirations and techniques. In developing ongoing relationships with more specific subject matter outcomes in whichever format will obviously become more efficiently realised.

“It is better to provide a structure for discussions with the students to enable them to begin to engage in the discourses of the community in which they are joining than to assume they understand how they will perform against ‘measurable’ outcomes.”

Again I totally agree with this point. In general I think the idea of community as a whole is undertaught. Not only in encouraging bonds within the cohort and prospective industry but within the communties identified within their projects. If a student where to create a project that made some kind of real, positive difference (outside the instituion) as mentors is that not the most success we can hope for?

Lastly I really enjoyed this ‘succinct’ definition of a 3rd unit of study for a visual communication learning outcome:

“Stage 3 – Work effectively as a graphic designer.“

Although this was drastically shortened for the purpose of the article it actually sums up so much. Its easy to lose sight of our purpose on particlar courses when navigating so many students differing ideas and intentions. However I believe keeping in mind the core of what the discipline is about is actually very healthy as students, from my experience still value industry knowledge.