Contextual Background: I am an HPL on the BA in Illustration and Visual Media at LCC. In Year 1 we are delivering a new unit: Critical Positions (brief attached), where students choose a specialist pathway. I am leading the 3D pathway and currently developing the SOW.
Evaluation: In my experience, our students are often interested in working three-dimensionally and with material but don’t always have the necessary knowledge or skill set. Consequently, the challenge is creating enjoyable learning experiences (notably within studio labs, digital skills classes and technical workshops), that help students build foundational knowledge by critically engaging with materials/objects to understand their properties, uses, narrative potential and context.
With my Year Leader’s support, I have decided to implement Object Based Learning (OBL). As Hardie (2015, p. 19) observes, “objects can engage multiple senses and can offer meaningful and memorable learning experiences.”
Moving forwards: In planning for effective teaching and learning, I will embed OBL in the following ways:
Studio Labs: OBL will be implemented across studio labs to create experiential educational activities that facilitate active learning, in line with Hardie’s view that “objects can energise learning and teaching” (Hardie, 2015, p5).
For example, in the first lab students will be shown a selection of objects and materials to facilitate group interaction and discussion, and conduct a tactile investigation using a provided task sheet. As Hardie observes “the use of objects in small group work at the start of a course can offer a valuable ice-breaker activity as learners focus on items while developing their social interactions with their peers” (Hardie, 2015, p. 20). Prompts will focus on material, narrative and contextual factors; and facilitate shared learning through engagement with and analysis of the objects and materials on display.
Digital Skills Sessions: Students will learn laser cutting and 3D printing and OBL will be integrated. For example, I would like to bring a 3D printer into the classroom during the 3D printing session, so students can see their design become an object in real time. This decision is supported by Hooper-Greenhill’s observation that “Objects can act to ground abstract experiences and. . .arouse curiosity” (Hooper-Greenhill ,1999, p. 21).
Technical Workshops: After reading the article How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education? (Sams, 2016), I am trying to be more intentional in how I collaborate with technical staff. For this project, I will invite technicians from the 3D Workshop to do an induction with students in the first week and ask if I can use material samples from their workshop for OBL during studio labs. Students will be encouraged to use the 3D facilities and build meaningful relationships with technical staff.
In the coming weeks, I will meet with my Year Leader to ensure my SOW is appropriate and relevant to the unit aims, student cohort and level of study. Before teaching starts, I will arrange a meeting with the staff team to answer questions and ensure parity. I will suggest that we bring materials/objects into the meeting to demonstrate OBL. I will also ensure there is opportunity for students to feedback at the end of the unit and will use their insights to inform future iterations of the Pathway.
References
Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching, Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (Accessed: 10th March 2025)
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2002) Developing a scheme for finding evidence of the outcomes and impact of learning in museums, archives and libraries; the conceptual framework. Learning Impact Research Project. Leicester: University of Leicester.
Sams, C. (2016), ‘How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education?’ in Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, Vol 1 / Issue 2 (2016), pp. 62-69
Appendix
BA Illustration and Visual Media Critical Positions Unit Assignment Brief: file:///Users/macbookpro/Downloads/BA%20IVM%20Year%201%20Critical%20Positions%20Assignment%20Brief%2024.25.pdf
BA Illustration and Visual Media Critical Positions Project Brief: Wordless Storytelling: file:///Users/macbookpro/Downloads/Critical%20Positions%20Project%20Brief%20(1).pdf
BA Illustration and Visual Media Critical Positions Unit Assignment Brief: file:///Users/macbookpro/Downloads/BA%20IVM%20Year%201%20Critical%20Positions%20Assignment%20Brief%2024.25.pdf
BA Illustration and Visual Media Critical Positions Project Brief: Wordless Storytelling: file:///Users/macbookpro/Downloads/Critical%20Positions%20Project%20Brief%20(1).pdf
Contextual Background: I am a HPL on the MA for Illustration and Visual Media at LCC. Our student cohort is very diverse, and many make work about their culture and positionality. However, they can find sharing this work within the university difficult – particularly during crits.
Evaluation: This is partly due to the complexities of showing work in a multicultural environment and students’ experience that they must often explain their work, so others understand it. This can be emotionally and mentally taxing. This is confirmed by the report Critiquing the Crit which found that a key issue in crits is “a feeling that cultural capital played a considerable role in student’s ability to perform ‘well’” (Blythman et al, 2007, p. 4).
For example, in a recent crit, a student shared an illustrated publication of Urdu poetry intended for a Pakistani audience. Peer feedback was that the project was difficult to understand. As a result, the student considered translating the poetry into English and supplementing their drawings of djins (supernatural beings) with written descriptions. Thankfully they didn’t. Reflecting on this experience, I could have done more to support the presenting student and to guide the session by promoting self-awareness and reflective practice amongst the group (UAL, n.d.). This approach aligns with UAL’s Climate, Racial and Social Justice Principles.
