Below, I respond to recurrent themes in the filmed testimony of three people, examining their diverse experiences of disability and intersecting identities. Kimberlé Crenshaw (1990) developed ‘intersectionality’ to explain that occupying multiple marginalised identities compounds oppression. Intersectional praxis in education aims to address disability both in terms of structural barriers and welfare (Sépulchre, 2023).

Film one stresses physical needs and accessibility. It draws a parallel between historic racist segregation and contemporary ‘segregation by design’. This is echoed in film three, while film two highlights educational barriers. These are also foregrounded in research (Lukkien et al. 2024).

I have planned off-site visits to accommodate a student with mobility difficulties, but now consider travel to off-site activities, the organisation of the classroom and the wider opportunities I can make accessible. I will consider how to mitigate student isolation by intervening in group dynamics and will ‘enmesh’ disability across course material (Loutzenheiser and Erevelles, 2019, p. 384), rather than segregating the topic.

Films one and three highlight that inclusivity benefits everyone, hinting at the social construction of disability as problematic (Oliver, 1990). Film three notes the need for planning to accommodate neurodiversity. My lecture content is accessible online before sessions to benefit all students but I newly consider who is able to participate, how far and how this can be extended.

Film two notes the impact of government policies on the participant’s profession and motherhood, but not explicitly her deafness. This highlights that one identity can be viewed as a ‘master status’ (Hughes, 1945; Goffman, 1990 [1963]) but this is context dependent (Bayeck, 2022). This, and reflection on my positionality, prompt me to ‘broaden…[my] understanding of…[student] holistic experiences’, while considering how they view me and the power imbalance in the relationship (Lukkien et al. 2024, p. 715).

Film two highlights the deaf participant’s struggle to communicate, while film three notes difficulty in interpreting communication in relation to recent ‘out’ queer status and neurodivergence. The point of intersection between the duress of queer positioning and neurodiversity, potentially compounds stress, isolation and confusion.

In response I aim for clear verbal, written and visual communication and to allow space for students to compose their thoughts. I will sensitively monitor student comprehension and encourage participation, divining inadvertent exclusions with fresh awareness of visible and hidden needs.

Film one highlighted the positive impact of Paralympian visibility, although research has problematised this (Goggin, G and Newell, C., 2000). It noted that the intersecting visibility of Black and disabled identities as targets for abuse. This stresses a position that is ‘both physically and culturally marginalized’ (Crenshaw, 1990, p. 1250). In film two, deafness is less visible, while film three’s participant noted he can ‘pass’ as neurotypical and cisgendered. His self-description as ‘probably not neurotypical’, parallels queer status in its medicalisation and expectations that individuals can understand and explain their identity. Film two critiques this inducement to explain, which amounts to an additional labour akin to that expressed by Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017) in relation to race. While gender is accounted for in UAL statistics, the significance of sexuality and heterosexism remains invisible (fig. 1).

I taught a mature student who used a hearing aid and they/them pronouns, but left the MA, ostensibly because of funding. Their disability, age and gender identity did not obviously signal multiplying disadvantage to me, but I am now conscious that such factors could be at play. This is contextualised by research that points to lower degree outcomes and withdrawal associated with disabled students (Shaw, 2024, p. 830), which is born out by UAL retention data (fig. 2). Data fails to acknowledge a gender identity between the binary, which is exclusionary in classification systems that are ‘both material and symbolic’ (Bowker and Star, 1999, p. 286) (fig. 3). Multiple intersecting minority identities can be the ‘location of oppression’ but this is ‘not fully captured by…hegemonic system[s]’ (Hernández-Sacra et al., 2018, p. 287) (figs. 1, 2, 3).

Fig. 1. UAL Student Data Profiles

Fig. 2. UAL Disability Retention

Fig. 3 UAL Gender Retention

References

Film 1 Ade Adepitan interviewed by Nick Webborn

https://youtu.be/KAsxndpgagU?si=9AN4JdzPDdTNsNwS

Film 2 Christine Sun Kim: “Friends and Strangers”

Film 3 Chay Brown, Co-Founder, Director of Operations and Director for Healthcare at Transactual

Bayeck, R. Y. (2022) Positionality: the interplay of space, context and identity, Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21 pp.1-9

Bowker, G. C. and Star, S. L. (1999) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press

Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color, Stanford Law Review, 43(6) pp. 1241-1299

Eddo-Lodge, R. (2017) Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race. London: Bloomsbury

Goffman, E. (1990 [1963]) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin

Goggin, G. and Newell, C. (2000) Crippling Paralympics? Media, disability and olympism, Media International Australia, 97(1) pp. 71-83

Hernández-Saca, D. I., Gutmann Kahn, L. and Cannon, M. A. (2018) Intersectionality dis/ability research: how dis/ability research in education engages intersectionality to uncover the multidimentional construction of dis/abled experiences. Review of Research in Education. 42(March) pp. 286-311

Hughes, E.C. (1945) Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology, 50 pp. 353–359

Loutzebnheiser, L. W. and Erevelles, N. (2019) “What’s disability got to do with it?”: Crippin’ Educational Studies at the intersections, Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 55(4) pp. 375-386.

Lukkien, T., Chauhan, T. and Otaye-Ebede, L. (2024) Addressing the diversity principle – practice gap in Western higher education institutions: a systematic review on intersectionality, British Educational Research Journal, 51(2) pp. 705-736

Oliver, M. (1990) The social construction of the disability problem. In, The Politics of Disablement: Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: Palgrave. pp 78-94

Sépulchre, M. (2023) Intersectional praxis and disability in Higher Education, Social Inclusion, 11(4) pp. 362-372

Shaw, A. (2024) Inclusion of disabled Higher Education students: why are we not there yet?, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(6) pp. 820-838

I am unit leader for Fashion Histories on MA Fashion Cultures and Histories, with some agency to modify briefs and Learning Outcomes. The unit has two assessed submissions: a review (Element 1) and an essay (Element 2). It begins an implicit journey towards dissertation and beyond, as well as establishing wider expectations for cohorts with diverse prior education and education gaps.

