Category: Theories, Policies, Practices

Posted on

Case Study 3

Assessing learning and exchanging feedback

Contextual Background

Currently, the unit learning outcomes (LOs) exist primarily as an artefact in the handbook, rather than a practical tool that is equally utilised and understood by both students and tutors. Additionally, the formative assessment process in BA Product and Industrial Design is essentially a standard design forum or tutorial under a different name. There is no explicit requirement for students to evaluate and their learning outcome progression at this stage.

A more structured approach, ensuring constructive alignment between learning outcomes, curriculum delivery, and planned learning activities, may allow formative assessment to become a meaningful milestone for student learning. It could serve as a formalised opportunity for students to present their enquiry, knowledge, and process in relation to the learning outcomes, rather than an informal progress check.

Evaluation

There are three key issues that need addressing:

  1. The lack of explicit intention in how learning outcomes are embedded in unit learning activities.
  2. A lack of transparency and clarity for students and tutors regarding how LOs connect to learning activities.
  3. The gradual trivialisation of formative assessment, which reduces its impact as a learning opportunity.

The first issue will require an analysis of current activities, including lectures, Design Forums, and assessments, to see how they map to the learning outcomes. To improve transparency and clarity between students and tutors, the integration of learning outcomes into the unit must be iterative—meaning they are revisited regularly throughout the unit rather than being mentioned once in the unit briefing and again at submission. Finally, the formative assessment process should be restructured. Instead of mirroring a Design Forum or tutorial, it should be reframed as a curated presentation, requiring students to demonstrate their learning in direct relation to the unit’s LOs. This differentiation would encourage reflection and help students see formative assessment as a distinct, structured milestone, rather than just another tutorial.

Moving Forwards

Constructive Alignment. Biggs (2003) describes constructive alignment as a model where, “students construct meaning through relevant learning activities” and teachers “set up a learning environment that supports the learning activities appropriate to achieving the desired learning outcomes.” At present, our learning activities are loosely aligned with learning outcomes but tend to be structured more around the stages of the design process. This raises the question: Are we truly aligning learning outcomes with student development?

Our goal is to help students develop “functional knowledge”, which is the ability to “…reflect, hypothesise… and generate new alternatives” rather than simply describe or identify.” (Biggs 2003). This is particularly relevant to design forums and tutorials, where students often default to describing what they are doing and presenting unsynthesised information. While understanding the ‘what’ of their process is important, formative and summative assessments should require deeper reflection, showing how students interpret their learning and how it informs their critical decision-making.

To establish this shift, formative assessments should be structured as a reflective and evaluative learning opportunity, distinct from the lower-stakes, informal nature of tutorials. This could help students better gauge their own progression in relation to the learning outcomes.

Visualising Assessment Patterns. Mark Russell (2010) introduces a way of diagramming assessments across multiple modules, categorising them as low-stakes, medium-stakes, and high-stakes assessments. While BAPID does not currently operate with overlapping modules in the same way as Russell’s models, we do have concurrent design research and development activities, which could benefit from similar structuring.

One persistent issue is that students struggle to connect their Reflective Paper to their self-initiated project research. Each year, many students focus solely on the Reflective Paper, pausing hands-on design research and concept development instead of conducting these activities in parallel with the paper.

Reframing the Reflective Paper as one strand of a concurrent learning process—rather than a standalone task—could help students integrate it more effectively into their overall design practice. If we were to visualise the Reflective Paper as a module with distinct low or medium-stakes assessments running in parallel with hands-on design research, students might better understand how the two areas inform one another.

At present, our assessment model is linear, depicting a start-and-stop progression between design research and design development activities. By shifting to a concurrent model, we could create clearer connections between contextual research and practical design work, making assessment more meaningful and integrated into the learning process.

