Reflective Report – 

Reflection on Implementation and Student Responses

The implementation surfaced both empowering moments and pedagogical tensions.

I was immensely excited by the what the students produced and the conversations they had with each other.

One student created a sculpture that changed colour according to the sounds around it: using colour and musical theories to reflect on subjective relationships to sound.

Another produced a figure that used frantic repetitive movement to signal sensory overwhelmingness and intrasocial misunderstanding.

Another created machines that manifested the surreal imagery used online in social critique of her home country.

Another used their creative writing around environmental and social catastrophe to create semi machine creatures of a post apocalypse

Ruby Leigh

Cinyui Jude Cui

George Aydin

Positive outcomes:

• Deep engagement with critical themes relating to ideas and processes: Students reported feeling more connected to their work, ideas and peers.
• Going beyond the meaning of “technical”: Some students who had previously struggled with coding or mechanics flourished when they could code with others or when techniques were connected directly to their own ideas and activism.
• Emotional honesty: Peer feedback sessions often became emotional, signalling trust and investment.
• At the end of year degree show, students from lower year groups assisted and some of the most confident and even taught students in the final year how to realise their projects.

However, several challenges also emerged:

• Emotional labour and vulnerability: Some students felt exposed when sharing personal ideas and stories. Although participation was voluntary, this tension highlighted the need for stronger emotional scaffolding – especially when running things accessible to multiple year groups.
• Material inequality: Not all students had equal prior experience with electronics. Despite my support, this sometimes led to the increase of gaps in confidence between students, and the withdrawal from asking directly for support in sessions.
• Institutional expectations: There was some pushback from colleagues about whether the project was “rigorous enough”, or that it “was not sustainable”  revealing a devaluation of inclusiveness and bridging art and tech within education.

Critical Reflections and Theoretical Framing

Reflections on Practice and Self

Designing and implementing this intervention taught me that inclusive, intersectional pedagogy is both radical and precarious. The emotional intensity required cannot be underestimated, nor can the institutional resistance to non-normative practices. Yet the power of student-led creativity confirmed the transformative potential of bridging art, technology, and identity.

I have learned:

• The importance of critically interrogating my positionality and shifting away from Eurocentric narratives.
  
• The value of feedback loops with peers, tutors, and students to refine practice.
  
• That inclusive, intersectional pedagogy is ongoing, iterative, and collective — never a one-off intervention.
  

In reflecting on these challenges I am drawn to Boris Groys’ (2009) call for education by infection whereby through communal exchange of ideas a mutual excitement and imagination is generated and that this is then transmitted to other students, shaping and supporting their ideas beyond a purely academic ‘rational’ approach to creativity.

Similarly Bell hooks’ (1994) call for education as the practice of freedom really resonates with me. I really respect the way they encourage students to bring their full selves into the classroom and that this  is not only an act of resistance but a transformative tool for learning. Yet, as hooks also notes, this work is “never easy nor without conflict.”

The intervention offered a form of material storytelling (Gauntlett & Holzwarth, 2006), where physical forms and processes became conduits for social and institutional critique. It allowed for students to decolonise the tech-art space, unsettling norms about who can speak, create, and be seen.

However, the emotional intensity and technical disparity signaled a need to better integrate trauma-informed pedagogy (Carello & Butler, 2015), particularly when inviting students to share vulnerable narratives. Moreover, faculty skepticism suggests that institutional change must accompany pedagogical change. Maybe I would be better placed to run these kinds of workshops at specifically Technology orientated institutions such as the CCI. However I believe in the importance of 

Next Steps and Sustainable Practice

Going forward, I intend to adapt the intervention with the following considerations:

1. Enhanced scaffolding: Introduce preparatory exercises in personal narrative and emotional regulation to support psychological safety.

2. Technical equity: Incorporate more low-tech options and skill-building tutorials to slowly ensure all students can participate meaningfully over time.

3. Community partnerships: Invite artists and technologists from underrepresented groups to co-teach or guest lecture, expanding the epistemic diversity of the course. A close friend of mine, Remi Falowo is doing his PHD on Sound and Technology. We have spoken many times about the importance of technical equity in relation to sound system culture and I would love to find a way to create new networks of support amongst artists and students beyond academic institutions.

This encourages me to pursue embedding interventions within a wider context, rather than treating it as a standalone moment. As Kumashiro (2000) argues, anti-oppressive education must be continuous, multifaceted, and embedded in all aspects of practice.

