My project seeks to explore the role of Contextual and Theoretical Studies in design education. With the growing emphasis on employability and technical competency within the design field, as well as the growing use of AI tools, engagement with theoretical and historical knowledge seems to be increasingly marginalised within design education. This marginalisation is further compounded by the emphasis on reading and writing as key skills through which contextual and theoretical knowledge shared and assessed.
To examine this topic, I would like to understand how students perceive the impact of CTS on their practice/career/personal development once they leave university (i.e. what is the long-term impact CTS might have had on their personal and professional journey); secondly, I want to explore how students experience reading and writing as part of their creative practice.
The focus of the project will be to interview LCC Design School alumni and, in response, implement the findings as part of the curriculum design for the 2025/2026 academic year in dialogue with the CTS team.
The documentation of the ARP research process, both primary and secondary research sources, designed intervention, final presentation and any other relevant materials can be found on dedicated pages under the ARP menu at the top.
Undergraduate students in the Design School at LCC have two dissertation options in their final year of study: CTS3 Route A is a 40 credit unit, where students submit an 8000-10000 word dissertation (Element 1) and a visual artefact representing their research (Element 2); CTS3 Route B is a 20 credit unit where students submit a 4000-5000 word dissertation (Element 1) and a visual artefact (Element 2). Students who choose the second option also need to take another 20 credit unit, usually titled Self-Initiated Project. Over the last few years, attainment has consistently been lower on CTS3 Route B than on Route A, with an awarding gap that varies by course and by cohort. For example, in 2021/2022 academic year the overall attainment on Route A was 60%, while on Route B it was 45.6%. On Route B, the attainment for international students was 36.7%, for home B.A.M.E. students 50% and for home white students 58.8%. (UAL Central Dashboards). The table below (Fig.1) outlines Route A/B attainment differentials for the 3 courses in one of the programmes in the Design School across 4 years.
Figure 1: Overall attainment for Route A and Route B on IDVC courses compiled by CTS staff.
Numerous discussions with colleagues on the causes of this disparity have identified a few possible reasons: students get less contact time with their tutors on the 20 credit unit meaning they have less support; students juggle three different units, with competing demands and deadlines; and students who are less confident with writing and academic research tend to select Route B, fearing the larger word count on Route A, and considering Route B therefore to be the ‘easier’ option. Some of these reflections and anecdotal evidence is supported by secondary research on the role of writing in higher education. For example initiatives that widen participation mean that students may ‘perceive academic cultures as alien to them’ (Chiu, Rodriguez-Falcon, 2018, p.37) and ‘many students are not fully prepared for the demands of academic writing, which is the key assessment tool at universities in the UK’ (Wingate, Andon and Cogo 2011, p.70). Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds may not feel that ‘academic’ success – with reading, writing and research representing ‘traditional’ academic practices – is part of their identity and thus “lower SES students will perceive less compatibility between their social backgrounds and the stereotypes of high achieving students”, which, in turn, may influence their approach to academic study and outcomes (Easterbrook et al, 2022, p.1180).
However, some research challenges this perception of writing as ‘difficult’, which is a common narrative in creative education, especially with neurodivergent students. For example, dyslexic students, do not necessarily perceive writing per se as difficult. While some tasks may be more challenging or take additional time due to the particular nature of their disability, a possible negative experience of writing does not come from this associated difficulty. Rather, it comes from wider contextual factors, often to do with the clarity of the task, tutor and disciplinary expectations (Carter and Sellman, 2013, 155). As Lea and Street have argued, ‘one explanation for problems in student writing might be the gaps between academic expectations and student interpretations of what is involved in student writing’ (1998, 159). It is this reflection that this intervention takes on board and seeks to address.
Taking on board student feedback which consistently identifies the need for more support in the form of tutorials as well as available research[1], over the years, the CTS team has tried to implement many changes to support Route B students, which mostly focused on the pattern of delivery, increasing contact with larger group sizes, introducing different writing formats (report, review, reflection on practice), and providing additional formative submission points to scaffold the students’ journey. However, we have never fundamentally rethought the way CTS3 Route B assignment brief is structured, which has resulted in an essentially identical brief to the Route A unit that simply required to be delivered within a smaller word-count and reduced contact time.
To address this issue, my intervention focuses on redesigning the unit’s project brief. While any formal modifications to the brief are not possible, I believe that providing students with more structured guidance on the task at hand, would allow them to evidence their research and critical thinking skills, without being anxious about the writing format. It would also help them plan and manage their research.
This intervention is important from an intersectional perspective for a range of reasons: it will clarify the aims and expectations of the assignment which will help both students with disabilities as well as those who do not have a disability but may come from less ‘traditional’ academic backgrounds and may feel like they don’t have the skills needed to develop an extended piece of academic writing. It will also support international students, hopefully helping to address attainment for the cohort where English is normally not their first language or where diverse cultural norms arounds modes of writing may impact attainment. It will also empower students from minority ethnic backgrounds to explore their identity and histories within this project, encouraging them to bring their personal voice and research skills to the fore.
