Mikolai's site

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Software Engineering Session

Size of student group: 13

Observer: Mikolai Berg

Observee: Corey Ford

 

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One

Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum? How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

The students are learning software engineering. They need to think about planning their code using a type of diagram called UML. They are given a series of games and need to inspect the code and try to reproduce UML diagrams from this code. This is the third week teaching this group, as their main lecturer. 

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

The students will complete a research task where they find different advances and place these together onto a Miro board – creating a timeline of types on the history of computer science.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

From what I’ve heard from colleagues they are a quiet class. I’m curious to see how this activity goes in terms of fostering student’s discussion. Attendance has been poor, and I pushed them to attend the class two days ago for a guest lecture, so I expect them to be tired at this point in the term.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will tell everyone at the beginning. 

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Nothing, in particular.

How will feedback be exchanged?

E-mail.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Introduction

Session on Unified Modelling Language (UML) software engineering

13 students present

Pre-session

Corey informed me that the unit is quite delivery heavy in the first few weeks so students at this point (some weeks into the unit) may be tired and that’s an element to be mindful of in terms of participation, attainment and outcome expectations.

Session content and design

Timings

Intro to activity 5-10 minutes

1 hour for main task

20 minutes for follow up task

Group-based activities throughout the session.

The tasks

In the first task the students are asked to choose one of 5 computer games, classic ones such as ‘Snake’ and produce key words that correlate to create a code aligning with the structure of the game. They must also identify coding coherence between the three different stacks such as ‘dependents’ and ‘associates’.

In the second task they are asked to do the same but with a different game. This time the task is timed, and the timeframe is shorter.

Session delivery and resources

Corey introduces the task in an approachable way, providing thorough instructions and the planned activity process.

Once the activity has begun Corey provides further instruction to each group and where needed, re-iterating on a personal level with the student in question.

Whilst the students are working on the task, Corey takes turns with each group, following up on their progress, providing further direction for their WIP.

Once the first task comes to an end, Corey gets the students attention and introduces the second task, reminding them that this task structure could possibly be expected of them in their assessment, but in this setting, they will be asked to solve the task each by themselves.

At the end of the activity Corey provides the students with result sheets expressed approval of the students processes and outcomes. He finalises by providing information on the following session.

Resources

The physical resources used was the activity outline and information sheet and the results sheet. In terms of digital ones, a Miro board was projected over four screens presenting the different groups’ task progress.

Reflection and suggestions

The atmosphere of the session was not pressurised and the groups of students seemed well informed and started working on the task immediately after the activity outline. Developing their processes on digital post-it notes seemed to work well for the group progress. Corey’s attention to all groups facilitated the process and the hour’s task seemed to go very fast!

The Miro board worked well as a collective digital resource where students could see their own and the other groups’ progress, which possibly also served as a challenging and competitive element. I had not seen the Miro board in such use before and will certainly apply this to my own session in the future, as it was effective in many ways.

The group activity model worked well in this setting but I’m wondering if it could have been useful to apply an individual work approach in the second activity? I’m aware that the students were possibly tired due to previously demanding sessions but an alternative to the groups could have provided that additional challenge for the higher achieving students.

In our conversation after class Corey did draw attention to that some students in the groups seems to do the majority of the work, so applying the individual approach could possibly also challenge the less active students to work on their own. After witnessing the process in a group setting, they could have also found this approach less complex. Such a structure could also refine the newly gained skills of the more diligent students.

Another suggestion would possibly be to make the attention central again through the course of the session. As the Miro boards were presenting everyone’s WIP perhaps it could have been useful to share one groups’ process as an example to the whole class, at one point? Could this have been useful for the whole class and provided a small breather in their processes, as well as a moment for collective feedback?

Lastly, could it have been useful to allow time for reflections and possibly presentations of the process and outcomes in front of the class? Verbalising activity outcomes could have provided another element of reflection and engaged the attention of the group to the specific decision-making strategies applied.