Conclusion

Designing this intervention revealed both the radical potential and the layered complexity of inclusive practice in teaching and bridging creative technologies. By centering intersectionality and lived experience within the exploration of ideas, the project opened space for new voices, challenged assumptions, and foregrounded the political nature of both art, technology and learning. 

One of the students went on to study at CCI in Camberwell and I am immensely proud and excited for what she can achieve and who she can inspire as she progresses through the rest of her education and life as an artist.

While there were significant emotional and institutional hurdles, these challenges made me more determined to carry on and to truly appreciate the importance of continued reflection, adaptability, and advocacy. 

I will definitely be running the workshops at another institution next year and have been given more hours there to have a more indepth exploration with students. I will see if there is the possibility of doing something similar at UAL and I am in conversation with another educational institution and an Artist run Gallery to do the same.

In moving forward, I remain committed to cultivating a space where fostered group imagination leads to growth, and where every student’s work and ideas can move—literally and metaphorically—in their own direction with confidence, and a sense of belonging.

References

Boler, M. and Zembylas, M. (2003) ‘Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference’, in Trifonas, P. (ed.) Pedagogies of Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 110-136.

Carello, J. and Butler, L. D. (2015) ‘Practicing what we teach: Trauma-informed educational practice’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), pp. 262–278.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139-167.

Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) ‘Exploring inclusive pedagogy’, British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813–828.

Gauntlett, D. and Holzwarth, P. (2006) ‘Creative and visual methods for exploring identities’, Visual Studies, 21(1), pp. 82–91.

Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27

Hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Kumashiro, K. (2000) ‘Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education’, Review of Educational Research, 70(1), pp. 25–53.

Morozov, E., 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. London: Allen Lane.

Rolling, J. H. (2010) ‘A paradigm analysis of arts-based research and implications for education’, Studies in Art Education, 51(2), pp. 102–114.

Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery

Tara J. Yosso (2005), “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.”

Zembylas, M. (2015) ‘Pedagogy of discomfort and its ethical implications’, Ethics and Education, 10(1), pp. 163–174.Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whi

Developing Workshops on Technology and the Body

I want to use what I have learnt from the PG Cert and some of my colleagues to develop and broaden the workshop series I run ‘Technology and its relationship to the Body – The motion of Power in Art and Society’ , especially the Community of Practice club that exists alongside it.  As I have limited amount of teaching hours at UAL as I am an HPL 

As an Artist and Educator working with diverse cohorts across multiple institutions, I have often observed that although contemporary Art curricula is good at focusing on Critical Theory within an academic context, there is a gap in how it is applied to technology or technical teaching. (See my Blog 1 and Case study 2)

I was inspired by the ideology of open source technology on websites such as Github to provide a space for students to meet and discuss their ideas and work together using kinetic sculpture and electronics within a creative educational context. 

Inspired by the work of artists such as Donald Rodney  and the community of technologists that surrounded him, I want to create a space where students are brought together through a mutual interest in technology, then given the dialogical space to express their own complex, intersecting identities—particularly race, gender, ability, and religion. Then to use those intersecting narratives to take a critical look at the systems of power and control that surround them , through a communal interest in movement, circuitry, and sculptural form.

In some of my first workshops I was using primarily euro-centric narratives around technology – focusing on the age of enlightenment as a starting point to critique industrial and post industrial technologies. However, through the influence and kind tutelage of a colleague (thanks Shenece) and critical pedagogical frameworks including intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), inclusive arts-based practices (Rolling, 2010) and infection (Groys 2009) I decided to develop a new approach to the contents and structure of my teaching sessions.

In this intervention I want to make Kinetic sculpture and physical computing offer material ways of exploring:

• critical theory – The workshops begin with a critical look and group discussion of the history and evolution of technology, how it has been used in Art, Science and Fiction to shape society, its positive and negative attributes and what that even means to the students.
• inclusion – The students then develop ideas from their own work into physical manifestations of performing sculptures, with me acting as a facilitator driving conversation about ideas and technically guiding them through the realisation of their work.
• social justice – One of the key themes we explore in the workshops is the idea of “Technological Solutionism” (Evgeny Morozov, 2013) and the way that Utopian ideas around technology can be masks for systems of control  and oppression facilitating the opposite results to those they espouse.