Students struggle to meet the LO for Enquiry (fig. 1), which was inherited from a previous course iteration. Some also struggle to grasp the specificity of choosing a single primary source to analyse and need support with academic referencing.

Realising uneven student familiarity with academic research across the cohort, I introduce google scholar early, signpost the library induction and citethemrightonline, while pointing to the collateral benefit of learning referencing conventions by attending to set readings (Dewey 1997 [1938]). I address the difference between primary and secondary sources, which some find difficult to grasp. At another university, I have done activities on this topic within the library and intend to explore this possibility at UAL.

I reiterate and elaborate on LOs in briefings, verbally offering examples to students unused to shaping their own arguments and research. Following John Biggs’ (2007) research on ‘constructive alignment’, avenues appropriate for the Enquiry criterion are covered in week one and I remind students at interim seminars. I aim to modify LOs in line with guidance (UAL a and b), but currently, to avoid making them too prescriptive (Addison, 2014; Biggs, 2012), I rather offer detail and examples in a seminar and make slides available. Students also grade an exemplar assignment and participate in a peer review exercise. This has worked well in helping them understand the process and alignment.

On other courses, my assessment is subject to scrutiny by unit leaders and moderators, contributing to a culture of surveillance (Addison, 2014, p. 317 drawing on Ball and Olmedo, 2013). With this MA, as Unit Leader with a closer relationship to the cohort, tensions around assessment centre rather on the students. Their essays overwhelmingly fit within a B- to A- span. This makes it hard to gauge a spectrum of ability. I am also more exposed to their response to assessment and these students are often ambitious and easily disappointed.

Marked improvements in some students’ research and communications skills, from Element 1 to Element 2, demonstrate the efficacy of careful assessment feedback at early stages. While feedback was praised in course committee meetings, some students wanted further debriefing. This isn’t possible in timetabling but might be addressed in group seminar or informal opportunities, going forward.

Academic research and writing can map well onto LOs well because both are text based. Further, this MA differs to arts courses that stress the importance of ‘not knowing’ (Addison, 2014, p. 322). Writing and its teaching, as related to ‘rhetoric’, are cultural and ideological, arising ‘out of a time and place, a peculiar social context’ (Berlin, 1984, p. 1). They are influenced by culturally instituted language patterns and education (Hande Uysal, 2008). My teaching maintains a particular logic to the expectations of an essay, its contents and organisation, which I am aware by observation, coheres with colleagues and is often shaped by western traditions. We account for creativity and guard against biases, but the essay is more clearly defined than an arts outcome.

Bibliography

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3) pp. 313-325.

Ball, S. J. and Olmedo, a. (2013) ‘Carre of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities, in Critical studies in Education, 54(1) pp. 85-96.

Berlin, J. (1984) Writing instruction in nineteenth-century American colleges. Illinois: South Illinois University Press.

Biggs, J. (2007) ‘Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning’, in Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S-k (eds.) Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp. 50-63.

Biggs, J. (2012) ‘What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning’, in Higher Education, Research & Development. 31(1) pp. 39-55.

Dewey, J. (1997 [1938]) Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.

Hande Uysal, H. (2008) ‘Tracing the culture behind writing: rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context’, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3) pp. 183-207.

UAL (a) Course Designer: Crafting Learning Outcomes. Accessed 10^th March 2025 <https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/190395/Course-Designer-4-Crafting-Learning-Outcomes-PDF-255KB.pdf>

UAL (b) Inclusive Marking of Written Work Guidelines for Staff. Accessed 10^th March 2025 <https://assessmentfeedback.arts.ac.uk/inclusive.php#:~:text=Inclusivity%20is%20a%20core%20value,noting%20the%20highlighted%20points%20especially>

This reflection addresses the influence of Michel Foucault’s theories on education. Mark Barrow (2006) deploys Foucault’s technologies of the self to argue that education contributes to self-construction and that this is especially prominent in creative degrees, proposing that ‘design assessment is an individualising technology’ (2006, p. 367). This differs from models of knowledge transmission and reiteration in examinations, because creative degrees promote learning through iteration and reflection, documented in a ‘learning journal’ (Barrow, 2006, p. 364). Further, there is ‘an overt expectation that…the design student would display a personal connection with the work’ (Barrow, 2006, p. 363), while assessment is ‘a confessional tool’ that incites ‘students to disclose themselves to their lecturer’ (ibid., p. 364).

My teaching is neither exclusively iterative nor transmissive. It is creative and developmental, but not in the same ways as design/art. My students rarely directly centre themselves in their work, but free topic choice and discussion of positionality, invites them to reflect on their subjectivity and its relationship to their research.

I am resistant to confession because of its association with social control, which is not addressed by Barrow (2006). In my work, I have moderated a dissertation about anorexia and been tasked with asking students to share a moment when they have felt uncomfortable because of their appearance. I am dubious about the appropriateness and ethics of such cases and given opportunities, would re-direct topics.