I recognise that my approach to this task comes from a particular perspective: I do not have a learning disability and do not know what challenges dyslexic students, for example, may experience in their writing; while English is not my first language, I consider myself to be a fluent speaker; having successfully completed a PhD in history, I could also be seen as coming from a ‘traditional’ academic background. In the course of researching this project many of my assumptions, or narratives that I’ve heard from colleagues, have been challenged, making me see the ‘difficulty’ around writing in a different way.
The intervention focuses on two aspects. The first aspect aims to address the issue of student understanding of assignment expectations. It does so by providing clear guidance on the research approach, structure and content of the final essay. As Chiu and Rodriguez-Falcon have documented, “Often, students are not explicitly made aware of what is expected of them in terms of written assessments nor instructed on how best to fulfil the requirements, thereby compounding the challenges of writing.” (Chiu, Rodriguez-Falcon, 2018, p.38) By providing a working essay structure, for example, the redesigned project brief shows students very clearly what the expectations are for the final format. The aim of this is not to be prescriptive or formulaic: rather, this structured approach is designed to allow students the freedom to find their own voice, engage in critical debate and evidence their research skills without having to worry about ‘what a dissertation might look like’.
Additionally, such a structured approach also recognises that there are particular disciplinary traditions within the humanities – the broader field within which Design School students are situated – making them explicit to students, rather than expecting they would understand these from previous experience. This also recognises the “Bakhtinian idea that language is ‘interanimated’ with the voices of others” (Bakhtin, 1981 in Carter and Sellman) and, therefore, that writing is socially constructed, where individual identities and positionality of authors needs to be balanced with wider disciplinary expectations. While students are more than welcome to question or negotiate those disciplinary expectations, that can be challenging if those same norms are kept tacit.
The second approach draws from the book Anti-Racism in Higher Education: An Action-Guide for Change, in particular chapter 13 on Curriculum Design. In the text, the authors argue for more flexibility in the curriculum that would allow students to draw connections to their own knowledge and experience (Verma, 2022,129). As the authors argue “in allowing the flexibility of using localised case studies in curriculum design, students internalise that there are multiple ways of seeing the world, which have unique advantages when it comes to theorising on the causes and impacts of events and ideologies.” (Verma, 2022, 130).
In this approach, students are encouraged to identify a case-study – whether related to their own design discipline and practice, their personal history or identity, or wider cultural, social or political phenomena – that they can explore by drawing from their own situated knowledge, as well as by positioning it in relation to broader theoretical or contextual ideas. A case study anchors students’ learning and invites them to put their own interest and positionality at the centre of their research. This approach, as the text above suggests, explicitly supports diversity in the curriculum by inviting students to engage with something that may be related to their own interests, identity, personal narrative or familiar history. It also may be one small step towards epistemic justice in contemporary academia (Reki, 2023). By focusing on content and positionality, rather than form, this project brief also encourages students to bring their own voice to the work. By encouraging them to write in the first person and make their own position known, it invites a more embodied approach to writing that, as Suresh Canagarajah has argued, is crucial to the way writing practice is perceived in many cultures across the Global South (2024, 285).
This assignment, and the unit as a whole, has helped me question certain assumptions about academic writing, ‘academic’ forms of knowledge production and their relation to the creative industries. I have come to understand that it is not the ‘writing’ per se that students find difficult – as we often seem to imply – but it is the wider context around it that needs to be demystified. While I have not yet been able to test this approach with students – this will be implemented in the Autumn term of 2024/2025 academic year when this unit runs – drawing on secondary research, available student feedback through unit surveys ad NSS free text comments, and discussions with CTS coordinators and tutors, reaffirms my belief in this project’s purpose. I see it as a tool that through which students can demonstrate independent critical thought, which is at the core of CTS and ensure that our students achieve their desired outcomes.
The brief is included as an appendix to this assignment as a PDF.
Bibliography:
Canagarajah, S. (2024) “Decolonizing Academic Writing Pedagogies for Multilingual Students”. TESOL J, 58, 280-306.
Carter, C. and Sellman, E. (2013) “A View of Dyslexia in Context: Implications for Understanding Differences in Essay Writing Experience Amongst Higher Education Students Identified as Dyslexic”. Dyslexia, 19, 149-164.
Chiu, T. Y-L and Rodriguez-Falcon, O. (2018) “Raising Attainment With Diverse Students: An Inclusive Approach to the Teaching of Academic Literacy” Journal of Academic Writing, 8 (2), 36-47.
Dobson Waters, S. and Torgerson, C. J. (2020) ‘Dyslexia in higher education: a systematic review of interventions used to promote learning’. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(2), 226–256.
Easterbrook, M.J. et.al. (2022) “People like me don’t do well at school’: The roles of identity compatibility and school context in explaining the socioeconomic attainment gap”. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 1178–1195.
Lea, M.R., and Street, B.V. (1998) “Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach”. Studies in Higher Education. 23, 157-172.
Reki, J. (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account. Hypatia. 38, 779–800.
