Lindsay observing Jon 27/03/24
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Tutorial Session
Size of student group: 20 students (2 in this observation session) in room B003 (Central Saint Martins)
Observer: Lindsay Jordan
Observee: Jonathan Flint
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 will be a group Tutorial Session for Unit 3 of the MA Biodesign course (2-year program) this is with year 2 students.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity
I have been working with this cohort since I joined the program in September 2022 (they were year 1 when I joined). I work 2.5 days in my role and I am the main tutor for the year 2 students.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
These focus on design development and project contextualization for unit 3.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Students will present their final project progress, feedback on their experience of the work in progress review the previous week and show us an idea of what they will present for the interim review a few weeks later on the 12th March.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
To check how much progress the students have been making. Sometimes students get stuck at this stage and don’t know how to take in feedback they have received .
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I will email the students in advance
What would you particularly like feedback on?
General feedback, I have only been observed once giving tutorials, so anything you notice about the session will be helpful such as:
What I can do better? How to build engagement if students haven’t done anything or made much progress? How I can help when the students have a future tutorial? How to keep notes etc?
How will feedback be exchanged?
Verbally and written if possible
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Observing your tutorial session with the MA Biodesign students was a great way to experience your pedagogical approach, in particular the thoughtful manner in which you engage with your students. Your focused on each student’s work, one at a time, for an approximately equal time, showing your commitment to giving individual attention and ensuring that each student benefits from your expertise.
What you shared above about the challenge some students face in absorbing feedback was particularly enlightening. What’s behind it, do you think? Is it the case that students’ attachments to their initial concepts and efforts are hindering their openness to new directions? This is a critical observation in the context of creative education, where attachment to one’s work can be a barrier to growth. I wondered if the first student was experiencing this. She responded positively to your suggestions while also not looking particularly excited about taking a different tack. You’ve probably heard of the idea of art teachers inviting their students to destroy their work as a test of the humility and non-attachment that’s required to learn. Cesar Cordova is a fan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DimbeZFvEus.
Your engagement with the first student, who brought materials, a sample, and a sketchbook, was a testament to your ability to immerse yourself in the students’ work. Your method of asking questions, listening intently to the answers, and watching and responding to the student’s reactions demonstrated an effective, responsive teaching style. Your suggestion for her to seek feedback from her nieces and nephews was a good way to encourage her to open her perspective and consider diverse viewpoints, potentially making her more receptive to feedback.
The second student, who brought only a laptop, presented a different dynamic. Your adeptness at drawing out and discussing her ideas, despite a couple of moments where the exchange threatened to dry up, shows skill in adapting your approach to fit the student’s preparedness and engagement level. This adaptability is crucial in maintaining the productivity of the session, even when faced with less tangible materials to work with.
Your attentive and thoughtful manner was consistent throughout the tutorial, creating a rich, beneficial learning environment for both students.
The incident where the first student received feedback that seemed irrelevant to her project, and you identified it as a likely copy-paste error, highlights your attentiveness and desire to guide students through the landscape of academic feedback. I’m not sure she was completely reassured by your explanation (it sounded like it wasn’t you who wrote the feedback). Will you feed this back to colleagues?
Your focus, thoughtfulness, and seriousness are of note in your teaching style. The values I see emerging from you as a teacher include critical thinking, responsiveness, and adaptability. As you continue to nurture these qualities in your students, consider other strategies to enhance their receptivity to feedback. Not burning their work(!), something more light touch, such as using reflective frameworks like those we’ve introduced on the PgCert, or organising peer feedback sessions.
I feel that your approach combines the teaching of technical knowledge and skills with preparation to navigate the complexities of creative work with an open, growth-oriented mindset. It was a privilege to observe your tutorial, and I am confident that your students are gaining invaluable insights and skills under your guidance.
Over to you; is there anything here that you feel you can act on?
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
The challenges associated with students absorbing feedback could be due to several reasons, I think attachment to an initial concept could be one of them. I feel students also try to search for the archetypal ‘Biodesign’ project and try to conform to what they believe tutors think that is. For some reason I may have been doing the same thing on the PgCert, which was holding me back slightly and was highlighted for me in a tutorial session, it made me realise that it’s not about doing something you expect your tutors will want, but to do something you find interesting that will help your development, (as long as you meet the learning outcomes and submit everything)!
I think the Cesar Cordova video suggested is great and like how he explains when working with cheaper paper we get carried away and draw with freedom, but when it comes to more expensive final equipment, we are hesitant and don’t want to make mistakes. This video reminds me of a quote a tutor told us during our first year studying on my BA course, it was that ‘ideas are cheap’, meaning that there is no point hunting for the perfect idea when you should be able to think of many, and as the Cesar Cordova video highlights it is about experimenting, playing and enjoying what we do no matter how many times we try again, as it is the act of making mistakes and failing that we can move forward and learn.
In the case of the first student, their initial idea did change direction due feedback given, so I think this student had good reason not to want to change ideas again, but time will tell whether students heed or advice or not. My suggestion to get feedback from her nieces and nephews was an attempt for her to try some design research methods in her project and perhaps have a real person in mind when designing, a relative or family member is the easiest person we can try to talk to quickly to gain new insights from.
I was not aware of my adaptability in this instance, as Emma noticed on a previous observation, I always have a notebook and pen to hand as it helps me to think and draw things out when explaining something to students. I wonder what I could do if an exchange does dry up in the future, perhaps this would be a case of having some prepared materials or questions to work with, but perhaps being able to adapt quickly is enough I guess this is a form of tacit knowledge that may have been built up over the years in other roles I have had.
The incident with the feedback came at me by surprise, so I tried to find a way to explain this based on what I sometimes do when I write feedback which is to create a structure based on previous feedback I had written. I didn’t write the feedback and the colleague who did was away at the time, so I didn’t get a change to query about it. I did meet the student again the week after to explain it, I think having some time to process the error may have helped as the student was more receptive this time around.
I try to organise peer feedback sessions as much as possible, this was partly the reason why we started to do group tutorial sessions, but sometimes they do transform back into one-to-one tutorials with other students waiting for their turn, so maybe there is a better way to facilitate this or set some ground rules before the tutorial so everyone can get involved. I have started using the digital platform ‘Mentimeter’ (I found it on the UAL reducing referral and submissions pdf) so that quieter voices can add their comments and feedback anonymously, ‘Mentimeter’ doesn’t require a log in so students just join a QR code and it works on their phones.
Reflective frameworks would be interesting to try here, I like the idea of journaling or storytelling seen in the ‘what is reflective practice by Joy Amulya’ article, I would like to find a way to use journals more in future sessions. There was a workbook that I had found a few years ago when I was mentoring called the ‘Creative Self workbook’ by Tina Essmaker, with a number of exercises such as a matrix to define your purpose or a ‘letter to your future self’ task, I remember also uploading it as a resource for previous year students, this might be worth revisiting in the context of tutorials or as an example of a piece of prepared material I mentioned above.
Thanks for the feedback and suggestions, the observations have been a valuable insight into what I do, how my peers teach as well as how our students respond.
