My comments to my peer on their practice below – these are extracted from the Observation Form, attached here.
” It was great joining the seminar session. A few points I picked up on below:
I very much liked how you set the tone from the start, getting everyone settled in and providing a clear context for what was happening during the session.
You opened the teaching part by linking the contents to the previous lecture, and checking for any follow-up questions, which I thought it was very helpful to reinforce the links between both sessions as a context for this seminar.
It was noticeable that most of the group was engaged with the material, following your teaching on the big screen. While attention dropped a little occasionally, your use of examples and guidance helped bring everyone back on track.
It was impressive how much ground you covered in just an hour, maintaining a light pace without sacrificing depth in your explanations.
Your use of examples –i.e. the customer profiles- was really effective. Your explanations on why those were good examples to follow, and giving tips by highlighting the positive elements on them made the task even clearer.
Moving on to the activity, you explained it clearly, and the group responded instantly and engaged in their groups.
There weren’t many questions from the group at class level. However, everyone seemed comfortable and positive, which speaks to how approachable you come across. You actively checked on everyone in the class at some point and managed to check in on each group in the first few minutes of the activity, making sure everyone was happy and clear with the task.
I appreciated how you made every piece of content and conversation relevant to the assessment and kept the energy relaxed and flexible.
Giving a heads-up a few minutes before wrapping up was helpful, and most groups started closing their discussions with enough time to move on from the activity. I thought that this evidenced that you were in good control of the timings all throughout the seminar, despite the challenging amount of content and the multiple discussions you assisted.
Your wrap-up to the session was clear and concise, providing a solid overview of the key points and what comes next.
Some suggestions:
Time allowing, checking in with the whole group more regularly could help keep them more consistently engaged during the teaching part –i.e. maybe throwing out some questions to gauge or encouraging them to connect the dots themselves, rather than just presenting all the content.
I hope this is useful. Thanks a lot for inviting me to join! I really enjoyed it, and it was very helpful for my own practice. “
Teaching across multiple courses, years and units of different nature is giving me the opportunity to observe and experience the teaching and learning culture present and ever developing at UAL. In the recent academic years, I am detecting an increasing passivity among students, who seem to very much focus entirely on meeting the assessment requirements to successfully complete their course; this is, about responding to the enquiries they are presented with by the tutors in as long as they directly contribute to the final grade, with little evidence of concern about their own learning process, experiences and takeaways. A good example of this is the generally decreasing engagement with formative assessment activities, as many students fail to see the value of these for their own learning process and outcomes.
EVALUATION
I appreciate that multiple factors might be contributing to generating this learning culture among students, most of them being of socio-cultural nature; however, given the culturally diverse range of students present at UAL, I am inclined to consider the common elements that might be influencing this. Being self-critical, I look into my own teaching practice and spot a couple of areas that might be playing a role:
1. Accessibility practices and policies for disability and neurodiversity.
While I celebrate the strong EDI commitment within the UAL’s strategy and find most approaches and materials helpful to my own planning and teaching, I also observe that some of these practices might be contributing to generating a passive culture among students upon their own learning. It is now expected that students are provided with micro-guidance and granular instructions on every task they are presented with, as well as all sorts of complementary resources lists –i.e. curating and facilitating access to podcasts, films and documentaries, exhibitions and events, etc-.This might be jeopardising their curiosity, autonomy and the development of skills such as research or analytical thinking.
2. Emergence and popularisation of technologies like AI.
So many possibilities keep arising for students to become overly reliant on AI-driven technology, which could stifle learning – especially the development of critical thinking. There is also a risk that more time spent using AI systems will come at the cost of less student interaction with both educators and classmates, compromising the extracurricular learning experience. Thus, purely result-oriented delivery of content seems to become redundant, since all teachable knowledge is available and easily accessible, and the new and endless sources of information can formulate it into the requested task as required.
Reflecting on how these factors combined play a role on the teaching & learning process -and the student experience in particular – leads me to focus on two correlated concepts: student agency and critical thinking. I am keen to explore alternative approaches and practices in my teaching that help minimise the challenges the above factors present, and rather, capitalise in the opportunities they might also imply.