Verma, A. (2022) Anti-Racism in Higher Education: An Action Guide for Change. Bristol: Policy Change.
Wingate, U., Andon, N., and Cogo, A. (2011) “Embedding Academic Writing Instruction Into Subject Teaching: A Case Study”. Active Learning in Higher Education. 12 (1), 69-81.
[1] This information was identified through unit surveys, as well as NSS free text comments in the period between 2021 and 2023.
The resources for this blog have all in different ways reflected on structural ways that racial discrimination operates within wider social and institutional frameworks: whether through inadequate EDI policies, through cultural and historical factors, or through specific educational practices. As with the other two blogs, I found one of the readings particularly helpful I allowing me to situate some of the more day-to-day experiences shown in the videos, in the wider social and theoretical context. Alice Bradbury’s research on the use of CRT within early childhood education appeared particularly relevant. It examined how apparently neutral structural systems – such as a specific policy – as a way to produce subjectivities. She writes how “policy has its ‘own specific rationalities, making particular sets of ideas obvious, common sense and “true”’ […] Policy establishes and re-inscribes particular ‘regimes of truth’ about what matters in education, and who can be recognisable as successful or failing.” (Ball 2013b, 6–7 in Bradbury, 2020, p.243) Equally, policies meant at addressing social justice, might also unintentionally reproduce social hierarchies through the “production of subjectivities – the ‘underachieving student’, the ‘disadvantaged’ child, the ‘troubled family’ – while at the same time policy is being produced through debates about what matters and what and who needs to be ‘solved’.” (Bradbury, 2020, p.243)
The quotes above seem particularly relevant in higher education where the attainment gap is often taken for granted, seen as part of the ‘normal’ day to day functioning of the higher education environment. And the policy that seeks to address it, further reinforces the division between white and BAME students, by projecting particular kinds of stereotypes (underachieving students, students who are the first in their families to attend university, students with caring responsibilities, etc.). Those students may be ‘targeted’ by specific interventions designed to support attainment, and yet further marginalise those same students who may singled-out or stereotyped.
In terms of the subjectivities produced by policy, I have often wondered about the way UAL’s dashboard data is collected and aggregated. For example, what kind of subjectivities does the policy of separating race-based data for home students only produce? Why are awarding gaps less relevant for international students? For example, there is a great deal of differentiation in terms of class, ethnicity, race, language, etc. from our large international cohorts, yet that data is inaccessible or considered less relevant due to specific (if unclear/invisible) policy reasons. This may result in specific actions/interventions not being taken to address perhaps some gaps in learning/attainment for those specific groups of students.
From the three videos shared, I was particularly struck by the last one for the way approached making racism visible by enacting the privilege walk with young schoolchildren. I found the video uncomfortable, as it made me reflect on issues around visibility/invisibility of racism as well as care in the way intersectional approaches form the foundation of education across all age-groups. It also made me reflect on how we can truly create safe, open spaces for learning in an increasingly polarised, yet also diverse environment.
Intervention: Redesign of the delivery of CTS3 Route B unit (20 credit final year unit) to address the awarding gap and increase overall attainment
Context: All undergraduate students in the Design School at LCC are offered two options for their final year Contextual and Theoretical Studies units:
40 credit CTS3 Route A unit which consists of a longer dissertation of between 8000-10000 words
20 credit CTS3 Route B unit which consists of a shorter piece of writing (4000-5000) alongside which students take another 20 credit unit, usually where they develop a self-initiated project
Attainment on the Route A unit normally much higher than Route B, which I have been interpreting as being a result of various factors: Route A students normally ‘enjoy’ writing more than Route B students and are not intimidated by its higher word-count, they feel more comfortable with ‘academic’ research; they have more contact hours with tutors, as it is a 40-credit unit; they don’t have the pressure of 3 units, with 3 different projects and 3 assessment deadlines, within a single block which allows them to be more focused.
However, one issue that I have noticed is that Route A and Route B students are almost briefed in the same way as to the expectations for their CTS3 dissertation: which often results in ‘big projects’ that cannot be realised within the time-frame and scope of a 20-credit unit. This results in submissions that are often unfocused and lack depth, resulting in lower grades.
Intervention Part 1:
Therefore, the first part of this intervention will seek to address this issue: redesigning how the project brief is designed and what the expectations are for the CTS3 Route B submissions, making the distinction between Route A and Route B clear in terms of scope and focus of the students’ work.
Intervention Part 2:
The second key issue that I want to address with this intervention is the awarding gap and the support that BAME students, and black students in particular, get for their CTS3 unit. The need for this comes both from the data, that shows BAME students having lower attainment rates in CTS3, as well as through direct experience shared by our students. In CTS3, students can choose whatever topic they want to research, often engaging in themes that come from their own interests or personal backgrounds. Explorations of their personal and collective identities, histories and representation are often common in CTS3. As one student remarked this year, they enjoy the freedom of being able to find themselves and explore their own identity in CTS3 – not just produce work that will get them a job. However, students also often say that they don’t have the right level of support for such highly personal explorations. On multiple occasions, black students in particular have remarked that they don’t feel seen by tutors, that they need to spend a lot of time to explain the context of their research before they can actually engage in a meaningful discussion of their work with tutors. This means that often they feel like they are ‘doing the work’ for their tutors.