Additional observations

At one point a student raised their voice aiming to get Corey’s attention. Corey did not respond immediately and provided just the right amount of attention to the student and by doing so re-enforcing necessary student/teacher boundaries.

Corey also applied an interesting digital-physical approach, using physical post-it notes that he’d stick on a student’s laptop with a fun symbol or a smiley face, ‘checking in/on’ with them in a humorous way. Very effective and uplifting!

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Thank you for the generous and constructive feedback. I reflect on your comments below, prefixed with MB. My responses prefixed with CF. 

MB: [Miro] “possibly also served as a challenging and competitive element.”

    CF: This is an aspect I hadn’t thought about with Miro, but naturally I suppose showing the work together at once will encourage students to ‘play’ against each other.  I wonder whether this is helpful for all students e.g. will quieter less competitive students feel pressure to perform? I might consider ways to use this to its advantage and make the sessions more gamified and competitive?

MB: “I’m wondering if it could have been useful to apply an individual work approach in the second activity”

    CF: I agree! I noticed that the contributions to the board were unequal after class also, reflecting on the outcomes, and from some reading (see Blog Post 3) feel that having areas where individuals can show their contributions will be incredibly helpful.

MB: “After witnessing the process in a group setting, they could have also found this approach less complex.”

    CF: This also makes sense, to scaffold the initial running of the task in groups for some peer-peer learning before leaving people to work individually. I will be adopting this sequence in future.

MB: it could have been useful to share one groups’ process as an example to the whole class, at one point? Could this have been useful for the whole class and provided a small breather in their processes, as well as a moment for collective feedback?

    CF: This is a common theme in my feedback. I’m often corned too much with pace and keeping activities running, that I often forget to leave space for reflection. Focusing on one of the stronger groups will help to give examples to the others, again facilitating some peer-peer learning. I will try this in future.

Thinking on Lesley Raven’s lecture, I’m discussion two models of critical self-reflection in practice as useful tools in the upkeep of good teaching practice.

In Raven’s lecture on reflective practice, we were asked to partake in activities providing a backdrop to the reflection in four different stages (see image above):

• Mapping the ontology of my practice [independent activity] – What is considered ‘real’ or fundamental within my teaching practice? The essence of my practice? (LO1 and LO2)

• Mapping the epistemology of my practice [independent activity] – How knowledge is developed, structured and applied in my practice. How is knowledge constructed in my field? (LO1 and LO3)

• Mapping your reflexivity with relation to my practice [independent activity] – What shapes your perspective on teaching? My awareness of how you construct and adjust knowledge in practice. (LO1 and LO3)

• Exploring our mappings [group activity] – Discussion of the questions answered in the activities above. (LO2 and LO4)

(Lesley Raven, TPP unit lecture, 2025)

The activities were aligned with Schon’s model of reflection: ‘in action’ and ‘on action’ (Schon, 1983). This has generated a reflective process on my practice: the key elements of the construction of it, what influences it, and how refection is shaped/materialised. Furthermore, this inspired a starting point into ‘a conservation with a situation’ (Raven, 2025) that will continue to shape my practice.

The dialogue that emerged in response to the delivery/activities (on Padlet and via group chat) provided further insight into the practical aspects of reflective practice. Questions such as ‘what kind of action methods do you count as reflection?’ introduced me to consider how the spaces where collegiate reflective practice happens are often informal: just like the water cooler mentioned in ‘Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This made me consider how valuable and supportive exchanges with colleagues in an informal setting are and moving forward how to make sure to actively listen in such moments.

Towards further critical insight

Finding Schon’s model useful, familiarising myself with Brookfield’s four lenses provided me with skills that were directly transferrable into pedagogic practice. His approach argues for a critically reflective practitioner continually ‘honing their authentic voice and “pedagogic rectitude” that reveals the “value and dignity” of the teacher’s work “because now we know what it’s worth”’ (Brookfield, Miller, 2010).

