As part of the PG cert Academic practices programme the peer observation what a task that I completed early on with my pairing, Ravin Raori, a Lecturer in Narrative Media Design on BA Graphic and Media Design at LCC.
This really is a great opportunity to experience another professionals style and manner of teaching and it’s oddly made better by in a completely different field of study to that of my own.
The session I stayed for was an experimental one of Ravins and not a cohort that he’d taught before in spacial practices but was engaging from the start. It was interesting to see exercises from another field and one that the students themselves weren’t accustomed to play out of the ninety minutes I was there.
Observation plan & Feedback
Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Prototyping Part 2 (Prototyping Spaces)
Size of student Group: 15-20
Observer: Campbell Muir
Observee: Ravin Raori
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 a session on making physical prototypes for the final year students on BA Design for Branded Spaces. I am teaching this session as a one-off to bring my experience in the area (as an Architect and Space Maker) to the students on this course. The students are currently focussing on creating a design experience across several scales ranging from pop-up stores to entire buildings. During the session, we will be focus on the relevance of making physical prototypes in the design process. We will use the 9-square grid exercise by John Hedjuk as a starting point for thinking about spatial experience, including layout and sequencing. I have created a version of this exercise for the students that they will undertake, followed by personal tutorial time, and finally some discussion as a group towards the end of the session.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
This is my first time teaching this group.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
The importance or rather the subtle qualities of design that can only be engaged with through physical making. Also, the tangible aspect of a physical prototype and how that informs design decisions is an important learning that I hope the students can take away. Finally, the use of prototyping or rather physical prototyping as a tool to be critical about your own design process.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
The students will be making 3 physical models of spatial explorations referring to their own design projects. We will also be producing a Padlet as a record of the students’ work, and a place for comments, reflection and feedback as a group.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
I’ve never taught on this course before, so I’m worried about my assumed biases when it comes to fluency with spatial explorations. It also involves the students engaging with materials and physical processes which needs a certain amount of energy and interest. I’m worried whether the material presented will create enough enthusiasm around the task, but I’m hopeful that it will.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I will inform them at the beginning of the session.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
Since this is a purely experimental session, it would be great to generally hear from Campbell on how things went in terms of delivery and clarity of content. I’d love to know more about the experience of someone sitting in the room – in terms of whether the content was engaging and informative. Most importantly, it would be great to hear about my content and delivery from an inclusivity and accessibility standpoint as this is something I am trying to actively work on as part of my teaching practice.
How will feedback be exchanged?
Campbell and I will arrange to meet in the coming week, to exchange feedback and notes.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Ravin Raori’s presentation of the 9 square grid exercise.
Ravin’s session was an introduction on the 25th of January at LCC to a project called the “9 square grid Exercise”. The aim of the exercise was to break down a known space or architectural site into a grid and working on up to three of the squares individually to explore the section without the context of the rest of the space this was to encourage students work more freely and playfully with the project.
The students were to eventually work with model making materials in creating 3d representations of what the grid squares could be, gradually expanding into other grids and changing through iterations.
Ravin introduced himself by showing some of his work, one of which was a fantastic project working around the area of algorithmic bias in AI, an interesting subject that the students seemed engaged with, he seemed at ease with group delivery.
Planning & Organisation
Ravin used a clear keynote presentation with video examples and links to further information for the session. He gave context as to where the original concept came from and the purpose for which it was designed to achieve.
Plenty of model making resources were laid out for use, the group was small at about 14 students with approximately 50% being international students.
Presentation and methods
Ravin’s presentation was clear and concise, he was aware of the international background of the students regularly pausing to check that they understood what was expected of them during the exercise.
The exercise was to encourage a light studio mood, a playful way of reimagining the students’ current project and looking at how to examine one small area without the greater context of the space.
Ravin moves about in the studio engaging with the students individually, giving a positive attitude and support to the students’ enquiries.
Student interactions
One of the students was unclear about the large-scale of his project and how to fit it into the project. It was clear that the student wanted to fit his pre-developed idea into the current exercise which is expected when a student is engaged and excited by their concept.
Ravin encouraged him to expand in the nine square idea by exploring a larger area and deal with the units individually, the student seemed satisfied that he could explore the concept more in this manner.
The students seemed at ease with Ravin and the engaging way he discussed their individual projects despite this being the first time he had tutored this group.
Potential improvements
I observed for 1hr 45mins and Ravin’s students seemed to slow down, to get the most of this as single session time constraints for what should be achieved could be used to keep it moving freely as often students get too focused with fitting the exercise into a pre-existing project.
Mobile devices are a distraction for everyone so putting phones away off the desks may help keeping a concentrated pace, I could see phones being used a lot not necessarily for the project and an exercise that needs quick moving ideas can suffer from these distractions.