It is my desire to position technology and sculpture as tools for inclusion and personal storytelling, and to build ‘infective’ communities of practice that will facilitate diverse and continued exchanges of ideas throughout and beyond students’ academic life.

The intervention was tested at the end of the academic year and was open to all Students on a sign-up basis. Learners were invited to create a kinetic or electric sculpture that responded to a personal or social narrative involving an aspect of their identity. They were guided to reflect on how systems of power and control shape that identity, using movement and interactive elements to convey lived experiences.

Key pedagogical decisions included:

• Student-led narratives: Learners chose the idea and aspect(s) most meaningful to them, offering autonomy and avoiding prescriptive categories.
• Material engagement: Use of motors, Arduino boards, LEDs and sensors encouraged students to think about how physical movement could metaphorically represent systemic power structures (e.g., forced movement, resistance, repetition).
• Collaborative critique spaces: We met every week in a group to reflect on work together and provide opportunities for dialogue, peer feedback, and emotional processing.

These decisions aligned with inclusive pedagogies as described by Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011), who advocate for “teaching for everyone” rather than for a mythical average learner.

---

References

Appiah, K. A. (2014) Is religion good or bad?. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk

Boler, M. and Zembylas, M. (2003) ‘Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference’, in Trifonas, P. (ed.) Pedagogies of Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 110-136.

Carello, J. and Butler, L. D. (2015) ‘Practicing what we teach: Trauma-informed educational practice’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), pp. 262–278.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139-167.

Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) ‘Exploring inclusive pedagogy’, British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813–828.

Gauntlett, D. and Holzwarth, P. (2006) ‘Creative and visual methods for exploring identities’, Visual Studies, 21(1), pp. 82–91.

Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27

Hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Kumashiro, K. (2000) ‘Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education’, Review of Educational Research, 70(1), pp. 25–53.

Morozov, E., 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. London: Allen Lane.

Rolling, J. H. (2010) ‘A paradigm analysis of arts-based research and implications for education’, Studies in Art Education, 51(2), pp. 102–114.

Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery

Tara J. Yosso (2005), “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.”

Zembylas, M. (2015) ‘Pedagogy of discomfort and its ethical implications’, Ethics and Education, 10(1), pp. 163–174.Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whi

I thought that the three very contrasting media representations of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts in the UK were a great selection of videos and perfectly captured the dynamic of contemporary British politics on this subject.

I also think that given the context of contemporary politics it is important to think about the intended audiences of these pieces and the purposes for which they were made – approaching  the different media as outlined by Gillian Rose in Visual Methodologies (p193).

Channel 4’s The School That Tried to End Racism (2020) was very blunt in its portrayal of privilege and identity, and I think it aimed to disrupt perceived norms of racial silence in schools; uncovering in a similar way that Bradbury (2020) describes, racial inequalities being hidden under the guise of neutrality. 

It made me acutely aware of the power of discomfort in provoking thought on the topic of privilege and race. 

However, it also felt like it exemplified many of the critiques Asif Sadiq’s TEDx talk (2023) had about the more surface aspects of DEI training and implementation when they are “biased and built with stereotypes” 

Moreover, from briefly reading the comments below (not always the best idea) it seemed to more succeed in Sadiq’s suggestion that “many times it (DEI initiatives)  do(es) the opposite of inclusion” creating a backlash, especially if not embedded in a broader context.

The Telegraph’s documentary by Jamie Orr (2022) embodied this exact reactionary backlash against anti-racism.Its Panorama style ‘uncovering of a conspiracy at the heart of education’  implied that DEI threatens academic freedom and imposes conformity. He framed educational equity as a threat to “neutrality,” reinforcing the myth that racism is an individual failing rather than a structural one. 

One thing I found entertaining was that even after the edit, the students he found to interview did not really share the mood or opinion he so seeks to portray.

I have been reading Ash Sarkah’s Minority Rule a lot recently, and I am persuaded by her opinion that contemporary Liberal focus on difference can foster competitive identity hierarchy rather than solidarity, allowing media such as Orr’s to stoke right wing and potentially white suprematist ideologies, something exemplified in a documentary I watched on ‘How US Neo-Nazism Actually Works, whereby an ex white suprematist explains that “The first step was to get this kid to identify as white” – as different and other to those around them.  