MOVING FORWARD
I am keen to ideate on more tailored practices to encourage critical thinking through promoting student agency and the sense of ownership over their own learning. I draw on the ideas of authors Bell Hooks (1994) and John Dewey (1938), who advocate for creating inclusive and democratic learning environments where students are active participants in the learning process rather than passive recipients of knowledge. This would mean dismantling traditional hierarchies and promoting more inclusive, participatory, and empowering learning environments in higher education. I intend to do this while still offering the appropriate support and guidance based on individual needs, which will require ensuring enough flexibility in terms of contribution formats, channels and timings.
I plan on implementing a content planning approach to one of my teaching units, in which content creation hierarchy is redistributed and co-owned by the tutor and the students. It will still be built on the essential contents and readings and the approved learning outcomes, but it will also require students to define their own approach and explore what complementary learning they aim to acquire along the learning process, as well as researching their preferred formats and materials, case studies and examples.
While I envision this to be an individual process – for each student to actively contribute by tailoring their own individual learning-, I plan to implement it by creating working groups – most likely at the student choice – where they can exchange ideas, discoveries, or new interests and curiosities to explore further. These will be permanent working groups for the duration of the unit, and a share of each session will be allocated to group work, so they will prepare and run their own micro-sessions freely. This is significantly based on Paulo Fraire’s work on critical pedagogies (1970), which emphasises the importance of dialogue, collaboration, and the removal of hierarchical structures in education to empower learners and promote critical thinking.
Drawing on the unit content delivered and guided by tutors, the content seen and discussed within their group, and their own contributions, each student will then reflect on their own individual learning and relate to their own intended learning outcomes.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Simon and Schuster.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Student Agency: A Motivational Construct and Its Relation to Cognitive and Metacognitive Engagement. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 144-160.
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.
Hughes, J., & Rodgers, P. A. (2014). Fostering Student Agency in the Classroom: A New Look at Innovative Pedagogy. TechTrends, 58(2), 21-28.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2017). Promoting Student Agency Through Teacher–Student Partnership in Learning: An Intervention Study. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1557-1570.
Moe, T. M., & Chubb, J. E. (2009). Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics, and the Future of American Education. Jossey-Bass.
Orón Semper, J.V., Blasco, M. Revealing the Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. Stud Philos Educ 37, 481–498 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9608-5
Quaglia, R. J., & Corso, M. J. (2014). Student Voice: The Instrument of Change. Corwin.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Prentice Hall.
Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67-79.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD): Alexandria, VA.
Zacarian, D., Silverstone, M., & Alvarez-Ortiz, L. (2017). Teaching to Empower: Taking Action to Foster Student Agency, Self-Confidence, and Collaboration. Corwin.
Reading: Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?, Allan Davies (2012)
This article discusses the development of learning outcomes, and more specifically in relation to the specification of the assessment criteria in art and design education. It emphasizes the importance of aligning learning outcomes with assessment criteria and providing clarity for students. It also discusses challenges in articulating outcomes and criteria in creative disciplines like art and design, where the focus is often on intuition, imagination, and creativity, which are difficult to measure.
Davies suggests a need for meaningfulness over measurability in learning outcomes and assessment criteria, highlighting the importance of student understanding and engagement in the learning process, and proposes strategies for improving the coherence and effectiveness of assessment practices in art and design education.
Drawing on Bigg’s book, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2003) and Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), Davies discusses the integration of assessment policies and learning outcomes in universities, and the challenges faced in the art and design education in particular. The author questions the insistence on measurable learning outcomes in creative arts education, arguing that terms like “imagination” and “creativity” may not be accurately transferrable to quantifiable assessment.
Through his model (exemplified in Fig.1 for a graphic design course), Davies explores the importance of the student experience, not only in understanding assessment criteria and learning outcomes, but also in the meaningfulness of it and its level of engagement with knowledge. The model is based in the idea of the ‘spiral’ curriculum, by which as students progress, they not only become more proficient in making and observing, say, they also get better at integrating these abilities and in more complex contexts.