Unlike Barrow (2006), Stephen Ball (2013) outlines Foucault’s interest in the way education has constructed and maintained social divisions, in what Ian Leask describes as ‘the grim truth of the education process’ (2011, p. 59). In later research however, Ball elaborates that ‘Foucault does not intend that his analyses produce a horizon of absolute subjection and domination, but rather…a horizon of freedom’ (2019, p. 133). This horizon may consist of unending development and potential rebellion, or ‘oppositional micro-politics’ (Leask, 2011, p. 57). My aims are not revolutionary, but this reinvigorates my encouragement of student critical thinking and the destabilising of purported truths.

Reviewing Ball (2013), Richard Niesche notes that the ‘ethical formation of the subject, truth-telling and subjectivity emphasise the productive side of power’ (2016, p. 114). This refers to Foucauldian concepts summarised by Paul Rabinow (1997), which Barrow (2006) uses to conceptualise a process by which the design student is reflexive in self-critique. Here, telos is defined as ‘the act of disassembling the self’ so that the student can finally ‘err from the norm in a deliberate and considered way’ (Barrow, 2006, p. 367). Ball (2019) suggests ways in which this Foucauldian ethical self can be constructed by fostering an environment conducive to experimentation, student self-awareness of context, and critique. He notes that ‘[t]he “classroom” is reconceived as a space of freedom, the “curriculum” as curiosity, and “pedagogy” as a parrhesiatic [bold, free speech] encounter’ (Ball, 2019, p. 137).

This reminds me of the importance of establishing a supportive teaching environment and offering opportunities for students to voice thoughts and debate topics, while empathetically negotiating aspects of the personal. As an HPL in a neoliberal system, pedagogic boldness remains within boundaries. However, I am newly aware of my role in guiding student-subject critical awareness, experimentation and development, which is important for their work, as well as their understanding of themselves as a social subject with agency.

Bibliography

Ball, S. (2013) Foucault, power, and education. London: Routledge.

Ball, S. (2019) ‘A horizon of freedom: using Foucault to think differently about education and learning’, Power and Education, 11(2) pp. 132-144.

Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(3) pp. 357-372.

Leask, I. (2011) ‘Beyond subjection: Notes on the later Foucault and education’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(1) pp. 57–73.

Niesche, R. (2016) ‘What use is Foucault in education today?’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1) pp. 113-118

Rabinow, P. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in, P. Rabinow (ed.) Michel Foucault ethics: subjectivity and truth: the essential works of Foucault 1954–1984, Volume one. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. xi–xlii.

This reflection addresses Learning Outcomes, their emergence and relationship to a neoliberal, market orientated agenda and the tensions in implementing the ‘technocratic ideology of learning and assessment’ in art and design courses (Davies, 2012, p. 4).

Nicholas Addison (2014) highlights the intention of LOs to centre student learning and inclusivity but criticises their limited ability to develop creative responses. He highlights the alternative model of cultural, historical, activity theory (CHAT), rooted in Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) theories, which stress student development as continuous becoming and the tutor as a more knowledgeable guide in a process of learning through proximity, interactions and internalisation. The model applies to studio-based arts education and addresses concerns that LOs fail to respect HE staff integrity. The description resonates with that of group and informal mentoring (Lunsford et al., 2017).

Allan Davies (2012) focuses on similar shortcomings of LOs, also highlighting Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, which shaped the generic and universal qualities of LOs. Davies notes that ‘[i}n the search for accuracy and “clarity”…paradoxically, the more the landscape becomes ambiguous’ (2012, p. 6). He highlights other ways students understand requirements and stresses the need for a clear relationship between expectations placed on students, course content, delivery, and assessment. John Biggs (2007) discusses this as constructive alignment. Drawing of Biggs (2003 [1992]), Davies (2012) advocates a nested hierarchy model for assessment criteria, in which each grade builds on the previous one, indicated by overlapping terminology.

My teaching is within design institutions, sometimes with practice based students, where practice can mean anything from bespoke tailoring to journalism, and sometimes for students enrolled on an academic MA course. The type of sustained relationship Addison (2014) and Davies (2012) discuss, isn’t possible in my department. Cultural and Historical Studies is separated, outside a ‘school’ within UAL. This is reflected in the high level of HPL and part-time staffing, which is rarely understood by students and may contribute to a sense of discontinuity.

As a framework for parity (Addison, 2014), LOs enabled me to assess work without prior knowledge of course or students. Following the above, I understand LOs as a mechanism of the neoliberal model from which I currently benefit, but which sustains the precarity of my employment. I see LOs as a symptom and target of critique, but it is rather the employment structures that shape student and staff experience.

LOs remain dependent on their author (Addison, 2014). Some are clearer and more balanced than others. I find simpler LOs matched to only one grade criteria, the most effective. This shapes my limited opportunities to write them. LOs usually come with briefs, which may be instructive or inspirational and assessment is moderated, points missed in the articles above. Holistically, there is space for staff and student creative interpretation, destabilising claims that LOs are universalising. This is also stressed by Biggs’ (2007) emphasis on the verbs of LOs, which promote active student engagement, rather than a concretised intended outcome. Understanding the construction of LOs and explicit discussion of ambiguities, alignment and criteria, directs my future approach to discussing them with students, prompting me to offer examples of my interpretation when I am the principal assessor and have opportunities to do so.

Bibliography

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3) pp. 313-325.

Biggs, J. B. (2003 [1992]) Teaching for quality learning at University. Society for Research in HE and Open University Press.

Biggs, J. (2007) ‘Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning’, in Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S-k (eds.) Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp. 50-63.

Bloom, B. (1956) A taxonomy of cognitive objectives. New York: McKay.

Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, in Networks, 18, July, University of Brighton, Faculty of Arts, online. Accessed 25^th February 2025 <http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem>

Lundford, L. G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E. L. and Wuetherick, B. (2017) ‘Mentoring in higher education’, in Clutterbuck, D. A. and Kochan, F. K. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring. London: Sage.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice        

 

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 2 hours Seminar for BA Fashion Marketing Year 1

Size of student group: Around 20 students

Observer: Paul Bench

Observee: Misha Xu

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

• Understanding and discussions on how to structure the summative assessment which is an individual report
• Discuss and make all marketing decisions in the simulation game including Q3,Q4.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

• Since they joined LCF in Sep 2024, I have been doing lectures (cross 3 courses), seminars, and tutorials

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

• Understanding the Principles of Fashion Marketing, and reflecting their understanding in the Simulation Game.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

• A marketing report 1500 words
• Students are required to produce a marketing report for a fashion company/brand/retailer/designer of their choice. The report outlines a marketing plan to meet the requirements of an identified target market within a local or global context. The marketing plan should outline clear aims and objectives, implementation activities and KPIs to measure performance and progress towards the achievement of the marketing plan outcomes.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

• No

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

• I will introduce it to students before the seminar starts

What would you particularly like feedback on?

• Student engagement and group participants

How will feedback be exchanged?

• This record form, and email communications

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

The observed session was towards the end of a unit. Through this unit, students engaged in an online team game in which students apply theory in active decision making framed as a competition. This was explained to me ahead of time. The session also served to recap on briefing notes before a summative report submission.

Students were congratulated at the start of the session for attendance across the unit. Encouraging students to log on to the relevant game/application and get into their groups, took some time. While students did this and latecomers continued to arrive, key aspects of the session and imminent deadline were repeated, while students were encouraged to excel in the remaining time.

Unless students had been forewarned of the observer presence, it would have been good to alert them to the observation. Organising late students and group working on laptops, while summarising submission requirements was potentially challenging to manage, but done with ease. The break seemed to come a little early, but this may relate to the flow of the session, the impending game deadline and established protocols.

The session was orderly, with distinct shifts from the login and stress on the game, to more formal submission slides. A combination of clear information about deadlines and what to submit with good explanations about how to format the report and why, was supplemented with more active use of the shared screen. This sharing briefly included the outlook app, but ensuring this is closed ahead of sharing to class might be good in future. Sharing citethemright and Academic Support booking areas on screen might have been good, but this had likely been covered previously.

The presentation of information was thorough and enthusiastic, allowing space for questions. Formal elements at the beginning and in the summative briefing were presented at the lectern and at appropriate volume for the class, while individuals and groups were attended to in a modified tone. The pace of some information delivery could be slowed down. However, by this stage students are presumably well versed on the expectations.

There were a number of behavioural/individual student challenges. This contributed to a challenging situation in which some students had to be introduced to the task while the majority focused on summative activities. Misha demonstrated extremely high levels of patience and empathy, sought the assistance of technical staff and managed everything with ease and an even tone.

Some groups/students were more engaged in the task than others. This is inherent in all group work. Perhaps some attention could be paid to each group more systematically. However, I was only able to observe the first part of an extended session, so all students likely received attention across the span of the full session.

Overall, the session was handled with skill, confidence, technical ability and excellent attention to diverse student needs.

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice        

 

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 2 x online tutorials of 30mins each

Size of student group: students meet one-to-one with tutor

Observer: Misha Xu

Observee: Paul Bench

 

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

These are the final tutorials before student submission of their final year extended essay for Contextualising Your Practice. Grades count towards final degree grade.

Students receive 3 tutorials, which are supplemented with group seminars at points during the unit and drop-in sessions before submission. They should have begun planning their projects before the summer. Not all attend tutorials. A tutorial record sheet is produced during the tutorial and emailed later to the student by the tutor.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

Since early Oct 2024 as an associate lecturer taking seminars and tutorials.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

LO 1 Demonstrate a critical awareness of a range of theories and knowledges relevant to your chosen topic (Knowledge)

LO 2 Critically analyse diverse concepts and ideas (Enquiry)

LO 3 Evaluate and apply appropriate methods related to your research questions (Process)

LO 4 Clearly articulate your research and ideas through an extended essay (Communication)

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

An extended essay (4,500 words) presented in academic format, including bibliography and references.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

It can be hard to fit everything into the session and offer a good balance, especially at this final opportunity and if students have either not done much work or want me to read a finished essay. It can also be hard to balance useful discussion about their topic with making sure they have relevant notes on their record sheet to refer to afterwards, as well as making them aware of the resources available and answering questions, while sticking to time.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students recorded have consented on e-mail in advance.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Any tips for how I could improve the delivery of everything that needs to be covered and anything specific relating to the type of student that I could improve on.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Use of this form. Further notes or online meeting if necessary.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Paul briefed me in advance that the observed sessions are 2 individual final tutorials before students submit their final-year extended essay for the unit of Contextualising Your Practice.

At the beginning of the tutorials, Paul thanked students for giving consent to record the meeting for observation purposes; warmly welcomed students; and checked their progress during the winter break. Students have been offered several opportunities to ask questions before moving on. The submission deadline has been highlighted, Paul also kindly suggested the students submit a bit earlier by considering the potential risk, i.e., technical issues.

The 1^st student managed her own time very well, and made good progress; then Paul kindly checked her drafts and pointed out a few potential areas where she could further improve before submission. The tutorial record form has been completed in the last 5 mins, students left the tutorial confidently with a clear understanding of improvements.