I completely agree with Sadiq’s ideas that for DEI to be successful it must not be just used for standalone sessions but woven into the pedagogical fabric of institutions.That involves finding and incorporating diverse narratives and creating welcoming spaces of conversation where all learners can share and be heard and a new positive narrative of solidarity can be constructed.

Sadiq, A. (2023) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. TEDx [Online}. Youtube. 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw 

Orr, J. (2022) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. 5 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU

Channel 4. (2020) The School That Tried to End Racism. [Online}. Youtube. 30 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg 

Rose, G., 2023. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Insider, 2025. How US Neo‑Nazism Actually Works [YouTube video], 6 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-g3Z8IWsdU (Accessed: 10 May 2025).

Sarkar, A. (2025) Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

I recently attended a lecture by the artist Faisal Hussein in Birmingham. I have known him for a couple of years and I thought that the talk that he gave was both inspiring and incredibly insightful into the way Muslims have been treated within the UK’s  educational system.

His work looks at how the use and introduction of Prevent and its treatment of Muslim children in the education system not only oppressed but exacerbated division between children of different faiths and races. He talked about how muslim children were singled out as potential Islamic terrorists for such normal, teenage things as changing their appearance or being more adventurous. 

This then created a situation similar to that described In Islam, Women and Sport (Jawad, 2022) whereby Muslim children in the face of an increasingly oppressive state would use Islamic dress not simply as a personal expression of faith but as a site of resistance. The visibility of Muslim identity becoming a marker of pride in the face of marginalisation. 

This then reciprocally exemplifies the preexisting inadequacies and inherent structural bias of the State and educational system: Exemplified by Jawad when she describes the lack of appropriate spaces and provisions in schools for Muslim girls.

Moreover, the stoking of fear through policies like Prevent further sets students apart from each other and increases the frequency of racial and religious stereotyping as described, in Challenging Race, Religion and Stereotypes in the Classroom (Trinity University, 2016), Where one student spoke about being assumed to be Muslim because of their skin tone—highlighting not only racial stereotyping but also a flattening of religious diversity.

I really appreciated the way Appiah encourages us to resist essentialist views of religion. Having witnessed first hand the anger and dogmatic entrenchment of religious and political sectarianism, I believe that it is the simplification, stereotypical portrayal and focus on difference that is the biggest barrier.

In an art and design context, faith may not be explicitly visible, but it deeply informs themes, aesthetics, and motivations. As an educator, recognising this means making space—literally and metaphorically—for faith within creative learning without exoticising or erasing it.

An experience from the previous group tutorial changed what I planned to write about for this blog post.

In a discussion on how digital media can be used as a way to increase accessibility for disabled students I was told I was ‘silencing’ the conversation because I made a point that, by prioritising only digital solutions for access to technical spaces rather than investing in making actual workshop spaces more accessible, the university may be prioritising profit over actual access – to make a space more accessible doesn’t increase the number of consumers who can use it during any given time, whilst a digital resource increases the potential consumers exponentially.

This perspective comes from previous experiences as a metal tech where conversations asking for investment in height adjustable welding tables were seen as an extravagance, whereas the expectation to produce ‘how to vlogs’ in metalworking to advertise and draw in more students was seen as a priority even the actual workshop space couldn’t physically facilitate that many students. 

I fully understand the potential of digital media in reaching a wider audience, and its potential to increase accessibility: I am not some luddite set against using digital technology: My entire practice is centred around technology and its relationship to the body in Art, Politics and Society. 

However, I am against the way the University functions like some kind of financial ad agency, using whatever is fashionable in tech as a way to cram in more students to increase profit margins whilst white washing the exercise as an example of increasing access.

Will the students accessing these new digital only resources actually be from disabled, poor and intersectional backgrounds or will it just be a way for UAL to reach further Globally in its exchange of certification for capital (Groys)

Moreover, I am very disappointed when the language of Crenshaw and Critical Theory is used as a way to close down conversation or critical perspectives of the university, especially in a peer to peer pedagogical environment. I would much rather have had a deeper conversation about finding the balance between physical and digital resources and how they can be used to supplement each other in increasing access. 

“By making a virtue of marginalisation, breaking ourselves down into ever smaller and mutually hostile groupings, we make it impossible to build a mass movement capable of taking on extreme concentrations of wealth and power.” ​ Sarkar, A., 2025. Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War. London: Bloomsbury.

