I am not sure if I am just meant to submit the: Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice  or if I then write anything further so I will do both……

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 

Seminar 26^th February 2025. 

Size of student group: 8

Observer: Mike McShane

Observee: Katriona Beales

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:

Katriona:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

This is a planned seminar for half of my existing tutor group, joined by some visiting students from NAFA, Singapore who are here on exchange. The NAFA students have been invited to give presentations to the group as an introduction with the hope that it encourages genuine exchange and interactions between the different student groups. The seminar also needs to give some direction for the Chelsea students who are engaged in planning for their OffSite Projects which are happening from the 10^th March. 

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

These students have been in my tutor group since the beginning of the academic year in September 2024. I am their Tutor Group Leader and also Year Leader. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

• To introduce the visiting NAFA students and facilitate some introductory conversations
• To support the development of the Chelsea students OffSite Projects with key theoretical ideas around site and audience. 

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

• NAFA students presentations x 3
• Reflective and critical response to presentations
• Theoretical discussion 
• Planned plasticene response

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

• The NAFA and Chelsea students haven’t met before
• Cross-cultural dynamic – lack of knowledge of Singaporean context
• Context of Chelsea curriculum – there is some key work to do to support the OffSite Projects development and it is a bit out of context to have NAFA students present for this since they aren’t directly involved. 
• Balancing different needs of NAFA and Chelsea students 

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will introduce Mike and his role at the beginning. 

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Anything and everything. I am keen to develop all aspects of my teaching practice. 

How will feedback be exchanged?

In conversation and via this form. 

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Mike: 

Account

• Very Friendly atmosphere, personable, helping students through stresses on the course
• Getting each student to introduce themselves in a very friendly way.
• Ask students to present their work and then for other students to make notes and share feedback.
• Creation of a friendly atmosphere. Asks for feedback notes from peers. Offers Artists for students to look at.
• Makes jokes and allows space for students to discuss ideas without a ‘teacher’ presence.
• Phone doesn’t work to find reference, offers to send it on after session.
• Tech is all set up and very helpful in helping students prepare their presentations
• Asks for thoughts and reflections
• Engages in a very interesting conversation with the NAFA students and offers great feedback e.g. ‘Critique by enacting fully’ 
• Minority spaces vs gentrification, 
• Projection onto student to engage in queer scenes could be misconstrued but obviously intended kindly. [KB: this was in reference to them self-identifying as queer in their presentation]
• Initiated very interesting conversation about differences between Singapore and UK encouraged dialogue between student groups
• Really good at including and incorporating NAFA students into wider conversation

Site and audience in relation to offsite project

• Give handouts of two quotes, one by Constant Dullart in relation to audience; one by Miwon Kwon in relation to site.  
• Asks students to read out quotes
• Asks students if they know what everything means, goes through the meaning of the quote.
• Asks for a summary from students to be discussed
• Discussion around “Activating ‘Art’ – what happens to an artwork when it is taken out of the whitecube?
• Frames quote nicely in relation to the offsite projects that are coming up, and to consider the code and lexicon of the space that people occupy or show in. Asks how this might inform students offsite proposals/ frame their work/ and to discuss their proposal ideas with peers 
• Good at remembering student names.
• Encouraging for NAFA students to include them.
• Asks about engagement with the audience. Creates a discussion about art’s intention in relation to the audience. Framed within the context of social media and contemporary society.
• Excellent description of Michael Fried, loved the other quote
• Impressive amount of discussion generated from two quotes, very talented at teasing out connections between students without imposing onto them.

Summary 

Considering how you had to incorporate NAFA exchange students at the last minute to your session and how ill you had been prior (and to an extent during) the session I don’t think you could have run it any better.

I was especially inspired by your attentiveness to students’ needs throughout the session and the level to which you made sure they had each individually understood an idea, this you then further supplemented by encouraging discussion and debate about ideas in an incredibly relaxed atmosphere that felt very safe to exchange knowledge and ideas. 

Your use of humour throughout the session created an incredibly relaxed atmosphere. I would love to have seen how you would have incorporated this way of working into a more practical workshop using the plasticine.

It was particularly interesting to hear how you let go of the more making part of your workshop, in favour of giving the NAFA students more time to talk and discuss things with other Y2 students. I know from working with NAFA students over the last few years that they have often felt isolated and separate from the wider course, so it was amazing to see them so included.