While at the root of this problem is the lack of tutors of colour in CTS, an aspect that is not easily resolved through a ‘designed intervention’ and requires a more in-depth, structural examination of UAL’s hiring practices, I want to use this opportunity to address some of this through interventions that may be possible within my current remit as CTS Lead in the Design School. This will draw on the knowledge gained through this unit to
Scope of the intervention:
The intervention will look at the scheme of work, mode of delivery and unit project brief. It will also review the assignment brief, within the limitations of changes that can be done without minor modifications to the unit.
Key actions to undertake:
Part 1
Review unit project brief: give clearer instructions to make the shorter dissertation more manageable and help students narrow down the scope of their research. Clear parameters: theoretical framework + case study analysis
Provide students with a clear outline of the structure of their submission: students can still develop their own structure, but for those who may have a harder time navigating a longer piece of writing, this may aid their research. The focus needs to be away from the ‘fear of writing’ to interesting research that is then presented in a written form – move away from the mechanics of writing (which can be a challenge for neurodiverse students) into a critical engagement with ideas.
Review teaching materials to support student learning and help them manage multiple deadlines: provide weekly worksheets or similar to help them navigate the structure of their research and make them more inclusive for all students
Review assignment brief: reconsider the language used in evidencing learning outcomes to make it more inclusive. Consider what we mean about ‘appropriate sources’, ‘intellectual position’, ‘critical debates’, etc. to ensure that different forms of knowledge, experiences, ideas can be valued within the project.
Redesign the unit guide to include this information, making it easily accessible in one place ahead of time for all students
Part 2
Consider ways that students from BAME backgrounds can feel more supported and seen within this unit (particular focus on black home students)
Create reading lists/subject guides dedicated to black art/design histories and decolonial approaches to design and culture
Create optional reading groups led by students on the topics above to allow students to explore different ideas and knowledges with each-other
Include samples of work from previous years that engages with diverse histories/identities/representations so that students have examples of what their work could engage with
Develop a list of resources in terms of archives/collections etc. that students can draw upon and where they can identify sources that can support their research if this is unavailable from the UAL library/special collections
Create peer group sessions as part of the weekly scheme of work where students can exchange ideas and experiences with each other and feel their experience is seen and recognised
Although these two areas are interrelated, I think it is too much to cover with a focused, single intervention. I will therefore focus on part 1 as part of this intervention, where my aims will be to redesign the project brief for this unit to support students who may feel less confident with academic writing.
Reflection and intervention focus
As part of this process, I will investigate what students lack confidence in research and writing, what they find challenging and why, to be able to design a focused intervention. Given the timing of this research, this will be conducted mostly by using existing unit survey data and secondary research.
Following this research, I will then redesign both project brief and the unit guide for the CTS3 Route B unit, to be implemented in September 2024. Feedback will be sought from CTS staff as part of this process.
Part 2 will form the basis of my ARP research into the role of writing in critical engagement with art and design practice.
The resources shared for this blog offer different perspectives on the social, cultural and political perceptions of religion in contemporary society: namely highlighting the way religion is positioned as antithetical to rational, liberal, Western thought. As with the first blog, I found the theoretical reading around epistemic justice a really useful framework for unpicking the shorter resources included as part of this task, allowing me to situate religious discrimination in a wider, structural context. For example, the last video discusses religious identity being seen as ‘other’ and the interviewee speaks of trying to find common ground with people who may find his identity threatening by referring to or emphasising other aspects of his identity. I could not but see this in the context of epistemic injustice where “a subject suppresses their own testimony out of only an anticipatory fear owing to their not knowing whether their interlocutor will understand their religious beliefs and practices” (Rekis, 2023, p.785-786).
In her essay, Jaclyn Rekis outlines the way epistemic injustice operates with regards to religious practices, mapping out its implications by considering religious identity from the point of view of social identity and as a worldview (2023). Rekis refers to Fricker’s definition of epistemic injustice as instances where “individuals can be harmed in their capacity as knowers when their testimony is wrongly diminished according to inequalities in social power” (Rekis, 2023, p.780). The way epistemic justice operates in relation to religious identity is mainly through a denial of religious testimony as a valid form of knowledge and experience of the world. According to Rekis, this is particularly salient in secular environments such as academia where ‘rational’, naturalistic worldview dominates, implicitly discrediting other forms of knowledge or other types of knowing.
This text made me reflect carefully on my teaching practice in Contextual and Theoretical Studies. We often encourage students to draw on their own experiences in their research, especially when it comes to third year dissertation modules (CTS3). However, we still ask students to follow ‘appropriate academic standards’ in their research, drawing from ‘credible’ sources and supporting their writing with ‘evidence’. Reading the essay cited above has made me realise how such language is deeply rooted in a Western secular tradition that may present barriers or exclude forms of knowing, such as religious knowledge, that Rekis outlines, as well as tacit or embodied knowledge.