From my own experience trying to create situations of equity and equality within a learning environment, it  always comes down to resources, space and time. No one ever visibly tries to prevent intersectional support, like Ade Adeptian said “the harder progress is systemic”  as Crenshaw outlined, exclusions can render individuals invisible, enabling the absence, or allocation of resources to elsewhere.

I believe that the increased exposure and discussion of work by Artists like Christine Sun Kim, or Donald Rodney (One of my favorite Kinetic artists) bring a deeply personal lens to this conversation. Their use of humor and subtle discomfort not only highlight how language, race, gender, social norms can be barriers but also through art a medium to bring people together.

Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery.

Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27–?

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Blog Blog post 4 a critique of Blogs and summary so far.

I find the format of WordPress blog posts very difficult to work with and a little out of date: when I was a student 10 years ago we had to submit assessments in the same format and I really struggled with the inability to change the order of posts, manipulate images and fonts and the imposed linear structure that is difficult to edit. Similarly to when I was a student this has meant that I have produced all of my work separately to the blog and then collated it last minute to fit into the blog structure. I am not very good and have never been very good at fitting ideas into a codified Learning Outcome unit orientated structure Addison, N. (2014), as I mainly work with text that meanders, cuts through itself and exists continually rather than in broken formulaic chunks: Originally Blogs 2,3, case studies 1 and 2 and the observations were a continuous text that I formulated whilst teaching, attending workshop sessions and conversing with peers. This felt more like an actual Blog as it mapped the ‘Journey’ Macfarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. (2009) of my experience and research rather than now where bits have been broken up and edited to try to fit into a more Checklist structure. Moreover, whereas normally I am predominantly a visual communicator, the stilted way to use images on the blog has meant that I have found it very difficult to use images fluently and so have used far less than I would normally. 

It is ironic that the pedagogical principles we are encouraged to use with our students don’t seem to have been taken into account for the method used for assessing our own enacting of those principles. 

I apologise if that was a bit of a rant.

 I have enjoyed many aspects of the PgCert particularly meeting so many others and the peer to peer feedback, exchanging of ideas and observations with colleagues have been truly enlightening to my teaching practice.

References:

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12063 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).

Macfarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. (2009) ‘The reflection game: enacting the penitent self’, Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), pp. 455–459. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903050244 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Offsite Crits

Size of student group: 4-10

Observer: Kwame Baah

Observee: Michael McShane

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

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?

The culmination of the first half of their Unit 7. Whereupon they organise  an Off-Site Project, exhibition, presentation or event  as part of a self-selecting group of fellow students. As a group they will have also produced a collective publication to accompany your project. This can take the form of a pamphlet, catalogue or  other distributable media. 

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I have worked with their year group during exhibition periods: Providing tutorials as an HPL in how to present, install and curate their work. I have also run workshops with them in performing sculpture.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

• Provide constructive feedback to students about their exhibition.
• Facilitate discussion and sharing of ideas relating to 
  • the students work as individuals
  • the students work as a group
  • the students work in creating an exhibition
  • the students work in creating a publication
  • All processes relating to the creation of an exhibition
  • The students plans for the second half of Unit 7

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

• Discussion about student work in exhibition
• Discussion about the process of exhibiting as a group
• Discussion about the publication accompanying the project
• Discussion about how this process will affect what they are thinking of producing for the end of Unit 7 when they will be exhibiting as individuals on site

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Students may be hung over from their private view the previous night.

Student numbers are unknown.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students have already been emailed

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Pacing of discussion and the use of space in dialogue with students

How I explain ideas to students and make them accessible

Do I have any information bias 

How will feedback be exchanged?

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Kwame Baah

This was a very interesting art exhibition crit in which there were two students, one could not attend but their work was hung up and supported by their peers. I had the opportunity to chat with the students about their artwork and the directions they are looking to take. Your suggestion of work collation in digital format was a very supportive one that would mean they could use that format as a catalogue that preserves the original works. Additionally, it would offer the chance of engaging in digital exhibitions. Either way they had made a useful step outside of the university to experience a space of difference.

You critiqued quite extensively and at times overlapped your conversations between the students specifically, which then helped me understand that the three student artists, whose work was on show, have been working together for some time. Some of the other interesting suggestions you presented were 3D rendering of the collective artwork, and improvisation of the collaborative art as a performance with instruction. In addition, a lot of supported referencing was offered to the students for them to use as points for their writing about the themes of their work.