Moving forwards: To improve, I find Rosenberg’s practice of “observation without evaluating” (Rosenburg, 2005, pp. 25-35) helpful. It was devised with a different context in mind; however I believe it offers a constructive framework for critique within art and design pedagogy, and I intend to use it moving forwards.
Within an art and design crit, promoting observing without evaluating could help students to give feedback about what they can see, rather than their interpretation of a work. Instead of relating through the dichotomy of understanding or not understanding, they would instead focus on what is visible; in other words, the formal elements of a work. I believe this may help to level the crit experience.
To integrate this practice, I could:
As I want to implement a new method, peer feedback would be helpful. I have asked Andrea Machicao Francke (a peer on the PgCert) to observe a crit on the 13th March where I will trial this approach. Andrea is a senior lecturer experienced in running crits and contributes to the podcast The Bad Vibes Club discussing the role of crits in art schools.
References
Blythman, M., Orr, S. & Blair, B. (2007) Critiquing the Crit. Project Report. Higher Education Academy.
Francke, M.A. & De Kersaint Giraudeau, M (2024) The Bad Vibes Club: episode 2: Ten Texts on Sculpture 8: Sculptural Pedagogy [Podcast]. 5 March. Available at: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ten-texts-on-sculpture-8-sculptural-pedagogy/id1220925467?i=1000648101785 (Accessed: 31 January 2024)
Rosenberg, M.B. (2005) ‘Observing without evaluating’, in Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. 2nd ed. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press, pp. 25-35
UAL (no date) Climate, Racial and Social Justice Principles. (Accessed: 16 February 2025)
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:
During:
After:
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.
Introduction: On February 3rd, I delivered a microteaching session to peers on the PgCert. This text discusses my planning and delivery, the feedback I received and my reflections.
Session aim: To test strategies for teaching tacit knowledge. Specifically, whether clay can be used as a proxy for building tacit knowledge pertaining to copper. (Copper and clay behave similarly under pressure, however clay is more classroom friendly). This is part of a larger exploration of Object Based Learning and Hardie’s assertion that “objects can provide unique and effective learning experiences when placed physically in the hand of learners’”(Hardie, 2015, p. 4).
Session plan:
(2 mins) Set up room and objects (a clay disk for each ‘student’ and a copper bowl made by sinking).
(5 mins) Share session aims. Draw attention to the copper bowl and invite ‘students’ to handle it. Contextualise and support their engagement with questions.
(10 mins) Ask ‘students’ to apply pressure in concentric circles to their clay to form a bowl. This mimics the process of sinking copper. Guide learning with questions. Centre their experience of making and connect it to the session themes.
(3 mins) Conclude by testing the hypothesis: does working with clay give a better understanding of working with copper?
Session description: I rearranged the room, so we were seated around one table. This helped facilitate warmth, discussion and reciprocal learning. As Gibb’s observes it is “crucial to establish an appropriate emotional tone for learners: one which is safe and supportive, and which encourages learners to value their own experience and to trust themselves to draw conclusions”. (Gibbs, 2008, p.19, cited in Hardie, 2015 p. 19). I also set up the objects – a clay disk for each person and a copper bowl. ‘Students’ were asked to engage with the materials as per the session plan. My teaching method is Socratic, and I used questions throughout to support engagement and learning.
Feedback: Feedback was very positive. Participants described the session as “therapeutic” and said sharing a table created a feeling of “togetherness” strengthened by my participation in the task. Furthermore, working together enabled everyone to build confidence and have fun making. Everyone agreed handling material directly is important for gaining tacit knowledge. Also, talking while making helps to draws out learning that extends beyond the immediate task. There was a useful question around scalability, specifically whether this task would work with a larger group.
Reflecting on feedback: Feedback confirms an inter-material approach can be used to teach tacit knowledge.
I will test scalability with a group of 36 students in May. Scaling up requires students to be more autonomous which contradicts my current Socratic teacher-led approach. This is something I will need to be mindful of, as Gibbs observes “an unstructured discussion can often turn into a rambling sequence of anecdotes” (Gibbs, 2008, p. 48, cited in Hardie, 2015, p. 6). Hardie similarly describes unstructured, student-led discussion as a “higher risk activity for a teacher” (Bonwell, n.d., p. 7, cited in Hardie, 2015, p. 19). To mitigate risk, I will do a briefing beforehand and give students questions to use as prompts during the task.
References:
Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching, Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (Accessed: 10th March 2025)
.