This resource has made me question how and what we teach, what expectations we set for students and consider how we may implicitly discriminate against students whose religious identity shapes their positionality, their worldview, their interests and their creative work. Equally, as Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses in his talk, it has also made me reflect on how these different forms of knowledge production – one more ‘secular’, based on written forms, and the other more ‘religious’, based on oral traditions, for example – can coexist and how we can support students to engage with different modes of research or approaches to knowledge. In the first instance, it has highlighted the importance of reviewing the language of our unit guides, assignment briefs and learning outcomes to consider whether there may be different ways of thinking about ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Enquiry’ as two main criteria through which we assess CTS units.
I started the work on this blog by reading Kimberle Crenshaw’s 1991 article “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”. While I have been discussing intersectionality in my teaching, I hadn’t engaged with Crenshaw’s work in depth. Particularly eye-opening in her writing, was the clarity with which she conveys the implications of different structures of domination. She powerfully shows that intersectionality is not just an abstract theoretical concept, but that it has real, tangible consequences in everyday life. As she writes: “The struggle over which differences matter and which do not is neither an abstract nor an insignificant debate among women. […] In the context of violence, it is sometimes a deadly serious matter of who will survive – and who will not.” (Crenshaw, 1991, p.1265)
While reviewing these resources, I could see Crenshaw’s thinking echoed through each video: through calls to truly address structural inequalities around race and disability in the first video; through discussions of visible/invisible identities in the second video; and in the last video by emphasising the fact that the needs of disabled people should not be an afterthought. Each of these videos also highlighted, though not explicitly, how supposedly inclusive spaces – queer spaces, Paralympics, arts organisations – are often not inclusive for people with disabilities, or people of colour, or women, further reinforcing the need for an intersectional approach to addressing inclusivity.
The resource that stuck with me the most was the second video, documenting the work of the artist Christine Sun Kim. By exploring different aspects of communication through her experience as a deaf person, Sun Kim raises wider issues about the visibility and invisibility of disabled people in society, linking that to other aspects of her identity as a woman, as a mother, as an artist. These aspects are subtly woven in her storytelling, for example, when she speaks about living in Berlin where childcare is free and where she has a degree of financial security or is able to access suitable studio space, she is highlighting the way structural, social factors enable her to work and live as an artist.
In my own teaching, I have mostly encountered what may be called non-visible disabilities (though I recognise this term is contested). The most direct way in which that disability is made ‘visible’ through the university’s systems and structures, is with ISA documents. While ISAs stipulate how we should approach our teaching and assessment, I have too often found that these are treated as almost as a ‘bonus’ and teaching is not structured to be inclusive as a baseline approach. This is evident with teaching materials which are often not inclusive, are shared late, and are often not accessible in format. The second issue in terms of ISAs that relates to intersectionality is the fact that despite very large numbers of international students in our cohorts, most students with ISAs seem to be home or EU students. This may indicate that there is a barrier in terms of accessing the support system, in particular for our Mandarin-speaking students that I think would be worth exploring in more detail in dialogue with the disability service. It’s important that we consider questions such as: What understanding do our students have of disability service and support it offers? How might we address the potential stigma attached to disability? How can language development and disability service work in dialogue to support international students? What other barriers and challenges might those students be facing (issues of class, race, gender-based discrimination)?
This post documents my tutor, Kwame Baah’s observation of one of my asynchronous resources. Copied below is the form that documents the observation and subsequent reflection.
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: CTS1 seminar with User Experience Design yr1 students Size of student group: 35 students Observer: Kwame Baah Observee: Rujana Rebernjak
Part One What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
CTS1 is the first year unit in Contextual and Theoretical Studies that runs for 11 weeks in block 2. This is the last session of the term. Each session explores key conceptual themes relating to design – this one is focused on Identity. The session will involve a 2hr seminar on the theme followed by a 1hr workshop for students to develop ideas for their final assignment (1600-word essay).
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
Since the start of the academic year.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
The following are the aims and outcomes of the session:
Students understand the key reading on the theme of Identity set by tutors
Students are able to identify key theoretical ideas relating to the theme of identity and know how to research it further
Students are able to relate the theme to their own knowledge and practice as UX designers
Students start developing independent enquiry around this topic in preparation for their final assignment
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Students will engage in group discussion, producing short pieces of writing and building their confidence to share and discuss their ideas as part of a group
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Students from this group vary in terms of their language skills and confidence to present their ideas publicly. Many struggle to understand complex texts so the task of the session is to break down the reading as a group so that they are able to digest some ideas as preparation for further independent study around this topic.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
Students have been informed verbally and in writing via weekly email sent the Friday before the session
What would you particularly like feedback on?
How to engage students whose language skills seem to preclude them from participating and engaging with the session more thoroughly.
How will feedback be exchanged?
TBC
Part Two Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Your teaching methodology is rich in supporting components that enable students to critically analyse their own perspectives on objects. By fostering continuous collaboration among students, you are able to strengthen their learning experience. One effective strategy you implemented was the seating arrangement, which promoted cross-collaboration as each pair of students provided mutual support during activities.
