lucys blog

Using the GIBBS reflective cycle to frame my insights, below is a a reflection on my ARP project, the process and the success/learnings.

Description

I decided to change my intervention and focus on researching assessment and in person presentations – through the lens of inclusivity. I conducted secondary research into CRITS, assessment and also the impact of AI on higher education

Feelings

I was totally invested in the research topic and project. I enjoyed the process. What i found most interesting and informative was not the student research – but that of fellow academics and also secondary research into the subject. I continually felt torn between camps of feeling presentations were the way forward – to feeling it comes with too many risks. I was surprised by the positive feeling towards AI amongst my interview participants…and now find myself drawn to the benefits and how this could actually help my assessment.

Evaluation

reflecting on what went well, I found the interviews extremely important and thought provoking – providing me with good insight to then create recommendations. This is a method I perhaps could have worked with more. The student research was too limiting and I felt that it provided interesting data – but I needed more. On reflection, more time and more indepth questioning could have produced further data.

Analysis

Redesigning assessment and perhaps being more flexible and experimental here is one of my main take outs which I feel can be taken further. The research has shown the value of the in person presentation – for many reasons. And if we are to produce more employable graduates, we need to find a way to improve and increase this. But the work must start earlier and with a more personal approach in order for us to mitigate risk and avoid issues. And of course, foster inclusivity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my research could have been more indepth with the students and i perhaps would have generated more insight if I had held a focus group as opposed to the use of quantitative research. But this would have required students to open up and perhaps expose fears they were not ready to share. In conclusion , I feel that i managed to undertake a sufficient amount of research to answer my question and to recommend actions going forward.

Actions

In order to foster inclusivity in my forth coming in person presentations, my actions include:

• Educate and prepare: Spend more time preparing and educating students on the art of presentations and when they are used in the workplace.  Build this into the sow and the assessment briefing 
• Environment – create physical safe space and inform students ahead of time of the room, set up, attendees
• Alternative options – alternative option such as a reordered option to be offered to those who need reasonable adjustment. (This could be done via understanding of ISA students and their barriers) Choice.  Assessment options perhaps could be a consideration. 
• Remove restrictions – be flexible in how they present. Use visuals, accept translation assistance, allow props and objects
• Tutor – tutors need to bed educated and supported in how they manage the assessment, perhaps working with a rubric for feedback so there is clarity and parity . Levels and style can be determined by level of student cohort 

Here is a link to the PDF presentation slides

Key academic readings include:

Oral presentations in higher education: a comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback, Luis R. Murillo-Zamorano & Manuel Montanero

Student presentations as a means of teaching and learning English for Specific Purposes: an action research study – Bin Ai, Alexander Kostogriz, Daorong Wen & Lifei Wang

Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment – Charlie Smith

Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT  – Debby R. E. Cotton, Peter A. Cotton & J. Reuben Shipway 

During my lit review, academic research and readings tend to conclude that oral presentations provide necessary soft skills to undergraduates. But there is no clear recommendation from the readings of how we proceed with oral presentations with today’s complex and modern cohorts. Inclusivity is rarely discussed within the readings. It has lead me to revisit previous readings from the TPP and IP units such as Karen Bradley’s ‘Embracing the Silence’ (2022 ) Where Bradley discusses introverted v extroverted learners. It appears further research maybe needed here.

My readings has also included contemporary industry sources with some relevant and formative findings emerging from both the BBC and also The Business of Fashion – the latter being a vital sector source for my teaching subject. Whilst both readings do not specifically research the topic of oral presentations, both discuss relevant and important topics. The BBC’s investigation into the rise of international students with poor english is very relevant to the use of presentations in assessment. And the Business of Fashion looks at fashion trends for 2025, focusing on the “human side of sales” and their recommendation for reorienting focus towards product expertise and relationship building” (BOF, 2024) – which relates back to the soft skill of communication which is becoming increasingly needed in the field of fashion – my teaching area.