Encouraging them to write a proposal for a show was a very good way of getting them to step outside of their comfort zone and engage with wider audiences to enhance their practice. This will also support their continuous development and as their tutor I commend you for supporting them through encouragement. Your approach to critiques was different but has exciting newness of being multidirectional. There was considerable scaffolding in your critiques and questioning, and I could see them thinking deeply. It was a good example of scaffolded crits in an art space that I experienced for the first time and I commend you for the amount of detailed thinking you used to empower the students to consider.

Part Three

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

Thank you Kwame for such useful feedback and for being so accommodating and making it out to the gallery to see the students.

I am really flattered with your comments on the provision of scaffolding for students to develop ideas with support as this is something I really try to create in sessions. Lev Vygotsk’s writing’s on scaffolding in education is a big influence retrospectively – I was not aware of it’s academic description as a process. I am now ready some of his texts and those that reference him a lot – such as Critiquing the Crit, (Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair 2007) which are now enriching and developing my understanding and approach to teaching using scaffolding.

The way that I have always tried to approach students learning has been to use structuralist interpretations of their ideas Barthes, R. (1977) to provide three points of view simultaneously on their work:

Their idea as an image or symbol,

Their idea as a physical material object #

Their idea as text – contextually relational

These gradually develop in complexity during a session as they think and discuss ideas with me and the group. In this way students can have a framework with which to explore their own and each other’s ideas within a defined structure, and I can add prompts when necessary to lead them into discussing ideas with each other, which I believe, as I now know, was Lev Vygotsk’s aims.

References

Barthes, R. (1977) Image, Music, Text. Translated by S. Heath. London: Fontana Press.

Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair called Critiquing the Crit, (Final report, August 2007)

Providing a space for all kinds of feedback

Context:

Sometimes, I am invited to run exhibition crits with students when they do exhibitions. One of the problems of these crits is that students are not used to giving or receiving peer feedback and don’t realise the importance of it for their time on the course but also for their continuing personal practices.

Evaluation:

Crits can be experienced as intimidating or boring by students, in a lot of them students expect a teacher to assess and critique their work as opposed to engage in the group discussions. In the report issued by Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair called Critiquing the Crit, (Final report, August 2007) there were a lot of factors mentioned by students that made them dislike crits and a lot of them were concerned with student-teacher relationships rather than peer to peer.

In my crits, I try to encourage peer to peer engagement that comes from a place of genuine interest as opposed to feeling like one has to say something to fill the silence or because of being prompted by the teacher. When working with a group of students, I try to draw out common ideas or series of ideas to connect them into a network of linked concepts. In this way students can have group discussions without feeling prompted and each bringing their own perspective to a wider topic. Therefore having a shared entry point leading to better continuous engagement.

When such discussions start taking place, I can step down as a teacher and allow more space for peer to peer feedback. When such interactions take place they aid students building a network between each other and learning to talk about their work in a less formal way with me only bringing in relevant references and occasionally stirring the conversation to different dimensions.

From my observation with Kwame I have learnt about the concept of scaffolding from Vygotsky (1978) and am enriching my understanding of how teaching methodologies can be used to support student in the generation of ideas.

From the workshops I have run at Kingston with Shenece and the feedback Katriona provided in my observation, (see case study 2 and observation respectively) I have learnt greatly about the importance of the pacing of interactions with students and also the necessity for building structures of support and reflection into a lesson plan. This will be a very important way for me to ensure that students gain and have access to understanding the ideas discussed in a session. Using different types of group and individual working, discussion and feedback during a session, I plan to build kind of structural safety net of understanding into my lesson plans: Enabling me better assess if all students are able to understand and engage with the concepts, processes and materials discussed and used.

References

Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair called Critiquing the Crit, (Final report, August 2007)

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bridging between Conceptual and Making parts of a lesson – existing between technical and academic roles.

Context:

I run a range of workshops on the BA Fine Art course at Chelsea as an HPL. 

These range from Performing/Kinetic Sculpture, to Interactive Art, Zine making and Concrete Poetry. In these sessions, I try to combine conceptual ideas with Object based learning and making processes so that students can get as holistic an experience as possible. 

Evaluation:

However I sometimes try to cover too much for students as I try to combine multiple technical and academic aspects of an idea within a short session. This stems from my own experience of education (see blog 2 & 3), the limited time that I get for a session and the precarity of my current position on the periphery of both academic and technical roles. 