References

Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. (Second edition)

Russell, M. (2010) University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. Available at: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf (Accessed: 14 March 2025)

Posted on

Case Study 2

Planning and teaching for effective learning 

Contextual Background

Students value one-to-one tutorials, but in terms of policy and course management, this format does not optimise student learning time (SLT). While student experience improves with one-to-one tutorials (based on NSS results and anecdotal feedback), many students do not utilise these sessions. The challenge in course approval and planning is to modify the delivery of tutorials to maximise SLT while ensuring that all students benefit equitably.

A logical solution is to introduce mandatory small-group tutorials, which raises key considerations:

  • What learning outcomes (LOs) can be intentionally supported through mandatory group tutorials?
  • How can we differentiate mandatory small-group tutorials from other similar learning activities, such as Design Forums?
  • With an average of 110 students in their final year on BAPID, delivering longer-format mandatory small-group tutorials will need to be spread over several weeks, even months.
  • A practical concern is that students will be at different stages in their projects, and some may prefer to meet with tutors at specific points—for example, during design development rather than early-stage research.

Evaluation

A key strategy in addressing these challenges is to analyse learning activities in relation to the intended LOs. This includes assessing the distinct roles and overlaps of supervised studio group work (at various project stages), Design Forums and small-group tutorials.

By mapping these activities against learning outcomes, we can clarify how they contribute to student learning and where they build on one another.

Another goal is to foster a more cohesive learning environment that encourages students to engage critically. A common issue is that students often remain passive in group activities. While we must be sensitive to student anxieties and experiences that may affect participation, a multi-modal approach to small-group tutorials could offer alternative ways for students to engage comfortably.

Moving Forwards

Peer Learning Opportunities: In Peer Learning, “students take responsibility for their educational experience, rather than being dependent on, and subordinate to, the teacher (Rubin & Herbert 2010)” (Coorey 2016). Small-group settings have the potential to catalyse peer learning, but do not guarantee participation. Developing strategies to ensure active engagement is critical, as peer learning supports both student thinking and professional development. Coorey (2016) highlights that peer learning is a critical skill, as it enables students to take turns as both teacher and learner, strengthening communication and collaboration skills. Research indicates that students working in small groups “tend to outperform their peers in key areas, including knowledge development, critical thinking and social skills, and overall course satisfaction” (2016).

In addition, peer teaching fosters confidence and self-esteem (Coorey, 2016). However, individual characteristics such as introversion, anxiety, intelligence, and sociability can impact participation in peer learning situations. It is the tutor’s role to facilitate cooperation and tactfully address barriers to engagement. Five essential elements must be utilised for peer learning to reach its full potential: positive inter-dependence, individual and group accountability, face-to-face interaction, appropriate use of social skills and group processing (Johnson & Johnson 2008). We will explore how these elements might be achieved in a hypothetical example: 

Structured Crits and Small Group Tutorials. The challenge of providing 1:1 tutorials equitably with large class sizes (100+), means small group tutorials are an opportunity to better support specific learning outcomes and augment student experience. In BAPID Unit 9, LOs 1, 3 and 5 (as they are currently written) can be developed through structured small group tutorials. Assuming an example of small groups of 3-4 students and 1 tutor, students can be asked to prepare a short agenda for the group in advance for what they would like to review with their time (i.e., individual and group accountability). In addition, questions prompts for eliciting and receiving feedback can be provided by the tutor in advance to students, supporting those who might be anxious or unsure how to constructively engage (i.e., appropriate use of social skills and group processing). Furthermore, advanced agenda-setting and allowing students to define what they would like to get out of the peer learning session (i.e., positive inter-dependence), can hopefully help students think critically about their work and develop invaluable group communication skills, whilst helping them understand communication styles that are personally useful.

References

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.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (2008) ‘Cooperation and the use of technology’, in Spencer, D. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 3rd edn. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 401–418.

