As part of the assessment for the Teaching Legal Skills course, participants (tutors) were required to complete a self-assessment form, for submission with their assessment portfolios (Appendix 4). The self-assessment form reflected the apportionment of marks for each of the course outcomes: i.e., 35% for effectively planning and teaching one tutorial each week; 35% for giving feedback on student written work; 10% for reflecting in a journal, on multicultural issues in the class and in the curriculum; 20% for preparing and participating in class, in exercises such as role-plays and discussions. Tutors were asked to assign a mark for their own work on each aspect, and then to give reasons for awarding this mark. The purpose was to encourage the development of reflective and assessment skills in the tutors, and to give them an opportunity to contribute to their final assessment in a confidential and meaningful way. The course supervisors explained that the self-assessment marks would be considered in determining an appropriate mark for each tutor.
Tutor A awarded herself 78% for providing feedback, which was raised to 84% by her supervisor. This suggests an accurate internalisation by the tutor of the expectations and standards required in the task. Her comments reveal her concern for achieving a balance of positive encouragement and critique.
She mentions that she 'gave detailed comments', 'corrected (the students) where the need arose', 'praised them where a good piece of work was attempted'. The tutor seems to describe exactly the considerations that shape her feedback. She is mindful of the need to relate to the student: 'tried to encourage and motivate my students', 'gave helpful comments to aid them in rewriting'. Her practice reflects Berger's concept of 'reflective rhetorical feedback', in which the teacher 'rhetorically sits next to' the student writer as the student 'navigates the loops of an in-progress writing' (2000:59),
Tutor B awarded herself 98% for giving feedback - which was reduced to 70%. There is clearty a substantial discrepancy between the tutor's sense of her success and the reality of her achievements. It speaks of a lack of alignment between the tutor's perceptions of the standards expected by the supervisors, which should have been addressed eartier on in the course. She writes that her feedback was 'very constructive and critical', without considering the need for a balance between positive and negative critique - as evidenced throughout her three samples of feedback. However, Tutor B comments extensively on writing conferences held with students. This is confirmed in the student evaluations where three students recorded having had three conferences each, three students had two conferences each, one student met with the tutor only once and two students did not have any conferences. Tutor B also mentions that she discussed her feedback generally, when handing back papers at tutorials. This too, is referred to by one student as the reason for not attending any individual meetings with the tutor, in the evaluation questionnaire. The tutor explains that she considers writing conferences to be very important 'because the written comments are verbalised with maximum participation of the student'. She also explains, 'I then proceed to advise and correct them in all their shortcomings' - indicating
an emphasis again on identifying error and not commending aspects that were well written. It is this vision of feedback as a vehicle for identifying error, and for judging the written product, using comments to justify a grade, that undermines pedagogical goals such as motivating revisions in student writing.
Zamel (1986:96) suggests that teachers should participate in the making of meaning with the writer, by not presenting themselves as authorities. In the role of consultant, assistant or facilitator, they are more likely to establish a collaborative relationship with students. In offering judgmental commentary,
the 'teacher-student equilibrium in an authentic learning situation' becomes
unbalanced and impedes the creation of a reciprocal, dialectical process (Haswell, 1983:600). The tutors are particularly well situated to fulfil this 'consultative' role for the student writers.
Tutor C awarded herself 74 % for giving feedback, which mark was increased to 80%. In her typical terse way, she explains the mark by writing: 'I gave my students excessive feedback. Refer to my comments in the feedback samples of my portfolio.' It is clearly her way of letting her work speak for itself. It suggests a personality that prefers to use words sparingly and does not consider it necessary to elaborate. This may be her personal style of communicating, reflected in the terseness, the lack of dialogic engagement that characterises her comments on her student samples, and in the absence of personal names in her comments.
Tutor 0 awarded herself 80% for the feedback assessment, which was reduced to 76%. Tutor D's personality imparts a very personal and immediate tone to her reasons, similar to the tone of her feedback comments to her students. It is framed in the active voice; it is emphatic and direct. Her personal engagement with the personalities in her group and her perception of her role is apparent in comments such as, 'I write letters to them .. .' 'I give them adequate feedback in order that they may correct mistakes and polish their attempts to make the final draft near perfect'. This narrow, instrumental interpretation of the purpose of feedback neglects to consider the broader need to motivate extensive revisions on first drafts of writing (Sommers, 1992:281). However, an awareness of the need for balance in her critique is stated in, 'I try to motivate my students by commending them for tasks well done as well as telling them honestly what I thought of their work and where they could improve'.
Tutor E awarded herself 90% for her feedback, which was reduced to 76%, reflecting a significant disparity between the tutor's and the supervisor's perceptions of the type of feedback expected. She justified her self-assessed mark by explaining the process she adopts in commenting on drafts. It becomes clear that her sense of the priorities in commenting are not those suggested in the readings, or the workshop and training sessions. She explains, 'I made sure that whatever problem I saw in the student's efforts I comment about it, whether it be grammar or spelling or a mistake dealing with a real issue .... I (will give) short comments as I go through the work and at the end I (will) write a more detailed comment which I was sure was clear for the student to understand'. This suggests a type of formal recital of the process
71
that the tutor, in retrospect, imagines she adopts, but is not necessarily reflected in her practice. Her failure to consider any need for balance in her critiques, or to positively motivate her students, characterises her understanding of feedback more as 'error spotting' than developing the writer's skills.
Tutor F awarded herself 84% on this section, which was increased to 87% by her supervisor. Her initial justifications of this mark show an awareness of the need to balance her comments between positive and negative feedback:
'My feedback was detailed, but I'm not sure that I was able to maintain a
very good balance of praise and criticism. My comments on the Field Research were largely aimed at guiding students on which aspects of their drafts needed to be improved and how. I found it very difficult to provide positive comments throughout (especially where these weren't always justified)' ... .'1, therefore, usually tried to offer a few positive comments in my summary at the end of each draft. Having read through my feedback, though, I feel that I could have offered a little more positive reinforcement and encouragement to those students who didn't perform exceptionally well'.
This tutor's reflective skills, her eamestness in seeking to attain a balance, in order not to discourage her students, reveals an uncertainty, a hesitancy and a humility that is not present in any of the other tutors' self-assessments. Her internalisation of the theory underlying feedback is evident in her appreciation of the difficulties of providing effective critiques. Her overall mark for the Teaching Legal Skills course was the highest in the class: 89%.
As regards the self-assessment exercise, Tutors A, C and F underrated their scores, while Tutors B, D and E awarded themselves higher marks than their supervisors did on the feedback aspect of the course. It was anticipated that there might be a correlation between students who are successful academically, and those who assess themselves accurately, because academically successful students are more likely to be strategic learners who have been able to internalise assessment criteria.
Applying this to the tutors, Tutors Band D, whose self-assessments were inaccurate did have academic results in their final year that were significantly lower than those of the other tutors, but Tutor E although academically successful, did not seem to have successfully internalised the assessment criteria for this aspect of Teaching Legal Skills.
The tutors' explanations, justifying the mark they awarded themselves, provide an insight into what each tutor considered her main role to be, in giving feedback. It is here that their perceptions of what is required are succinctly expressed, revealing their understanding and their misdirection in some cases.