I wonder if the Chelsea students had had to present to the NAFA students as well if more conversations and exchanges could have happened. I realise after the session this happened as students began chatting together, but it could have been interesting to have seen NAFA students feeding back to the Chelsea students in an act of reciprocation.

I would have really liked to have seen how the different students could have worked on an idea together in a physical way. From personal experience I know that some students struggle to retain ideas without having engaged in a material or creative process to encapsulate that idea: Some kind of tangible ephemera or enacted process as an embodied reminder or rehearsal of the concepts and ideas discussed to retain the new information. I realise that you ran out of time to do this in order to accommodate NAFA students. I just personally would have loved to have seen how you would have applied your humour, kindness and methodology to that type of teaching.

Finally, I was most impressed by the way you stepped back whilst they were most intensely discussing ideas, to set up the next step of the presentation to frame everything within their projects, and then to check in with how they are all doing on the offsite projects. The timing of when to be present leading and when to step back and allow students the space to engage with each other without a ‘teacher’ present is a real skill, especially in relation to the pacing of a session. I massively respected the way you used that space to prepare yourself for the next stage of the workshop so that by the time they finished discussing you were completely ready to take the lead again. Your pacing and ownership of the gaps in time was a true inspiration to me.

Observations

• Amazing at leading students into discussing ideas together.
• Fantastic for incorporating NAFA students so effortlessly into the group and dialogue.
• Really good at framing discursive text on site specificity within the context of what they are doing and where they are at in the course.
• Really good at creating a personable atmosphere where students are comfortable to share ideas your use of humour, to create a relaxed atmosphere proved very conducive to co-operation and sharing
• Really good at checking in to see how they are all getting on with their individual projects

Difficult to answer these 2 as I feel like I am forcing things to fit the matrix and that how the session played out was the best way for it to naturally happen given the circumstances

Questions

• What would you have done with the plasticine with them?
• Are the NAFA students incorporated into offsite projects?
• Do Chelsea student present to NAFA students at all?
• Is there a way to improve attendance? – Also, aware how the students who don’t attend are the ones who are struggling most and that this is a much wider issues? 

Suggestions

• More cross over/ symmetry between exchange and home students in terms of cooperation – although I am also aware of how limited the time is – it was nevertheless exciting to listen to the students from both discussing ideas and work together after the session had finished- avenues of potential collaboration between students? It could have been interesting to see the home students
• More humour! Humour seems to be central to how you create a relaxed atmosphere that is so conducive to students exchanging ideas. I wonder if there would be a session to incorporate that into a making session with them. 
• I would have really liked to have seen how you incorporated the plasticine into the session
• Fleetingness of discussion 

Part Three

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

Katriona:

It’s very useful to have Mike’s very detailed, attentive and encouraging account of my teaching in the context of this seminar. I really appreciate the elements that Mike has teased out here, particular around the challenges of integrating students from NAFA into the session. 

I was balancing two different agendas in this session and was unsure how the need to host and welcome the NAFA students would balance with the need to prepare the Chelsea students for their OffSite Projects. I think Mike’s suggestion of the Chelsea students doing their own presentation would be excellent to take on. I would just need to take into consideration how many of my Chelsea students really dislike making presentations and would find them stressful, but there are ways to alleviate this. I wonder if I could make time for them to do informal ones, in which they could summarise their plans for the OffSite Projects in a more informal presentation style. 

I also am struck by how much Mike commented on the element of humour in the session, and the way he understood this as contributing towards a relaxed environment. This is quite instinctual and not something I was actively aware of, more a kind of learnt behaviour in a teaching context where people are meeting for the first time. One thing I am conscious of is actively dethroning or at least problematising the hallowed status of the academic or professor, and I think being humorous has a serious role to play in allowing students to have a different type of engagement with their tutor that isn’t overly serious or heavy. I want to put some more conscious thought into this, aware too of the challenges it can pose in terms of sensitives around what is deigned humorous and how this can manifest in a nuanced way. 

Things I am going to consider moving forwards: 

Humour as a deliberate strategy to disrupt hierarchies, create community, alleviate stress and increase enjoyment. 

Making kinetic sculpture, electronics and mechanics accessible to students in Fine Art

I run workshops in Kinetic and Performing Sculpture that aim to teach students the basic principles of electro mechanical systems for making their work and also the contextual history of Automata, Puppetry and Animatronics in relation to Art, Society and Politics, with a specific focus on the body’s relationship to technology in Art.