Posted on

Case Study 1

Knowing and meeting the needs of diverse learners 

Contextual Background

In my teaching context, I work with a diverse cohort of design students—home and international students, as well as students from marginalised communities. A key challenge is ensuring that the curriculum is inclusive and reflective of diverse experiences. Part of the challenge is knowing how to identify and challenge the outsized influence of Western-centric, Eurocentric, and Global North notions of what is considered “good” design. Many students may feel disconnected from dominant design narratives, which often exclude non-Western perspectives and historical contributions from ethnic minority and marginalised groups and people.

Evaluation

To address these challenges, a decolonisation of the design curriculum is needed. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Friere, 1970), Paulo Freire argues that education should not be a top-down process of knowledge transmission but rather an interactive dialogue where students critically engage with knowledge. My aspiration is to introduce more student-led discussions, where learners critically analyse and challenge dominant design histories.

Additionally, referencing The Black Experience in Design: Identity, Expression, and Reflection (2022), I aim to explore ways to embed intersectionality and plurality for a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive design discourse. This text provides insights into how design education might move beyond a Eurocentric framework, ensuring students see themselves and their cultural identities reflected in design practice.

There is also a need to support students and staff with varying levels of confidence in discussing race, identity, and power in design. Some students are open to engaging in these discussions, while others find it difficult to move beyond traditional models of design education. Structured support and frameworks will be needed to make these discussions more accessible and productive.

Moving Forwards

The strategies and practices will be in reference to Unit 9, which is the self-initiated project brief.

Helping students analyse their intersectionality, positionality, and situationality in the identification and framing of design research directions is a priority. Much has been written on these aspects, but all lead to what Freire describes as a “problem-posing education” rather than a “banking education”, where in the former, “people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality but as a reality in process, in transformation.” (Freire, 1970, p.56).

The goal is not to replicate existing paradigms, but rather to help students find value and confidence in their lived experience. This might also encourage students to seek out authentic marginalised voices and ideas to frame new areas for their design exploration.

As a starting point for their self-initiated project, students could begin a “thematic investigation”—a process Freire (1970, p.80) describes as striving “towards awareness of reality and self-awareness”, that serves as “a starting point for the educational process or for cultural action of a liberating character.”

This investigation could be introduced at the end of the year to Stage 2 and DPS students through lecture and thematic investigation workshop, allowing them time for informal reflection over the summer, before formalising their approach when they begin Stage 3. The aim of this critical approach is to help students question paradigms or the everyday seemingly mundane – the practices, processes, interactions, and ways of doing that visibly or invisibly influence our lives. Using their personal experience as a starting point, and critically examining why things are the way they are, students might look beyond their experience to inquire about what it might take to improve conditions or establish alternate discourses on any variety of issues or challenges, on both micro or macro scales.

In addition to supporting students, staff must also evaluate how our academic design spaces and practices perpetuate cultural bias. In The Black Experience in Design, Jennifer Rittner describes the fallacies of “cultural fit” in design workspaces. As academic studio culture aims to, in part, professionalise students, we must be cognisant of our potential bias towards a Eurocentric cultural hegemony. Rittner writes:

“In design spaces, the challenges of identity have manifested more insidiously, as a preference for an aesthetic defined by European Modernism – which draws as much from African, Black, and global diasporic cultures as it does from strictly European traditions. European Modernism came to define excellence in the field, and so to seek acceptance as a designer has required mirroring European Modernism and its disciples as closely as possible.” (Berry et al., 2022, p.40)

This systemic problem is difficult to address. While the course is generally aware of the historical social and cultural biases in design, we must remember to focus on how the student evidences the learning outcomes. In doing so we must be ready to vigilantly question ourselves and other staff regarding potential bias when feedback veers into subjective preferences, as these might be informed by a “default whiteness” (Berry et al (2022); p.40) in design culture.

