Introduction and Background
In my position as the BA Fashion Photography Year 2 lead, key elements of my teaching role include providing the students with a preparation ahead of entering industry. My units include a‘live brief’(Orr & Shreeve, 2016) for the moving image unit, a re-brand pitch exercise resulting in a 3D animation, and an elective industry internship. The involvement of external practitioners is key throughout.
Evaluation
Due of the industry-focussed delivery that is scheduled, it’s dominated by signature pedagogies ‘which enable students to learn to think and act as a professional would’ (Schulman, 2005).
This teaching design directly links to ongoing formative assessment models. The model of ‘authentic assessment’ (Herrington & Herrington, 2006) describes:
‘Authentic assessment directly involves the evaluation of students’ knowledge, skills, and competencies of real-life’ situations. These assessments often require authentic artifacts as evidence of their learning.’
However, pedagogical problems can arise in a variety of areas when working with signature pedagogies:
- ‘Tutor centred approach’ (Smith & Taylor, 2009).
- ‘Reproduction of cultural norms and issues of power and exclusion’ (Gray & Smith, 2016).
- ‘Situational consideration of academia where the ‘object is to enable learning’ as opposed to industry where the ‘object is to produce a product’
(Engestrom et al. 1999; Engestrom 1990)
In addition, I would include these:
- Inexperience in pedagogical delivery structure of tacit/embodied knowledge.
- Students’ approach to previously unfamiliar lecturers and their ability to freely respond to tasks and present results to an unknown [student feedback].
Moving Forward
Conscious of the issues mentioned I do see the huge benefits of HPL that are industry practitioners and have in my time seen the benefits of this. What is necessary is a ‘reframing of practice so… that it becomes accessible to those learning it’ (Bernstein, 2000). By identifying the useful teaching strategies of Shreeve (2008) in this process I’d like to demonstrate a plan of action:
Passing on your knowledge: Skills are important in this pedagogical setting but what is required is the preparation time of the practitioner and the provided time for them to develop session designs and approaches for lectures and activates.
Using examples from practice: Issues that may arise can commonly include a Euro-centric approach and a reproduction on cultural norms. It is important that material shared in class in inclusive, diverse and re-framed for the purpose of the delivery. This may result in a thorough editing process of the intended content and a focus of how the content is contextualised. The practitioner must be prepared to straddle the practitioner/teacher roles and demonstrate an ability to create a narrative equally drawn from practice and to meet intended session outcomes.
Bringing in your own work: Feedback has flagged issues regarding students becoming intimidated by the level of professionality of the work presented, resulting in a creative block in some. Solutions to this could be bringing in in the practitioner’s early work or even college projects. Such approaches provide a possible space for identification, which may contribute to the work being positively received.
Reflection
Orr and Shreeve’s piece also map out the ‘real life’ problematic, with regards to live projects and the academic setting being ultimately and un-real place due to the institution itself:
‘When referred to as ‘real life’, the social world of practice is set in opposition to lived life of the students, tutors, technicians and others who work to support and create learning environments in university. Clearly there is a commonly held view that education is somehow ‘unreal’, and in some respects it is!’
(Orr & Shreeve, 2016)
I’d argue differently. I think this largely depends on the brief structure, delivery planning, collaborative strategies and submission outcomes. By allowing time for educating practitioners, mirroring industry processes, planning co-deliveries/tech workshops and for the students’ work to be assessed by the same unit team, we create an environment that mimics effectively. I feel that students are better prepared for the industry through contact with active professionals.
References
Orr, S. & Shreeve, A. (2016) ‘Signature Pedagogies in Art and Design’ Design Pedagogy, Routledge
Shulman, L. S. (2005) ‘Signature Pedagogies in the Professions’. Daedalus, 134(3), pp. 52–59.
Herrington, J. & Herrington, A. (2006) ‘What is an Authentic Learning Environment?’ Information Science Publishing, IGI Global
Smith-Taylor, S. (2009) ‘Effects of Studio Space on Teaching and Learning: Preliminary Findings From Two Case Studies’ Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), p. 217–228.
Gray, C. and Smith, K. (2016) ‘Critical Views of Studio’ In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier,
C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith and K. Campbell, eds. Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases London and New York: Routledge, pp.260–270.
Engeström, Y. (1990) ‘Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory’ Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamaki, R. (1999) ‘Perspectives on Activity Theory’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, C., Smith, K. (2016) ‘Critical Views’
Bernstein, B. (2000) ‘Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique’ Lanham and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Shreeve, A. (2008) ‘Transitions: Variation in Tutors’ Experience of Practice and Teaching Relations in Art and Design’ Unpublished PhD Thesis. Lancaster University.