I was particularly impressed by your efforts to ensure that all students comprehended the instructions at each stage, showcasing your awareness of the diverse language skills among the student body. Your practice of revisiting the activity requirements at each table when they to communicated in their native language within groups, facilitating peer support.
My only query pertains to the potential benefits of rearranging student groups to enhance cohesion, as I observed most students tended to sit within their existing friendship circles. Furthermore, there were a few students who appeared isolated within groups that lacked meaningful communication beyond the task at hand.
Part Three Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thank you for your encouraging and positive feedback. Since the start of the unit, we have been experimenting with different formats for our seminars to find the right way of fostering and facilitating student discussions. Small group work with feeding back to the overall group seems to be a good strategy, allowing students to digest the questions/tasks, working together and supporting each other, whilst also building confidence to share their thoughts in a larger group setting. When doing these sessions the book ‘Shy Radicals’ by Hamja Ahsan is always on my mind, and I find myself questioning why certain established models of teaching – i.e. seminar discussions – are valued in higher education and how we might disrupt these models to foster different ways of learning that are more culturally inclusive.
As you recognize, there are particular groups in this cohort who seems to struggle with this mode of teaching, retreating into their groups and engaging in other activities during the seminar (online shopping, browsing, watching other videos, doing other course work). In these situations, this makes me wonder whether students don’t find that class interesting? Do they find the content irrelevant to their learning or practice? Or are there other barriers to their participation – are they shy radicals? Therefore, going forward I will consider other ways of engaging these students, perhaps it might be by working with them 1-2-1, taking them outside of that group-work setting, or maybe just by rearranging groups as you suggest.
In the second half of the session that you observed, this was the case. We re-distributed students in groups, making them interact with peers they might not normally interact with. However, this brought mixed success as some students even further retreated into their own space when faced with the prospect of having to work with unfamiliar colleagues. Therefore, perhaps breaking up the space and table setting even further to facilitate smaller groupings (2-3 students max) would be useful as the challenge is most evident when there are 7-8 students sitting at a large table and nobody seems to want to take ownership over their learning in such a large group (it is easier to retreat). Of course, the usual constraints of space limit my pedagogic approach – but I can invest some time in making that space more suitable for the type of delivery we envision would be most effective.
This post documents Carlotta Ghigi’s observation of one of my asynchronous resources. Copied below is the form that documents the observation and subsequent reflection.
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
This is a pre-recorded lecture that is part of cross-school second year curriculum in Contextual and Theoretical Studies in the Design School at LCC. In this unit, students can choose one of nine thematic strands to follow. Each strand has 7 ‘lectures’ that address particular aspects of the topic. This resource is part of the Technologies strand that I designed. It sets out key theoretical debates around technologies/technological development, introducing students to conceptual ideas that help them contextualize digital technologies which is particularly relevant for their design practice/experimentation with digital tools.
After watching the video asynchronously, students then join a 2hr seminar to discuss these ideas further.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
The unit is delivered in Block 2, and this was the second session of the block, so only 2 weeks. I am also not delivering the weekly seminars for this unit.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
Students learn key terms around technology/technological development to be able to critical engage with technology in their practice.
Students question technological ‘progress’ considering it in the wider historical/cultural/political context, questioning the idea that technological development and innovation is always a force for good and considering the unequal impacts of technological development.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Students watch the video and read the text, they will further discuss this material in their seminar.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Yes, students may not watch the video –in seminars there is usually half the group who has not watched it ahead of time (but might watch it after the session). Is the language/pace too difficult – slides and transcript are provided but is that sufficient? What else can be done in terms of engagement and accessibility of the material?
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
Does not apply – pre-recorded lecture.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
As above – it would be good to understand how the material can be made more accessible/engaging. We are currently reviewing this model of delivery with flipped-classroom, pre-recorded content structure, so it would be worth knowing whether it is work keeping it, why, what might be some benefits and what are the challenges.
How will feedback be exchanged?
In writing and potential teams meeting.
Part Two Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Rujana shared with me the link to Moodle, which allowed me to access not only the recording but also the environment in which it is shared with the students. The Moodle page is clearly organised, and slides, transcript and additional readings are listed on the same page as the recording, making them easily accessible.
The recording consists of a slides view, with inset video of Rujana delivering the lecture. This adds an important element of presence, on behalf of the lecturer, which makes the recording more engaging and user friendly. The slides often have highlighted text to focus on the key elements in the text, they are however text heavy at times and it may be difficult to connect the spoken word with the text – ideally the highlighting of the text could be dynamic, and this could be achieved with animation in PowerPoint, or the use of a pointer (which is available in blackboard collaborate, but I am unsure about the availability of such tool on Panopto or PowerPoint).
The lecture includes theory and examples to support the teaching; this allows the students to immediately relate the learning with something more tangible, which will enable them to approach the following seminar with more clarity. Examples are often accompanied by pictures which makes the slide immediately easier to read – in my opinion it would be beneficial to include images on the text heavy slides too, not necessarily to explain or clarify the teaching, but to offer an element that aids assimilation of the knowledge, by connecting an image to a concept.