References

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

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Posted on

Blog 4

Reflections on Learning Outcomes

I thought I had it. Thought I finally grasped what was special about the learning outcomes as a tool for evaluation and assessment. Thought I had a solid plan and justification for communicating learning outcomes in a structured way. In my mind it was a “square peg into square hole, round peg into round hole” type of answer: clear and straightforward. And then I read ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’ (Davies, 2012) and remembered design education is never straightforward. The creative process, especially one that is qualitative, creative, and emergent can’t be put in a neat box. But we try anyways, for good reason: so that students understand “what [is] required of them on their course and… how and why they [are] being assessed” (Davies, 2012).

The article provides a historical overview of why learning outcome were concocted to address inherent problems and bias with assessment criteria. But still, cognitive ability and creative thinking and all of the accompanying creative attributes that are meaningful to the arts and design practice (e.g., imagination, risk taking, criticality, inventiveness, etc.) are not easily captured by learning outcomes; also, meaningful learning not easily measured, but emerges through a complex holistic practice (Davies, 2012).

Davies problematises learning outcomes to show that it is a necessary but imperfect system. Students do not have successful learning experiences because of Learning Outcomes – it’s the holistic learning journey that builds over years, established through different support systems. Nevertheless, LOs set the learning expectations and provide a map for the student to understand the “intended landscape and boundaries of their intended learning.” (Davies, 2012).

Coming back to my opening point – I’ve written about constructive alignment (see Case Study 3) and how I intend to refine learning activities against LOs and communicate to students how the learning activities intend to develop their creative attributes against the roadmap of the Learning Outcomes. My realisation is not so much an insurmountable problem or barrier, but re-recognition that the goal of mapping LOs to activities and assessment is not addressing the right objective. The paradox is that in “the search for accuracy and ‘clarity’… the more we seek to map… the more the landscape becomes ambiguous.” (Davies, 2012). Needless categorization can result in not helping the students see the forest from the trees. Therefore, the communication of learning activities to learning outcomes should focus on articulating the meaningfulness of the activity within the wider LO picture. If there’s a sense from the students that learning outcomes can be quantified by measuring activities this needs to be challenged.

Constructive alignment is still a planning objective, with more frequent communication of learning activities and their meaningful relation to outcomes. In addition, a secondary objective requires clarifying to the students that the demonstration of learning outcomes is not a tick-box exercise, rather it’s a holistic account of how they have critically an creatively engaged with the creative attributes expected within the discipline of design.

References

Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design: What’s the recurring problem?’. Issue 18. July 2012. Available at: University of Brighton (Accessed: 15 March 2025)

Posted on

Blog 3

Reflections on “Using Things” (Ahmed, 2019)

“Using Things” (Ahmed, 2019) is a contemplative reflection on the multifaceted meanings of “use”. Ahmed dissects “use” with precision, revealing its social, cultural, quantitative, qualitative, tangible, intangible, visible, and invisible dimensions. “Use” is not merely an action in the present but a temporal history, a biography of things (Ahmed, 2019) that offers insights into the past, present, and future dynamics of societies, cultures, and ecologies.

Ahmed also highlights how the invocation of “use” wields power, grants privilege, and carries trauma. It determines who can and cannot use something, shaping access and exclusion. She describes how colonialism is justified as using what is unused (Ahmed, 2019), illustrating how “use” can function as a tool of oppression. This perspective complicates traditional understandings of design affordances, a concept typically referenced in design education through Donald Norman (1988). Norman’s approach to use is sterile and limited, focusing on usability, feedback loops, and perceived functions of objects. In contrast, Ahmed presents use as systemic and metaphysical. People can be “used up” when the world is not built to accommodate them, and the inability to use—especially being denied use—can result in real psychological and emotional trauma.

Ahmed’s argument, influenced by her expertise in feminist and queer theory, challenges us to examine who designs, who has power and agency, and for whom the world is truly designed. This echoes the themes of Invisible Women (Perez, 2019), which exposes gender bias in data collection, leading to unjust, inequitable, and even dangerous outcomes in the design of products, services, and systems. Perez illustrates how design often defaults to the average white male as its standard, ignoring the needs of women and marginalised groups. While Norman’s work remains foundational in design education, to foster more just, equitable, and human-centred design practices, students need to engage with these critical discourses on power, exclusion, and systemic bias.