According to the readings, it is widely acknowledged that Oral presentations have significant benefits in higher education and are an extremely useful concept and form of assessment in developing the student. “The ability to present information publicly, clearly and eloquently, in accordance with different academic and professional contexts, is one of the most important soft skills that higher education students should acquire before completing their studies” (Dunbar, Brooks, and Kubicka-Miller 2006) It could be argued that these soft skills are what is needed after graduation in order to succeed in the workplace – especially in some creative industries such as fashion where there is an emphasis on communicating your creativity. Chan (2011) argues this further , suggesting “education and employment experts themselves agree that undergraduates enter the job market with significant gaps in oral communication compentcy” (Luis R. Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero ,2018 )

So if academics and employers alike acknowledge the importance of this soft skill, why is the in person presentation still not considered the assessment method of choice? It could be argued that in recent years, the rise of the student voice and mental health issues amongst young people has impacted the use of this form of assessment. In 2018, Bristol University student Natasha Abrahart sadly took her own life on the day she was due to give a presentation. The case generated widespread news coverage and the University was accused of not making “reasonably adjustments” as they were aware of mental health issues with the student. Since then, the spotlight has been on this topic and the student mental well-being with Universities being asked “to prioritise mental health by September 2024″(Shearing and Clark, June 2023) . In 2019, an article in The Guardian, asks “Public speaking -is the push to make students employable gone too far?” (The Guardian, 2019)

Universities and academics alike have responded to this suggesting presentations are vital – and perhaps a change in the approach and teaching of the skill is needed. Professor Steve West, Vice Chancellor of the University of West England argues the importance of them but also suggests ” I certainly wouldn’t advocate assessed presentations until students have settled in, made friends and developed an understanding of what is expected and how to get additional support,”( The Guardian, 2019). This suggests that universities simply need to create the right environment for a presentation to in the student’s best interest.

What has been interesting is the discussion around the use of the ‘CRIT’ and formative assessment -and how this is potentially a way to reassess the tutor/student relationship when it comes to presenting. Formative assessment is a huge discussion point within my own teaching practice at the moment, with the Dean encouraging increased usage of this to prepare students for assessment….and ultimately increase attainment.

Charlie Smith’s (2011) excellent journal entitled ‘Understanding Student’s Views of the CRIT’ provides a very thought provoking analysis of the complexities of the CRIT and the conflict between student and tutor. He cites that the CRIT is designed for feedback but conflicting opinions with certain subjects (Arts) can provide a confusing and ambiguous feedback space for students – explaining “that it is an integral element of architectural education with substantial learning potential, yet often creates an adversarial environment, has confused objectives and its capacity for providing meaningful feedback can vary considerably.” (smith, 2011) Point being, as discussed previously, the success of a CRIT is perhaps down to the role of the tutor and the environment they create.

It could be argued also that this lack of clarity and fear of ‘creative opinion’ would impact the student’s confidence and ability t0 present in person to the best of their ability.

More contemporary and recent research is willing to look at the impact of tech on our assessment methods in a more practical way – which is where my research journey and’ idea’ began. If we look at the present day situation, we can see that the emergence of AI and ChatGBt has impacted assessment significantly. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT (Debby R. E. Cotton, Peter A. Cotton & J. Reuben Shipway (2024) argues that whilst the rise of AI brings benefits to the higher education sector, “using GPT-3 for assessment in higher education risks plagiarism” which could be argued “undermines the very purpose of higher education which is to challenge and educate students, and could ultimately lead to the devaluation of degrees.” (Cotton, Cotton & Shipway (2024). The journal proposes many ways that institutions could change assessment and even supports the use of presentations and other forms to demonstrate “critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills.” (Cotton, Cotton and Shipway ,2024)

The question remains though, how do we promote inclusivity within this assessment method?

The Mental health debate – UAL Teaching and learning workshop notes. (This section is written in the first person and is my experience of a recent ‘Student disability’ workshop that I attended as part of my role at UAL)

During a recent workshop at my institute, we were presented information regarding the school’s disability service and how we should be approaching students with mental and physical disabilities in our every day teaching practice. During the workshop, the presenter asked us to debate the use of presentations and how we can and should make reasonable adjustments for all students. We were asked to contribute to a padlet with our answer, responding to what we thought were potential barriers – physically and mentally -for the student. The majority of the ‘suggestions’ were in line with the approach we were already using. For example, organising students into smaller groups, creating safe spaces etc. I have included the padlet here. The interesting discussion appeared after the padlet when as academics, we collectively voiced our concern over how we create these environments, the resource and time needed, and how if this approach helps or hinders the resilient of the student. Again we are faced with the conflicting issue of building resilient and communicative graduates….but continually making adjustments that may not be reflective of the real world.