‘Auto-reflective lens‘ – ‘Focus on the self, previous experiences as a learner, and one’s own practice as the centre of reflection…become aware of the paradigmatic assumptions and instinctive reasonings that frame how we work.’

‘Students eyes lens‘ – ‘Student assessment and evaluation – those actions and assumptions that either confirm or challenge existing power relationships in the classroom.’

‘Colleagues experiences lens‘ – ‘In ways ranging from informal conversations to more organised peer feedback.’

‘Scholarly lens‘ (theoretical literature) – ‘Reading, presenting or writing pedagogic research.’

(Brookfield, Miller, 2010)

Consideration of the resource on reflective practice written by Marion Waite (Waite, 2013) provided me with further insight into the practical steps on ‘the four lenses’ (Brookfield, 1995) in practice. Blogging as a way of self-reflection or, if not looking for an audience, keeping a journal of progress could be useful.

The description of the third lens serving as a safe space for the beginner lecturer with imposter syndrome is also something that I could relate to. I wish that I had been more confident in reaching out more to my colleagues for support at that time.

Finally, the student survey season has started again, which makes me consider ‘lens two’ (Brookfield. 1995) and look forward to the invaluable feedback of students. It’s always good to know how we can improve.

References

Schön, D. A. (1983) ‘The Reflective Practitioner’ New York: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1987) ‘Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions’ San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lave, J & Wenger, Etienne (1991) ‘Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation’ Cambridge University Press.

Brookfield, S. (1995) ‘Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher’ Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

Miller, B. (2010) ‘Brookfield Summary prepared for the Faculty of Arts Teaching and Learning Committee’. The University of Sydney.

Waite, M. (2013) ‘Introduction to Reflection’ Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University.

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.

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Group tutorials

Size of student group: around 30 students         

Observer: Corey Ford

Observee: Mikolai Berg

Part One

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

This is a class for Year 2 Fashion Photography students, and they are in the 4^th week of a 40-credit unit (9 weeks), in which they are introduced to 3D image making and provided insight into emerging technologies in fashion imaging.

The submission requirements are; a 30 sec MOV file produced in a 3D software (usually Blender) (moving image submission), accompanied by a re-branding exercise of an pre-existing brand’s updated identity in the New Media landscape (research journal submission).

The focus of this session are group tutorials in which the students are asked to introduce their initial WIP, chosen brand, branding strategies, concept and up to date outcome in Blender. This is followed by feedback by the teaching team and their peers.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I’m the Year 2 lead and have been with this cohort since the beginning of this academic year. This is the 2^nd 40 credit unit that I am delivering for them.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

Overall, in order for the students to contextualise their image making practices in emerging technologies and the ability to conceptualise a creative pitch in consideration of existing brand heritage.

This session, in particular, provides an opportunity to share their WIP, witnessing their peers’, and be given a space to feedback. The objective is that such sessions are inspiring and pave way for further exchanges, inside or outside the classroom. These tutorials are to be informal and an opportunity for them vocalise their processes, a key element in creative conception.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

Either in one circle or divided in two, the students are asked to present their WIP in 3 minutes. They have a choice to do so vocally, or accompanied by PDF, presented on their laptops or on the classroom monitor. After each presentation, they can feedback on the progress of their peers.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Depending on the number of late comers, the decision on dividing the group in one or two can cause issues related to session timeframe (one group – too time consuming, two possibly too short)

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

In the beginning of the class.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Everything, time allowing.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Via email.

Part Two

Hi Mikolai,

I enjoyed coming to observe the students in the Fashion school. You set the tone as friendly and relaxed, e.g., chatting with students about train delays, and playing music from their own playlist. The structure was: i) introduction presentation, then ii) design crits. I organise my reflections using these as headings below.

::INTRO PRESENTATION:::

You made several efforts to put students at ease, e.g., emphasising the informality of the upcoming presentations. You also asked students about challenging elements of the course e.g. “How are you finding Blender?” – reassuring students it will take time to master. You also gave frequent reminders that information is on Moodle, helping students with information overload. Alongside, you delivered the lecture from a stool, which made your power status closer the students.

