ROT 3

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice: Kwame observes Jeff

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 a small group Design Forum. Students are researching and designing for brief set buy an industry collaborator. This particular forum group is working on a design brief set by TfL. 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?

• LO1 – Identify and critically analyse material to interpret an agenda and direction for design activity in an externally set project. (AC Enquiry)
• LO2 – Manage a complex client project and exercise sound judgement and decision making in navigating conflicting demands. (AC Process)
• LO3 – Make effective choices in design process  within a client-set design project that has relevance to current developments in the subject. (AC Realisation)
• LO4 – Visualise and articulate the ideas you have realized and communicate these effectively to a range of audiences. (AC Communication)
• LO5 – Demonstrate responsibility for personal and professional objectives (AC Knowledge)

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

• Students will present their project’s research and design development to a small group of students working on the same brief, an HPL mentoring on the project, and two Stage Leaders for feedback.  
• Feedback and discussion should help student navigate conflicting demands in their project and refine their plan for further design research and development.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

• Ensuring equitable participation in team discussions.
• Managing time effectively.
• Balancing creative exploration and discussion 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?

• The effectiveness of the feedback. Particularly if feedback helps the student plan their next steps with clarity and intention.
• Student engagement and participation in the Design Forum.
• Quality of research questions and planning for ongoing design development.
• 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:

It was really good to see you in action, along with your colleagues and students in a collaborative crit that is often the reserve of STEM subjects: Collaborating on critical thinking: The team critique. Your approach was more focused on assurance questioning to understand student completion of critical tasks such as funding acquisition for their workshop and identifying agendas for creating project synergies. This was a useful direction for students reflecting on all the tasks they needed to carry out and co-related issues that out to happen within close proximity to achieve project delivery.

You further focused on the different activities that could be carried out in the short term whilst encouraging the students to think about existing realities and research to map out possibilities and research of environments. This led you to question who would take care of the project once it was completed, giving it a continued lease of life. That was really critical thinking beyond project completion for how organisations could help with project continuation if they were consulted to participate.

In each project you were particular about project scaffolding and partner buy-in for the existence of continuation after the project was delivered. It is rare to have tutors that encourage students to think of project concepts, evaluation and continual existence. I consider you an asset to the students and their development of future projects beyond the institution. I would like to know about the different locations in which students receive project critique and support because I experienced an interesting pedagogy in a very different location when I consider UAL creative subjects.

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

This observed session differed from our usual Design Forum format. Typically, Design Forums involve one HPL leading crits (or design reviews) with small groups of 5–6 students for 1.5 hours each, or 1:1 crits (or tutorials) led by the HPL. This particular session followed a small-group format, which was unusual because Stage Leaders rarely have time to sit in on Design Forums.

Opportunities like these are valuable for academics, as they allow us to observe and learn from others’ teaching styles, practices, and specialist knowledge. At times, they can also provide a healthy validation of our own teaching approaches when we see aspects of our thinking or methodology reflected in others’ practice. This is not to say we should strive for “homogenisation” of critical thinking (see Berry et al. 2022), but engaging in external design practice can be difficult for academics. In my experience, seeing design practitioners from different backgrounds collaborate to provide a critical yet cohesive learning experience for students reassures me that I am not out of touch with relevant design discourse in certain pratices.

The small-group crits with Adrian and Stine were enjoyable. In the context of a PgCert observation, I initially felt that there might be too many voices in the room, with all three of us engaging in dialogue with students. I was also conscious of not speaking just for the sake of contributing to the observer’s notes, which I recognise as a lack of confidence on my part. However, as the feedback developed, each tutor offered advice informed by their professional expertise, and we all acknowledged and built upon each other’s contributions and those of the students, creating a critical and collaborative space for discussion.

My approach tends to be pragmatic, focusing on helping students understand design processes and research methods in relation to their specific project contexts. However, something I would like to improve—something I see others, like Stine and Adrian, do well—is providing design examples that relate to student projects.

Finally, in response to Kwame’s enquiry—“I would like to know about the different locations in which students receive project critique and support because I experienced an interesting pedagogy in a very different location when I consider UAL creative subjects.”—our approach to crits varies. We use both small-group and 1:1 formats, sometimes led by tutors and sometimes facilitated through peer-learning workshops (Coorey, 2016). The Unit 10 projects Kwame observed are industry collaborations, namely with TfL, which presents both social and technical challenges. This kind of project requires a participatory approach and a certain pragmatism regarding implementation. In some cases, clients show genuine interest in developing student designs, meaning that real-world considerations—such as maintenance and repair in public spaces—must be factored in early.

References

Berry, A., Lu, A., Rittner, J., & Simmons, A. (2022). The Black Experience in Design: Identity, Expression, and Reflection. New York: Allworth Press.

Coorey, J. (2016) ‘Active Learning Methods and Technology: Strategies for Design Education’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(3), pp. 337–347. doi:10.1111/jade.12112.