The aim of the intervention is to redevelop a crit session to better meet the needs of those with invisible disabilities. Last year, the session was generally successful but did not achieve the element of constructive feedback I had hoped for. At the beginning of that session the students printed their unit outcomes (a series of stills) and stuck them to the classroom wall, separately and anonymously. Then, individually, they were asked to leave feedback on a single Post-it for each of their peers affixed to the relevant work. Finally, each student read out the comments on their own work to the class. While the crit session went well, it generated almost exclusively positive feedback. While this is clearly important, the outcome lacked the critical element we are hoping to encourage in students.
Many students did not seem comfortable enough to critique in this way, particularly those with ISAs and I recognised that those with invisible disabilities may have found the task anxiety inducing. The proposed intervention consists of two key changes, which I hope will both encourage more balanced feedback and encourage those with invisible disabilities to partake in a way that works better for them.
The first change is to conduct the critical stage in self-selected small groups of around three. This will allow students to work with those they are most comfortable with, and – by introducing a collaborative element to the feedback – avoid individuals feeling overly exposed. I have previously used group activities to create an inclusive learning environment, and this is something that I would like to develop further in this crit setting based on appraisal of WIP outcomes.
The second change would introduce the concept of the ‘feedback sandwich’ in which each group is asked to leave three Post-its, in different colours, on each peer’s work.
The first of these would highlight something particularly positive and commendable in the work, the second would identify an area for development and the third would be an overall impression of the work. This would hopefully further scaffold students who might struggle in voicing or writing critical opinions.
If observations suggest that this intervention is successful, then there could be implications for how delivery could be adapted to better facilitate the participation of those with invisible disabilities.
Crits can be a massive source of anxiety for many of the neurodiverse students I work with. Some cope better than others, and their intersectionality also comes into play. Age, gender, ethnicity influence their positionality which in turn affects their confidence in these situations. These proposed changes evidence a proactive approach to making reasonable adjustments to make learning more inclusive; as asked for in students’ ISAs.
Conducting the critical stage in self-selected small groups sounds like a good idea. Any reason for going with 3 per group?
The concept of the ‘feedback sandwich’ in which each group is asked to leave three Post-its, in different colours, on each peer’s work sounds like something that you have tried and tested before. Giving directions regarding different aspects of feedback is good as students sometimes struggle if they are just asked to comment. Scaffolding is good. The more experience students have accessed their critical thinking skills, the better they become. What is lacking for them sometimes is knowing how to start.
Thank you Fran, it’s helpful to hear that you’ve faced similar challenges in crit sessions with neurodiverse students. Knowing this comes from your perspective as a Specialist Tutor adds weight to the relevance of my proposed intervention and research focus.
My crit design is shaped through the lens of intersectionality, specifically invisible disabilities, and draws on theoretical insights from the IP unit. I initially began exploring this with little pedagogical experience, but this unit has helped me develop a more structured approach by introducing feedback groups, and the ‘encouragement/improvement/overall’ method (using Post-its).
The choice to work with groups of three was intentional as it encourages focused discussion, while helping create a safe space, particularly for neurodiverse students who may find larger settings overwhelming. As outlined in my first case study (TPP unit), this set-up supports participation without pressure.
I agree that fostering critical thinking and expression is vital, and structured scaffolding is essential to making that development accessible to all.