References

The State of Fashion 2025, Business of Fashion, January 2025

Dunbar, Brooks, and Kubicka-Miller 2006; Joint Quality Initiative2004; Živković 2014.

Luis R. Murillo-Zamorano & Manuel Montanero (2018) Oral presentationsin higher education: a comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback, Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education

Shearing and Clarke, BBC.CO.UK, June 2023

Anna Fazackerley, The Gaurdian.co.uk, May 2019

Debby R. E. Cotton, Peter A. Cotton & J. Reuben Shipway (2024) Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 

Charlie Smith (2011) Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment, Journal for Education in the Built Environment

Interviews took place with academics at UAL to understand their professional opinion on how AI is impacting assessment at UAL…and how we can perhaps use more in person presentations if they can be inclusive.

Below is an image and the transcript of the interview conducted with Sheldon Chow, Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning, LCF. The interview was semi structured. I had prepared several questions in advance and as the interview progressed, more questions and debate emerged. Initial interview questions were:

1. When did you start to notice the possible impact of AI on higher education?
2. in your opinion, how will AI impact the sector going forward?
3. How do you feel AI will impact assessment?
4. Do you think that in the wake of AI, universities need to consider increasing different assessment methods such as presentations and exams?
5. What do you feel about the use of the in person CRIT?
6. In terms of in person CRITS and oral presentations ,considering our diverse cohorts at LCF, how do you feel these can be inclusive?

transcript is linked below.

Other interviews were an interview with Dr Arnab Bangaree which was unstructured. It took place during the office and Arnab allowed for recording via my phone.

Josephine Collins, Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching at LCC was interviewed via 2 email questions .

My questions are:

Lucy Finnegan: Due to the emergence of AI, do you think as an arts institution, we need to move towards more ‘live’ assessments such as in person presentations?  

JC: Definitely not. See below re inclusive assessment and live presentations.We need to ensure that students know how to use generative AI as a citable research tool so there is no academic misconduct. And we need staff to understand what are the uses of AI in the sector they are teaching into. What is acceptable?  Staff should be delivering this as part of their teaching. I have no doubt that the fashion sector is using AI.

A live presentation would not stop a student from researching and creating a presentation via generative AI.

The issue that UAL has yet to contend with properly is the use of AI within creative practise. The emphasis so far is on academic misconduct. Hopefully this will soon change.

Lucy Finnegan: Based on your knowledge of our diverse learners and students, how do you feel we can make the in person presentation assessment method more inclusive?

To be inclusive, all assessments should have alternative submission outputs, appropriate to the discipline. Eg, an essay or a presentation, slide show, report, artefact and so on. The assessment method could read something like, “A 10 minute live presentation or an equivalent format agreed with your tutor.” Or “A 2,000 word essay or an xx (number) slide presentation with audio”.

A live presentation should never be the only option. And who would attend a live presentation? The whole class, just the assessing tutors. Could a student record a presentation and submit the video? A few years ago some parents won a case against Bristol or maybe Bath uni as their daughter had committed suicide before having to do a live presentation. 

The ultimate aim of inclusivity would be that individual adjustments were no longer necessary because flexibility of assessment would be written into the assessment methods.