Here the ‘key words’ act like criteria layers to help determine the experiential engagement with knowledge. These keywords should be y are derived from the student experience of the subject but opposed to Bigg’s (2003) and Blooms (1956) suggested taxonomies, Davies’ model requires them to be generated from observations of the structure of the learning outcomes of the discipline in context.
Table: Davies’ model applied to a graphic design course (2012)
Reflection #4
Following this reading, and workshop 4 session, I reflect on a few aspects in relation to learning outcome (LO) definition and assessment.
Firstly, I appreciate how outcome-based learning design can support inclusivity, as it focuses on the result of the learning process instead of the process itself, leaving the latter to a more flexible and individual approach. While I embrace this as the right way forward, I also recognise some potential challenges generated from stating learning outcomes.
One of the biggest is the risk of over-specifying the intended results, as it might compromise student’s curiosity, intuition and creativity, in conflict with the Creative Attributes Framework (CAF). LOs can be simplistic and limiting, de-emphasising collateral learning, beyond the curriculum.
On the other hand, having ambiguous learning outcomes can certainly be counterproductive: from the student’s perspective, it pre-sets a sense of confusion around the expectations on the unit or learning contents; but also, from the tutor perspective, it hinders the mapping of all the overarching, defining features of the teaching and learning process. This is, stablishing the correlations between LOs, assessment criteria and descriptors, which helps ensure consistency in the teaching and learning design and plan
Davies’ framework for defining learning outcomes provides, to some extent, measurability by the implementation of knowledge and experiential layers, which facilitates the alignment of outcomes and assessment criteria, and in practice, might support a better definition of supportive materials and systems needed – for example, briefings, tutorials or feedback sessions -, and their implementation.
However, Davies’ suggestions do not contemplate the opposite challenge, being mindful of creative attributes (ACF) being potentially undermined. In order to preserve student’s agency on their own learning process – and outcome-, it would be interesting to include them in the exercise of defining what the intended result of a particular content, unit or course is. It could work as an additional level to the LOs, defined at an individual level, as a form of setting up realist expectations -or goals- for their own learning process. Equally, allowing flexibility for curiosity and exploration along the way, it might also be beneficial to encourage them to perform to equivalent exercise at the end of the learning experience, where they would analyse and identified their own learning outcomes, as an open and un-structured self-assessment.
References
Biggs, JB (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SRHE & OU Press.
Bloom, B.S. et al. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain, New York, David McKay.
Davies, A. and Reid, A. (2000) ‘Uncovering Problematics in Design Education: Learning and the Design Entity’, in Swann, C. & Young, E. (eds) Re-Inventing Design Education in the
Davies, A. (2012). Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? Networks, Issue 18. http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem
Digital Creative Attributes Framework, University of the Arts London, 2024. https://dcaf.myblog.arts.ac.uk/
Orón Semper, J.V., Blasco, M. Revealing the Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. Stud Philos Educ 37, 481–498 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9608-5
QAA (2000) ‘Art and Design Subject Overview Report 1998/2000’.
QAA (2011) ‘Outcomes from Institutional Audit (2007-09): Assessment and Feedback’, 3rd Series.
Rowntree, D. (1987), Assessing students: how shall we know them? London, Kogan Page (revised edition)
Snyder, B. R. (1971). The Hidden Curriculum. United States: Knopf.
The article explores the concept of aesthetic learning in arts education, focusing on its goal and means. Aesthetic learning is defined through two dimensions: convergent versus divergent goals and medium-specific versus medium-neutral means. Convergent learning is goal-oriented and rational, while divergent learning is explorative and intuitive. Medium-specific learning emphasizes forms of representation, while medium-neutral learning focuses on instrumental aspects. The author suggests a framework for understanding learning about, in, with, and through the arts based on these dimensions. The article examines the framework’s applicability in different contexts, including temporary projects, sloyd (art & craft) education, teaching methods, curriculum balance, and assessment tools. It advocates for diverse assessment approaches aligned with the varied modes of learning and teaching identified.
Four ways of learning art. (Lindström, 2012)
Activity Questions
1.Who is it by? Find out some information about the author’s identity.
