Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice: Shanu observes Jeff
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Design Practice Workshop
Size of student group: 10-12
Observer: Shanu Walpita
Observee: Jeff Doruff
Part One: Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
- This session is designed as a practical workshop for students to analyse a design brief critically and develop a structured team research plan. It is part of a broader curriculum focused on research methodologies and team collaboration in design projects.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
- I have been teaching these students since September 2025. These particular groupings of students are working together for the first time in their project teams.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
- Understand how to break down a design brief effectively.
- Identify key research areas relevant to the project.
- Develop structured research questions.
- Create a research plan with clear tasks, methods, and timelines.
- Work collaboratively in research groups.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
- A breakdown of the design brief, including client goals, constraints, and user considerations.
- A list of key research areas (e.g., market trends, user research, sustainability, etc.).
- Research questions for each identified area.
- A structured team research plan, including methodologies, tools, and timelines.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
- The session is fast-paced, which may not suit some students.
- Ensuring equitable participation in team discussions.
- Managing time effectively to complete the research plan.
- Balancing creative exploration with structured research methodologies.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
- Students will be informed at the beginning of the session that an observation is taking place for developmental feedback purposes.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
- Effectiveness of briefing and instruction clarity.
- Student engagement and participation in group work.
- Quality of research questions and research plans developed.
- Time management and pacing of the session.
How will feedback be exchanged?
- Verbal discussion at the end of the session OR
- Written feedback provided after reviewing session observations.
Part Two: Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Student engagement:
Jeff’s session was clear and engaging. His approach is friendly, conversational and informative. He was confident with the material he presented and was able to provide useful contextual and practical recommendations throughout the session.
There seems to be a great teaching dynamic with his co-worker Adrian, which sets the tone for an overall positive and discursive atmosphere in the classroom.
He started the session by checking if students had any questions about the brief, which had been delivered the day before. The pacing of the session was good overall. There was enough time for students to present their initial feedback and to also explore a project management timeline together.
Students appeared to be very engaged and had come well prepared for the session. They had clearly followed the instructions from the previous briefing – which is indicative of a successful unit briefing. I was really impressed with their level of preparedness. To note also, students arrived on time.
Teaching method:
Jeff’s teaching method during this session was discursive and open. There was no lecture, workshop or demonstration as such – the aim was for students to present their work and feedback on their developments / concepts. As they were working in groups – the goal was for them to take turns discussing their research foci.
Although this was not a purposeful decision, I liked that students were sat around a big table. I think it encouraged conversation and felt less formal. Room set-ups can have a big impact on the way a session feels – for staff and students. A big table also feels more collaborative – which is also the focus of the unit.
Overall:
Based on the observed interaction and student engagement, it is evident that Jeff successfully achieved the overall aims of the lesson. Student demonstrated comprehension of the brief and presented strong ideas. Jeff seems calm and engaged with active listening throughout.
Suggestion/s:
At one point, a student was asked by Jeff/Adrian to be the scribe for the whole group. She was happy to do this but perhaps not everyone would feel comfortable taking that role? Perhaps something to be mindful of in future.
There was an exercise to map the timeline – would it be good to consider this as a digital asset? Or to get the whole group to work on the timeline together? That way it feels more collaborative.
It might be good to give more formal time for questions – I noticed a few students stayed behind at the end to ask 1:1 questions. Could there be a Miro / Padlet for students to add general questions? Or a sharable resource that captures Q’s? The entire group could benefit from seeing the questions – they might have the same ones.
Are there defined roles when you teach with someone else? Or do you share the responsibilities equally?
Would it be useful to add a session aims / reminder of the LOs’ at the start of the session?
Is it useful to add SDS – or prompts at the end of the session – so that students understand what the next steps are? And also how this session maps to the learning journey of the unit more holistically?
Part Three: Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
I planned for the session to be a rapid-fire workshop, incorporating hands-on small group work that would then feed into a larger group discussion. The aim of working in small groups had two main objectives:
- To divide the work and work more efficiently, given the tight 30-minute window allocated to each group in both the morning and afternoon.
- To encourage participation from those who may not engage as readily in larger group discussions, by giving them a more active role within a smaller setting.
I initially planned the session with the assumption that I would be running it alone, but my colleague decided to attend at short notice. Since we had different teaching styles and had not reviewed the session plan together beforehand, the session ended up running differently than expected. Nevertheless, the session was productive, even though it functioned more as a large group discussion, rather than small-group work feeding into a wider conversation, as originally intended. This altered the morning workshop sessions, but I enjoy this aspect of workshops and collaboration, where as a facilitator, adapting to group dynamics is often necessary—as long as the session objectives are achieved.
Reflecting on the session, as expected, some students contributed more than others, while a few remained silent or disengaged throughout. Because the morning workshop activities were adjusted on the fly, I cannot fully evaluate the effectiveness of certain activities in promoting participation.
In relation to my ongoing PgCert research, Shanu’s suggestion—whether it would “be useful to add a reminder of the LOs at the start of the session?”—makes a lot of sense. As I discussed in Case Study 3 regarding assessment, I believe we can enhance academic delivery by making it explicit how learning activities—such as this workshop—are intended to support students’ development in relation to the learning outcomes. Additionally, a key area for improvement is to revisit the learning outcomes regularly throughout the unit, rather than glossing over them in the unit briefing and again around the summative submission. My working hypothesis is that if we clearly demonstrate (before an activity begins) how it aligns with the learning outcomes, students will be more likely to engage, knowing that it factors into assessment.
Finally, as Shanu observed, it would have been more effective for the entire group to work on the timeline together, rather than relying on a single scribe. This was my original intention, but in practice, it did not unfold that way. I believe there were several contributing factors. Some were qualitative – students may have been shy, disengaged, lacking confidence, or struggle with communication. Other reasons are logistical – I did not provide enough materials such as pens and Post-it notes, and students often do not bring their own writing tools unless prompted.
Whatever the reasons, I think we need to develop more structured opportunities throughout the course for students to practice facilitation and active participation. Setting clear expectations—for example, relating these critical skills to the learning outcomes – could help encourage students to find ways of contributing constructively, critically, and in ways that feel comfortable for them.