 I could go on…

Key take outs and insight from qualitative research interviews

• AI will change process more then anything – academics were not unanimous In their thinking around assessment changes
• Cultural factors influence a student’s perception of presentations – our changing international cohorts could impact this…perhaps positively 
• Inclusive CRITS and presentations can be fostered if the environments and preparation are sufficient.  The tutor role and preparation is vital to the success of this
• The onus is on support and how the tutor makes adjustments
• Alternative options are a must in order to fully promote inclusivity
• If the brief and learning outcomes can be around communication, it maybe framed differently 

My primary research was a mixed method, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In order to gain the relevant insight to answer my research question, primary research with students was required where we could ‘test’ and observe the use of the presentation assessment method. The aim was to generate understanding of how this type of ‘assessment’ made them feel. As noted within the ethics form, students from year 2 were asked to take part in their usual formative assessment – although this time the method was an in person ‘CRIT’ – which was the first time this cohort had participated in an in-person presentation and feedback session since joining LCF. The students were aware that notes would be taken by myself on the work that they were presenting …but also their overall approach to the presentation. The presentations were photographed but not filmed or recorded. (N.B All classes on this course are photographed and used for our course social media pages. Students are encouraged to capture any class or assessment activity for the course page so demonstrate their own content creation skills. Students have given prior consent to image capture during class and formative assessments)

(Image – a BA FMKCC student during her CRIT presentation)

(students observing peer presentations during the CRIT sessions)

Process and data collection

• The CRITS took place in November and students were put into small groups with fellow peers
• A schedule was created and distributed 2 weeks ahead of the CRIT
• Students were asked to contact the CL in private if there were any issues with their group (students were briefed that they may have a preference of presenting with friends or with certain group members )
• Some groups presented within a small tutorial room and some presented within a larger classroom – depending on room availability
• Ahead of the CRIT, students were briefed in person within the classroom. The briefing document was then available on moodle
• On arrival to the room, students were briefed on the process. They were informed that timer would be used to ensure we do not go over. They were advised that feedback would be from peers and tutor and that they should record feedback
• They were reassured that feedback was designed to help and would not be critical
• Observations took place by myself during the sessions to obtain behavioural data
• At the end of the session, the students were then presented with a QR code for an annoymous survey around their experience of the in person presentation
• Below is the survey and also a summary of results

(Image – screenshot of microsoft Forms survey distributed to students following their presentation)

Responses and results

• 37 year 2 students attended and presented at the CRIT
• 28 students participated in the survey
• The open ended questions (3 and 4) provided the most relevant data where students used the space to provide their feelings towards the presentation experience
• Q3 asked students what they enjoyed about the presentation experience. 54% of respondents enjoyed the feedback aspect
• With Q4 asking for their feelings on what they disliked about the experience . General nerves and anxiety was mentioned. – with 17% citing nervousness

Key insights

When reviewing all the data from this method, i noted the following insights:

• Majority of students valued the experience to some level
• Nerves were a common theme but so was rising above the nerves and feeling ok once settled
• the feedback that takes place in this format was considered very valuable and contributed to feelings of positivity towards the in person CRIT
• When questioned about seeing more in person presentation opportunities, the majority of respondents said yes – meaning that not only did the students find it a positive experience but they were open to doing more

Conclusion

To conclude, whilst the CRIT is not summative assessment and the risk is therefore lower, students embraced the opportunity to present their ideas and progress in a more animated and ‘human’ manner. As expected, nerves and anxiety dominated their initial feelings towards this kind of method. But once they had completed the task, they were able to instantly reflect positively on the experience. The sample was limited so the reliability of this research could be questioned as it could be argued that we need to meet with more cohorts on more occasions to generate sufficient data for action. But the aim was to understand this cohort’s – who were new to this form of assessment – acceptance and approach to this method and to understand if any gaps and barriers were visible. I utilised ethnography to attempt to understand and identify any behavioural differences in the different learners which is documented in a further blog post.

Below are the hand written notes that I took during a primary research exercise. The research took the form of observation during an In person CRIT. During the CRIT, I observed behaviour and responses of students. Whilst my notes are sketchy in their appearance, they provide a good overview for me of the approach. Key observations being:

Most Chinese students failed to attend

International students did not understand the brief or present adaquately

Peer feedback was weak and needed to be enforced more with more structure

Students grew in confidence as they presented but they did not react well to feedback or any challenges.

small groups of 6 was a good size

During my lit review and sector research, I discovered that the debate around modern assessment methods is very topical at the moment, with varying global news outlets discussing this in the wake of the emergence of AI. I have taken particular interest in an article published by bbc.co.uk recently, that investigates the alarming increase of international students attending UK universities with minimal english language skills. Whilst this is slightly off topic for my research, it has indeed become a very formative text where it discusses how international students pass degrees despite language issues, stating “courses are often assessed through assignments, rather than exams. Some students use essay mills and pay for others to write their work or, increasingly, use artificial intelligence (AI).” (BBC.CO.UK, 2024)

