The flexibility of TA requires the researcher to actively position their analysis within a critical framework and generate themes accordingly. By engaging with relevant literature before analysis, I ensured this framework was in place, enabling a more reflexive and critically grounded approach. This also helped prevent my initial intuitions about student confusion from dominating the findings, allowing me to position my voice within existing conversations.
My TA adopts an inductive, experiential orientation with a critical realist perspective, positioning it as an effective tool for “experiential research which seeks to understand what participants think, feel, and do” (Braun and Clarke, 2017, p. 297). Its recursive nature aligns well with my subject matter, as confusion is inherently messy, creative, and complex.
Data was collected from 15 respondents, all of whom answered “yes” to the initial question, and 12 provided an example. I conducted three cycles of coding. In the second cycle, I generated “fear” as a theme but later recognised that this overlooked emotions as “socially and relationally constructed” (Hu, 2024, p. 71). In the final cycle, my themes framed student confusion within social and relational contexts: technical problems, working independently, and lack of support or communication from staff. Notably, none identified tasks or briefings as sources of confusion, which I did not anticipate. Overall, students appear confident working during taught sessions but less confident when working independently outside of them.
Helping students work independently and offering focused feedback are achievable within the group tutorial. For technical problems, I will direct students to relevant workshops or technicians.
The data largely frames confusion as a negative experiential state: “I don’t know if whatever I’m doing is ‘right’ or not,” and “I was afraid not to do what was instructed.” Reframing confusion as a normal and productive part of independent practice is therefore essential. Within the 20-minute tutorial, this must be achieved verbally, leading me to propose the following initial changes:
First, I have designed an “It’s sticky” prompt card for use in tutorials. “Sticky” is a simple, playful synonym for confusion. Inspired by Orr and Shreeve’s (2017, p.31) view that “vague forms of communication are very important. They remind us that our thinking… is not yet finished,” the card offers a shared term to help students articulate their experiences. The reasons listed on the back are drawn directly from my TA. This activity addresses student needs identified in the data and supports cognitive ease (Nguyen, 2021), helping students recognise and explore what feels challenging.
Second, I will replace my opening question “How did you find this week?” with “What’s feeling sticky?” Alongside the prompt card, this allows students to identify their confusion quickly and easily. It positions the tutorial as a space for focused support, emphasises verbal communication for problem-solving, and enables me to offer more targeted feedback within the limited time available.
Finally, I will ensure feedback is focused and action-oriented, hinging on practical steps and artist references, responding directly to student feedback that “proposing concrete ways to develop the work would be great”.