Blog 1
I intended for my first blog post to be about one of the Workshop 1 and 2 assigned readings. I read The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy (McDonald and Michela, 2019), so was planning to analyse the study and what I drew from its conclusions. However, when I thought about how I engaged with the text it became more natural to write about how it felt becoming a student again and my feelings about the barriers I experienced around the text.
Being back in a classroom surrounded by colleagues I had never met, entering the space as a student rather than a member of staff felt comforting, which I didn’t expect. But, when reflecting on it I believe that could be due to the fact that being in an educational environment as a student is more familiar to me. Simply because I spent 17 years in a class as a student compared to my four and half as a member of staff.
Although I enjoyed this return to being a student once I entered the classroom, my assigned pre-reading had the opposite effect. I struggled to get to grips with the set text, not because of the study itself, but due to the introduction and literature review. I found it to be overwhelming convoluted. There was a line of text in the study that read: ‘Our intent in highlighting these examples is not to claim that participants intentionally try to make students’ experience more difficult than it needs to be.’ (McDonald & Michela, (2019) p.22. This quote from the text, although not intended to, made me think of my own experience of trying to decipher the introduction Although, this was not the context it was meant to be used in, I couldn’t help but think of the beginning. As at one point, it did feel as though the authors were making the text feel inaccessible on purpose. As a staff member, in my team we have ongoing talks around inclusivity and accessibility, and I have begun to work on actively simplifying the way I communicate to be inclusive (Hemingway, 2024). So, returning to this academic way of presenting information was overwhelming.
I felt a little embarrassed about how much I struggled with getting my head around the introduction to the study. But after some deliberation decided to voice this during the session, when we were feeding back in groups. I’m glad I did, as this was a shared theme that others also related to (although some didn’t struggle at all). I found it enlightening to engage with others about their thoughts towards their own text and their interpretations about what they found interesting or challenging.
It felt nice to have the freedom to be curious again, ask questions and get things wrong without feeling the pressure to be the person who had the answer. I’m excited to undertake my PGCert this year and will keep in mind: ‘uncertainty lies at the core of art and design teaching and learning.’ (Orr, 2017, p.56)
Word count: 506
References:
Hemingway editor Help | Hemingway Editor. Available at: https://hemingwayapp.com/help (Accessed: 17 February 2024).
McDonald, J. and Michela, E. (2019) ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Design Studies, 62, pp. 1–35.
Orr, S, and Shreeve, A. Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central
Blog 2
I gravitated towards Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom (Harris, 2022) because I joined Higher Education (in a different institution) at the beginning of the pandemic. Therefore, my delivery was always remote. I then applied for the role of Graduate Employability Specialist, a role that was created to mitigate some of the impact of COVID-19 on 2020 grads. So, much of the processes and practices I and my team follow today are still directly informed by COVID-19. Further to this the majority of my teaching still takes place online partly due to COVID-19, but mostly because of the cohort I interact with.
While I was reading the article a recurring thought I had, was how much my own ideas around silence play into the way I interpret a quiet session. Often while I’m in a session the silence is awkward for me as the presenter. I realise this is because I am unable to gain feedback from body language, facial expressions or other cues. I noticed, in the beginning I had been filling in the gaps, with negative assumptions. Interpreting their silence as being synonymous with being disengaged. However, since beginning to use similar methods as those outlined in the article, such as encouraging use of the chat box (Harris, 2022). Or other tools such as polls, requesting they react with an emoji or sometimes using external platforms such as Mentimeter, Miro (Leewis & Ross, 2022)or Padlet to help spark different ways of engaging.
Through conversations with colleagues and students, adapting the way I view participation has helped greatly. I also found the insights and questions posed in the article necessary to consider, as this way of viewing silence serves more than just those who are introverted. It also benefits those who speak English as an additional language and may not feel comfortable speaking in front of large groups. Those who have poor internet connection, so perhaps can’t rely on a strong connection when they are called upon. Or those who have no time to attend a session so are listening in while also at their job.
There are a multitude of reasons why some people are unable to contribute orally to a session, and I think remembering this and building the session with these participants in mind strengthens my sessions greatly. It allows for me to continuously think about how to create as many opportunities as possible for students and graduates to join my sessions without anyone thinking that participation has to look one way.
Word count: 419
References
Harris , K. (2022) ‘Embracing the silence ’, Spark, 5(1). Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark (Accessed: 2024).
Leewis, L., & Ross, S. L. (2022). “Home sweet home: achieving belonging and engagement in online learning spaces.” Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal.
