PgC IRL. Our first face to face session in the PgCert with our full tutor groups.
In this seminar we were to consider approaches to designing and planning for learning across a number of levels. From large groups of whole courses, to smaller sessions, and individual activities. we looked also at approaches to teaching that address the challenges and capitalise on the opportunities of different teaching modes, aims, and environments.
Some resources used in the workshop today.
- The Allan Davies article i discussed in this post
- The Course Design Toolkit
- UAL assessment Guide
- Learning Outcomes regulations assessments
- Eight Quotes used in the session and Bibliography
Preparatory work
In advance of the session we were asked to select and have to hand a “unit brief, session plan, teaching artefact or details of a learning activity from a course you teach on.” We’re going to stick things on the walls, so a print out is useful (but not essential).
I chose to prepare an explanation of grain direction, and the two books we use in the workshop to demonstrate their difference between the two, and how it affects the book
We used these documents as a springboard for discussion, on what could be improved to help communicate the ideas or principles each object brought up, and questions that arose that could lead to perhaps a redesign. I spoke with Matt Denney and we had a broader discussion about what happens if the students don’t understand, or choose to ignore the concept of grain direction. What is the role of failure then in the context of making? How much is learning that needs to come from past failures, and how do we as teachers negotiate this “failure” or error ?
How long / how many attempts does it take for this information to “click” with students, and when it dies, does this information impact on their conceptual decisions? Could they opt for “wrong” grain or materials to aid an idea? For example, a book that doesn’t want to be read, opening poorly and breaking quickly due to the wrong grain direction being used in the binding, or pairing a binding style with a page count that isn’t sympathetic.
In regards to Matt’s object, which was the UAL learning Outcomes for his course, we discussed the idea of “Micro-Assessment”
Do the students know we are checking in at tiny intervals to see if they understand before we move on or impart more information? Do they react honestly to let us know how much they understand? or do they give us the answer they think we want, so that they may get on with thier lives in peace?
I noticed during the session that Lindsay and John would walk to the other side of the room when someone in the group was asking a question, or speaking out loud. It never felt like they walked away , but it meant that the speaker always had to project their voice across the room to communicate to the “safe” person- the teacher.
In our workshop, we demonstrate to groups with us (teacher) behind our workstation, and the students observing from the other side. This means that everyone can see, and everyone is close enough to ask a question if they so wish, but I do notice that I can loose them to the ‘herd’ of the class and often students ask the peer next to them if they missed something, or didn’t understand.
I wonder if there is a way of incorporating something like this to encourage the groups I teach to speak out more, or not to rely on their friends understanding rather than to ask a question.
I noticed in the discussion, that the aim of a lot of these conversations is to “end with questions”. As a technician, with a very problem solving focus to my role, this feels alien, and uncomfortable. I have been taught to find the answers to every question that is brought up. I trust this feeling will subside as I begin to understand the value of learning over longer periods of time again.
The discussion of the session moved then towards assessment, and the learning objectives for both ourselves, and our students. I remembered the Albert Einstein Quote – “Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it would live it whole life believing that it’s stupid.”
A cartoon has since expanded on this idea, in regards to standardised testing, saying that if you compared standardised testing to asking a fish, a monkey, a giraffe and an elephant to climb a tree, only one would graduate, and the rest would be failures.
We discussed further how even an understanding of this concept- at art school, can still show itself up. The students know they need to experiment, so they all do the same three things to show that they have been experimenting. The experimentation itself, becomes formulaic, and nothing more than a tick-box exercise. I see this in the workshop, when students have an idea, but want it to be finished as soon as possible. I often encourage them to test, make dummies, try different materials out to find the one that works best with the concept, and so often the reality is that they take whichever option will have the project finished fastest.
Somewhat ironically, the class was then lead to discuss our own learning objectives for the PgCert. I was thankful to be paired with a vert “scholarly” peer, as I find distilling the jargon in these elements almost unbearable.
In the spirit of finishing with questions, here is what came up for me today.
– What does it mean to split people up into A,B,C,D?
– What is the purpose of grades, and putting someone into a grade? What does that person get out of it?
– What does A+, or excellent mean? Does everyone want to be excellent by the predetermined standards?
– How might all of this have an effect on the conceptual and physical work my students are making?
Book recommendation: RESEARCH FOR PEOPLE WHO (THINK THEY) WOULD RATHER CREATE by Dirk Vis
What is artistic research? What is a research document? How do these relate to the making process, invention, and creativity? What exactly is expected of me? If you have ever asked yourself any of these questions, then this book is for you. Research For People Who (Think They) Would Rather Create addresses all relevant aspects that need to be considered during a research and documentation process, such as: finding the right topic and approach; formulating your research question; working out your methods; choosing one or more suitable writing styles; and considering the possible roles of visual, virtual, auditory, embodied, and spatial materials.
Research For People Who (Think They) Would Rather Create shows a multitude of examples from the field of art and design – each of which illustrates one specific aspect of developing a thesis, essay, paper, research document, or however else it may be referred to in your own setting. You can read this book from cover to cover, or you can immediately flip to those subjects which you find most relevant at any given moment. Ultimately, Research For People Who (Think They) Would Rather Create is an invitation to contribute – quite literally, with your own projects, examples, and questions – since the ultimate goal is to help you develop your own research.
Footnotes on Feelings
I was excited to meet my peers today, but also nervous due to the feeling of not being scholarly enough. I was worried that this feeling would amplify in a group setting, as seemingly all the other students could discuss and keep up a discourse, that I felt i was having to translate before i could join in.
Luckily though this feeling dissipated almost immediately, as everyone in the group is very friendly, and though there is a real difference to the experience of teaching for technicians, this difference was welcomed, as exposure to a new and distinct style of teaching, which has as much to offer as any academic background.