There was divided attention amongst students e.g. some looking at their laptops and less listening to the presentation. They likely already knew the material, and, from their screens, many were looking at notes for their crit – perhaps, nervous or just preparing. I don’t feel this distracted from their understanding of the content per se, but more so indicates their motivation to impress. It might be worth (re)-grabbing their attention somehow if delivering a crucial point.

:::DESIGN CRITS:::

Circle Layout: Students were positioned in a circle, and you moved around its centre. A challenge with the circle is that it is hard to read students’ faces to judge if they want to comment, with your back facing them. Students behind you also lost attention e.g looking at their computers/phones. This was truer for later crits where students presented from their seats; it was difficult for students at the back to see the presentations. Perhaps, having students put their materials on an interactive whiteboard like Miro and presenting this at the front could create a focal point for discussion?

Timing: Students were given three minutes for updates. Time was needed for tech setup. Your expert feedback could also be timed as, from my own experience of doing crits, I find it is easy to get carried away with giving lots of feedback – especially when excited about a student’s idea. Aware of the time, you asked the students if they wanted to split into two groups. Students seemed happy to continue as one, and as you commented “It is nice for everyone to see everyone’s work”. It was great to get the students involvement in this decision making. There’s an opportunity to group students with similar projects e.g. the grouping Oakley and grouping Victoria Secret. This could help them to differentiate their projects and think divergently from one another also.

Feedback: When giving feedback, you did a great job of reassuringly nodding along. In my crits, I’ve kept a blank face to create the illusion of objectivity (I wonder your thoughts on this). Your comments fabulously connected to student’s personal identity as designers. I didn’t see many students writing down feedback. During their presentations you could write notes to give back after, so they don’t forget?

Order: The first presenting student was keen and prepared. I wondered if students later would feel less prepared and anxious in comparison. Some students indicated this: one said “I think don’t think it was very well prepared” and another in setting up said “I don’t have like much”. Could a more random ordering of presentations help?

Quiet Students: One student didn’t want to partake. It was good not to pressure them into doing this, being sensitive to their own anxieties and learning style differences. I wondered whether you checked up on them afterwards to make sure they get the same opportunity of feedback.

Overall, I enjoyed the experience and look forward to potential future collaboration.

Part Three

Thank you for this insightful feedback Corey. There are many structural elements that I have not thought about, so I really appreciate this.

The especially useful points in your feedback are regarding tone/communication and students’ attention. I think that I have to change my informal approach and apply more distance between myself and the students, I have been aware of this for a while. I find this difficult as it feels like roleplay but do realise that in effective teaching, these roles are important. If I would apply a more disciplined and firmer approach in terms of communication I may be surprised at the improvements in their course of learning and general attention – hopefully then reflected in their submissions.

Here’s a more structured feedback reflection:

Group crits layout improvements: The spatial design and making sure that all students are focused on the presentations, presentation/feedback timings, implementing grouping per brand.

Elements of feedback: Making sure that students write notes, or having the teaching team writing them and providing those to students.

Timing: As previously with these activities I should have split the group in two, as the late arriving students were accommodated but did prolong the pre-viewed time for the tutorials which affected attention span.

Order: Presentations in random order to alleviate group pressure, are all points which can enhance such sessions I totally agree.

Quiet students: Following up with these is a crucial task, which I aim to materialise.

In all, thank you for this detailed feedback. Your objective perspective has really made me consider what can be improved. I wish I could have you in on more than this one occasion!

Introduction

I’m a full-time lecturer on BA Fashion Photography and a year leader. The cohorts are of about 50 students per year group. In recent years, and possibly post-Covid there has been an increase of ISAs (Individual Support Agreements) (Detmer, Welton, 2023). These agreements are in place to safeguard the students that are neurodiverse. The current cohort has 50 students and out of those 15 have ISAs.

Considering the HESA ‘Table 15 – UK permanent address student enrolments by disability and sex’, we may get more clarity on this issue through the scope of statists:

Learning difference such as dyslexia, dyspraxia or AD(H)D.