Ravin is a natural teacher, he’s comfortable in engaging with people, has a strong positive attitude to the learning environment and the students were keen to listen to his presentation.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
I firstly want to thank Campbell for the generosity with his time and care. It’s quite validating to read Campbell mentioning the period of an energy drop-off in my session, as this is something I have been thinking about for some time now. He also mentioned re-iterating the outcomes/deliverables as a possible way forward, to help alleviate some of that drop-off.
To provide some context here, my teaching sessions typically tend to last around 4 hours and are usually co-taught. I’ve been noticing that around the second and third hour, there is usually a bit of a dip in energy. It naturally depends on the day, time of the year and other things like where we are in the unit. But it has happened often enough for me to take notice. I think I’m good at setting an overall task for the students to do, but perhaps what I could be doing better is breaking down a task into a series of tasks. Maybe this way, things would feel more achievable and there’s a better reward mechanism built into the workflow. In response to that drop off, I’ve also been thinking about how I could gamify the workshop experience more, perhaps in a peer-to-peer sense or even individually. I think overall, just building in more checkpoints that allow a student to feel a sense of accomplishment might help alleviate some of the drop off I’ve been facing in energy levels. I will work on this moving forward, through my workshop planning and time management. I think Campbell’s suggestion around reminding the students of deliverables and outcomes perhaps also alludes to this in some way. Maybe the students need a way to achieve that sense of ownership over material and time. I’m going to try and design the framework for future sessions to allow for this.
I also liked Campbell’s suggestion around putting phones away. This is another thing I’ve been wanting to do but never quite articulated as a session requirement. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that we often do have students use their phones as a tool during workshops. In a course that concerns Graphic and Media Design, this is sometimes unavoidable. However, that said, I agree it’s important for me to become more intentional as an educator; that the phone can be used in certain contexts and needs to be put way for others. This is a great bit of feedback that I can put into action quite immediately.
Overall, the process of giving and receiving feedback has been very rewarding in ways that I did not expect. I found myself often having to confront my own bias and I think that’s the best part about being paired with someone who’s from a different background and specialism to your own. I also gained a lot from observing Campbell teach his students. At LCC, there is a very clear separation of studio and workshop spaces for my course, which has its advantages but can also end up with the two feeling quite alienated from each other. The set up for Campbell’s course has an integrated studio and workshop space that allows for a co-habitation of thinking and making, something that is not always possible for all courses. It’s not to say that one is better than the other, but simply to pick up on where things are missing and how we as educators should find other ways (that are more under our control) to improve our delivery. It was great to see how Campbell integrated himself within the space for the course and how that integration also extends into his delivery. The space allows for this as the machines, studio tables and tutorial areas are all in one big area. I want my students to feel a deeper sense of comfort and connection with workshop spaces. I plan to include more technical delivery, workshop touchpoints, inductions and technical resources into the planning of my content moving forward to respond to this.
Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Final Year Technical Tutorials BA Jewellery Design at CSM L114
Size of student group: Individual Tutorials
Observer: Ravin Raori
Observee: Campbell Muir
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?
As specialist technicians we regularly give informal tutorials throughout the working day but recently I felt we should initiate bookable sit-downs with the final year students to get a broader picture of what we might anticipate is needed. Technical processes might be identified to realise final year students’ work and make sure none of them fall under the radar due to not knowing what to ask for in terms of technical solutions, processes, materials or examples.
During these 15-20 minute discussions we can possibly identify areas and have the booked freedom to introduce a student to techniques there and then whilst going over their designs.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been working on this course for 20 years as a Technical specialist and have known this group since the start of their course.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
To identify weak areas of understanding on technical processes and where we might need to bring in new processes to find solutions to producing final works.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Each student will have different outcomes but help them understand processes to finishing their jewellery pieces.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Language can be a barrier especially with niche technical terms not used in everyday language and sometimes students anxieties with working with some machinery.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
They will be informed in person before it takes place and introduced to Ravin in person at the start of their session
What would you particularly like feedback on?
My clarity of instruction and pace at which I demonstrate a process, I would like to see if there’s suggestions on how I could improve delivery and if there’s ways I could record feedback.
How will feedback be exchanged?
Ravin and I will meet up to discuss the events.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Campbell’s 1:1 Tutorials
Campbell invite me to observe a series of 1:1 tutorials at Central St Martins. These tutorials were all with his final year students. The tutorials were aimed at giving the students design and technical support in their projects. The projects ranged from earrings and bracelets to tin boxes and other kinds of jewellry and artefacts that the students had been working on.
It was clear to me from the onset of the tutorials that Campbell has a warm and friendly approach to his teaching. You can tell that the students have a level of trust and comfort around him. Campbell presents his advice in a non-confrontational manner, offering students suggestions and alternative viewpoints as opposed to telling them what to do. It is evident that his years of experience working as a specialist technician in this area have put him at the forefront of jewellry design and jewellry design education.