The article (seen below) has lead to further research and has encouraged me to investigate overall assessment methods further. The main discussion point within the article is the rise of international student’s attending UK universities without the skillset required. According to the BBC, “some institutions are overlooking language skills to receive high fees from overseas students.” It could be argued that as universities relax international recruitment rules in order to meet funding targets, integrity of some courses could be at risk. Particularly if assessment methods remain “beatable. ”

We then have several factors at play here when it comes to assessment. Creating assessment methods that are inclusive to diverse cohorts. Integrity of the education. Funding and budgets. Assessment must be robust to ensure our institutions remain quality place of higher education. And yet assessment must also combat technology and the changing dynamic of the classroom…..Do art schools have the answer? To be continued…..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mzdejg1d3o

References

Paul kenyon, www.bbc.co.uk , 3 December 2024

My ethical action plan outlines my primary research plans and explains briefly how I will remain ethical with my research and protect my participants. I am undertaking a mixed method approach utilising several methods of research across quant and qual. My ethical action plan focuses on my interaction with students and the research conducted with them. Methods included ethonography and also a survey with students. The aims were to observe their behaviours and approach – and to then garner feedback on their experience of the situation. The students were aware that the observation was taking place and that their feedback would be required later on.

I have been using a mixed method approach to my research, using qaunt for student research and qual for more indepth insight from the sector. In the past 10 days I have conducted 2 interviews with academics – Sheldon Chow, Dean of Teaching and Learning at LCF/SMC and Dr Arnab Bangeree, Senior Lecturer in Consumer Behaviour at the Fashion Business School. Below is my account of those interviews and key take outs.

I will use themaic mapping in my final presentation to analyze my interviews but already, I noticed several key take outs that can be explored further

1. Culture – culture seems to play a massive part in student approach to assessment according to my experts. American and indian students for example are much more resilient and flexbile with diverse methods and the use of presentations. This gives me lots of food for thought around our international cohorts
2. Arts school assessment – there seems to be a belief that arts schools can lead the way in moving towards a more live/in person style form of assessment as AI takes hold.
3. Presentations – the environment is the game changer. It appears that the presentation itself isn’t the issue….it is the environment in which students present. How can the tutor change this and literally create a phyiscal safe space? How can a tutor prepare all students for a presentation effectively?

During the CRITS i held a few weeks back, students were asked to feed back aloud to their peers after they presented. I have decided to experiment with a silent CRIT session in January where the students will write notes on post it notes instead of giving vocal feedback.

I am approaching my second tutorial and I find myself slightly struggling with the lit review and finding enough reading material from secondary sources. I aim to unpack this with my tutor Kwarme who has been super helpful.

i really believe in my topic now and am happy with the change. The aim of this is to challenge IRL presentations as an inclusive assessment method. My feeling is that due to AI, we, as high educators, need to move fast to combat the issue. Students are basically getting round written assessment thanks to AI. It is becoming difficult to manage and accuse a student of cheating. Without some really strong training and guidance, I do not feel us tutors are equipped.

My preference in my role is to more to more ‘live’ assessment ….or perhaps exams. Although that isn’t my topic of choice. Live assessment could basically mean live creative projects. But for the purpose of my research it is in person presentations.

I’ve been reading a piece of research by patrick Flynn called ‘Researching the CRIT’. This is really informative and suggests that the CRIT reinforce issues around hirachey of tutor/student relationships, provides barriers for gender and ethnicity, and is not an inclusive practise. I will set out to investigate this via primary research. My methods will be to start with the in person CRIT. I have set up in person CRITS for my y2 for the first time. They will be presenting their progress to me and peers. I will then be distributing feedback forms to understand their initial feelings to the CRIT.

My aim is to continue to explore in person presentations as assessment and barriers this potentially cause. I’m looking for more literature on this that can be useful and support my primary.

im also aiming to interview some learning and teaching staff at LCF to assist my research.