Context:

As outlined in (Blog 2) Students in Fine Art can find it difficult or intimidating to engage and maintain engagement with STEM ideas 

I try to incorporate three main principles to enhance the accessibility and approachability of a session

Evaluation / Moving Forward

Object based learning – At the beginning of a session  I use examples and maquettes made out of recycled materials to explain different types of mechanical principles.

Students are encouraged to touch, play with and deconstruct these examples as a way to gain an understanding of how they work and the principles behind them. Later in the session they will then use the same materials and processes used to make the examples to make their own work. In this way the students can haptically engage with ideas and then have a scaffolding, as outlined by Buren (1966), to refer back to later in the manifestation of their own ideas. 

Finding synonyms in language through student’s work, performance and the body – 

In order to explain many of the principles and ideas of mechanics I try to relate them to the functioning of a body. Often I will perform a bodily movement and then ask a question about how that movement is created in relation to the mechanical idea that we are discussing. In this way, students not only get the semi humorous spectacle of my gangly gestures, relaxing the atmosphere through self depreciation but also they can then relate the idea back to their own body ‘always looking at the relation between things and ourselves’ (Berger, 1972: 9) further cementing the potential understanding of a principle. (please see examples below)

Financial access and the provision of continued support

As the workshops are usually one off or limited sessions I try to build in support networks at the college so that students can carry on exploring kinetic ideas with other colleagues.

For instance, I have implemented a joined up methodology with the Metal Workshop Technicians at Chelsea whereby the materials and methods I use to teach linkages, levers and hinges (card and hole punches) are a simplified reflection of those used to induct students to the workshops (sheet metal, drill presses and guillotines). In this way, the processes students learn in my workshops can be easily translated into the processes they will be taught later (all of which are using recycled materials at each stage) and they can use this knowledge to make more durable finalised artworks. A homage to El Lissitzky’s ethos of using the diagram to progress from idea to form with limited materials ‘being a simple depicter the artist becomes a creator (builder) of forms’ Lissitzky El (1922). This process not only encourages innovation through material fluency but also enables the cost of accessing materials necessary to make work far cheaper and sustainable. Attempting to meet a similar challenge to the one faced by students at the Vitebsk School in Belarus, Lissitzky El (1922).

Finally, from a recent suggestion made by a colleague, I have started to use Padlet to create an ongoing database of information for students to access information about ideas,  processes and material suppliers, before, during and after each session. I also encourage them to share any documentation that they produce of their work to share with others – my aspiration is for these is to seed for communities of support whereby students can share and find information together. However, from my experiences so far the more Padlet is used institutionally as a method of assessment the less students engage with it as a resource or sharing point.

References

Ashton, H. Cutting the STEM of future skills: beyond the STEM vs art dichotomy in England. 

Berger, J. Ways of Seeing (1972) Penguin Books

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lissitzky, E. (1920) Theses on the ‘PROUN’: From Painting to Architecture. In: Lodder, C. (1983) Russian Constructivism. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 63–66.
Spooner, S., and Trowell, S. (2022) ‘Object-Based Learning in the Art and Design Curriculum: A Case Study’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 21(2), pp. 123-138.

When I was a student I was fortunate enough to be an exchange student at the Kyoto Seika University in Japan where I studied Conceptual Art and Casting. The experience I had there changed my whole perception of what an Art education could be: At the university the heads of department were practicing artists who had studios inside the college, where they would make their work with students either observing or helping them. Each tutor would then also function as a senior technician running the workshops with the aid of MA students who were trained and paid to be junior technicians. This was not limited to typical material processes either, with my writing tutor also having a studio where she could practice her performances in calligraphy and dance. The absence of boundaries between academic and technical staff was so stark that upon returning, I found it difficult to re-aclimitise to study in the UK. I would still maintain that it is the most important education I received as it gave me a way of perceiving processes, materials and thoughts as one holistic idea and allowed me to see past the constructed divides and hierarchies existent in the UK education system as outlined in the House of Lords Social Mobility Committee report (2014) and further extrapolated on by Ashton in beyond the STEM vs Art dichotomy

That is not to say that the pedagogy there did not have its own negatives: My tutor had clear favourites, prejudices and there was very little attempt to be inclusive, polite and equitable. He was very homophobic to one of my classmates and for the first month I was there he refused to talk to me directly and made constant references to atomic bombs and the evilness of westerners (he was born in Hiroshima in 1946). Like the Mozambiquean students in Savage’s ‘The New Life’ , my experience of a truly foreign education system was enlightening in both positive and negative ways. Nevertheless  my approach to arts education since then has been to find a way to bridge the academic and technical aspects of teaching.