Rujana’s tone throughout the lecture is calm and friendly, which makes for a reassuring learning experience. There is some background noise throughout the video, which Rujana acknowledge from the beginning. This is a low-level disturbance that does not act as a distraction, but can strangely act as a recall of attention. As an ADHD individual, and I have found my concentration drifting away at times: the banging noises recalled my attention and actually helped me focus on the lecture. I would not recommend including this in lectures on purpose, but I wouldn’t suggest re-recording this one either. Instead, it makes me consider how to include recall strategies in recordings, to keep the audience engaged.
Rujana expresses some concern, in her pre-notes, that a certain number of students often don’t view the recordings before the seminars. This could be lessened by timely reminder emails to students,(the day before?) including direct links to the videos (It is unclear if this is practiced). Engagement is something that can only be encouraged, not secured, so it may help to have a strategy in place to obviate the detrimental effect to students’ participation in the following seminar. It may be helpful to include, in the seminar, an amount of discussion between students, so those who watched the recordings can bring the others up to speed, whilst also clarifying the learning in their minds by speaking it out.
I would support the use of this format – recording before seminar – going forward, because it allows the student to approach the more academic part of the course in a safer and comfortable way, that can be customized to their learning needs.
Part Three Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Over the last few years, Contextual and Theoretical Studies have been using pre-recorded resources instead of live ‘lectures’ across all our units. This flipped-classroom model was introduced during Covid, and we continued working with it over the last three years partly due to timetabling constraints (limited access to lecture theatre and teaching spaces, which leaves us with 2hr weekly seminar sessions). However, during this time we have also started to question the efficacy of this model, for both students and staff: some students struggle to engage with this material or don’t have time to watch before the seminar, which means they may not attend the live session if they feel they didn’t prepare enough for it; staff often feel a lack of agency as they need to ‘deliver’ material prepared by someone else and the coherence of the material within the whole syllabus seems to be a challenge (for each Theme within this unit, a range of lecturers prepare the videos/readings – this is to expose students to a variety of voices and decolonize the curriculum).
It was really useful, therefore, to use this resource as part of my observation to see how it may be perceived by students/staff, as it is sometimes difficult to get student feedback on this directly. It was good that Carlotta emphasized the value of the resource and the way it may support different learning needs – i.e. students who may need to ‘digest’ material more slowly for example or those who need to return to it multiple times. I think it might be worth exploring how we can integrate these resources a bit more with ‘live’ delivery. We do send weekly emails and reminders about work to prepare in advance but we still always get only about half the group who watches the resource before the seminar. Therefore, rather than asking students to watch ahead of time, perhaps we might deliver the content of the pre-recorded lecture live: i.e. use the slides and narrate/discuss them in class (rather than just playing the video which can be kind of dull), while students can then return to the pre-recorded material later on.
I completely appreciate the point about ‘text heavy’ slides. I have noticed this in my live sessions as well, and need to try to work harder on identifying examples of design practice that can be linked to more abstract, theoretical concepts. This way, some of these ideas would be more tangible for students and they could relate them more easily to their own practice. Perhaps adopting a more ‘object-based learning’ approach to these sessions – even if the objects are only shown digitally as images – would make it easier for students to grasp the concepts.
Going forward, I might try to develop a ‘case study image bank’ of projects/objects/artwork/images that I can tap into when devising these resources so that it’s easier to identify material to refer to. Time constraints are really what is often liming the research that goes into these materials, so having some pre-prepared interesting ‘stuff’ to show in relation to theoretical and historical ideas might be a good way of approaching it.
It might be worth noting that I have received positive feedback from tutors working with this resource. They said it did initiate some engaging discussions in class, so even though there are limitations to it that I recognise, it seems to be an overall useful pedagogic tool. However, I will work more to identify ways it can be integrated differently into live delivery to engage students more consistently, as well as considering how the presentation itself can become more interactive.
This post documents my peer observation of Carlotta Ghigi’s session at LCF. Copied below is the form that documents the observation and subsequent reflection.
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Fabric and texture manipulation. 6/3/24 Size of student group: 18 Observer: Rujana Rebernjak Observee: Carlotta Ghigi
Part One
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
The students are working towards an industry brief for brand Coco De Mer. The studio sessions at this time of term are aimed at building their technical skills to support them in delivering the brief.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been working with the group about every other week since September. Before that I only met them a couple of times in year 1.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
Students are expected to experiment with manipulating fabrics and spur their creativity with materials. They can experience a new way of designing by making, and build material to show in their sketchbook at the end of the unit.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Possibly some technique to be used in their final outcome. Definitely materials to be used in their sketchbook (photographs). This session is about experimentation and the outcome isn’t strictly defined.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Students are low in confidence because they have recently received their block 1 results, which where mostly not good. The session should be more fun than usual and hopefully promote engagement, however there is an issue with attendance.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I sent them an email before the session and will introduce the observer at the beginning of the session.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
Any observation on student engagement, in reaction to the session, would be most appreciated, because as a team we feel this is what is holding them back.