Lars Lindström is a Swedish researcher renowned for his contributions to the field of aesthetics. He has made significant strides in understanding the philosophical, psychological, and cultural aspects of beauty and art. Lindström’s work often delves into the subjective nature of aesthetics, exploring how individuals perceive and appreciate beauty in various forms.
With a background in philosophy and psychology, Lindström brings a multidisciplinary approach to his research, drawing insights from diverse fields to enrich our understanding of aesthetics. His studies often intersect with areas such as cognitive science, anthropology, and sociology, shedding light on the complex interplay between culture, perception, and artistic expression.
Lindström’s research has been published in multiple academic journals and has garnered recognition within the academic community for its depth and originality. His insights have not only advanced theoretical understandings of aesthetics but also have practical applications in fields such as art education, cultural policy, and design.
He is also actively involved in academic networks and collaborations, fostering dialogue and exchange within the broader intellectual community.
Overall, Lars Lindström’s work has left a significant impact on the study of aesthetics, shaping discussions and debates within academia and beyond. His commitment to exploring the nuances of beauty and art continues to inspire new generations of scholars and enthusiasts alike.
2. What are its key messages?
The article presents a conceptual framework for understanding aesthetic learning, delineating two dimensions: convergent vs divergent goals, and medium-specific vs medium-neutral means. By combining these dimensions, the framework defines four modes of aesthetic learning: learning about, in, with, and through the arts.
The article presents a conceptual framework for understanding aesthetic learning, delineating two dimensions:
convergent versus divergent goals, and
medium-specific versus medium-neutral means.
By combining these dimensions, the framework defines four modes of aesthetic learning: learning about, in, with, and through the arts.
The article also references sociological theories of aesthetic experience, contrasting ‘modest aesthetics’ with ‘radical aesthetics’ and emphasising the importance of medium-specific competence. The framework categorises aesthetic learning into four forms: learning about, in, with, and through the arts. Each form serves complementary roles, contributing to students’ aesthetic development:
Learning About Aesthetics: This aspect involves understanding theoretical concepts, philosophical perspectives, and historical contexts related to aesthetics. Students may explore topics such as beauty, taste, perception, and the nature of art.
Learning In the Arts: This dimension focuses on experiencing and creating art as a means of developing aesthetic sensibilities. Students engage in artistic practices such as painting, music, theatre, or dance, learning through direct participation and observation.
Learning With the Arts: This aspect emphasizes interdisciplinary connections between aesthetics and other subjects. It explores how aesthetics intersect with disciplines such as literature, history, science, and technology, enriching students’ understanding of both aesthetics and the interconnectedness of knowledge.
Learning Through the Arts: This dimension examines the role of the arts in fostering critical thinking, creativity, empathy, and cultural awareness. Students learn not only about aesthetics but also through aesthetic experiences, developing skills and perspectives that transcend traditional academic boundaries.
The article suggests a balanced approach to aesthetic learning, advocating for its integration across various aspects of education.
3. How did the piece influence your consideration of the aims and purposes of your teaching?
As my practice strongly focuses on the study and application of aesthetic and cultural trends, Lindström’s discussion is particularly relevant for developing my teaching practice.
By cross-checking my teaching design and planning so far with the suggested framework, I recognise that, to some extent, I tend to follow a similar approach to Lindström’s, in that it considers a holistic view and experience of aesthetics – from observation and analysis to contextualisation and interpretation. I see clear connections with Lindström’s forms of learning about and with the arts. However, the other two learning streams my have been overlooked, especially the learning in the arts form.
I am keen to explore further ways to develop my practice to cover aesthetic learning more comprehensively. For this, I am starting by looking at the standardised learning outcomes framework (at UAL) and its potential cross-over with Lindström’s for forms of learning, to help me shape specific learning aims that feed into both. In order to stay realistic and fair to students when it comes to establishing the assessment criteria for the unit, as well as maintaining the relevance and focus of the subject, I anticipate that some forms of learning might need to be deprioritised or simply remain implicit in the teaching and learning process as supportive streams contributing to learning outcomes that might better fall within some other Lindström’s categories. For instance, in the study of fashion trend analysis, it might be beneficial for students to engage with the relevant style in first person, for example creating and/or experiencing different outfits, gathering and generating inspiration in relation to the given trend, but it this might remain an underlying objective in the learning process rather than an ultimate aim to be considered and established as a learning outcome.
