Connecting Feedback, Peer Review, and Digital Tools for Learning
Contextual Background
As a Specialist Technician at London College of Fashion, I deliver technical workshops across various courses within the School of Media and Communication. These workshops have defined learning outcomes but do not directly impact on students’ grades. This can affect engagement, with some students fully committed, while others see less value in participating. In addition, the limited insight into students’ prior work and course requirements makes it difficult to provide meaningful and targeted feedback. A key concern is to ensure that formative feedback is recognised as an essential part of student learning while bridging the gap between technical and academic development.
I currently provide real-time, hands-on guidance during workshops to support skill refinement and experimentation. This aligns with Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) principles of good feedback practice, particularly in fostering self-regulation. However, this feedback lacks structure and reflection, making it difficult for students to link their technical progress to broader academic goals. Furthermore, the absence of technical staff in formal assessment creates a disconnect between practical learning and its academic recognition. While students value the informal workshop environment, structured feedback mechanisms could help them to articulate their technical development more effectively (Addison, 2014).
Moving Forward
Strengthening structured feedback frameworks – Providing structured feedback rubrics within workshops could ensure that feedback is clear, consistent with unit learning outcomes and promotes self-reflection (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). By explicitly linking technical learning to academic progression, students can better understand how their skills contribute to their overall development.
Increasing collaboration with academic staff – Closer collaboration with course tutors could improve the integration of technical and theoretical learning. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) emphasise the importance of clarifying learning expectations, which could be achieved by aligning workshop feedback with academic assessment criteria. Addison (2014) also criticises rigid learning outcomes in creative education and suggests that a more negotiated approach to assessment could improve student learning.
Promoting peer review and collaborative learning – Encouraging students to engage in structured peer feedback could help them to critically reflect on their progress, gain diverse perspectives and develop self-assessment skills. The ‘Make the Grade’ strategy (Finnigan, n.d.) suggests that increasing student engagement with assessment criteria could reduce repetition and improve performance. Incorporating peer feedback into workshops may also help students to better understand the assessment criteria in an interactive way.
Maximising blended learning and digital feedback – Blended learning and asynchronous resources are already available, but their role in supporting formative feedback could be enhanced. Regular updates, structured prompts for reflection and interactive elements such as self-assessment checklists can improve student engagement (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Digital feedback should encourage dialogue rather than serve as one-way communication to ensure that students actively engage with feedback rather than passively receive it.
Creating a reflective culture – Encouraging students to document their technical progress in journals, visual blogs, or process logs such as Miro Boards and Padlet can help them connect experimentation to conceptual development. Reflection is a key principle in formative assessment (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and could provide a more flexible approach that acknowledges the iterative nature of creative practice (Addison, 2014).
Advocating for inclusion in assessment conversations – Technical learning plays a crucial role in creative disciplines, yet technical staff are excluded from assessment discussions. Working with academic teams to include technical learning in assessment processes could create a more holistic approach to student assessment. Addison (2014) argues for a move beyond performative learning outcomes towards a model that values emergent and situated knowledge. Furthermore, Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) emphasise the role of feedback in clarifying performance expectations — an area that technical staff could contribute to by providing insights into students’ engagement with practical learning.
References
Addison, N. (2014) Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: From Performativity Towards Emergence and Negotiation. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325.
Finnigan, T. (n.d.) Make the Grade. University of Derby PReSS Pack.
Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218.