One of the tutors atop a tilt furnace during a bronze pour in gardening pinafores

References

Ashton, H. Cutting the STEM of future skills: beyond the STEM vs art dichotomy in England. 

Savage, P. (2022) ‘The New Life: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR, and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti-Colonial Solidarity’, Art History, 45(5), pp. 1078–1100.
House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility (2016) Social Mobility in the Transition to Adulthood. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldsocmob/120/12008.htm (Accessed: 19 March 2025).

At the beginning of my workshops in Performing and Kinetic Sculpture I often use examples and maquettes as a way to engage students.

The tight format of the micro teach forced me to be extremely deliberate about what I wanted my peers to experience and discuss in such a short time, trying to make their own kinetic or performing sculptures would be unrealistic.

This gave me the idea of trying to combine a method I use for teaching generative writing and zine making, whereby students generate a narrative in a booklet through the unfolding of certain restricted prompts.

One of the key areas I have wanted to work on in my teaching on performing sculpture is to find ways to get students to think beyond the linear and to consider multiple senses and associations simultaneously whilst developing their work: One of the downsides of using examples in sessions is that sometimes students overly mimicking the examples presented and explored instead of generating their own ideas.

Using the ending of the movie Seven as inspiration, I decided to obfuscate the ability of students to see the kinetic examples as images by putting them in various container and trying to focus on sound, gesture, rhythm and sequential association, to generate a narrative about what was in the bags and boxes.

Once my Peers had gone through the process, I would then reveal what was in each bag to explore and discuss the potential simplifications and complexities of different mechanisms and associations in the generation of a viewer’s experience of an artwork

The intention being to use play and obfuscation to scaffold a dialogue about movement and sound in performing sculpture.

All items out of the bag but still in their containers and some of the responses

Revelation of animatronic fist and machine claw within their respective bags

Peer’s imagined narrative existing within each bag

Peers’s imagined contents of the aluminium kebab box and cloth bag

The revealed contents of metal kebab box with motor

Victor Feedback

Mike

Intro to self and activity (new activity)

Offers context

Provides instructions, provides alternatives. Reassures participants preferred ways to

communicate. Monitors time. Gives further instructions and notice of time left.

Asks participants to feel object in bag. Gives more instructions and then participants

share their booklets and narratives

Mike rounds up, explaining context and rationale of activity.

Audience feedback

Will you reveal hidden objects? Will you analyse work produced by students. Not

analytical, more like an aide memoire of the workshop. M explains structure of typical

workshop. Idea is to trigger interaction among students two. Sessions usually up to 12

so scalable up to there. Interesting approach but missed contextualisation. It may be a

tool for discovery. Maybe having one by one (e.g. sound), then feel, etc to help students

process information and focus to account for neurodiversity. Last bit felt a bit repetitive

and challenging because of time constraints. Change of activity (touching) adds variety.

Reflecting on the micro-teaching session that I conducted, the experience was interesting because it was set outside the usual context of Art students who I normally work with.

The feedback from the session was really useful in highlighting areas of improvement. One point of reflection was the need for more contextualization. Although I explained the rationale for the activity and its objectives, some participants felt it lacked a deeper explanation of the context in which the objects and activities were being presented. This manifested in the plurality of responses to the exercise and the confusion over purpose. I think this is a crucial aspect of object-based learning, as students need to understand not only what they’re interacting with but also why the interaction is meaningful.

Written responses

Confused responses

Another valuable piece of feedback was regarding the session’s pacing and structure. Given the limited time, I had to balance the exploration of the object with enough time for students to process and reflect. This I just about managed but did end up rushing and pacing will be something that I will be exploring through and improving on with my observations and case studies.

Lastly, the feedback pointed out that the session became a bit repetitive toward the end, likely due to the tight time constraints. Incorporating more variety in the activities in terms of individual and group working could keep the momentum going and ensure that students remain engaged throughout the session. The challenge of fitting a dynamic and tactile learning experience into such a brief timeframe made me again realise the importance of pacing and variety in keeping the session effective.