A growing concern in design education at UAL is the decline in student engagement; also critical thinking due to many factors like shorter attention spans and AI tools. Many factors contribute to this trend—too many to explore in this reflection—but one possible reason is that students may not feel comfortable stepping into these complex conversations. Activities and discussions structured around Ahmed’s framing of “use” could offer an accessible entry point, allowing students to critically engage with wicked problems in design in a more intuitive and tangible way.

References

Ahmed, S. (2019). What’s the Use?: On the Uses of Use. Duke University Press.

Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. London: Chatto & Windus.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.

Posted on

Blog 1

Don’t try to be smarter than your design… Reflections on “Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017)

“Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017), immediately resonated with my reflections on pedagogy after more than three years of teaching. Reading it felt like when you suspect your phone is listening because an ad or YouTube recommendation appears just after a conversation—reading this paper had that same uncanny relevance.

When I first joined the BA Product and Industrial Design course, I wanted to integrate opportunities to mirror professional practice and better prepare students pragmatically. My friends and I felt in some regard that our MA design course could have helped us develop mental frameworks and fundamental skills found ubiquitously in different design environments. I still believe this, but my perspective has become more nuanced. The ability to plan, think critically, and work collaboratively should be prioritised, but how do we help students make better decisions in their design work? The paper defines professionalism as “the ability to make the transition from higher education into practice… to evaluate their own work and behaviour in the context of a workplace environment and the demands of industry.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). Seeing this articulated in research reassures me about my contributions to the course and how I assess student learning.

Crits exercise critical thinking. We use crits on the course, but they are often muddled with tutorials, lacking structure. Crits should push students to defend their decisions critically—a skill that is only fully realised at summative assessments or interim concept pitches. These deadlines often trigger a last-minute rush in decision-making, but much of the process leading up to them is full of uncertainty and hesitation. In professional practice, decisiveness is crucial—you must make creative leaps and test assumptions rather than endlessly deliberate.

Despite crits being valuable, we do not do enough of them—not necessarily by choice, but due to logistical constraints. With over 100 students, parity becomes difficult, and elements like crits often get sacrificed.

Another gap is in how students reflect on development work… Many collect vast amounts of research, arranging it neatly across Miro boards or slides, yet active reflection and synthesis are often missing. Students conflate documentation with analysis, believing that compiling research demonstrates critical engagement. In reality, they delay synthesis, waiting for clarity before moving forward—this hesitation paralyses decision-making rather than helping it.

Dialogue is another challenge. Space limitations hinder informal discussions, preventing small moments of discourse that could spark new insights. Staff workloads and administrative demands further reduce opportunities to facilitate dialogue. How do we create time and resources to foster meaningful, spontaneous exchanges?

Material exploration and physical making is also in decline. Many students leave making until the final stages rather than integrating it into early decision-making. This reminds me of George Saunders’ reflection on writing:

“Every true novelist listens for that supra-personal wisdom, which explains why great novels are always a little more intelligent than their authors… The writer opens himself up to this ‘supra-personal wisdom’ by technical means. That’s what ‘craft’ is: a way to open ourselves up to the supra-personal wisdom within us.” (Saunders, 2016)

Scaling this down to design, there is wisdom in the act of making itself. My advice to students would be: “Don’t try to be smarter than your design.”

The concept of signature pedagogies acknowledges the tacit soft skills essential for professional life. This shift in my understanding has been significant—embedding these skills in teaching is as vital as technical proficiency. Teaching strategies suggest incorporating active practice into pedagogy, or developing practice within an academic framework where students are positioned on “the periphery of the community of practice” (Orr, 2017). In theory, this is ideal, but in practice, time constraints and mismatched course structures make it difficult. However, when possible, bringing vulnerability and transparency into pedagogy can be incredibly valuable for student learning.