How will feedback be exchanged?
I am happy to have a discussion afterwards or exchange forms.
Part Two Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
The session was well organised with the aims clearly set at the start. Carlotta delivered a 30min presentation outlining the expectations for the session, what students should be working on and how this relates to the assignment brief. It was very clearly linked to the final submission and learning outcomes, delivered with a clear, focused language. I think this was very well received by students and they recognised what the aims/outcomes of the specific session were, while also being able to place it in the ‘bigger picture’ of the overall unit assignment brief. Slides were uploaded ahead of time and students could refer to them throughout the session if needed, which was very good in terms of accessibility.
The presentation also included images of student work from previous years, which I thought was a really good way of showing the aims of the activity and how it can feed into their project, rather than demonstrating these different approaches through industry-based outcomes. It made it more tangible for students to see what is achievable and how this can be shown in the final submission through either the garment itself or developmental work in the sketchbook. Carlotta did not rely just on technical descriptions but also offered broader explanations of how these techniques can generate meaning/add depth to their projects which was inspirational for students. Carlotta asked questions, making sure everyone understood the task before proceeding to speak to students directly 1-2-1.
There were about 13 students in the session (so a third of the group was missing) which speaks to the low attendance/engagement issue that Carlotta highlighted. It was evident from the interactions with the students that they were at very different stages of their process and approached the activity differently. Some were looking for excuses (or so it seemed to me!) to not be in class by going to get their laptops, materials, etc. from home. Others were well prepared, came to the session ready to start their work. Carlotta was very diligent at reminding them ahead of time (day before) what was needed and also subtly calling out those coming to the session less prepared.
In interacting with individual students, Carlotta was encouraging and inquisitive about their work. She asked to see sketches/moodboards, listened carefully to students’ concepts and offered suggestions for further development. She looked carefully at the materials they brought to the session and gave very specific guidance on how to work with these.
Some students seemed much more hesitant about what they were going to do and how to approach the session. Some seemed very eager to get going, and immediately started placing fabric on their mannequins and experimenting with their garments. Others seemed to struggle with ‘experimentation’ and needed more direction. Perhaps this is where engagement comes into play? Perhaps some students struggle with such open-ended sessions and need to be given a bit more guidance?
This was offered by Carlotta when speaking to them – she clearly suggested certain approaches, but I wonder if some learners need more structured guidance. Perhaps going forward it might be worth to have a kind of worksheet printed out for those students who struggle with self-directed work in the studio. It could give them tips on how to ‘experiment’: maybe some step by step instructions of different techniques or approaches. That way, they would feel less lost about how to get going, and once they start following the instructions, maybe their own ideas would come into play and they could start experimenting more indepedently. By providing the worksheet only to those students who need it, this would also allow the freedom for those students who are more comfortable with that way of learning while gently supporting those who need more support.
One interaction with a student, in particular, stands out. The student seemed to be very engaged and open to discussing their work, but said they struggled with experimentation, process and drawing – jumping to the final garment production too soon (their strong skill was sewing). Carlotta acknowledged the difficulty and said that it was ok to prefer certain parts of the process, but that it was still worth putting their energy into the whole learning journey at this stage. She asked the student to put the activity into wider context, showing how it may be useful as part of the whole unit/assignment brief, which seemed to reassure the student and gave them the energy to start working on the task.
Overall, it was a very positive session for the time I observed it. I think it might be beneficial to break up the session more to support students who struggle with experimentation: perhaps give some more targeted exercises as an introduction to play/experimentation, followed by self-directed development. This way the 3hr session might be designed in a way that supports different learning styles and scaffolds the learning.
Part Three Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thank you, Rujana, for your feedback and recommendations. What you observed was the first of three sessions, as I repeated the same workshop with another two groups in the following days. I also noted how the open nature of the brief left some students feeling lost, and prone to fall back onto what they know: creating garments instead of creating the materials garments should be made of. I obviated to this with the next groups by asking them to focus on the first part of the task (manipulating the materials independently from a garment design) for the first half hour of the workshop, which made some students more comfortable whith this new approach to design. I felt this would be an immediate change that would not diversify the sessions too much between groups, but in future developments for this session I will certainly consider breaking up the workshop into sections, so students are not overwhelmed and can gradually tackle the new skill.
I am glad that you have perceived a positive atmosphere in the room, as the students were “recovering” from a difficult Block 1 set of results, and this means the creative session was successful in getting the students (who attended) more involved with the learning activity. Some had to let their guard down, but most found a way to engage. I completely appreciate the comment about reluctant students making excuses: we allow a certain level of freedom to certain students to ensure that we don’t loose them completely, however we do have to accept the old horse and water adage: the student who went home to collect their materials, later return to class but decided to do other work.
It was very helpful to receive a third party perspective with regards to 1-2-1 interactions, as I try and cater for different characters in the room, to empower each student to make the most of their talents whilst expanding their horizons, but I am at times left with doubt as to whether I ger through to them. Thank you for your input.
