This paper examines the Assessment and Feedback aspects of Studio Teaching as Creative Arts pedagogy. Prompted by USQ's newly offered Bachelor of Creative Arts (BCA), the author has developed an Assessment Matrix specifically designed to satisfy a number of imperatives, including: 'objectifying' the subjective aspects of creative practice as assessable coursework/research; providing the means by which accurate, detailed, personalised and confidential feedback may be provided to students individually; providing consistent, accurate, meaningful assessment records for student, lecturer, and institution; ensuring consistency, continuity, and transparency of assessment processes and records to satisfy quality audits; minimising marking and assessment time, whilst maximising assessment integrity and depth; requiring only basic level skills and knowledge of a computer application already in common use (Microsoft Excel); and adaptability to a range of creative courses - across disciplines. This Assessment Matrix has been in development (and trialled) since January 2009.rn

Design students are often underprepared and ill-equipped when verbally presenting their completed projects for critique, often running over the allocated time or not communicating clearly their design intent and process.This case study looks as how The University of Adelaide has adopted an increasingly popular presentation method called Pecha Kucha (20 slides x 20 seconds each) in its First Year Bachelor of Design Studies Program which has enabled students to present their work in a manner that is succinct, focused, comprehensive and engaging.

The main essence of this case study is to do with the question: How can the idea of graduate attribute development become engaging and explicit for both staff and students in the practicalities of a studio-based subject? It is all very well to say to students (and include in documentation) that the aim of the studio subject they are engaging with is to develop the graduate attributes that we believe are essential for a professional designer. However, saying it and writing it down do not amount to an engagement for students or staff in understanding how this can be made explicit in the design and assessment of the subject.rnrnThe example given is fairly complex to describe. The specific studio subject described is a core third year Community Project subject from the four-year BDesign Visual Communication (honours) course at UTS.rnrnAn important aspect of the School of Design context was that a list of approximately 25 attributes that staff wanted students to gain had been grouped into 5 categories: rnCreativity and Innovation, rnCommunication and Interpersonal Skills, rnAttitudes and Values, rnPractical and Professional Skills, rnCritical Thinking and Research Skills.rnrnAn online system called ReView that was used as the main assessment method in this subject was originally developed to engage staff in rethinking their assessment criteria and colour-coding them in relation to these meta categories (see the ReView pdf attached). The majority of assessment criteria for tasks in the School of Design are now coded in this way, and students can see a progressive development chart across subject boundaries in the 5 categories of attributes they are developing

One of the key tools used to assess studio learning in architecture is the critique. Typically, the critique process requires students to present their designs and receive feedback from an assessment panel. In 2005, we became concerned that this process, in the context of second year learning was becoming less effective as students were not engaged in the process beyond their role to present. In addition, the critique process, which is considered pivotal and sacrosanct to studio learning and assessment, drew greatly on our staff and monetary resources. This case study reports on a project that began in 2005: to critically reflect on the role of the critique process and student learning. It outlines how the critique process was modified to a collaborative model, making the critique explicit in its teaching and learning role. The key concerns and learning outcomes from the students� experience are explored and conclusions drawn for further discussion.

This case study describes how Web 2.0 is used to improve critical thinking and analysis of the image and to ensure timely feedback and meaningful peer review processes. Students' photographic images are critiqued by staff or students from the wider cohort rather than just from their own studio class. Part of the peer feedback is incorporated into the assessment as well as students' interaction in discussion boards. Student surveys have clearly identified the importance of the feedback on their learning and creativity.

One of the key tools used to assess studio learning in architecture is the critique. Typically, the critique process requires students to present their designs and receive feedback from an assessment panel. In 2005, we became concerned that this process, in the context of second year learning was becoming less effective as students were not engaged in the process beyond their role to present. In addition, the critique process, which is considered pivotal and sacrosanct to studio learning and assessment, drew greatly on our staff and monetary resources. This case study reports on a project that began in 2005: to critically reflect on the role of the critique process and student learning. It outlines how the critique process was modified to a collaborative model, making the critique explicit in its teaching and learning role. The key concerns and learning outcomes from the students� experience are explored and conclusions drawn for further discussion.

The critique, or spoken feedback, in art and design education is critical to the knowledge construction associated with creative project outcomes. It has been suggested that the traditional model of the spoken face-to-face design critique has become stuck with historical boundaries. Students and teachers report that spoken design feedback remains a weak component and a strong dissatisfaction within art, architecture and design education. This case study reports perceptions by graphic design students and their lecturers of the advantages and disadvantages of recorded spoken feedback emailed to students as a digital voice file.

This studio tests the repeating of a studio programme/project/brief two years in a row, incorporating refinements based on reflection on the first delivery of the studio. It uses a template into which students position the elements of their design work, for example, plan, sections, elevations, perspectives, detail and writing. It necessitates a team approach but individual responsibility. That is, the overall success is a combination of both. It asks for a detailed writing of a character and spatial scenario.

Patterns of formative assessment are commonly delivered through formalised review sessions and perhaps informal studio discussion. The structure of formal reviews usually places students in direct conversation with teachers but often excludes other students despite best efforts to be inclusive at the review. We cannot assume students develop a culture of informal peer assessment. Developing more regular, fluid and structured interactions between students and teachers as well as between students perhaps encourages a greater openness in the group and thereby strengthens both studio culture and critical conversation as a form of peer-assisted learning and formative assessment.rnrnThis case study tests these assumptions in the structure of first year architectural design at The University of Queensland.rn