The recognition across the EHEA of the benefits secured for students by resolutely placing them at the centre of their learning is reflected in the European Standards and Guidelines which states that “student-centred learning and teaching plays an important role in stimulating students’ motivation, self-reflection and engagement in the learning process” (ESG 2015 section 1.3 p.12). Within fine art pedagogy, and throughout all three cycles, student-centred learning has been a customary approach, passed down from one generation of artist-teachers to the next, with learning and teaching pivoting around each student’s individual project-needs and development in the studio, supported by individual tutorials and as the mainstay of fine art teaching methods along with peer-to-peer learning. The studio/workshop was established as a learning environment to cultivate creative and embodied knowledge, understanding(s) and a plethora of technical skills through fostering inquiry, curiosity, experimentation, divergent and critical thinking, self-reflection, technical experimentation, and integration of historical and contemporary art, theory and philosophy with practice, resulting in the public manifestation of artworks. For many years, a tacit understanding permeated the art school culture regarding how fine art students learned, which hindered the discipline from sharing its pedagogical ethos and innovative approaches more widely. 

​

However, over the last few decades, in response to the Bologna Process (https://www.ehea.info/page-ministerial-conference-bologna-1999) and through subsequent Tuning projects (ELIA 2006 Fine Art Tuning Document, European League of Institutes of Arts. Online http://www.eq-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/4_Tuning-Fine-Art.pdf accessed 17 April 2023), the fine art academies have come to recognise the value to students (as key stakeholders), and to the cultural sector as a whole, of the need to be more explicit and transparent about how learning, teaching and assessment are designed and delivered in first and second cycle fine art programmes. Artist-teachers increasingly being encouraged to update their pedagogical skills through in-house training and teacher qualifications in order to assure their knowledge about teaching methods in addition to sharing their expertise as artists. Simultaneously, the advancement of artistic research as a legitimate mode of knowledge production has informed the development of the third cycle, with practice-based and practice-led doctorate programmes in fine art and the performing arts leading the field (for an overview of the factors influencing the development of artistic research and PhD awards in the arts see Kälvemark, T 2010 ‘University Politics and Practice-Based Research’ in Biggs, M,. and Karlsson, H,. Eds The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts London and New York: Routledge)

​

Equally, the impact of artistic research, undertaken by artist-teachers has become increasingly fundamental for updating the BA and MA curricula and nurturing a critically informed and research focussed learning environment in preparation for students progressing to doctoral study, or for entering an increasingly research engaged cultural sector. For BA students the notion of research has needed to go beyond the visit to the library’ (which is nonetheless important for secondary sources), and to instead introduce undergraduate students to ‘finding out’ through practice. On many MFA programmes an introduction to research methods is now core curriculum. This distinct emphasis on artistic research complements the longstanding contribution of artist-teachers’ professional expertise that remains an important foundation of fine art pedagogy. Regarding professional practice and artistic research, changes in contemporary art and education paradigms stimulate and force changes in approaches and practices in learning and teaching. 

​

Such evolution should always involve the students as participants, for placing the student at the centre of their learning requires that a number of principles are adopted and commitment made to espouse them. This means communicating clearly, accessibly and transparently to the students to ensure they are fully informed about their programmes of study; it means being responsive to the needs of each individual student whilst supporting them to become increasingly independent self-managing reflexive practitioners; it means listening closely to students to understand how they experience their learning, teaching and assessment; it means giving careful attention to being inclusive, and addressing diversity within the curriculum, and ensuring equality in all aspects of the programme, and the learning environment; it means guaranteeing that students are formally represented on decision making committees and are empowered to contribute effectively, and bring about change through, for example, opportunities for co-creation of the curriculum; it means ensuring that they have the digital competences needed in a future oriented learning context.

​

As artist-teachers, we continue to advocate for student-centred learning and to design learning and teaching activities that provide critical and reflective space for students to identify their direction, with experimentation, and embracing failure, understood as an integral element of their learning journey. These activities, mapped to intended learning outcomes - mapped to the Dublin descriptors, the EQF, and national frameworks, if appropriate - and delivered in various teaching formats (see examples below), require the student to dedicate a proportion of time to independent study, and while this proportion varies across the sector, it is normally at least 50% of study on a full-time BA or MA programme. At the same time, the value of learning collectively and collaboratively is established in most fine art programmes. Individual study provides the building blocks for each student’s progress, while group work reorientates the learner towards others, to the opportunities and considerations of working together. Equally, the location of art practice and education has expanded from the traditional studio as physical site, to increasingly combine more off-site, exploratory and experiential ‘sites’ - understood as including for example: geographical, conceptual, philosophical, social, institutional, psychological, historical sites. Developing fine art programmes with distinct pathways in socially engaged and participatory practice affirms this expansion and reflects the career destinations of an increasingly large number of fine art graduates.

As fine art tutors we attach high regard to employing a critically reflective approach to devising and revising the curriculum and correlated learning, teaching and assessment formats, and across the sector there has been a steady realisation of the value of engaging productively in internal and external quality assurance processes that encourage critical engagement with peer reviewers. Through these productive dialogues the fine art sector has had to articulate and advocate for a fine art teaching ethos and share best practices within and without the discipline. Benefits have also emerged through becoming receptive to learning from other CPAD disciplines.

​

The example assessment activities listed below should be considered as learning activities, with assessment (also termed evaluation) geared towards the learner’s learning process and individual progress: studio presentation of art practice (all media), exhibition/installation, film/video screening, performance, site-based practice, project work, placement work, portfolio, presentation (group and individual), case study, source review, work/sketchbooks, peer review, test/exam, proposal, artist statement, report, reflective journal, annotated bibliography, research paper, essay, thesis.

​

Within fine art, both formative and summative assessment are considered as learning tools – with assessment methods designed for, as and of learning (although, in the main, assessment of written submissions continues to be assessed as a distinct summative process). Where differentiated instruction takes place, within a competency-based curriculum, the constructive alignment of assessment is important, as is the use of alternative forms of assessment for the purpose of inclusion - for example, there are benefits from devising alternative assessments for neurodiverse students.  Formative assessment is a means to provide verbal and written feedback to each student on a regular basis and is particularly highly valued because of the iterative nature of artistic practice and the ongoing involvement of peer-to-peer feedback, for example in critique where work has been done to remodel the traditional and hierarchical format of the critique in order to shift the power relations, from teachers to students in light of the negative experience of many students. A positive example of rethinking the critique in the performing arts has been developed by DASarts - now DASTheatre (https://www.atd.ahk.nl/en/theatre-programmes/das-theatre/study-programme/feedback-method-1/ accessed 21.11.2023). 

​

Formative assessment provides a review process for ongoing artwork and problem solving, and enables the outcomes of experimentation with ideas, contexts, materials, and methods to be reflected upon by student and tutor. At the same time, it is future orientated in terms of identifying emerging problems and project planning, with tutors placing an emphasis on feedback that does not inhibit future risk-taking and embraces failure as a creative force. The student should be an active participant in assessment, and feedback can be largely qualitative rather than quantitative.