Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: AV Cultures Session – 20th of Feb
Size of student group: it varies around 15 to 4
Observer: Emily Woolley
Observee: Andrea Francke
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?
This is an optional drop-in session open to all students from BAFA, PGDep and MAFA at Chelsea. It is mainly attended by Year 1 and Year 3 students. I work on Year 3 so I know most of the Year 3 students that come.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I’ve only started running AV Cultures since October 2024. I’ve only run the sessions in alternate weeks. I coordinate the sessions together with Elizabeth Peebles, Y3 leader.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
There are two main forms of engagements. For the students watching the films, the aim is to expand their knowledge of historical and contemporary art and film, engage critical with the content, feel more comfortable in discussions with other students, develop strategies to analyze from their practice and learn about film and video techniques and language.
Ideally this builds their confidence and all of them program at least one session over their time at Chelsea. Students that present learn to develop curatorial frameworks and public programme planning, start to develop their own facilitation techniques, practice public speaking, engage with self-led research around a subject of their chosen, connect with peers over similar interests, practice their own film skills (some students prepare edits and super cuts for their sessions, for example).
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Students can be involved in programming and running a session, in which case I would support them in developing it and facilitate it as needed. Other times. Depending on their schedule, no one volunteers, and I program and run the session myself. I only know that a few days before the session.
Students are expected to come and watch the films and then we have an open discussion. We also use this as an opportunity to help support students who might want to host a session as a response.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Running it as a team means there are moments of disconnection between sessions, and we have to treat them as isolated events. I’m not sure if we miss students through that process. It can also be hard to cross the gap between a lot of the film knowledge students bring with them (most of them mention Hollywood films when we ask what they would like to programme) and the ambition of AV Cultures which is to introduce them to more challenging and expansive forms of filmmaking. It can be quite hard to get them to publicly and critically engage with the content, especially since they rarely know everyone in the room.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
We occasionally have guests joining for screenings, either alumni or invited artists. Because the course is so large (over 600 students could come to the session) they are used to there always being new people. I will introduce Emily at the start of the session as I do other guests.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
I worry between how much information I give the students as I facilitate it so that it is not a lecture on that film or artist, but at the same time is enough to give them context and keep the discussion going. I also always question how much to control or share my own interpretations and how much it helps make visible the potential variety of readings from different perspectives or it imposes my own reading. I would like to ensure there is disagreement in the room.
How will feedback be exchanged?
I have to leave soon after the session because I’ll be running assessment sessions very early next morning so maybe Emily and I could meet for a coffee afterwards and discuss both our observations at once?
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Set up:
- Active and empathetic facilitation. Supporting Jake by asking how he wants/needs the room and tech set up. Makes helpful suggestions, moves chairs and tables. Careful to maintain Jake’s agency and decision-making at all times.
- When other students entered the room, Andrea ensures they feel welcome. Eye contact/warm body language, making introductions as needed and asking thoughtful questions about their learning experiences that day.
During:
- Sits close to front (supportive not domineering) and actively engages/listens throughout. An excellent benchmark/guide for students.
- Jake (student presenting) invites audience to reflect on moshing – is it charming? Is it stupid? – when students are responding, Andrea turns to face them. Body language indicates and reinforces her interest and support. Nods in agreement/encouragement in places.
- Students are keen to respond to the prompt/question. Several make thoughtful contributions. Andrea does not respond herself and allows student to lead discussion. Flagging this because of question outlined above about implications of controlling and sharing interpretations as a teacher.
- Reciprocal learning dynamic securely established.
- During his presentation Jake mentions a discussion with Andrea where she helped guide him through his ‘angst’ about being a hardcore punk fan in 2025 feeling as though he has missed out on pivotal gigs from the 80s and 90s. Indicative of sustained and meaningful teaching.
After:
- Andrea encourages Jake to share his references on the Padlet (Moodle?) to support long-term student learning
- Adjusts lighting post-presentation and makes students aware that the environment is changing.
- Some students chose to leave after the talk had concluded and before the follow up discussion. Andrea rearticulates invitation to stay but did not enforce attendance.
- Invites everyone to sit around a single table to enable a more intimate follow-up conversation. Expresses interest and excitement in what Jake has shared and states she has many questions.
- Andrea initiates follow-up discussion with a point about gatekeeping. She knows the interests of the students in the room and refers to them if/when she thinks they may want to contribute/contend a point.
- Having kickstarted the conversation she slips back into active listening. Sustained eye contact and smiles and nods regularly – helps to establish mutuality and commonality amongst participants and ensures that different perspectives/readings are heard.
- When responding to student observations, Andrea affirms their contribution before sharing her own with phrases like ‘I was thinking about that as well . . .’
- Andrea’s contributions are rooted in her personal experiences, this helps to level her input and establishes her as one of the voices in the room.
- Concludes by making students aware of upcoming professional futures talk and tutorials – links it to Jake’s talk. Establishes continuity and opportunity for cumulative learning.
- Stays afterwards to talk with students and answer questions.
Note: as an external observer I couldn’t distinguish between the Y1, Y3 and MA students. The group gelled well, and diverse voices/contributions were encouraged. AV cultures is a great example of student-less cross-cohort learning. Big fan!
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Emily was incredibly generous with her attention.
I was concerned about how central it was for me to take a background role and how invisible it would potentially make me. These sessions are about teaching as infrastructure. My role is just to enable things to happen and hold the room for students to become the teachers themselves.
This was an especially successful session. It is not representative of the whole series. Jake is an excellent student, and he put an incredible amount of work (and joy) in preparing. Most AV culture sessions have a lot less structure, a student shows just one or two clips, and I have to prepare a lot more research to hold the discussions. Some weeks we don’t have any volunteers, so I prepare a presentation myself.
I think the main way to take this forward feedback is for me to put more work now in developing strategies to get more students to host sessions.
Appendix:
Student text prep:
Dear Chelsea MAFA students,
You have been invited to AV Cultures
Chatting about the wonderful stupidity of mosh pits
Thursday 20th of February, 5.00-7.00pm – Banqueting Hall
Introduced by Y3 BAFA student Jake Wheatley
Presenting a series of videos around the subject of hardcore music and mosh pits . Why do we mosh? Why do we listen to hardcore music ? Why do guys love to punch each other at hardcore gigs ? What other forms of musical movement expressionism are there ?
In-between videos we will talk about what we just saw , what we thought of the music, what we think of the crowd , what we think of the type of expression displayed and why the hell is there such a concentration of dickheads at these types of show? Is it charming or is it masculine stupidity?
Content warning for blood and violence and crappy nu metal music.