Process:
At the Desk:
Campbell uses a combination of visual cues and sketches as he explains his feedback and further advice. This works really well as design students are often visual learners and a combination of written and oral feedback would help them take something back to their desks. They can then refer to these sketches as they develop their projects. Some of the students also brought their physical prototypes with them. This further added to the tactile nature of the tutorial, allowing the students to really see and understand how Campbell’s advice would be applied to their next steps. The whole tutorial feels like a collective brainstorm, which is nice to see. Campbell provides plenty of opportunities for the students to ask follow-up questions. In case a student does not understand something, he makes sure to repeat himself as well. Campbell consistently gives the students the pros and cons of different approaches for their projects, including a combination of design advice and practical advice (on things like material costs), which is great to see.
At the Machines/In the workshop:
I also observed Campbell take students to different machines, to demonstrate how to use them from the specific contexts of their projects. It felt like these were more specialist machines that perhaps the students hadn’t used before. Campbell’s demonstrations were very clear. He spent a lot of time walking the students through the steps. These steps ranged from turning on the machine to health and safety to eventually turning it off as well. He also allowed the students to try the machines, once he had completed showing them to make sure that they had understood how to use them.
Potential Improvements (Moving Forward):
- In ref. to Student 1: Perhaps another way to help the student learn how to use the machine could be the “see one, do one, teach one” method (see reference), where you do a live demonstration, followed by the student doing one and then have them teach it back to another person such as another student in the workshop. The act of teaching can often be an act of learning, and I have found this method useful. Perhaps, slowing down the pace could be another way forward – I have noticed that students can tend to get a bit overwhelmed when given too much information, so to make sure we do the ‘Are we on the same page’ check every so often. Perhaps this could also be achieved by giving the student more opportunities within the task to try their hand at something, as opposed to showing them the whole thing once and then giving it to them to try. I also want to state here that there are several assumptions that I’m making as it’s not my area – so do pardon me if I missed something. Finally, it was nice to see you point out resources to the students in case they needed to come back to use it again. I think incorporating more of that self-support structure for them would be great.
- In ref. to tutorials at the desk: I think the idea of sketching for the students is wonderful, and incredibly useful for them. I wonder if you could add to it by potentially encouraging the students to bring more of their own sketches. This would help eliminate any visual bias they may gain from the ideas we give them. I’ve noticed in my experience; students can often bias themselves by agreeing with everything we as their tutors will tell them. Often, this does end up working out as everyone’s intentions are pure, however sometimes I’ve found it useful to push back on that and ask the students – “do you actually agree with what I’m saying?” I think it just gives them some of the agency back. Finally, keeping a record or potentially asking the students to keep a record of your last conversation could be a useful way to start every tutorial, just to make sure everyone’s on the same page and has been recapped adequately. It also helps the students be accountable to us and themselves, if we have a record of things that were agreed as next steps.
Closing Comments:
It has been an immense pleasure to conduct Campbell’s teaching observation. Aside from observing his teaching practice, I also learned a lot. Besides his high level of expertise in his subject area, his calm demeanour, positive attitude and warmth are all reasons why his students are so fond of him. I would really like to incorporate more of his hands-on techniques into my own teaching practice. It’s clear that he’s really in it with the students, in the making and the doing – unafraid to be wrong and commit mistakes. We are all human ultimately and trying our best to help the students. It’s important to show them that we are also capable of error. Making mistakes is a great way to learn. Campbell embodies all the hallmarks of a wonderful educator with characteristics that I aspire to have one day as well.
Reference:
https://www.positivegroup.org/loop/articles/what-is-the-watch-one-do-one-teach-one-method
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
It was an enjoyable afternoon having Ravin observe my technical tutorials with the students and getting feedback as we have quite similar outlooks and approaches in ways in which we teach.
Regarding moving forward, I have always been quite keen on the concept of “see one, do one, teach one.” This is a method I first came across with my wife’s medical studies and I found it novel then with the teaching environment of a hospital.
Over the years I have discussed this method with fellow staff members of the department, but it quite often falls fowl of health and safety issues particularly with the workshop environment in which we work.
We lecture at the beginning of the 1st year course what is expected of the students regarding health and safety and tell them never to instruct someone else into a process as this may invalidate any sign-off process we have and disrupt the continuity of what we inform them is the correct process.
Also finding a moment where a student does not mind being pulled away from their work to teach a method to another student can be difficult.
This said it could be implemented in low-risk processes where I find several students using the same technique such as stone setting process.
This method of teaching has lots of potential and this needs to be built deliberately into a teaching session to make it work rather than trying to tag it on to existing ones.
Recording of tutorials
Using carbon pads for tutorials has been widespread practice for some time for tutors but not something that has been given to technicians but Ravin mentioning this has brought it to mind that technicians should be using these pads as method of recording not just tutorials but some of the more informal interactions and questions we get.
A method for having a digital depository for each student could be good also so students could add these to online technical journals.
Thanks again to Ravin for working with me on a highly informative process.