Blog 3
I chose to write a blog post on the object based learning micro-teach. I felt that there was more to be explored in terms of my influence over the session beyond the micro-teach account (Hodges, 2024). I have been thinking about my colleagues’ interpretation of the activity, how I initially envisioned the exercise based on my own experience with the object based learning lecture (Willcocks & Orgill, 2024) and the other factors that influenced the session.
I found it interesting that the group activity became associated with my role at UAL. I think I was surprised by this as when I participated in the object based learning session the person presenting the object was not a factor when I considered the objects. So this was helpful for me to be presented with, as a factor that could influence students and graduates.
I do also think another contributing factor to them choosing to consider me while viewing the object was how closely I was observing their interactions and conversations. When I planned the exercise, I envisioned working with five other colleagues. I thought I could split the groups into two, one group of two and another of three. I think this would have allowed me to move between the groups, splitting my focus, perhaps this would have allowed them to be less aware of me.
Another element of the micro-teach I was grateful for was a late arrival. I felt this to be particularly helpful as it often happens during workshops and it’s great when the activity easily accommodates others. With a few minutes left of the session another colleague joined us. It provided a great way for the group to test out their new use of the marbles and demonstrated the effectiveness of their activity. They decided to include the new arrival by asking them the questions they had come up with. However, due to the positioning of the original three group members and the line of questions being careers related, it felt a little like an interview. I joked about it, so that they became aware. One member of the group then decided to switch the approach, so they all took turns answering questions. This changed the feel of the activity, to a much more cohesive nature.
My ideal outcome would have been that the group would use the similarities in the stories they shared (childhood, playing and grandparents) during the reflective exercise to inform the group task. This happened to some degree, but not to the extent I would have thought.
However, during the feedback segment I asked them if they felt the activity helped build connection and they agreed that it did. Therefore, I do think this will be a worthwhile activity to introduce in a workshop setting with students and grads.
Word count 465
References
Hodges, J. 2024, ‘Account of micro-teach’, myblog.arts.ac.uk. Available at: https://23046266.myblog.arts.ac.uk/wp-admin/post.php?post=14&action=edit.
Willcocks, J. and Orgill, G. (2024) ‘How to… use objects to support learning and teaching’, 24 January.
Blog 4
Workshop 4 – Crit Role Play exercise.
I studied BA English Literature at university. During that time, I had the opportunity to do one creative writing module. On that module, was the only time I experienced a ‘crit’. These took place in small groups of around four other students. We were all emailed one another’s writing before class and given the evening to review each piece of writing in private. We were given time to consider our thoughts on one another’s work and find ways to tactfully share our opinions.
From what I remember, I enjoyed this approach and found it easy to compliment the other students. However, I never felt the courage to say when I out right didn’t like another student’s work, as I didn’t feel I had the right or authority to do so. But I do remember stating where something could have been explained better or lacked impact.
My own experience was starkly different from what both the role play exercise depicted and what colleagues who shared their experiences of crits during their time at UAL described. If I hadn’t heard from colleagues both before and after the role play exercise depict their experiences of crits while they were students, I would think that the ‘lecturer’ roles were caricatures, rather than plausible ways students could be interacted with.
Experiencing a mock version of a UAL crit was eye opening. It allowed me to understand what some students have been led to believe what industry is like, what is acceptable behaviour in a professional environment and their expectation of feedback to their work. After this session I was prompted to return to one of the earlier assigned readings ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, (McDonald and Michela, 2019) the accounts of the different ways tutors conducted crits, had much more meaning this time, with the added backdrop of my colleagues’ experiences.
Often in our Careers team we discuss the benefit that can be gained from offering a space for students and grads to comment on and inform each other’s applications, portfolios, or CVs. We discuss the potential benefit and layered learning but have often been hesitant, as we were unsure of how exposed they would feel.
However, it seems that as this is common practise at UAL and in Arts Education (McDonald & Michela, 2019) it may be beneficial to introduce this element of feedback giving and peer reviews with a renewed approach, that focusses on constructive feedback delivery (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). As many colleagues stated in the workshop that they saw the benefits of crits that were lead with respect, genuine curiosity and mutual understanding.
I feel that that is an atmosphere that already exists within the workshops, one-to-ones and email feedback that I deliver.
Trying out crits or reviews may offer us a chance to re-establish what a crit can look like and could be a way to prepare them to enter industry with a different understanding of how to approach and receive feedback.
Word count: 497
References
McDonald, J. and Michela, E. (2019) ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Design Studies, 62, pp. 1–35.
Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090.