I am starting to consider if the cross-over of the two – Lindström’s framework and the standardised UAL assessment criteria and learning outcomes format could be the base for establishing the connections between the process and the outcomes, establishing hierarchic layers of knowledge and practical learning, based on the specifics of the content.
References
Lindström, L. (2012). Aesthetic Learning About, In, With and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(2), pp.166–179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2012.01737.x.
Within the Leadership & Management programme 23/24 at FBS, I lead the Marketing Management Unit, which is delivered for Y1 BSc & MSc students, in Block 1. As unit leader, I am responsible for planning and creating all contents to be delivered, as well as delivering most of the teaching sessions.
EVALUATION
Being one of the first units delivered in the programme, most students land on it without any university experience, other than the induction and short introductory units. Lack of confidence is common, and there is a general uncertainty about the standards of university life – academically, but also socially: how we interact with peers and tutors, how the various teaching and learning formats work, what the expectations on them are beyond the assessment briefs, etc. This usually reflects on quietness in the classroom, as most of them would hold back from speaking up and actively participating.
As this is a new cohort, very few members in the teaching team have briefly met them at this point. So, I face the challenge of planning and preparing the unit contents and activities with very little knowledge about the group, their specific needs, strengths and interests that could be used to ease engagement and ensure learning experience efficiency.
Generally, my approach to teaching and my practice style pivot on encouraging and facilitating critical thinking. So, when facing the challenges of unit leading in Year 1 Block 1, I heavily rely on the opportunities offered by the in-person seminars, as working in smaller groups seems to ease ice-breaking activities through critical input and unstructured opinion exchange.
MOVING FORWARD
This seems to work well with most students, allowing me to assess their needs individually and as a group over the first few sessions. However, some students will take longer than others, and some will not get to express or evidence enough to a level that would allow me to take action and tailor my teaching accordingly. For that reason, I want to offer a more flexible learning experience, simultaneously combining different formats that allow them to interact and contribute to the same activity in different ways. I am drawing on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) theory, as I explore and apply the Three Block model for UDL (Katz, 2012) as a method for creating inclusive environments and improving student engagement. Katz’s model consider the areas of social and emotional learning, inclusive instructional practice, and student autonomy, which are particularly relevant for this case. Bringing this model into my practice will include, not just offering multiple alternatives for participation –i.e. encouraging verbal contributions on-site, via Padlet, anonymous formats, etc.- but also designing activities with multiple contribution threads and flexible outcomes; for example, a multiple role-play exercise, or flexible activities with optional requirements.
I am keen to implement some of this as a trial next year, aiming to enhance my teaching sessions to be more creative, inspiring and accessible for the students, but also to help me unlock engagement and communications with those profiles that are more difficult assess individually. The aim is to create a safe and flexible space around this unit -in and out of the classroom- that hopefully gives them a sense of agency and control over what and how they want to contribute and interact, while generating occasions to further assess their learning needs individually and as a group – how the diverse profiles in the group best interact and work together.
As a supportive format to this approach, I also consider opening the Marketing unit by asking students to create their own “marketer profile”. This could be in a digital format and would act as an introductory/presentation card that they could share with myself, their tutor and whoever they wish within the group. It would serve as an initial self-assessment covering aspects such as their expectations on the unit, the challenges they expect to face, and the areas they feel most comfortable with based on their current skills. It would be an opportunity for them to curate a collection of marketing references and examples to their own taste, or things they would like to learn more about.
Fig 1. Three-block model, (Katz, 2012)
REFERENCES
Katz, J. (2012). Making imagination real: Inclusive education and the Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning. Canadian Association of Principals Journal. Summer, 30-34.
Katz, J. and Sugden, R. (2013). The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning Implementation in a High School. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (141).
Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. ASCD.
Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67-79.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD): Alexandria, VA.
Willms, J. F., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement. (First National Report) Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
And the activity outcome: conceptual map of a candle.