2018/19 total: 113,420

2022/2023 total: 137,555

Mental health condition, challenge or disorder, such as depression, schizophrenia or anxiety.

2018/19 total: 84,350

2022/23 total: 122,760

(Hesa, 2023)

Evaluation

Due to students’ privacy the teaching team are not made aware of specific neurodiversity diagnoses. The content of ISAs provides insight through illustrating how these students may feel challenged, which may be the cause of anxiety. Here are some of the most common directions to be mindful of when in class:

• ‘Consider adjustments to presentations if (student) requests this. Adjustments may include presenting to smaller groups or tutors only, video-recording presentations, going first or last; submitting scripts or tasks, or an alternative task that meets the learning outcomes.’
• ‘Consider adjustments to group work if needed. This may include (student) to choose their own group or giving (student) a defined role within a group.’
• ‘Give advance warning about presentations or reading aloud.’
• ‘Give (student) time to make verbal contributions, if necessary, e.g. in crits, seminars, group work.’

(Content from Individual Support Agreements, 2025)

Moving Forward

The ISA directions above are mainly centred around students’ anxiety re. performing in class, this being key to designing activities that facilitate non-direct or non-challenging processes of learning. To accommodate these diversities, I have had to specifically considered the design and model of activity-based sessions and presentations.

Planninggroup-based activities that allow students to respond to delivery content in a less pressured way, should provide a space for exchanges to flourish and pave the way for a more student-centred learning. The model of group presentations – in which each participant can a role they are comfortable with – would include each group being asked to prepare a visual and vocal presentation providing space for the selection presentation roles.

Benefits of group-activity work that supports neurodiverse learning alternatives are outlined in the following bullet points:

• ‘Promotion of discussion, debating and questioning skills.’

• ‘Transferrable skills development – collaboration, teamwork, negotiation, listening, time management and leadership.’

• ‘Development of working relationships with students outside the normal friendship groups.’

• ‘Active learning strategy, allowing students to learn by participation. Creative thinking skills can be enhanced through brainstorming.’

• ‘Bringing students with different learning experiences together, can develop new learning strategies and foster life-long learning skills.’

• ‘Increases the range and variety of assignments that can be undertaken.’

• ‘Working in groups mimics the ‘real-world’ working environment.’

(Francis, Allen & Thomas, 2022)

Conclusion

This model has worked well in the activities that I have planned and fulfilled the aim to provide a space for students that required a less direct approach. This model addressed the content of the ISA agreements, by giving autonomy to individuals: ad hoc group formation, non-obligatory presentations, role defining in groups, providing time for presenting and ample time to prepare for those.

One difficulty encountered has been that more diligent students have voiced their dislike to always work in groups as they would find the time more beneficially spent on resolving tasks on their own, in such a way adding to their personal project progress.

Due to ISA directions, I allowed the groups to form organically. However, realising the benefit of orchestrated groups where students get a more varied learning experience in exchanging with less familiar classmates. This design could be particularly useful for international students, as repeating group formations often happen due to shared languages and backgrounds.

Next steps

In response to student’s personal progress in the planned course delivery, I have implemented the following:

A variation of activity models, allowing more personal activities.

An increased number of 1-to-1 tutorials

References

HESA, www.hesa.ac.uk, CC BY 4.0

Francis, N., Allen M. and Thomas J. (2022) ‘Using group work in assessment – an academics perspective’. Cardiff University Press

Dettmer, J. & Welton, K. (2023) ‘Increasing neurodiversity awareness through a community of practice’, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education [Preprint], (29). Available in: https://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/article/view/1126

https://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/article/view/1126

Reflection on the piece ‘An a/r/tographic metissage: Storying the self as pedagogic practice’ by Trish Osler et al.

Introduction

The piece explores the teaching possibilities provided by narrative approaches, by illustrating four practitioners and their use of self as a subject matter to inform their art identities as A/R/Tographers and the interconnectedness between those: artist, researcher and teacher.

