This case study explores the implementation of a mid-unit checkpoint in Unit 3: Situating Innovation within the MA Innovation Management course at CSM. It examines how structured feedback supports student progress and equitable participation in assessing and giving feedback for learning. Additionally, it aligns with the A3 (assess and give feedback for learning), A5 (enhance practice through professional development), K3 (critical evaluation for effective practice), K5 (quality assurance and enhancement), and V5 (collaborate with others to enhance practice) from the Professional Standards Framework.
Background
The Situating Innovation unit is an 11-week-long research-based unit where students develop and refine their research proposals. In the past years, despite its duration, there was no structured checkpoint for students to receive interim feedback, apart from voluntary crit sessions organized during class times. While these sessions provided valuable peer interaction, they disproportionately benefited confident students, leaving quieter or less proactive students with limited engagement and feedback opportunities.
Having successfully implemented and conducted structured checkpoints in other LCF courses, I recognized the benefits of a more inclusive and guided mid-unit feedback session. These checkpoints had proven effective in maintaining student momentum, helping staff identify common struggles, and promoting a deeper engagement with feedback and learning outcomes. Given this experience, I introduced the first-ever structured mid-unit checkpoint for MAIM to ensure all students received formative feedback, gained external perspectives, and refined their research direction before final submission.
Evaluation
The newly introduced checkpoint session was carefully structured to optimize student engagement and feedback quality:
- Mandatory participation: Unlike voluntary crits, all students were required to present their progress, ensuring broader participation.
- Cross-supervision feedback: To offer fresh insights, students were not assigned to their own supervisors but instead presented to a different faculty member.
- Small group structure: Three parallel sessions were conducted with two staff members per room, optimizing discussion time and feedback quality.
- Accountability and reflection: Each student had 10 minutes to present, which pushed them to organize their research coherently, promoting self-reflection and preparedness.
The response from students was overwhelmingly positive. They particularly appreciated:
- Hearing their peers’ progress, which helped them benchmark their own work.
- Gaining external faculty perspectives, which provided fresh, unbiased feedback.
- Being pushed to structure their work earlier, reducing last-minute stress.
From a theoretical perspective, this aligns with Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) Seven Principles of Good Feedback, particularly in clarifying performance standards, fostering self-reflection, and encouraging sustained engagement. Additionally, Race (2001) highlights the importance of structured self, peer, and group assessment in enhancing learning, reinforcing the value of this checkpoint session.
A key lesson was that mandatory participation created a more equitable learning experience. In contrast to the previous voluntary crits – where only confident students engaged – this structured format ensured all students received and acted upon constructive feedback, as emphasized by O’Donovan, Price & Rust (2004) in their work on making assessment criteria explicit and accessible.
Moving Forward
Reflecting on this intervention and incorporating insights from the PgCert discussions on crits, I identified key enhancements for future sessions:
- Structuring peer feedback within the checkpoint: While peer crits were previously optional and often dominated by confident students, I plan to formalize a peer feedback component within the checkpoint session. This structured approach will ensure all students actively engage with their peers’ work, promoting deeper critical reflection while still benefiting from staff insights.
- Optimizing session formats for deeper engagement: Some students expressed a need for more time to discuss their feedback in depth. To address this, I propose conducting the checkpoint in smaller groups over multiple days, resembling a group tutorial format. This would allow for more focused conversations and closer interaction with both peers and staff.
- Enhancing participation and inclusivity: Combining structured peer crits with faculty feedback will create a more balanced learning experience, ensuring that students who may be less confident in presenting still receive constructive input. A clear framework for guiding peer discussions will also be introduced to help students provide meaningful feedback.
- Encouraging reflection and application of feedback: Inspired by Russell (2010) on assessment patterns, I propose requiring students to reflect on and integrate checkpoint feedback into their final work. While this is not currently a formal requirement, introducing a reflective journal or structured self-assessment for longer units would help students track their intellectual and methodological development over time.
By implementing these refinements, the checkpoint session will not only provide valuable feedback but also reinforce students’ ability to assess their own work critically, engage more actively with feedback, and integrate it meaningfully into their research process.
References
Brooks, K. (2008) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback. University of the West of England.
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199-218.
O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), pp. 325-335.
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre.
Russell, M. (2010) Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. University of Hertfordshire, ESCAPE project.