Context & reflection
When designing this Object Based Learning activity, I tried to think of how I could apply OBL in my own academic -but also research- practice, hoping that giving my micro-teaching session a purpose would help me envision how the OBL technique could be useful in the context of my practice, and when approaching this exercise in particular.
I decided to design this activity in the context of my teaching and practice which is in the field of trend research. The session aimed to trial this activity in a very condensed format, as it would only run for 20 minutes. Normally an exercise of this nature would take around a couple of hours, but I thought this as an opportunity to test the approach and application of object-based learning techniques with peers who, being in the task of exploring the same from their own practices, would be able to give me valuable, constructive feedback.
A few take-aways are:
Too much context over not enough context? Not always.
When building the skeleton of the session, it seemed essential to start by providing the group with some context – this would be this was object-based learning brought in to trend analysis, in particular from a consumer culture perspective. So, I structured the 20 minutes starting with a 5 minute introduction to explain the approach for the session and the purpose of the activity – we will be looking at discussing and rethinking this object, and we’ll collaboratively create a conceptual map for it, that will hopefully help:
Contextualise the item, and
Decode main characteristics, which lead us to
The implications of it in terms of value – that’d include, its use, meanings, etc..
After the session and aligned with some of the feedback from the group, I felt that maybe providing so much context wasn’t that necessary. Perhaps, presenting the object and driving the group through the different stages of the activity would have been enough to meet collaboratively the intended outcomes.
Keeping it flexible and open: same object, different items.
As a workaround to the remote and online setting on the session, I asked the group to find their own item. We would all look at a candle as the object to explore, but working with different units of it, allowing for a variety of types, contexts, and personal insight.
This seemed to work well for the entire group: in record time, everybody managed to upload an image of their own candle –in most cases by taking a photo of the physical item in the moment- and was able to interact with the object as we worked together on building the conceptual board.
Risk assessment: time constraints, technical issues.
Another aspect that was picked up on by my peers and tutor’s feedback was the time limitations and the risk of relying on digital tools such as Padlet. Only one person in the group faced some kind of technical issues at some point, but given the already tight time constraints, this could have been a challenge if technology had been more problematic. The format I chose to run the activity – on a collaborative Padlet board, accessible through a link and a QR code – was well received and reported positively; however, it is definitely something to bear in mind when running this type of exercise online, potentially with a bigger group, and against time constraints.
It was a very constructive session for me as a tutor. As it resulted in something in between a micro-teaching session with students and a briefing session with peers, I took a lot of points to reflect on and tips to apply when running an activity of this kind in real life.
It was also very interesting to see how everybody else planned and delivered their sessions. We had a very diverse group, which allowed us to experience completely different approaches and applications of OBL. The group was great to work with – everyone was so engaged, supportive and positive, and willing to help one another with thoughtful, honest feedback.
Chatterjee, H. J. & Duhs, R, (2010). ‘Object Based Learning in Higher Education: Pedagogical perspectives on enhancing student learning through collections’ Centre for excellence in Teaching and Learning Through Design, University of Brighton, 3-6. Published online: 1/7/2010 arts.brighton.ac.uk/__data/…/pdf…/01-Object-based-learning-in-higher-education.pdf
Hannan, L., Duhs, R. and Chatterjee, H.J. (2013). ‘Object Based Learning: a powerful pedagogy for higher education.’ In Museums and Higher Education Working Together: Challenges and Opportunities. Eds. A Boddington, J Boys & C. Speight, Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 159-168
For our second workshop reading activity (Teaching at UAL), I read ‘Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom ‘, by Karen Harris. Harris’ article resonates with me and leads me to reflect on my own perception and approach -or maybe use- of silence.
When reading and reflecting on Harris’ article, I realised that I do accept and maybe even embrace silence more than I would have thought. It is probably one of my biggest concerns as a teacher to feel that my students might not see the value in the content that I bring to them but perceive my session as a total waste of time; so, with that underlying worry, it seems inevitable to read quietness as boredom and lack of interest, which I would have thought I would personally find very discouraging. However, after reading Harris article, I have come to the conclusion that silence it is not something that triggers that fear.