Engaging in personal practice outside academia is another challenge—time, financial barriers, and even visa regulations create obstacles. Yet, the tension between education and professional practice is something I’ve wrestled with for years. Should we try to recreate the experience of practice within education? Or is that the wrong question? The paper articulates this tension well.

What I’ve settled on, for now, is that teaching should not attempt to simulate real-life practice but rather re-contextualise it. Decision-making, understanding design processes, applying methodologies, and articulating them across different challenges—this is the crux of what we should teach. The creative freedom of academia allows for knowledge creation unconstrained by industry pressures, and this should be valued rather than seen as a limitation.

Higher education is not just about curriculum-based learning; it is also about helping students discover their best, most confident, empathetic, and engaged selves. The paper reassures me that preparing students for the real world “is not solely the province of the tutor structuring learning activities.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). This recognition reminds me that our role as educators extends beyond skills training—it is about fostering ways of thinking, questioning, and engaging with the world.

References

Orr, S. & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [1 January 2024].

Saunders, G. (2021) A Swim in a Pond in the Rain. London: Bloomsbury.

Posted on

Blog 2

Reflections on “The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy” (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019)

The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019) explores what learning the moral goods of design teaching support. It examines the activity of critique and the value it fosters in students and teachers in professional, academic and personal learning. This exploration has helped me develop a clearer, more critical, and nuanced understanding of critique and how the studio environment prepares students for professional and academic practice. At the same time, it highlights that design pedagogy should not strive to be a perfect simulation of professional practice—nor can it be.

In academia, the moral goods of design studio are enacted through critiques, which serve as a “point of access” to professional design practice (Macdonald & Michaela, 2019, p.7). My BSC experience in engineering lacked critiques entirely. When I transitioned to MA-level design education, critiques were present, but their connection to professional practice remained ambiguous. The perception was that critiques primarily influenced my grades, which, in turn, affected my employability. Consequently, I viewed critiques as a siloed academic exercise rather than a bridge between academic and professional design practices. Like many students, I only fully recognised the moral goods of education in hindsight—once professional experiences revealed how critiques had helped develop the critical thinking and interpersonal skills essential in design environments.

In my own teaching, I aim to make the moral goods of critique and studio culture clearer for students. A key objective is to help them develop a holistic understanding of critique, recognising that these activities—whether formal or informal—extend beyond academic assessment and serve as preparation for professional practice. However, it is important not to take an overly pragmatic approach by drawing direct one-to-one parallels between critique and professional practice, as education’s value and goal is broader than professionalisation alone. The relational aspects of education, such as pastoral support and the development of soft skills, have lasting impacts on students’ growth.

For example, the significance of being respected by design professionals as a student—a quality that is difficult to quantify but profoundly meaningful. Similarly, critique plays a role in self-cultivation for educators. Higgins (2010, p.191) states: “…ongoing self-cultivation on the part of the teacher is a necessary condition for fostering self-cultivation in students.” In this way, the moral goods of design pedagogy are not simply a means to an end (professionalisation) but an end in themselves. When critique is conducted respectfully, equitably, and generously, it can contribute to the well-being and fulfilment of both students and staff.

References

Higgins, C. (2010). The good life of teaching: An ethics of professional practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 44(2-3), 189-478.

McDonald, J.K. and Michela, E. (2019) ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Design Studies, 62, pp. 1-35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.02.001

Posted on

ROT 3

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

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Design Forum sessio

Size of student group: 5-6
Observer: Kwame Baah
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 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.

Posted on

ROT 2

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:

Posted on

ROT 1

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:

  1. To divide the work and work more efficiently, given the tight 30-minute window allocated to each group in both the morning and afternoon.
  2. 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.