The 2^nd student was a bit behind the progress as he got new ideas during the break and was still in the planning stage for the whole essay. Seems like the student was not sure about the methodology yet, Paul shared the screen and went through the Learning Outcomes in the unit’s Moodle page with the student together. The record form has been completed in detail for the student. Paul goes through and highlights information with the student professionally even some surprises happened to the student’s progress. I am just wondering how the student should submit his Ethical Form for approval, as this is the last tutorial?

The 2 observed tutorials have been managed well in both structure and time with a well-balanced speaking speed. Considering it’s the final tutorial before submission, Paul shared the relevant screens and reminded students of the key date, format requirements, and who can be contacted for further information during the tutorials.

Overall, the online tutorials are very changeling because of the “online” nature, especially for the last tutorial, but Paul managed both tutorials well with a high standard of professional knowledge. In the future, maybe the tutor can request students to update their progress before the tutorials by email at some certain point, especially for tutorials with big breaks in the middle, to avoid “supervised” big changes.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Much of my work is one-to-one online tutorial, which is widely seen as the most effective but hard to implement/costly form of learning (Bloom, 1984; Wiliam, 2011). To write my feedback for Misha, I drew on Jeffrey Fletcher’s notes on the ‘collaborative model’ of peer review (2018, p. 52). This also highlighted that colleagues can be reticent to offer criticism of each other (Fletcher, 2018; Cosh, 1998). I found this to be the case in my observations and interpret this in Misha’s feedback on me. It is also difficult to ascertain how the discrete session responds to the wider curriculum and previous related sessions, which is reflected in the feedback, which necessarily preferences observable behaviours and protocol in the moment.

I appreciate Misha’s note on the introductory elements of the tutorials. These can sometimes be missed in what can be a stressful line up of student tutorials online. It reiterates for me, the importance of maintaining clarity in the purpose of the session as well as the warm welcome, space for questions and administrative aspects, such as deadlines.

Misha noted my attention to student work and the record sheet. It can be difficult close to submission, with students wanting feedback within a brief online meeting, while it remains important to uncover major gaps. It is also always challenging to produce a meaningful record sheet for students to refer back to while reading and talking. I’m pleased that Misha saw what I was aiming to achieve and judged it successful from the perspective of the student.

Misha noted some challenges with the second student, who had good attendance but had surprisingly limited progress. She flagged an ethics form. This is rather a participant consent form, which students are instructed to their tutor. They are reminded of how to submit consent forms in e-mail updates from the unit leader. However, this reminds me of the need to verbally continue to reiterate administrative factors.

Misha highlighted the difficulties of the online tutorial and it reassures me that she found my approach of professional standard. Her point that an update would be helpful is pertinent. However, it is policy that the tutorial remains the space for interaction and feedback. This stresses the significance of timetabled teaching as well as the need for student parity. However, I do sometimes ask students to email work shortly in advance of the session if they want me to look as a specific part of their writing, to avoid time wasting technical difficulties.

Misha interpreted the student’s difficult as a switch in topic, but from my knowledge of his topic across multiple tutorials, it was rather that he hadn’t done much work, including reading. In this case it is frustrating, so I prioritise directing the student as to some fundamentals they need to include to meet learning outcomes and link these to available resources that can support them after the tutorial. This sometimes includes drop-in and Academic Support tutorials, as well as Moodle Toolkits and briefs.

Bibliography

Bloom, B. (1984) ‘The 2 stigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring’, Educational Researcher, 13(6) pp. 4-16.

Cosh, J. (1998) ‘Peer observation in higher education – a reflective approach’,

Innovations in Education & Training International, 35(2) pp. 171-176.

Fletcher, J. A. (2018) Peer observation of teaching: a practical tool in Higher Education, in The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1) pp. 51-64.

Wiliam, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 pp. 3-14.

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice        

 

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Dissertation feedback and grading

Size of student group: Saw students on individual tutorial basis, please focus on 6 students I have first marked.

Observer: Carys Kennedy

Observee: Paul Bench

 

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

Feedback is for the final assessment of final (3^rd or 4^th year) dissertations at CSM. Students are from a range of degrees and have been placed with me in relation to my research interests. The degrees are noted in blue on attached document and include BA Fashion Print, Menswear, Knitwear, Womenswear and Communication and Promotion. I do not teach on other parts of the dissertation or any other units at CSM, meeting students only for up to 3 tutorials (if they attend all) and providing Formative written feedback against formative submission at a mid-way point. Tutorials are spaced out, 11^th Oct, 1^st Nov, 29^th Nov. They are one-to-one online tutorials at times chosen by the student on a scheduler.

I am expected to integrate notes from a second marker fluidly into coherent feedback. I am also expected to use terms appropriate to the Assessment Criteria.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

As above, only meeting online across October and November 2023. Assessment following submission is from Jan/Feb 2024

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

LO1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of how to employ research skills in the development and completion of a major academic research essay (AC Enquiry);

LO2 Demonstrate the skills to synthesise primary and secondary sources in the

formulation of questions and the presentation of arguments (AC Enquiry, AC Process);

LO3 Demonstrate the ability to sustain a focused study and gain depth of knowledge and understanding of an area within art, design, popular or media culture (AC Knowledge);

LO4 Adopt academic conventions in the formulation of ideas, arguments and their

resolution in a reasoned and succinct manner supported by a bibliography and visual

sources (AC Communication).

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

4,500-5,500 word essay with title page, abstract, list of figures (images) and bibliography of sources.

12 point font. Double line spacing.

Images must have captions/source next to them

Appendices include transcriptions

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

It can be difficult to balance being assertive enough so it is clear to the student why they haven’t met Learning Outcomes to perhaps the degree they might have thought, while also remaining sufficiently sympathetic/kind/positive.

