Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice: Jeff observes Shanu
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 1:1 or small group tutorials
Size of student group:
Observer: Jeff Doruff
Observee: Shanu Walpita
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?
General Overview:
This is an informal Work In Progress Open Studio Session. Students are working independently – but are encouraged to provide / give peer feedback. Staff are present to offer formative feedback in this session.
Session Context:
Students are in the 6th week of the Independent Project unit (level 6 – year 3). This is their large 40-credit unit. There are three stages of this unit: Ideation, Prototyping, Production.
They are in the ‘prototyping’ stage of the unit. Students should have their creative concepts finalised and are now working on the creative development/testing of their ideas.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been working with this year group for almost 3 years – as their course leader. I am also a tutor on this unit, working with students who need more support generally – but also with two students who are aligned to my practice. I am present to give general feedback at WIP sessions.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
Unit LO
- LO1 Conceive, propose and articulate a creative project based on research insights (knowledge)
- LO2 Demonstrate iterative processes in concept, design and technical development and exploration of potential creative solutions (process)
- LO3 Effectively communicate creative ideas to audiences visually and in writing using appropriate techniques and media (communication)
- LO4 Lead, manage and reflect on the delivery of a creative project (realisation)
Session intentions
- Students to articulate the development of their concepts
- To evidence ideation and beginnings of their prototyping//testing journey
- Staff: to provide guidance, support and answer contextual / practical questions
- Staff: to push students to try a variety of media
- Staff: to encourage students to consider the wider planning and implantation of their ideas (project management)
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
- A Project Proposal + Supporting Materials – this is what they will be working on it the session
- Final Creative Outcome/s
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
- This is an informal session – there is not format or formula
- Ensuring feedback provided is equitable and fair across a large cohort Student engagement
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?
- Student engagement and participation in group work
- Time management and equitable feedback/feedforward for all students Delivery 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:
General Observations
During this open studio session, Shanu provided tutorials to seven students (Irefer to them as Student 1, 2 3, etc.).
Shanu is an attentive and active listener with a calm and reassuring approach. Students primarily discussed the contextual elements and positioning of their concepts, alongside the early creative development of their proposals. After listening intently, she guided students into critically analysing and reflecting on their process and prior research through casual but intentional questioning. Some students had multiple (too many at times) aims and objectives within their conceptual direction, and Shanu’s questions helped them to clarify and articulate their project’s value proposition, and prioritise key objectives. Through this didactic process, she helped the students refine their project framing by strengthening the problem statement and defining their audience.
Shanu is good at clearly repeating students’ ideas back to them. This helped students reflect on their own knowledge, recognise what their aims were, and then consider an apt approach to development and testing moving forward. It was a good example of helping students develop critical practice (or perhaps praxis?).
Additionally, Shanu provided relevant design precedents and examples to inform students’ work, explaining their social, cultural and/or technological significance in relation to each project.
Shanu maintained a well-structure and consistent flow in her tutorials. After listening and constructive questioning, she consistently concluded each session by having students reiterate key point discussed, and then suggested any additional things to think about. She also incorporated an emotional check-in, asking how students felt about their work, often times reminding them to not lose sight of their interests. This demonstrated a strong example of pastoral care, allowing students to express their feelings without pressure to disclose personal details, especially in a group setting.
Suggestions
As stated before, Shanu gently challenges students to cogently and concisely frame their concepts, primary aims and positioning , often times suggesting ideas or questions for them to consider. This is well done, but sometimes there was a missed opportunity to perhaps help students move beyond questions and create a plan of action and define specific activities, tools, or methods to help them research a particular question, or validate an assumption though prototyping and testing. Nevertheless, an example of where Shanu did this well was when advising Student 7 whose concept involved creating a zine for rural queers. Shanu advised the student to consider how people come to learn about this product, and encouraged the student to challenge their assumption that Grindr was the main point of entry for their audience. She advised that they visualise the aims and means of each step in the user/product journey and helped the student formulate a plan.
Lastly, given that this is the prototyping phase of the Unit project, more discussion on how students might prototype the concept from a technical/practical perspective could be beneficial. However, helping students clarify and prioritise their aims is also very helpful.
Requested Areas of Feedback
Delivery of the session, student engagement, and participation in group work
Shanu’s colleague introduced the session by explaining the aims and emphasising the importance of collaborative work. Students were encouraged to use the open studio time to leverage each other’s creativity, knowledge, and skills. A structured studio activity was introduced at the beginning of the session (via a Miro board outlining various steps), but the tutorials largely focused on feedback and feedforward for concept development rather than facilitating group work based on the Miro activity. This is a minor critique, as both approaches served the goal of refining project framing and planning for creative development and testing.
More on group work: while tutorials were primarily one-to-one, Students 1 and 2 participated together in the tutorials with Shanu. The time was evenly shared and each joined in giving peer-to-peer feedback and building on Shanu’s feedback and design/creative references.
Time management and equitable feedback/feedforward
Shanu maintained a consistent rhythm, delivery, and tone across all tutorials.
Time was managed well, with most students receiving approximately 10-minute discussions. In an open studio session, rather than following equal time allocation, ensuring each student feels seen, heard, and supported is arguably more important. Not all students require the same duration; for example, some may refine their project narrative in seven minutes, while others may need twelve. Prioritising equity of experience and support over rigid time distribution (within reason, of course) may be more beneficial in practice.
Final Thoughts
Students appeared motivated and more confident after their discussions with Shanu, which is perhaps the most significant indicator of effective teaching.
Part Three: Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged: