Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 1 to 1 session on FMP
Size of student group: Various
Observer: Jesse Cahn Thompson
Observee: Priscilla Pang
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?
One to one session provides students with help on FMP (Final Major Project) to realise or to aid in the process of preparing files for digital fabrication or digital making.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
The main groups of students are split into art, communication, and design. I have been working with various amounts of students individually and in small groups since September 2023.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
To understand how digital software can be used to help produce work in digital fabrication processes such as laser-cutting, plotter/cutter and 3D printing. For example, how to use Illustrator to prepare files for laser-cutting or plotter/cutter.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Students will be either be producing digital files in Illustrator and or/ Blender that will be laser-cut and or 3D printed.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Students unfamiliar with the workshop and coming in for the first time would need more time to discuss outcomes.
Students do not understand what to do and have difficulties with terminology
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
Students will be notified via Moodle and email.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
Tone and clarity of the discussions held between the students.
Suggestions on knowledge dissemination
How will feedback be exchanged?
Verbally through Teams
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Your role has you fielding a wide range of questions about a diverse set of disciplines, media, and materials. The students have varied levels of knowledge regarding the tools and techniques being used and seem to all be operating with different levels of urgency. I could imagine the challenges around knowing where to begin without having context for a student’s skill-specific knowledge. Although I didn’t observe any friction with this, I mentioned that there may be an opportunity to prompt insights from students via the Moodle appointment form.
You do a great job connecting with the students and making them feel at ease. You are very approachable in a sometimes-hectic environment. Some ways I noticed that you action this are by showing curiosity about their work; asking questions to gather context; maintaining a supportive, knowledgeable tone; and making sure they understand the technical processes (not merely informing them of procedure or problem-solving for them). This approach seems ideal for quickly building a trusting learning dynamic. You have an instinct for sensing learning opportunities and weave this into the support being provided.
There seems to be a great team dynamic, which sets the tone for an overall positive atmosphere. I think it is a great idea showcasing your, and other technicians, work in the space. These objects help provide students with context for what and how you and the team create, demonstrate subject-specific knowledge, and support a collaborative spirit in the workshop.
I was also really impressed with the breadth of free materials that are available to the students. This embodies an equitable approach to higher education and creativity, which also happens to be a core tenant of UAL’s strategic plan.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
From the feedback, I am more aware of the working strengths that I build on and areas of development that the wider workshop context and I can benefit from.
The challenges around knowing where to begin without having context for a student’s skill-specific knowledge are often difficult to gauge, especially in a hectic environment. The helpful suggestion of adding prompt insights from students via the Moodle appointment form will be carried forward. This will help dedicate more time to preparing the students for their project planning and managing their expectations of the processes we provide in the workshop.
I appreciate the feedback on my approach to addressing students’ concerns and the production of samples from our own individual practices. Within my teaching practice, I believe in the importance of fostering a communicative environment stem from ‘affective pedagogy’ (Patience, 2008). This is a term associated with teachers who ‘value discipline and their associated practices’ as well as challenging students’ ‘learning achievements while respecting their developing intellects’ (Patience, 2008). I believe it is important to engage students’ imaginations to incite contemplation and excitement in their learning environment (Oakeshott, 1991). Hence, producing a myriad of samples delves into the possibilities of space and fosters student curiosities in an exciting workshop setting.
I will continue to foster a greater team dynamic and collaborative spirit within the workshop. In addition, the access of free materials and an equitable approach to higher education is part of the forefront of our ethos at UAL. These factors will be important aspects that both my team and I will carry over to Lime Grove as we move towards a new setting for Foundation studies.
References
Oakeshott, M. (1991). Rationalism in politics and other essays. New and expanded edition. Indianapolis, IN: LibertyPress.
Patience, A. (2008) ‘The art of loving in the classroom: A defence of affective pedagogy.’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2). doi:10.14221/ajte.2008v33n2.4.