Grading is occasionally harder to moderate depending on the moderator, but feedback points are generally similar, making it generally ok to integrate second market feedback.

It can be hard to assess on LOs that have more than one criteria attached, and also pay attention to the criteria matrix.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Assessment feedback is written and for students who have now graduated. As the assessment is within UAL and has been published to the student a year ago, it will not be possible to contact them, but there is limited ethical concern attached to the exercise. Students have also been anonymized for the exercise.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

The quality and nature of my assessment feedback. Any ways I could improve.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Feedback for this exercise, as Carys wishes – email or online meeting.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Thank you Paul for sharing examples of your written dissertation feedback for final year CSM students. I appreciated you taking the time to talk me through your approach to writing this feedback, and the guidance you’ve been given at CSM and LCF about this. For the purposes of this review, I’m focusing particularly on your feedback for ‘Student 4’ (D+, focus on fetish and fashion) and ‘Student 8’ (A-, focus on Filipino Transgender Identities in Film).

When reading your feedback to students, I came away with a very clear sense of the students’ dissertation topics and research interests, almost as if I had read the dissertations myself. This suggested to me that your written feedback is deeply personalised and tailored to individual students. Feedback has an important role to play in fostering a sense of belonging, and my impression was that students would feel seen by your feedback. As well as supporting students to feel seen, the specificity in your feedback will allow students to know exactly what you’re feeding back on, both positively and developmentally.

In Section 1, you noted that “it can be difficult to balance being assertive enough so it is clear to the student why they haven’t met Learning Outcomes to perhaps the degree they might have thought, while also remaining sufficiently sympathetic/kind/positive”. You also explained that the CSM guidance is to address the student directly for positive feedback (e.g. “You have done this well”) and less directly for developmental feedback (“The essay would have benefited from more…”). This is a strategy that you’ve employed well in the written feedback, most notably for Student 4 who had overused quotations which hadn’t allowed space for their own analysis.

You explained that, at the time of writing this feedback, you took notes sequentially and wrote your feedback according to the notes, whereas you now cluster feedback around the Learning Outcomes. You explained that you don’t use the language from the assessment matrix in the body of the feedback as there’s a risk that this might need to be amended post-moderation – which I think is a sensible strategy – and at the same time, it may mean that students are unclear which LO the feedback relates to. Clustering the feedback might mitigate against this, so I wonder how you’ve gotten on with this.

For example, I noticed that for Student 4, you make reference to citation conventions in paragraph 2 and also in paragraph 4 – a minor point, but I did wonder whether a section on LO4 might have been clearer for the student. I did wonder if the second paragraph for Student 4 (starting “You include quotations to set the scene”…) might be a bit confusing, given that you say that some texts “needed to be presented as a quotation” while also saying that they present too much quotation. I feel like I understand the feedback, and was wondering whether it might be less clear (and perhaps feel contradictory) for a student struggling in this area.

For Student 8, you wrote positive feedback focusing on their many successes while still offering developmental feedback. You explained that you have received guidance to avoid developmental feedback for final year students, as they won’t have the opportunity to apply the feedback. Personally, I appreciated the approach you took for Student 8 as it will support them to develop their research skills even further if they go on to further study – and also lets them know why it was an A- instead of an A+.

When talking about your approach to feedback, you were thoughtful and reflective; I was particularly impressed with how you balance your own feedback style alongside the prescribed expectations of the colleges. You shared a little about the different moderation/benchmarking activities you’re involved with, and it was interesting for me to hear how the different colleges approach this. Thank you again for a really interesting conversation, and for sharing your feedback practices with me.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

I appreciated comments that students would feel seen by my feedback in view of my close attention to their work. I find it difficult to skim read and can get bogged down in detail, but this is one positive outcome. A further reason is because I’m aware of the potential of feedback as a reference point if students challenge their grading, specifics helping unit leaders. I appreciated notes that my way of addressing the student worked well, including for the D+ dissertation. I will continue with this.

Understanding that feedback is monitored by unit leaders contributes to a sense of hidden surveillance (Addison, 2014, p. 317), and that judgements are being made on my work by senior staff, potentially impacting on my re-employment as an HPL. Nicholas Addison relates the ‘audit/target culture’  of LOs to student ‘attainment and retention’, but in this case, they contribute to a feeling that I am audited, which is helpful in surfacing issues, but uncomfortable (2014, p. 317). On reflection, this has pushed me to do the best possible job, but permanent staff might not be so motivated, while there is a sense that they have a superior claim on correct assessment because of their integration with students and the curriculum, which I am not exposed to. Carys’ positive feedback gives me confidence that my feedback is generally sound.

Feedback notes my strategy of not including many criteria descriptors to avoid contradiction and student confusion. I sometimes do add these in editing and will be more conscious of doing this, going forward. We discussed clustering feedback, which I have been doing recently. This may avoid some of the repetition noted, but I will continue to add criteria terms infrequently and avoiding contradictory terms across feedback, as without subheadings, it is unclear how the student will read it.

Carys noted potential confusion in my reference to quotations being used well and misused. This was likely a symptom of finding ways to avoid suggestion of plagiarism. In future I will remain vigilant in avoiding contradictions, where possible clustering statements and making comments clearer, e.g. ‘while you have used quotation well in support of your argument, these were not presented in Harvard form’.

Dylan Wiliam notes that ‘feedback is more than just information. It is information generated within a particular system, for a particular purpose’ (2011, p. 4), that is, to focus on specific ways students can improve. My feedback was summative, and I was directed not to stress development. However, this does enter my feedback as a kinder way of indicating missteps. This was appreciated in Carys’ notes and I think it is important. As someone with a design degree, who took a later turn to academic studies, I would have appreciated this. For this reason, I sometimes note the potential for further study in feedback. I see feedback as relating to the student as a person, beyond its function as a record of achievement (Wiliam, 2011) and in hierarchical categorising (Davies, 2012).