I will look at and evaluate the workshops I have run over the last few years and the feedback I have received as a starting point to explore ways of combining new Pedagogies into my practice.

Moving forward:

Pacing and presence

I recently did some work on the Foundation course at Kingston running one of my workshops for their students and I was blown away by Shenece, the standing head of the Fine Art Pathway’s presence and ability to both include and command a group of 40 students: Where as I normally have the manic energy of a rhinoceros tranquilised accidentally with amphetamines; she had the composure of a crane and the presence Paveroti – nothing felt rushed and everything felt in control and on purpose, for me and the students. It was an entirely novel experience and upon reading ‘The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy’ Berg, M. and Seeber, B.K. (2016),

The assertion that: ‘We need time to think, and so do our students. Time for reflection and open-ended inquiry is not a luxury but is crucial to what we do’ has never felt truer, if harder to achieve with student numbers doubling and resources dwindling. 

Nevertheless, the creation of a calm and thoughtful atmosphere is something that I will try to implement throughout my sessions as I have

Tactile images to break up a presentation

One thing that I picked up from the first PgCert workshop was the use of postcards as a tactile introduction to an idea. One of the things I am least comfortable doing is presenting contextual ideas in front of a screen and I realised that if I print out the slides from a presentation, I can hand them out to students and then either discuss them as a group with each student talking about one slide each. Or if the atmosphere is lethargic, rather than talking directly at the beginning of a session, I will wait to go though slides whilst they are working on their own individual ideas and then discuss particular ideas in relation to a given student’s thoughts with the group. Thus both recontextualising the image as an artifact, Roberts, L., and Cantwell, R. (2019)  and facilitating dynamic conversation between students Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B. (2007).

Variation in student working methodologies:

On every important suggestion I had was from my Peer Observation with Katriona Beales was to use  ‘variations in the way people share e.g. sharing in pairs their initial ideas and then reporting back to the wider group. This could help with the pacing the discursive aspects of the workshop’ Beales, K. (2025) 

I now realise that this is applying Lev Vygotsky’s ideas on social development Van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J (1994) and that it would directly assist in slowing the pace of a session and assisting in the development of understanding of ideas in relation to making.

Conclusion:

• Be confident to be slow
• Learn how to create balanced groups to facilitate flow and improved learning Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B. (2007)
• Learn how to create better situations for individual, pair and group discussion
• Have more peer to peer feedback or co-working sessions

References

Beales, K. (2025) ROT observation of me..

Berg, M. and Seeber, B.K. (2016) The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mason, R. (2019) ‘Object-Based Learning and History Teaching: The Role of Emotion and Empathy’, International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 18(1), pp. 45-61.

Roberts, L., and Cantwell, R. (2019) ‘Object-Based Learning in the Social Sciences: Three Approaches to Teaching with Objects’, Teaching Anthropology, 9(1).

Van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J. (eds.), 1994. The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice   

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Interactive Art workshop with 1^st Year BA Fine Art students led by Mike McShane 

Size of student group: 10 

Observer: Katriona Beales 

Observee: Mike McShane  

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action. 

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? 

• Workshop for students to explore interactive art. 

• Context exploration of the site – non site on site off site etc in curriculum 

• Helping students think through ideas before doing their offsite show in Easter 

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity? 

• First time working with this group, some of the students have attended my workshops from other sessions 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

• Discussion of what interactive art can be 

• Discussion of structural material types of interactive art  

• Discussion what an audience/viewer is? 

• Development of ways to make interactive art 

• Development of situations of interaction 

• Emphasis on play  

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

• Creation of situations 

• Creation of obstructions 

• Creation of different interactive ‘sketches’  

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

• The necessity of improv 

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

• Introduce for the session 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

• Pacing, 

• information bias 

• information depth 

• Structure 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

• In conversation and via this form.  

Part Two 

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

Katriona’s observations:  

The workshop is taking place in a cramped room which has obvious limitations, but you negotiate this well by having a flexible plan which can expand into the studios.  

The introduction is well-designed with examples of artists’ practices that engage with interactivity, laid out for the students to engage with. Students are asked to write down their own understanding of interactive art practices in response. This straightaway introduces a contextual framework for the workshop, rooted in relation to established artists’ practices. The introduction is staggered because of late arrivals, but late comers are carefully integrated into the activity as appropriate when they arrive. I think you handled this dynamic expertly.  