Moving forward, I plan to experiment with slower-paced and more structured activities in order to create a more thoughtful and immersive learning experience for students. By allowing more time for each phase of the activity, I can ensure that students don’t feel rushed or overwhelmed, enabling them to absorb and engage with the content at a deeper level. I also aim to integrate clear breaks and moments for reflection, so that participants have the opportunity to process what they’re experiencing and connect it to their own work. This approach should not only help students retain the material more effectively but also foster a more meaningful connection with the workshop, allowing them to recall and apply the concepts long after the session ends.

In my experience, Fine art students, particularly home students from lower SES backgrounds will often feel intimidated in association to scientific, mechanical or mathematical applications in the arts. This can be problematic as more and more students want to work in ‘New Media’ yet have self doubt, feel unable or unworthy to access the support they need to develop these ideas.

Moreover, there is often gendered and racial stereotyping that further isolates Art students from approaching STEM methodologies. This is because a ‘false dichotomy’  as Ashton, H. (2023) lays out in Cutting the STEM of future skills: beyond the STEM vs art dichotomy in England: Creating a situation within secondary and further education meaning that students from lower SES who are capable in STEM choose that over the Arts to study into Higher education.

This then creates a situation whereby students who have chosen arts from that same background are even more likely to be intimidated, as their own choices will have been ‘presented (to them) as a frivolous ‘nice to have’ which is neither economically useful nor worthy of substantial public funding.’ Ashton, H. (2023)

In reaction to this, I have also experienced dismissing remarks and inferences from some within arts education, with the implication being that it is a fad subject, that is only technical and novel in nature or ‘undeliverable’ and too expensive in the current economic climate: Ironically, inversely mirroring in rational, the same reason STEM as was made a priority within education by Labor in 2005 Ashton, H. (2023)

References

Ashton, H. Cutting the STEM of future skills: beyond the STEM vs art dichotomy in England. 

Thoughts on – 

The potential of online object based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and higher education:

• The ROSE system (p193) as a method of analysing artifacts was incredibly interesting and I would be keen to use it in relation to my teaching more  – a kind of base level critical function to analyse everything.
• ROSE as a system to analyse a text about the ideology of  flowers was a genius level pun.
• Fantastic idea as a way to introduce students to critical theory relating to colonialism and the environment – also having attended a couple of seminars that Judy ran with Phil on the ideology of the Latin font and Medieval Marginalia I can only begin to imagine how engaging this would have been if they had done it IRL
• It very much smelt of COVID and although I can imagine it being one of the best things for students to have engaged with at that time, I also can’t imagine it being better than if they had done it IRL 

Thoughts on – 

The first workshop session:

• God it felt good to be a student again
• Metaphorical/ Analogous exercises are useful up to a point – if you always have to have the meaning of the experience explained after each exercise then it negates the ‘natural’ realisation of an idea
• However I do really believe in the idea of learning through actively doing as opposed to always passively listening
• However if the doing is always to the end of reaching a preordained explanation, then is it in any way more free than just receiving a passive explanation?
• Like the passive and active Fathers in Zizek and Lacian Psychology
• Or are these very thoughts I am having as an example of the success of the teaching method?
• I certainly struggled to absorb the passive information about the case study structure

Ideas and areas for case study:

• Developing the kinetic workshops I run – The politics of the body and technology
• Techno Bodies and the Body Politic  – Pedagogically, Academically and Technically 
• Making mechanics, coding, electronics and coding accessible to all students
• Techno Bodies and the Body Politic – contextualise it within academia
• Fostering a real community of practice and support network
• Creating an online resource for students to access and share ideas
• Embedding economic access into the methodologies
• Is it possible for Online Object based learning or is that an oxymoron?
• Is it possible to use Online Object based learning for what I do?
• How would a more academic workshop function?
• How would a more technical workshop function?
• Do I need to delineate?
• Fostering online engagement without it being data collection?
• How could I incorporate ideas around the environment into it?
• How could I incorporate more specific political engagement into it?
• Can I incorporate the ROSE method into my teaching?

What do I want to get out of the observations

• Is it a good idea to have my kind of boss observing me?
• How can I support the students who fade during a session / is it necessary
• Balance of 1 to 1 and group support/learning during a session
• Balance of Context – Theory – Making
• How accessible is the content, context, and method of my workshops
• Inclusion,
• Pacing
• Longevity
• Building of Community of practice
• Fostering of online Resource and Sharing
• Vitebsk ideology