Category: Extra posts

Our cohort met for the first time in person at LCC on the 27th January. In groups of three we examined an artefact from our teaching practice and considered its aims, how it is used, what is assessed and how it is assessed. To complete this activity, Tonia, Irti and I looked at the unit brief for one of Irti’s modules at the Creative Coding Institute. We talked about the difficulty of assessing the module because, on the one hand students are intended to learn technical skills from the module, but on the other more profound level the aim is for them to understand how they can use within the context of their creative practice. This certainly chimed with the points Davies makes (see this blog post) about creating effective learning outcomes for art and design. Irti spoke about how the module formerly had tests, making it similar to common approaches to learning computer science, but how ultimately the assessment has changed to become more project based.

We were then asked to create a poster to explain how we might redesign the artefact. We spoke about how unit briefs are often long documents that students don’t often read although they might benefit a lot of they did, as they contain key information about the course structure, learning outcomes and assessment. In the context of the creative computing frameworks module, we considered whether there is further risk of this, as the technical terminology may further dissuade students from reading. An additional consideration is that lengthy course documents are not an inclusive way of presenting this information for those with dyslexia.

In our poster, we therefore wondered if there was a way of visually presenting the same information so that it is more accessible to students. We attempted to convey the learning outcomes visually (below) although this was difficult to pull off in the time we had!

I do certainly thing that there is something in this approach though. Even if the information was presented in a flow chart stye with a template that could be re-used across different courses and programmes. It may encourage a greater engagement with this key information from the outset.

TPP’s learning outcomes

• LO1: Interpret theories, policies and pedagogies in the context of your evolving practice. [Knowledge]
• LO2: Critically evaluate your approach to planning, teaching and assessment using self-reflective frameworks and observations/reviews of practice. [Process]
• LO3: Appraise your ongoing personal and professional development. [Realisation] LO4: Articulate your pedagogic ideas, experience and expertise for the benefit of the programme community. [Communication]
• LO4: Articulate your pedagogic ideas, experience and expertise for the benefit of the programme community. [Communication]

In the face to face session we focused on LO1 for the course and how this blog could be assessed to measure our mastery of the LO. In my group of three, we struggled with applying UAL’s level 7 assessment criteria to the blog activity. Initially we thought a D would apply to the bare minimum in terms of submitting 4 X 250 word blog posts that align with the topics on the course. Building on that a C would have a more critical element rather than purely being descriptive. But as we continued to discuss this, it felt as though criticality as well as inclusion of practical/conceptual/technical knowledges was also the minimum requirement. We then couldn’t understand how to practically decide how, once a student has submitted all of this, that someone could be marked as excellent while another might just be very good.

We therefore felt that a pass and a refer system made more sense. And that this allowed for everyone to be excellent, as excellent will be different for each individual person… specifically in the context of this module where we are engaging with theories and reflecting on our practice, this process will be individual and different for every member of the course, so provided everyone meets the criteria they should pass.

Collecting all the interesting readings I’m coming across but have not yet read here!

Adler, J.E. (2017) Artists in offices: An ethnography of an academic art scene. London: Routledge. 

Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 

Blakie, F., Daigle, C., and Vasseur, L. (2020) “New pathways for teaching and learning: the posthumanist approach”, Canadian Commission for UNESCO. Ottawa, Canada.

Corazzo, J. (2019) Materialising the Studio. A systematic review of the role of the material space of the studio in Art, Design and Architecture Education, The Design Journal, 22:sup1, 1249-1265, DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1594953

Gamble, C.N., Hanan, J.S. and Nail, T. (2019) “What is new materialism?,” Angelaki, 24(6), pp. 111–134. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725x.2019.1684704. 

Sidebottom, K. (2021) Education for a more-than-human world, EuropeNow. Available at: https://www.europenowjournal.org/2021/11/07/education-for-a-more-than-human-world/ (Accessed: March 22, 2023). 

Weigel, M. (2019) Feminist Cyborg scholar Donna Haraway: ‘the disorder of our era isn’t necessary’, The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/donna-haraway-interview-cyborg-manifesto-post-truth (Accessed: March 22, 2023). 

My Microteaching session took place on the 10th of February. In the afternoon session, my classmates Irti, Genevieve, Louise I participated in and taught 20 minutes sessions under the observation of our tutor Santanu. I have to say that I really enjoyed the afternoon, getting a window into my colleagues teaching styles, learning about their subject areas and of course getting their very valuable feedback on my own approach. In addition, covering ground such as AI, ekphrastic poetry, the history of high heels, and innovation, it felt like UAL in a nutshell.