I appreciated comments that I managed different expectations, which includes across departments, universities and individual staff. In the observed feedback, I had to integrate moderator comments into my own. Carys’ feedback did not flag an issue, suggesting this was done this seamlessly for the student, which is reassuring.

Bibliography

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3) pp. 313-325.

Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, in Networks, 18, July, University of Brighton, Faculty of Arts, online. Accessed 25^th February 2025 <http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem>

Wiliam, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 pp. 3-14.

I am Unit Leader for Fashion Histories on MA Fashion Cultures and Histories at LCF. Last year I was able to shape content and modify a brief. The unit is structured around weekly guest lectures and seminars. It has two assignments (figs. 1, 2 and 3), with associated briefings and development activities, including mind mapping and peer review tasks, the latter as advocated by Phil Race (2001). I give lectures and accompany students on visits, which are especially advocated in history pedagogy (Snelson, 2010).

The unit guides student understanding of the contingencies of history, encouraging reflexive understanding themselves as researchers. This is reflected in the Learning Outcomes (fig. 4). This framing of history as unstable, chimes with ‘critical pedagogy’, which links ‘classrooms to broader societal ideologies’ (Semper and Blasco, 2018, p. 484). The construction of historical narratives is discussed, while selfhoods are constructed through ongoing dialogues between student-peers, myself and other tutors (Barrow, 2006; Semper and Blasco, 2018).

It was challenging to meet the needs of diverse students with different cultural experiences, education and professional aspirations. It is also challenging to work within teaching hours and with multiple academics across institutions and specialisms, while aligning these to LOs.

I was keen to reflect student diversity in the speakers, decentring myself and my potentially internalised biases (hooks, 1995). These efforts contribute to breaking down white western dominance in fashion histories and respond to UAL’s commitments to social purpose, which highlight that ‘cultural experiences…bring joy, meaning and purpose’, while stressing ‘inclusive societies’ (UAL, p. 6). As Emily Henderson (2019) points out, invited lecturers may bring uninvited elements that break with convention. This element of the uncontrolled worked well in offering plural knowledges and narratives, and therefore remains fundamental to the unit.

For coherence, I communicated with speakers in advance and verbalised links between lectures and visits. For example, a lecture about Chinese fashion was followed by an object analysis session at CSM Special Collections, which I had guided by requesting East Asian related objects. This had the unexpected benefit of offering a Chinese student opportunities to translate a historic text and enthusiastically explain it to the group. She had also felt confident with the British-Chinese guest speaker to share her family history. This evidences a success in diversifying speakers, as well as a ‘constructive alignment’, whereby students actively learn by doing, in relation to intended outcomes (Biggs, 2007; figs 2, 3 and 4, LO 3). I will continue this practice, deploying it more widely.  

In alignment with the LO for Enquiry (fig. 4 LO 1), I asked speakers to outline their professional trajectories. This offered students exemplar career templates and illustrated research arenas, which could have been part of the ‘hidden curriculum’ (Semper and Blasco, 2018), but my rationale was made explicit to students. Students were inspired and engaged, but assessment revealed that the Enquiry LO remained infrequently met to a high standard.

LOs have been criticised as distant from discipline specificity and as homogenising (Davies, 2012), while offering parity and sufficient ambiguity for creative responses (Addison, 2014; fig. 5). For this unit, the discipline is central and I oversee implementation, including through assessment. To help students, I intend to modify the LOs and produce a submission checklist (UAL Reducing Referrals).

Bibliography

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3) pp. 313-325.

Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(3) pp. 357-372.

Biggs, J. (2007) ‘Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning’, in Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S-k (eds.) Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp. 50-63.

Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, in Networks, 18, July, University of Brighton, Faculty of Arts, online. Accessed 25^th February 2025 < http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem >

Henderson, E. F. (2019) ‘The (un)invited guest? Feminist pedagogy and guest lecturing’, Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1) pp. 115-120.

hooks, b. (1995) ‘Talking art as the spirit moves us’, in Art on my mind: visual politics. New York: The New Press. pp. 101-107.

Race, P. (2001) A briefing on self, peer and group assessment. York: Learning and Teaching Support Network. Accessed 2^nd March 2025 < https://phil-race.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Self,_peer_and_group_assessment.pdf >

Semper, J. V. O. and Blasco, M. (2018) ‘Revealing the hidden curriculum in Higher Education’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37(5) pp. 481-498.

Snelson, H. (2010) Chapter 20: Educational visits. In, Ian Davies (ed.) Debates in History Teaching. London: Routledge.

UAL https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/411486/social-purpose-implementation-plan.pdf

UAL Reducing Referrals https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/190155/AEM-Reducing-referrals-PDF-304KB.pdf

For the object-based microteaching exercise I planned to spend 5 minutes establishing access to Padlet (fig. 1), the aims of the session (fig. 2), a succinct theoretical framework (fig. 3) and practical instructions (fig. 4). The latter included participants choosing an accessible object. Participant analysis of objects was then structured around three phases of five minutes each for description, deduction and speculation. Slides explained each phase, including by way of academic quotation (e.g. description, fig. 5). This made phases distinct, while linking theory to practice. Participants were encouraged to post notes onto Padlet, where an exemplar had been uploaded in advance (figs. 6, 7 and 8). Feedback flagged this as useful (figs. 9), prompting me to continue the strategy.