Having being an introvert student myself, has probably reinforce my tendency for spotting the introverts in the room and perceiving their struggle when they sense an overwhelming moment coming up: maybe some unavoidable eye contact that feels like an upcoming question being directed to them, or a group activity that is about to take place the day they unintentionally ended up sitting by strangers. I empathise – and relate to a good extend- as it would put me off actively and proactively engaging in a public, obvious way, if the control and decision to take part was taken away from me.
Even though I am very conscious of the energy in the session, I do feel comfortable with my open questions echoing in the silent rooms sometimes, having to answering them myself or insistingly rewording them until I get some sort of response. I often provoke “reflective breaks” when I ask them to individually review and develop their immediate notes, so if they don’t feel like sharing thoughts and questions at the spot, they at least have them developed somewhere and ready to review at the right time.
It was an encouraging reading, which I could discuss with my peer at the workshop – we both had randomly picked the same reading, which allowed us to have a deeper talk where we considered the opportunities that silence hold and, we still overlook in our practice.
We reflected together on the value of silence as an energetic source of information, allowing for a deeper understanding of the group, the individual profiles in it and their learning processes and needs. Also, our discussion led to opening an additional perspective to the value of silence at a more spiritual level – almost like a facilitating tool for the preliminary personal conversations with the self, which set the course of the rest of the learning process.
This is an unknown area to me that I would love to explore further.
Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom, by Karen Harris, Intercultural Communications Trainer and Language Development Tutor, Language Centre
This article discusses the challenges of online teaching in relation to introvert student profiles. Harris explains how online education brings new and more complex circumstances to engage introverts and encourage their participation. In a physical classroom, Harris explains, even if a student is silent, “they are still a tangible, visible, live presence”; in the online space, by contrast, the lurkers of the group can hide in the background: they are “literally muted, literally invisible, devoid of movement and geographically remote”. In such situations, tutors are no longer in control of the room, they cannot see let alone sense the room as they would in a physical classroom.
The underlying question is: could the digital classroom be an opportunity to accommodate those who have a more introverted learning preference – and even to embrace their silence? Far from limiting online teaching to a challenging and disadvantageous setting for education, Harris challenges some common assumptions suggesting a number of initiatives or “provocations” that aim facilitate introverts’ participation.
Might the pressure to actively participate actually be counter-productive?
First, she questions the effectiveness of putting the student on the spot, pushing them to actively participate, considering that the pressure might be counterproductive. Avoiding putting the student on the spot, forcing an involuntary participation might offer the space for the student to absorb content and remember it and think about additional questions. It spares them the pressure from the prospect of being called out and asked to contribute before they are ready – that dread is counterproductive since it adds a distraction.
Offering opportunities for students to sit without distraction helps them absorb content and remember it and think about additional questions. They can process the feelings and ideas expressed by their peers and consider the importance of other perspectives. (Weeks, 2018)
Do we need to recalibrate the notion of “active participation”? When it comes to learning, is “active/passive” a false dichotomy?
It differentiates the learning process and experience from what it is happening in the online –or physical- room in that learning is an individual process happening at an individual level. This means that those periods of apparent “inactivity” might actually be when a learner is at their most intellectually active – these could be spaces where they are processing, considering and reflecting, rather than formulating and uttering superficial thoughts as a token of their mental alertness.
Harris quotes Fox-Eades (2015): “Silence, a quietening of mind and body, helps us to flourish, to think clearly and creatively”, who in support of this cites Alerby and Elídóttir: “It is in the silent reflection that our thoughts take shape and make the experience into learning” (2003, p.46, cited in Fox-Eades, 2015). This could actually be seen as a spiritual perspective: silence as a powerful transformative catalyst.
Thus, this second provocation introduces the importance of not just accepting, but welcoming and even initiating silence. Instead of made to feel under-achievers, just tolerated or even humiliated, introvert students would feel “part of an authentic, reflective and mutually respectful community” (Harris, 2022).
What advantages might the online classroom offer for nurturing a profound, transformative silence?
Well-managed, the online classroom could offer the ideal circumstances to the kind of community-building mentioned above. It offers a space where, being all participants present, everyone is located somewhere else, which could help mitigate the anxiety that might arise in a totally quiet, nowhere-to-escape, physical classroom.
