Category: ROT

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.

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:

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.