Reflections on my session

My microteaching session focused on ekphrastic poetry. The learning outcomes were for students to:

• Understand what ekphrastic poetry is (Knowledge)
• Analyse an object (Enquiry)
• Write an ekphrastic poem based on that object (Enquiry, Process)
• Reflect on your/a peer’s poem (Communication,Realisation) 

We looked at definitions of ekphrastic poetry and an example of it via Anne Sexton’s poem The Starry Night based on the Vincent Van Gogh painting. I chose this poem as I thought the painting would be familiar to students and they might find it easier to connect with the poem as a result. I was still conscious that reading and discussing a poem together might have been a risk as poetry can be perceived as difficult and boring. However, the students enthusiastically read the poem and dissected its meaning. They then wrote their own ekphrastic poems based on the objects I brought: a coaster of Frida Kahlo’s Self Portrait with Monkey, 1940, a magnet of René Magritte’s Golconda and a magnet of Hendrick Avercamp’s Winter Landscape with Ice Skaters. I encouraged them to write anything that came to mind, even random words. We then shared and discussed our poems. To round off the session, we revisited the learning outcomes and I closed with further ideas for continuing with ekphrastic poetry if they wished to. 

I was impressed with the students’ poems especially considering how difficult it can be to produce something creative on the spot. Possibly the definition of ekphrastic poetry that I gave – that it is a creative written response to art – was broad enough to encourage writing without worrying about poetic rules. Focusing on the Sexton poem beforehand helped to warm up the students’ poetic minds and think about different poetic devices. I also emphasised that Sexton likely took years to complete her poem whereas they would have just a few minutes, so anything they wrote would be excellent. On reflection though, I could improve my strategies for encouraging students with work that they may be struggling with. One of the students wrote a series of words relating to the painting and I could have been more helpful in suggesting how this could develop in future drafts.

The feedback I received was invaluable and applicable to my professional practice as a learning technologist. In my role I support my colleagues with tasks and tools that they might not be familiar with such as online systems and content creation. Therefore, being mindful of the language used – ie the suggestion of using the word “activity” – could help to alleviate any anxiety about learning these new tools. Also, including more fun group activities to help people practice in a low-pressure environment is a great idea. Another important take away is to better plan and time my sessions to allow participants a greater chance to practice their learning. I will also look to improve my strategies for giving feedback by reading papers such as the following, which is a suggested reading from UAL’s Course Designer:

Nicol, D. J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) “Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice,” Studies in higher education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090.

My peers’ sessions

Irti’s AI microteach had an immediately engaging opening. We were given a photograph of Big Ben and the houses of parliament (the object) and in pairs we wrote a description of it. We then input our descriptions into an AI system and it generated an image based on descriptions. It was interesting to see how differently the different pairs described the same picture and how the results were so different. Irti used this activity as a vehicle for explaining how AI works to generate those images. We were then invited as a group to consider the pros (eg. ease of use, possibility for easy iteration) and cons (eg. ethical issues) of AI. Irti closed with showing us some pretty damning studies into how AI reproduces and negative stereotypes and we discussed how problematic this was and the legacy it would unleash.

Genevieve went next with her very engaging lesson about the history of high heels. I was really impressed by the moments of reflection she peppered through the lesson, as that helped us to participate and formulate our own ideas and observations. It’s a simple but very effective technique for active participation. Genevieve also had fun interactive elements like videos, a Kahoot quiz and activity where we measured our feet to figure out the highest heel would could safely wear. The object of her lesson was very appropriately a pair of red Jimmy Choo heels.

Louise’s session was the last but certainly not least session. In just twenty minutes we learnt different definitions of innovation, the different kinds of futures we may try to innovate for and had a go at developing a new product/service of the future based on Louise’s handbag and various other factors (different in each case) such as terrain, discipline and feeling. My idea was a lifelong handbag that is designed to be bought once but can be updated and modified over time via modification services offered by the brand. This approach would create a more sustainable luxury bag that powers the economy through the service industry. Although I wouldn’t have believed I could have understood these concepts or generated an original idea like this on a Friday afternoon, Louise’s session was very effective and engaging and delivered against her learning outcomes.