What interested me is the auto-ethnographical element in each of these women’s stories and how these reflections became key directions in their artistry, as well as encouraging interaction with audiences by providing common ground for cross-pollination, through the scope of lived experience.

The process – the self as a pedagogical resource

Arianna Garcia-Fialdini’s reflections on her work with immigrants in Montreal struck a chord with me:

Overall, the artwork aims to cover the important gradual and collective process that was followed in its making, which ties into a much larger project of immigrant exploration of identity through art making and oral history. The approach and process holistically and metaphorically represent my lived experiences of art education and embody my living and growing identity as an art educator, researcher and artist.                             

(Osler et al, 2019)

Being an immigrant myself I related to her process, which made me consider my own experiences as a teaching resource. The last unit in my Year partly focusses on auto-ethnography, one of the primary elements in the conception process of their creative journeys. This session lecture is currently delivered by a researcher who specialises in the field. I feel it’s lacking is an activity that challenges students to apply what they have learned by actively recognising and applying their personal experiences as a potential starting point of their conceptual process.

To get a clearer idea I reached out to Manrutt Wongkaew a colleague on the Fashion Styling Course, specialising in therapeutic pedagogy through art practice. He outlined an activity he calls ‘Home’, inspired by the work of Kimberly M Jenkins and her work on fashion and race. In the activity students are asked to bring in photos and/or objects that have personal context for them, which are then discussed in class. These may be of family members, but also chosen family, your own tribe as he called it. The chosen family concept was relatable to me, as when I moved to London, I found comfort in queer communities being a gay man.

After reflection I worked out an activity plan:

• Students bring in a series of photographs of people that they know or places that are dear to them, this could be anyone or anything that has made an impression on their life.

• As an example, I bring in photographs and share these with the whole class as a starter. At this point these students have been with me for a whole academic year and I’m hoping that this not only scaffolds the activity for them but also creates the sense of a ‘safe space’ where intimate and personal elements can be shared.

• In groups of five, the students are to share and speak about the photographs and the context they have for them.

• By using the assessment brief and unit outcomes as reference, the students are then encouraged to feedback to each other on what story/experience could be a valid starting point of the ideation process.

Reflection

Through further consideration I have realised that the activity, even though useful in the context of the unit, also presents some stickiness in terms of ethics and role of the teacher:

• Trigger warnings will be required; speaking about intimate and personal topics can trigger emotions in the participants that may have been caused by trauma.

• Boundaries should be put in place: an alternative is for students to use an alter-ego if needed.

This concept also disrupts the traditional roles between teacher and students and potentially puts the teacher in an exposed situation which may be mis-interpreted. It would be interesting to further investigate the dialogue on similar pedagogies, ones where the teacher/student position is blurred, in a divergent design such as this.

References

Osler, T. Guillard, I. Garcia-Fialdini, A. & Cote, S. (2019). ‘An a/r/tographic métissage: Storying the self as pedagogic practice’. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice. Volume 12, Numbers 1 & 2, Intellect Ltd Article.

(picture 1)

Plan

Being a collector of old cameras I thought that these objects could be an interesting focus point to the OBL microteaching session. After considering the text ‘Innovative Pedagogies Series: Wow: The Power of Objects in Object Based Learning and Teaching’ by Dr Kirsten Hardy (2015), I decided to apply some of the delivery designs discussed into my session. This key quote provides an outline to the objectives of the activity:

 “Interpretation is the process for constructing meaning. Interpretation is part of the process of understanding”                                                                  

(Hooper-Greenhill, 1999)

Structure

The cameras brought to class differed in age, ranging from 1914-1995, all analogue film but one a Polaroid, ranging in uses from personal to professional. As teaching resources, I provided a questionnaire and coloured paper that served as ‘plinth’ to each camera relating to the colours on the form. (See picture 1 and figure 2)

(figure 1)

Objectives

Encouraging observational skills: Students to analyse objects on a personal level/group discussion/interaction. ‘Reflection in action’ (Schon, 1983).

