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.

Here, I reflect on bell hooks’ chapter Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us (1995). hooks’ (1995) theme of needing to be initiated in order to see, and indeed see past internalised cultural biases, resonates with Stuart Hall’s (2013) discussion of cultural competencies. I discuss the latter concept with students in visual analysis lectures. Hall (2013) stresses that people bring different knowledge to their ‘readings’ of culture, while hooks (1995) less neutrally reminds us that ignorance can be dangerous or harmful in uneven societies. Both prompt me to consider the different knowledges of students, while hooks (1995) offers me angles with which to encourage student reflection on ethics and positionality.

In discussing Edward Lucie-Smith (1994), hooks (1995) highlights the imposition of value systems formed in, and imposed from, a position of dominance. The question of value, how and who accords it and to what, is the subject of discussions with students about the work of Pierre Bourdieu (2010 [1979], 1993). While Bourdieu (2010 [1979], 1993), is usually discussed in terms of class and cultural production, hooks (1995) directs me to think about how value is distributed in uneven societies, especially in relation to race/ethnicity.

hooks (1995) notes the continued politics of domination and the centring of white viewpoints, which UAL’s commitment to decolonising the curriculum (UAL online and zines) aims to address. As UAL’s notes on decolonising highlight, by foregrounding Frantz Fanon (2008 [1952]), there is a relationship between the action of the coloniser and the response of the colonised. In terms of my teaching practice, this centres me and my actions as interlinked with those of my students and their experience. In this case, the potential for racial (and other) internalised biases.

I acknowledge that ‘[i]t is not easy to change one’s own teaching practice, as teachers often teach in ways they were taught’ (Whittaker and Broadhead, 2022, p. 68). My student experience is be rooted in politics of the past, as well as being different from the cultural experience and needs of students today. In response, I remind myself of the privileges I have as a white man in a position of power as a lecturer and reflect on how I appear to students from diverse backgrounds and who are overwhelmingly younger than me.

I have tried to diversify the communities and cultures I discuss with students. I worried this may seem tokenistic, an issue hooks (1995) highlights, but has proved worthwhile. Where possible, I have also decentred myself by engaging diverse academics, allowing a greater number of students to see aspects of their identities reflected in speakers.

On the theme of identification with the self-like, hooks (1995) notes disidentification. I associate this term with José Estaban Muñoz (1999) and queer or intersectional gaze theory (Evans and Gamman, 1995). Other points within the chapter also resonate with queer studies. Like hooks (1995), I highlight the contrary responses or strategies to systems of oppression, but with reference to lesbian and gay movements, which aimed at assimilation or, to use hook’s term, revolt. hooks (1995) points me towards prompting students to contemplate whether and how far either strategy can be right or wrong, and the potential for stereotyping any strategy within the mainstream.

hooks (1995) notes the difficulty of making change without conforming to stereotypes, while operating in the dominant culture that confers value. This correlates with Eve Kosofky Sedgewick’s (1994 [1990]) explanation of the double bind placed on queer people who are silenced but induced to confess identity.

Such binds are echoed in teaching experience. Some dissertation students have wanted to question why they are encouraged to plumb their cultural heritage for design inspiration. Other students have used their dissertation voluntarily to explore cultural heritage or sexuality. It reinforces for me, the importance of not making assumptions about students’ cultural backgrounds, competencies and interests. Much like hooks’ (1995) understanding that the actual content of an exhibition differed from its advertising, I am reminded to listen carefully to what students want to achieve in their work, rather than impose my ideas about what constitutes a ‘good’ dissertation (etc.), while helping them meet learning outcomes.

Bibliography

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The field of cultural production. Edited by R. Johnson. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2010 [1979]) Distinction. Translated from the French by R. Nice, 1984. London: Routledge.

Evans, C. and Gamman, L. (1995) ‘The gaze revisited, or reviewing queer viewing’, in Burston, P. and Richardson, C. (eds.) A queer romance: lesbians, gay men and popular culture. London: Routledge.

Fanon, F. (2008 [1952]) Black skin, white masks. London: Pluto.

Hall, S. (2013) ‘The work of representation’, in Hall, S., Evans, J. and Nixon, S. (eds.) Representation. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

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

Kosofsky Sedgwick, E. (1994 [1990]) Epistemology of the closet. London: Penguin.

Lucie-Smith, E. (1994) Race, sex, and gender in contemporary art. London: Art Books International ltd.

Muñoz, J. E. (1999) Disidentifications: queers of color and the performance of politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Whittaker, R. and Broadhead, S. (2022) ‘Disaggregating the Black student experience’, in Broadhead, S. (ed) Access and widening participation in arts higher education: practice and research. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

UAL: https://decolonisingtheartscurriculum.myblog.arts.ac.uk/

Here, I reflect on the set reading by Judy Willcocks and Kieran Mahon (2023), which examined the potential of using object-based teaching approaches online. I know Willcocks because I take MA students to the CSM collections for object handling sessions. I am aware of material cultures research from my PhD (Prown, 1982; Miller, 1997). I also teach object analysis as a research method, supported by Moodle toolkits and texts such as The Dress Detective (Mida and Kim, 2015).

