Contextual Background:
As a Specialist Technician in Digital Design and Fabrication, I support six Interior Future courses. While I do not conduct summative assessment, I regularly contribute to formative feedback through studio support and design reviews. A core challenge lies in supporting student outcomes without always having access to briefs or assessment criteria.
Evaluation :
Since joining UAL, I have attended reviews and studio sessions across most courses, which helped me understand how learning outcomes are interpreted in different contexts. In some instances, academic teams and I have experimented with integrating technical support more consistently into studio practice, particularly during key stages of project development. This was agreed with my line manager as a way to learn and trial ways of integrating our support. We implemented this with GDID, benefiting from a small cohort of 15 students, and with BAISD Year 1, as a technical resource available on the spot during feedback sessions. Following that first phase, it will now become a more formalised way of integrating the technical team into studio teaching. That experience made me realise how much clearer and more useful my feedback becomes when I have access to project context and learning goals. However, this level of integration isn’t yet consistent across all the programmes I support, which is something I’d like to continue working on.
Moving Forward:
The core challenge I face is offering relevant and timely feedback when not fully included in course planning or brief development. With each course having different learning outcomes, structures, and timelines, it can be difficult to navigate expectations, especially when feedback may indirectly influence assessment outcomes.
To address this, I’ve worked with academic teams to develop more integrated modes of support. When embedded into studio teaching, I’m better able to connect technical tools with the broader creative intentions of a project. This has led to more aligned conversations with students and greater clarity on how technical processes serve design thinking (Orr, Yorke & Blair, 2014). Encouraged by early success, this collaborative model is now being implemented more widely with enthusiastic engagement from both technicians and academics.
Alongside this, I have refined my approach to formative feedback. Inspired by peers and PGCert discussions, I’ve adopted strategies such as providing short written takeaways—three strengths and three action points—to help students process feedback beyond the review moment (Jessop, El Hakim & Gibbs, 2014). I’ve also experimented with students taking notes for each other during critiques, fostering peer learning and shared responsibility for knowledge exchange.
Attending a UAL mental health awareness workshop further shaped my understanding of feedback boundaries. It helped clarify what technicians can responsibly support and when we should signpost to specialised services—essential when working closely with students who may be anxious or overwhelmed (Price et al., 2011).
These strategies align with UAL’s emphasis on feedback that is timely, actionable, and student-centred (UAL, n.d.). Going forward, I want to continue applying them while also making sure my feedback relates more explicitly to unit learning outcomes. Before undertaking the PGCert I wasn’t made aware of the Learning Outcomes; this training has helped me focus my attention on spaces I didn’t know were that central in the teaching. I plan to ask for briefings ahead of new units and explore how assessment language can be translated into more technical terms. This is an ambitious aim, working with that many students, but something that we could work on collaboratively. With that in mind, I hope to keep advocating for technician inclusion in feedback and assessment conversations—especially in final reviews, where students can benefit from both creative and technical perspectives.
References
Jessop, T., El Hakim, Y. and Gibbs, G. (2014) The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a large-scale study of students’ learning in response to different types of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Orr, S., Yorke, M. and Blair, B. (2014) Learning and teaching in the practice-based disciplines: managing the complexity of judgement-making. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J. and O’Donovan, B. (2011) Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
UAL (n.d.) ‘Assessment at UAL’. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/teaching-and-learning/assessment (Accessed: 20 March 2025)