The online classroom features such us muted/unmuted or camera off/on allow for some sense of privacy, which could reduce the sense of vulnerability and awkwardness among the less confident and increase their sense of agency. Other features, like the reactions through emojis and the chat box reinforce the feeling of presence and connection – ready to share and receive ideas at their own time and free of pressure.
Having concluded that silence can actually be advantageous and worth embracing in the online classroom, Harris opens the question of “if and how some of these advantages might be transferred to the physical classroom”, and identifies that “deciding what is and isn’t feasible or desirable, and the exact strategies required, will require ongoing discussions and adaptations”.
Listening without anticipating and articulating an immediate response provides space for understanding ideas, perspectives, and experiences that may differ from one’s own. In this way, deep listening and silent reflection can help eliminate fear, bridge perceived divisions between individuals, and serve to support conflict resolution.” (Weeks, 2018)
References
Fox Eades, J. (2015) ‘Silence and stillness in the classroom’. Available at: https://jennyfoxeades.com/2015/02/12/silence-and-stillness-in-the-classroom/ (Accessed: 28 February 2022)
Weeks, D. (2018) ‘The value of silence in schools’. Available at: https://www.edutopia.org/article/valuesilence-schools (Accessed: 28 February 2022).
Article 4 in the list: The New Life’: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR, and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti-colonial Solidarity, Polly Savage.
Cejuma, series of five posters, 1986. Airbrush on paper. Photo: Courtesy of the artist.
This is an article on the role of art and artists in a post-revolutionary society, and the creative responses by art students to imposed epistemologies in a decolonialising context. It discusses the recollections and reflections on Mozambiquean art students sent to socialist countries for training in visual arts – specifically USSR’s Moscow and then Tashkent (1981-1985). The text predominantly discusses the journey and work of students Cejuma and Tisonto.
Two aspects Cejuma and peers’ history and artistic practice resonate with me particularly strongly:
The critical exploration of opportunities, parameters and expectations -of socialist art education-, despite the urging socio-cultural and socio-economic motives that drew students to accept the scholarships abroad;
the reluctancy to blindly accept the imposed ideologies and paradigms, while keeping the openness to “knowingly navigate the structures of a Russo-centric cultural hierarchy” (p.1087) – in Cejuma’s case, even mastering them to the level of achieving the mark of “excellent”.
These resulted in the emergence of new paradigms: the refiguration of socialism through the artists’ -later scholars’- critical engagement to competing epistemological impositions to define decolonial aesthetics. By exploring and developing their own aesthetic practice, students drew a legacy from the transnational art training and Frelimo’s (Mozambiquean revolutionary party) hopes for the new life promised by revolution.
Reflecting on the article
From a more ontological perspective, I reflect on the resulting “desire for a different form of socialism, a more intimate expression of solidarity” described by Savage (p.1098). I conjecture about the extend this was influenced by the extracurricular experience of students at Tashkent, which offered an environment of welcoming hospitality, friendship and cosmopolitan exchange. This offered opportunities for broad global networks and transnational solidarities, while conforming an artistic and scholarly community itself which somehow reflect on the idea and reformulation of socialism present in the aesthetics developed by these artists upon their return in Mozambique. Assessing this put value on the comprehensive education and training experience beyond curricular pedagogies, and more specifically the importance of the social and cultural context to facilitate for students to “navigate the pedagogic landscape on their own terms”. In other words, the friendly hospitality and community social system around these scholars might have positively influenced the way they received and experienced a pedagogic process based on the imposition of “cultural arbitrary by arbitrary power” (p.1087); being able to eventually adopt the aesthetic and technical standards of the institution, without renouncing to a future-oriented aesthetic that fell outside the bounds of the curriculum and escaped tradition with the vision of a new culture.
Hi! I’m Sonia. I teach in Fashion Management at LCF. I look forward to sharing this PgCert experience with other lecturers from across UAL, and reflecting on my teaching practice. Having joined UAL as a lecturer less than two years ago, my focus is to develop my knowledge on teaching methodologies and tools that I can apply to my practice in order to enhance my students’ learning experience.