Care is taken to give time for the initial discussion in response to the examples of artist practices, with each student given space to articulate their response. This feels especially appropriate because the students are 1^st Years and are still getting to know each other.  

This initial conversation is facilitated well to open a series of relevant questions to do with agency, consent, rules, play, permissiveness, subjectivity and objectivity. I felt some of these ideas could have been captured in some way (a drawing or diagram perhaps) to return to a later date perhaps.  

I enjoy how you use a lot of gestures when you talk, which animate your spoken contributions. This makes you an engaging person to listen to.  

I wonder how subconscious or instinctive this relationship to movement is?  

Given how much communication is non-verbal I’d encourage some reflection on this.  

How can an intentional engagement with body language and gesture open more possibilities in terms of holding attention, speaking and being heard?  

I also wonder about the relationship of this to your own art practice. Interesting!  

You evidence a real expertise and an impressive breadth of knowledge. This is a real strength of your teaching approach. However, I wonder how at points this could be broken down a bit more into stages, to support students to make the conceptual leap from other peoples’ works to the implications for their own?  

I felt like taking a bit longer at the conceptual stage before moving into their own ideas for their own practices, could have allowed some more imaginative responses from students, rather than them reiterating existing ideas.  

Similarly, I would double-check that students understand what is meant by some of the higher-level vocabulary you are using. For example, I wasn’t sure that everyone understood the use of the word ‘iterative’ to describe the progressive development of an idea. It is difficult for students to vocalise if they don’t understand something when some of their peers do, so integrating definitions of specific terminology when you first use it is something to consider in terms of an inclusive approach to different educational backgrounds and neurodiversity etc.  

I would also encourage at points variations in the way people share e.g. sharing in pairs their initial ideas and then reporting back to the wider group. This could help with the pacing the discursive aspects of the workshop rather than only one person speaking at a time over the course of the morning which can feel quite slow.  

I really enjoy the enthusiastic way you engage with each students’ ideas. I appreciate how you give time and space to each student and practice deep and attentive listening. This is evident in the careful follow up questions and responses you give. This is really impressive and a real strength of your approach to teaching.  

You support the session with a carefully constructed padlet which has lots of resources for them to refer to, to extend and widen their learning.  

All in all, an impressively well-organised and effective introduction to the workshop. You set the students up well for the afternoon of developing their ideas, and the effectiveness of your approach is evident in how productive the students were in the afternoon session.  

Part Three 

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

Mike’s response 

I really appreciate the attentiveness Katriona gave to the session and especially her suggestions in relation to pacing, introducing diagrams and the introduction of an intermediate stage between conceptual dialogue and making that incorporates explanations of terminology and slows down that bit between thinking and making for students. 

I think one of the areas that I need to work on most in my teaching practice is the pacing of and gap between, the transition from conceptual thinking to making. 

I know that in some ways I get too excited about the making part of a workshop and like a child waiting for desert: I speed eat my vegetables towards the end of a discursive period and just rush toward the practical part, as this is the part I enjoy the most and feel most comfortable in doing: 

I think this is mainly because in my own practice I learn through making and doing. 

Moreover, when I was a student, I really struggled with long discursive periods and would only properly retain or engage with ideas by writing, performing or making to explore them creatively.  This led me to either skive discursive sessions, bluff engagement or forget what had been discussed. So, now as an Educator I overcompensate to engage students who I project being like my past self. 

I also think this is partially because as an HPL I have very limited contact time with students to develop ideas and I get too excited from showing, discussing ideas and  knowing that the practical part is coming, and that the session will end and I may not see them again to develop an idea, I rush straight to the enacted part as it feels like this is the part I can most successfully engage with students. 

I also had never thought about my excessive gesticulating in a pedagogical sense and nonverbal gesture and communication is at the core of my practice.  

I had not really thought about the physicality of my teaching practice in any great depth but now will most definitely do so. 

Planned Changes  

1. Slow the pace of a workshop using an intermediate exercise to get students to work through conceptual ideas in less rushed fashion, making sure that everyone understands and doesn’t feel left out 

2.  Use different patterns of group and individual working, discussing and creating diagrams to explore an idea 

3. Slow down in general, allow the students time to digest, discuss and ask questions, provide a calm atmosphere of clarity