I aimed to combine my experience of object-based archival pedagogy with that of online activities in which students select objects from their homes. While objects can be used to prompt wider discussion (Willocks and Mahon, 2023), I wanted to focus on analysing objects themselves using Jules Prown’s (1982) method, which is useful for both academic and creative practices. My aim was for participants to gain knowledge of the analytical process, reflect on what material culture is and how it gains meaning, while understanding their analyses as situated within the field of material cultures studies (Miller, 1998).

I hadn’t accounted for difficulty in switching between slides and the Padlet. As I began, I realised I could not see both at the same time, which was disorientating. I verbalised this to participants. I had to present from slides without being able to see and comment on Padlet posts or see a clock. Consequently, time ran out, leaving stages of the process and discussion incomplete.

I managed the difficulties well, which was reflected in feedback that I seemed unphased (fig. 10). In later tutorial, we discussed whether it was necessary to verbalise technical hitches. I will keep this in mind, acknowledging that student and my own experience are not equivalents. Such collective reflection helps me challenge my ‘narrative account’ of the session and ‘to excavate the underlying qualities that made it significant’ (Amulya, 2004, p. 3). I am reminded to foreground the student experience, which was largely positive.

Verbal feedback noted text-heavy slides, while typed comments highlighted that they were clear, not overwhelming, insightful and a useful reference resource (figs. 11 and 12). I interpret this slight contradiction in relation to comments about dividing attention between slides/tutor and the activity (figs. 9 and 12). This induces me to work on sequencing and paring back material to maintain student focus and to practice delivery within timeframes.

Feedback referenced my ‘reassuring and welcoming’ manner, highlighting the choice offered to students (fig. 13). This makes me conscious of positive intuitive behaviours, which I will actively foster. Participating in other sessions gave me a student’s perspective. From this, I draw the positive impact of verbal discussion, physical activities and actively using online resources. I am also prompted to consider how text can be summarised, illustrated and verbalised.

Bibliography

Amulya, J. (2004) What is reflective practice? Center for Reflective Community Practice Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Accessed 24thFebruary 2025 at <https://www.careinnovations.org/wp-content/uploads/what-is-reflective-practice65.pdf >

Miller, D. (ed.) (1998) Material cultures: why some things matter. London:

University College London Press.

Prown, J. D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, Spring Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Willcocks, J. and Mahon, K. (2023) ‘The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 187-207.

I was invited to give three lectures for MA Fashion Photography, with an open brief but the implicit rationale of highlighting academic research for practice-based students. I did not have a sustained relationship with the group or course. From available cues, they were all young and a diverse cohort of about thirty. Here, I focus on my final lecture in which the challenge consisted of introducing queer studies and histories, while remaining inclusive, with sufficient minority representation in slides, and within a discrete two hour session that included a break.

I was unsure how relevant students would find historical detail, as well as how to deal with Western biases and the need to relate queer studies to fashion photography. In a previous session, a student complained about her perception of a male centred discourse. To address her concerns, I had an informal chat with her at the end of that session and it emerged that she wanted more lesbian representation.

Arts education has been particularly linked to student self-becoming, because of its stress on continuous development and self-reflection (Barrow, 2006). Without such prolonged engagement, my lecture was a more transmissive supplement to studio practice. I was however, aware of its potential significance to the identity formation and social awareness of students. While this prompted special efforts in slide preparation, in future I will consider ways to increase student reflexivity, for example by brief discussion about what they know or how they have experienced social circumscriptions.

Such a strategy overcomes some barriers of diverse pre-existing student knowledge. John Biggs (1993) discussed this as Presage, the first phase of a three-step process followed by Process (the class) and Product (in this case, comprehension that understandings of sexual and gender identities are unstable and have histories). While I cannot cater individually to students in a two hour lecture, space for reflection and discussion, would increase the relevance of topics for students, while encouraging ‘autonomous learning’ and community building within a diverse cohort (Bamber and Jones, 2015, p. 153 and p. 163). This could be developed by allocating students an image to investigate (Willocks and Mahon, 2023), which also serves to illustrate the value of research as collateral learning (Dewey, 1997 [1938]).

Susan Orr and Alison Shreeve (2017) note the significance of ‘passing on your knowledge’ and the potential of eliding practice and teaching, one ‘paralleling’ the other (2017, p. 97). This prompts me to reference my own research as exemplar, in future. Research in creative disciplines can be ambiguous and ‘lacks clear definition’, while ‘[t]here may be some requirements to “read” around a subject area…’ (Orr and Shreeve, 2017, p. 93). This induces me elaborate on the nature of research, asking students about their practice and suggesting ways academic research can support it.

I tried to represent diversity in slides and included comparisons between contemporary queer photographers and historic examples. This received positive student feedback. While I was concerned some UK focus, the vocal student responded actively, relating this to her experience in Bulgaria. Reflecting the view that ‘teaching is a personal issue’ (Semper and Blasco, 2018, p. 481), I discussed my education in relation to Section 28 in the hope that students would critically reflect on their own education and experience. This worked, judging from expressions, attention levels and verbal responses.

Bibliography

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging Students: enabling inclusive learning’, in A handbook for teaching and learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge. pp. 152-168.

Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(3) pp. 357-372

Biggs, J. (1993) ‘From theory to practice: a cognitive system approach’, Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1) pp. 73-85

Dewey, J. (1997 [1938]) Experience and education. New York: Touchstone

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. London: Routledge

Semper, J. V. O. and Blasco, M. (2018) ‘Revealing the hidden curriculum in Higher Education’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37(5) pp. 481-498.

Willcocks, J. and Mahon, K. (2023) ‘The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 187-207.