Introduction
This intervention is shaped by Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality, which helps us understand how different parts of identities, like race, gender, class, or disability, can overlap to affect how critique sessions are experienced in the classroom. Alongside this, the idea of positionality reminds us that we all bring our own backgrounds and perspectives into learning spaces. Drawing on my own identity and experiences, this work looks at how crits can often ignore hidden identity dynamics, and explores ways to make the sessions more inclusive, supportive, and reflective for everyone involved.
To provide more context to this report I shall start with mapping out relevant intersectional fragments that inform my positionality, contributing factors of which may inform this academic delivery design interference.
Context
I’m a 48-year-old, gay white male of Polish origin and a political refugee from the communist block who grew up in Sweden. I have been living in London for 27 years, and I feel more like a Londoner than belonging to any singular nationality, whilst those national-level elements have fused together over the years and serve more as a cultural and social foundation of who I am. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in the borough of Hackney for 25 years. According to the most recent census, 46.9% of residents are B.A.M.E, whilst 53.1% are White (Census, 2021). From the perspective of religion almost 10% are Jewish, one of the biggest communities in the UK, that live alongside 13.3% Muslims. Drawing on this data I aim to illustrate how my background and surroundings in London have influenced my intersectionality and why I consider diversity, inclusion and acceptance a norm (in the community that I have lived in for the majority of my life) which influences my teaching practice and my approach to the very diverse cohorts at UAL that I teach, as well as my relationship with each of the students.
Whilst the above informs my positionality with regards to marginalised communities, I’d like to add the focus on disability in this report, through the lens of delivery design. To provide a fuller picture I’d also like to add the professional fragments of my intersectional self, as those are the ones that are actioned in the delivery design that I intend to interevent and develop. I am currently the Fashion Photography Year 2 lead and have been for the last 5 years. The focus of Year 2 is industry skills, so having my own practice for the last 16 years as a photographer, is an intersectional element that plays a significant role in my delivery design. In the classroom, I often aim to mimic and facilitate an industry environment, to equip my students with skills that will help them better navigate their professional trajectory. In order to achieve this, I apply signature pedagogies ‘which enable students to learn to think and act as a professional would’ (Schulman, 2005).
Inclusive Learning
Part of these skills is constructive criticality, both in the ability to give and to receive critique and successfully draw upon it, which happens in formative assessment settings. A theory that I decided to draw upon here, is Herrington & Herrington’s ‘authentic assessment approach’:
‘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.’
(Herrington & Herrington, 2006)
In the more common crit design in arts-based learning, the artefact – the WIP submission material, is a key element of the assessment criteria, but what I found problematic was the students’ involvement in these sessions. Examining one of the first crit sessions I conducted, I discovered that there was a need for an intervention in the delivery design of the session to facilitate the students’ engagement with regards to exchanges of opinions and feedback, as previously the driving factor here was the feedback of the teaching team. Having long worked on inclusion of all students, and particularly the ones who are neurodiverse, I applied group work to ensure that all students were able to participate, enabling alternatives and ensuring that, in cases where an ISA agreement was in place, that those needs were met to foster an across-the-board inclusive environment for all. For a broader outline and statistics and theories underpinning my approach of this, please refer to my Case Study 1 from the TPP unit [link].
Following on the above learning, it became clear that the group work model would lend itself well to play an integral part of a crit design. Alongside this, I refined the teaching spaces strategies, and a Post-it based feedback method. I further developed a design that integrated the elements that I found supportive in a model that I described in my Intervention Proposal on this unit [link]. Please consider this content to provide more clarity on the overview of the intended session delivery in the classroom.
Reflection/Action
Having had the opportunity to implement this version of the intervention in class, alongside experience of previous crits sessions that I had conducted, I found many problematics, some of which were quite unexpected. By applying the feedback sandwich approach, I discovered that most students would read out the negative comments prior to the overall, or positives. It was their way of getting ‘the stressful feedback’ out of the way first. This perhaps caused issues, as the groups that had commented were not addressed for all their comments at once, but by comment by comment. This may have been caused by the framing of the feedback sandwich, in its simplicity. Victor Guillen suggested in his feedback to use the wording of ACE (Appreciation, Consideration, Extension), a more current framework. Perhaps a re-wording of the rather antiquated feedback technique could provide a more transparent understanding of providing feedback?
A positive takeaway was that the neurodiverse responded well to the Post-it structure, possibly having an awareness that the comments were in specified categories, a design element I’d previously not applied. Also, through the group feedback, I got the sense that these students felt comfort that the comments were not on a one-to-one basis. Moving forward, acknowledging the successful response to group sessions, I’m considering whether the presentations should be in a group setting as well. The support that groups created for students that might otherwise feel pressured by presenting in class was evident. I’m currently reflecting on whether a design that also group the presenters (by say theme, subject matter, or technical elements) could avoid the pressures of standing up alone and presenting in front of class.
Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, an area that would benefit from further attention would be a more in-depth instruction of the expected session structure. Victor Guillen predicts in his feedback that more focus on ‘scaffolding’ as coined by Wood, Bruner & Ross would have potentially provided further support:
‘Scaffolding consists essentially of the adult ‘controlling’ those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence.’
(Wood, Bruner &Ross, 1976)
A firmer implementation of the scaffolding approach, at the beginning of the session and throughout, providing step-by-step direction for each of the group’s tasks could provide the structure and solidity that the session may have lacked.
Evaluation
Considering the data I have collected from this trial intervention, I have gleaned further knowledge of students in a crit design setting. The findings also provide insight into psychological responses to the pressures of live presentations when an artefact, in this case personal work, is being assessed by an audience. It has made me question the idea of the ‘safe space’ that the classroom may represent, and maybe the failings or it. What I find beneficial is that this space may, in fact, resemble a real-life situation where the students are asked to receive critique, much alike situations they will face in an industry environment. Referring to my earlier comments on applying this approach, I feel that I have succeeded somewhat, but more work needs to be done.
An important element that I’d like to bring forward is the constructive criticism from one of my course peers in which she suggested a feedback session, following the crits session itself. This could have provided me with valuable data to bring forward and hopefully enhance the structure of the session itself, by providing further feedback from the participants themselves.
Conclusion
My crit design is a WIP progress project that I have been developed over two years. However, reflecting on the recent methods that I have implemented, the IPP Intervention trial has been the most effective. It is professionally gratifying to have broadened my pedagogical knowledge in recent months and, by having the opportunity to put my methods to the test, provided me with the most progressive results in this design development so far. What I’d like to point out is the sustainability of this model within my teaching practice which I hope to develop further and share with my peers to improve student experience in crit sessions on my programme.
To end, and provide further context, I’d like to finish on a quote of Mitch Goldstein taken from the UAL Crits guidance document, which I feel has been inspiring in the process of developing this Intervention:
‘Critique is one of the most valuable components of a formal art and design education. It is also one of the most difficult […] Critique is a collaborative activity that takes quite a bit of time to learn – both in terms of how to give feedback, and how to accept feedback.’
(Goldstein, 2020)
Bibliography
Crenshaw, K. (1990) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, Stanford Law Review, Stanford Law School
Office for National Statistics (2022) ‘2021 Census: Ethnic Group, National Identity and Religion – England and Wales’, Newport: ONS.
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
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976) ‘The role of tutoring in problem solving’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Wiley-Blackwell
Goldstein, M. (2023) ‘How to Crit’ Website [link]