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 25th 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 2nd 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