It was interesting to learn from the article how this session used an object to discuss the sensitive and complex topic of colonialism and its legacies, with a large group over two days. The interactive map on Padlet had some potential in my own teaching and was a feature I didn’t know about. However, some of my students recently expressed frustration with Padlet when used in conjunction with in-person teaching and it has been abandoned on a course I teach on.

I was impressed by the work the authors put in to organising such an event online for so many students. This was also a downside they acknowledged, highlighting the higher level of preparation needed for online activities. They made use of multiple available online tools. However, from my experience, this can become confusing and overwhelming for students as well as staff.

Karen Harris (2022) notes the pressures of in-person teaching for introverted learners, positing that online spaces offer a sense of control and reduce anxiety. Lee Leewis and Stacey Leigh Ross (2022) discuss the potential of Miro boards to create online spaces for continued learning outside designated teaching, allowing students to take ownership of discussion. They note that this is ‘like having a physical studio’ (Leewis and Leigh Ross, 2022, p. 77), implicitly understanding that online spaces can replicate aspects of real-life experience but not substitute it. This differs from Harris (2022) who advocates for the radical potential of online.

The appropriateness of online teaching and learning may depend to a large degree on what is being taught, for how long, on what courses and to what end. I personally find breakout rooms difficult to manage and have had sessions where student with cameras off are actually likely absent, so other students are left in digital rooms on their own. This is not the kind of silence I think Harris (2022) wants to embrace, while her focus on introverted learners is a reminder of the diverse needs in any cohort.  

Willocks and Mahon (2023) used an analytical process proposed by Gillian Rose. This is a cornerstone of my teaching of visual analysis (Rose, 2016). While positioned as object-based learning, Willocks and Mahon (2023) used the object as a visual source. This differs from my experience of object-based learning and material cultures research, which stresses materiality and sensory experience.

Having returned to classrooms after the pandemic, in the type of teaching I engage with, I would not instigate taking such exercises online and integrating so many tools and exercises. Rather, online talks and materials could supplement in-person object handling sessions, group discussion and presentations. The advantages the authors found refer to the use of historical artefacts in understanding the topic, but this would be the same or increased for in-person learning. I am however, inspired by the use of a Padlet map, opportunities for creative group responses and the centring a difficult subject on a single object as a prompt.

Bibliography

Harris, K. (2022) ‘Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom’, UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1) pp. 101-104.

Leewis, L. and Leigh Ross, S. (2022) Home sweet home: achieving belonging and engagement in online learning spaces’, UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1), pp. 71-81.

Mida, I and Kim, A. (2015) The dress detective: a practical guide to object-based research in fashion. London: Bloomsbury.

Miller, D. (1997) Material cultures: why some things matter. London: UCL Press.

Prown, J. D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, Spring 17(1), pp. 1-19.

Rose, G. (2016) Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. 4th edn. London: Sage.

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.

UAL Research Methods Toolkit: Material Culture and Object Analysis: https://ual-moodle-sitedata.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/f7/78/f778c5f52bcec4187ae885daa25fff8d001bb5b4?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22MaterialCultureObjectAnalysis%20ToolKit.pdf%22&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA2PCH3OG65JHUZNKL%2F20250218%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20250218T100613Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21587&X-Amz-Signature=cacd45ec205258d284a083f6cf9ae2e2d4217d86747cea19820254321b5cd2e9

Hello,

I’m Paul and I’m an Associate Lecturer in Historical and Cultural Studies across institutions, degrees and degree levels. Most of my work is now at London College of Fashion, but I also supervise BA dissertations at Central Saint Martins and do assessment elsewhere.

Most off my teaching is geared towards supporting students in the writing of end of unit/year essays, however I am also Unit Leader for Fashion Histories on MA Fashion Cultures and Histories at LCF. This is the main cohort with which I have a sustained relationship. I have more recently begun teaching cultural studies and research methods with MA Fashion Photography, which has given me new opportunities to shape lesson structure and content. Having this control with a practice based course is a new experience and I’m hoping the PGcert can help with my approach.

I’m excited to be doing the PGcert because several colleagues have done the course and I’m aware they have a better informed, more reflective and concise approach to managing teaching sessions. I hope that like them, I gain a broader understanding of how to plan and manage seminar sessions in creative ways. I also hope this knowledge and qualification will support future job applications so that I gain a level of permanence in my own schedule and longer relationships with cohorts, enabling a longer view in my pedagogic strategies.

Taking the position of a student again has already reminded me of the demands and logistics in the background, which it’s easy to forget in the classroom, giving me renewed empathy for students. I’m also looking forward to meeting colleagues across colleagues and learning about and from their practice.

Hello PGcert

I teach Historical and Contextual studies and hope the PGcert will give me new ways to engage students.