Encouraging visual literacy: Researching the objects’ values, design/function, cultural/historical but also (current) monetary worth.

Encouraging research skills: students were asked to answer these key questions on provided form and present their findings in an informal setting.

Encouraging learning by a tactile approach. Students were encouraged to handle each object to better answer questions and inform personal preferences. ‘Reflection in action’ (Schon, 1983).

Encouraging subjective responses: The last exercise would ask them their preferred camera overall, engaging their tacit knowledge and cultivating their subjective taste and reflection, as to analyse why we might attribute value to specific objects.

Through the on-the-go research activity, I aimed to open discussions on the above, hoping to result in a student-centred learning approach:

‘A student-centred approach to learning encourages students to have more responsibility for their learning and is a process that relies heavily on professional confidence to ‘let-go’ of traditional teaching responsibilities.’

                     (McCabe & O‘Connor, 2014)

Review

The objects did provide the ‘Wow’ (Hardy, 2015) factor I had planned and perhaps a sense of time-travel for the participants. The colour-coded resources and questionnaire were clear and provided ample opportunity for discussion prompts. I did realise that the 20-minute timeframe was possibly a bit short for the research activity and presentation, so I prioritised the informal discussion being mindful of ‘letting go’ and providing space for a more ‘organic’ approach to the topics that were discussed, not stepping into a ‘leading’ position.

Feedback

A participant mentioned that it could have been interesting to develop the session further by providing photographs that each camera could produce. A pairing exercise of cameras and photos could have been productive, further revealing the cultural and social heritage.

Reflection

Sara Ahmed’s ‘What’s the Use?’ (Ahmed, 2019) piece on the use of objects provided further possibilities to develop the session. The piece speaks of the biography of things and how objects use can be seen as a recorder or even a trace itself. Such reflections as well as those concerning when and how and object becomes obsolete could have provided a broader contextual backdrop to an introduction to this session.

Lastly, the object linkage between the actual function being a visual recorder, but also in its biographical sense being a recorder of time, could provide an additional intriguing paradox for the students to draw upon.

References

Hardie, K. (2015) ‘Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching’ pp. 4-20. HEA Report

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1999) ‘The educational role of museum’ (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

Schön, D. A. (1983) ‘The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action’ London: Temple Smith.

McCabe, A. & O‘Connor, U. (2014) ‘Student-centred learning: the role and responsibility of the lecturer’ Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (4) 350-9. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13562517.2013.860111

Ahmed, S. (2019) ‘What’s the Use? : On the Uses of Use’ Duke University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central

Following onto my very short first blog from the induction session I thought I’d better introduce myself a bit more. I’m the Year 2 lead in Fashion Photography at LCF (and I teach on Year 1 and Year 3 as well). I have been an associate lecturer since 2018 and in I became a full-time member of staff. Previously, I was a fashion photographer and actively ran my practice for around 10 years.

I have been developing and delivering the course delivery for the last four years and my last CSS survey result was just under 80%. Considering that our cohorts are around 60 students, I am proud of this result as I’ve had no previous training in the role of a year leader. Naturally, also realising that improvements could be made, I chose to apply for the PG Cert in order to gain further context and perspectives on how I can improve my unit delivery and content structure.

What I really liked to hear in the induction session was the fact that one of the approaches will be about focussing on is the coherence between our professional selves and teaching: the practitioner, the teacher and now the researcher. These are roles that I have been struggling to merge or collectively straddle so far and hoping that this coming year will provide greater unity to. The focus of the text I was asked to read for this week’s workshop provided further in-depth dialogue on this subject, which I found useful.

Lastly, I’m impressed by the reading lists provided and look forward to getting my teeth into the texts found on our unit Moodle – time permitting, of course, as I’m starting my own teaching next week!

I’m the Fashion Photography Year 2 leader at LCF. More to follow soon as I’ve run out of time!

Welcome to myblog.arts. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!