Credit & Evaluation - Leadership values

A system with leadership values

Credit & Evaluation system at NID

BRIEF

The Credit & Evaluation system was created to track the performance of a student and help teachers and students themselves to analyze and work positively for improvement.
The original intent of the system eventually deviated as grades became a medium of comparison instead of being a necessary feedback system.
This project aims to tune the attributes of leadership to the C&E system so that it serves the purpose of inspiring students to perform better every time.

KEY LEARNINGS

Design Research

Conceptualization

RESEARCH TOOLS

Semi-structured Interviews

Five Whys

Diads

Triads

APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

Step 1

Understanding the fundamentals of Credit & Evaluation System such as –

To question/challenge if it is actually required
To understand the system’s purpose/intent

Step 2

Study of the existing model of Credit & Evaluation at National Institute of Design for M.des (Secondary Research)

Step 3

Identification of the stakeholders of this system and conducting semi-structured interviews.

Location- NID, Gandhinagar and NID, Paldi Campus

Stakeholders- M.Des students, Faculty, Creator/ Designer/ Strategist of the system

Step 4

After thoroughly understanding the currently implemented system through secondary and primary research, mapping out the grey areas from two perspectives.

1. Operations point of view

2. Purpose/Intent point of view

Step 5

Planned an inquiry via leadership components of the Credit & Evaluation system.

The approach was to see a system as a sum of its leadership components, which if imbibed, will impart leadership characteristics to the system.

These components were further broken down into key driving factors, which also acted as areas to seek insights.

GAP ANALYSIS

Gaps in the current C&E system -

Has the same evaluation criteria for different module clusters

The time gap between submission and evaluation report causes anxiety and apprehension towards unbiased marking in students.

The system does not act as a constructive feedback, instead encourages competitiveness and thus hampers peer-to-peer learning.

The interpretation of evaluation criteria is subjective to teachers as well as students.

The grading scale is subjective to teachers and students, thus lacking standardization of process.

No feedback other than the grades may be taken as a sign of insincerity or biased marking by the teacher.

VIEW DETAILED GAP ANALYSIS

INSIGHTS

The concept of average leads to mediocrity
The ambiguity of criteria leads to conflicts
Dependency on an uncertain factor leads to ambiguity
Grades encourage competition instead of peer to peer collaboration
Standardization led to the compromise of -
- Conceptual core values
- Engaging interaction
Fear of isolation, need for mobility, and passing borderline students shifted the core value of excellence in students towards average
C&E to inspire has to influence, either via Projected outcome (Reward) or via Curiosity/Challenge (Play)
The system is operation-centric (efficiency) hence hampers student-faculty relationship
Standardization of the system leads to loss of trust, transparency, flexibility, and dynamism
The complexity of structure decreases acceptance of the system, thus making room for biases and confusion among students performance

SOLUTION 1

Insight:

The measure of performance depends on a variable factor i.e batch associated, which creates uncertainty.

Leadership Components - Transparency, Credibility, Inclusivity

Why?

Human tendency to set the benchmark
No universal benchmark, irrespective of group
Individual growth and learning trajectory not in focus

Uncertainty Leads To?

Competition instead of learning together
No measure of knowing whether criteria requirements fulfilled

Design Directions

Incorporate Self-evaluation and peer-to-peer evaluation along with faculty evaluation
Unified Application platform to fill and analyze evaluation given by self, peer(anonymously), and faculty

Advantages

Time & Effort of faculty for evaluation reduced with the help of student and peer evaluations on the portal.
Chanel to open a dialog for understanding and negotiations between student & Faculty

Constraint

Peer-to-peer evaluation is only applicable in project/presentation formats of evaluation

Welcome to

C&E portal

Self Evaluation >

Peer Evaluation >

Faculty Evaluation >

Click for module reports>

Criteria >

SOLUTION 2

Insight

Rule of Averages creates Mediocrity

Leadership Component - Directive, Inspiring, Constructive

Aim - To shift focus from batch comparison to individual progress tracking, within relevant areas of evaluation

Need Identified

No criteria-wise progress tracking tool creates confusion on own position/performance
Scope of Tracking has to be for modules of the same category, not between semesters
The individual starts to strive for the only average in the grade system, not improvement from the previous performance.

SOLUTION 3