Disability

Exploring the Shades of Noir journal around Disability, I came across a pertinent article about a research project undertaken by a LCF tutor examining what adjustments might encourage wider participation in fashion for visually impaired students. I was instantly intrigued by the title ‘Understanding Visual Impairments by Claudette Davis-Bonnick’ (Davis-Bonnick, 2020), partly because I recently assisted a student who admitted that, having forgotten her glasses, her vision was impaired.

One aspect of the research highlighted a multimodal approach to teaching, where a number of senses were engaged to enhance learning. It was noted that Fashion has become very visual-centric, with emphasis on what something looks like (Davis-Bonnick, 2016). So audio resources were advocated, which would help not only visually impaired students, but those with specific learning differences. The sense of touch was found to be under employed and different techniques around feeling shapes, edges and textures were trialled.

This approach resonated with the artworks of Christine Sun Kim and Khairani Barokka. Both incorporated elements of the artists’ relationship to their different senses in their art; interrogating the ‘disablity’ in one of their senses. Barokka was transforming what she was feeling ‘to make an ‘invisible disability’ visible, through refusing to stand up to perform, and through the paint’s visualisation of my pain’ (Barokka, 2017)) and Kim was using various objects to create a language which could translate her thoughts and emotions more truly (A Selby Film, 2012); an embodiment of her audio ‘disability’.

These resources drew my attention to the reductionist emphasis of fashion on a single sense, both limiting the scope for designs and the entry for potential designers. They also prompted me to consider the exciting possibilities within fashion practice that could be extrapolated from them; to include the entirety of the human experience in the design of a garment, from touch, smell and sound, to emotional, political and social responses.

 As a side note, I had never regarded wearing glasses (which I do myself) as a disability. But perhaps it is just a matter of degrees whether one is labelled ‘disabled’ or ‘normal’. And therefore, following the social model of disability, Davis-Bonnick’s research is an example of where making adjustments to help visually impaired people could benefit all students. Further, it is this labelling of someone as ‘disabled’ or ‘normal’ which according to Critical Disability Theory, leads to a binary approach of othering and the ‘oppression of disabled people perpetuated in many societies globally… Perhaps if there were more recognition that there is no single acceptable mode of embodiment, and that all bodies are unstable and vulnerable, then rather than being labelled as deficient, the bodies that are further from normative standards would be revalued as simply different.’ (Shildrick, 2012)

I had never considered that whole groups of people might feel excluded from Fashion because of how they had been labelled. Maybe we should approach the delivery of education in our institution with the idea that we are, all of us, differently abled.

Bibliography

Davis-Bonnick, C. (2020) ‘Understanding Visual Impairments’. Disabled People: The Voice of Many, pg 106-108.

Davis-Bonnick, C. (2016) Seeing is Believing Documentary. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqgxB9iaq2s (Accessed: 1 May 2023)

Barokka, K. (2017) ‘Deaf-accessibility for spoonies: lessons from touring Eve and Mary Are Having Coffee while chronically ill’, Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, Vol. 22(3), pg. 387–392.

A Selby Film (2012) Christine Sun Kim. Available at: https://vimeo.com/31083172 (Accessed: 1 May 2023)

Shildrick, M. (2012) Critical Disability Studies: rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. London: Routledge.

Artefact

Belonging in the Studio: A Critical Reflection
I have been a Garment Technician at London College of Fashion for 5 years, coming from an industry background. I grew up and attained my degree in Fashion Design in Canada, so having no experience of Higher Education in the UK, starting work in this sector has been a steep learning curve. I remember my first days in the studio. I felt nervous, disoriented and overwhelmed by the things I didn’t know and the people I had to meet. Eventually I settled in, but I will never forget that feeling, especially when I see it echoed in the face of a student wandering around the studio looking a little lost.


It is only now, being introduced to critical theories of pedagogy in the PGCert, have I started to examine the reasons behind this feeling and situate it within the wider context of my practice at the University. Applying these insights, I have begun to recognise that there are structural inequalities independent of an individuals’ characters or abilities, which affect the experience and outcomes of our students.


Because I do not have formal training in teaching, my approach to pedagogy has been largely intuitive. I try to be fair and equitable in my interactions with students, understanding that each student has unique positionalities that affect their behaviour and approach to learning. However this will never be enough to ensure parity of opportunity if it takes place within a structure that is exclusionary. We need to challenge ‘the ways in which educational systems reproduce and perpetuate social inequalities with regard to marginalised and excluded groups of students across a range of abilities, characteristics, developmental trajectories, and socioeconomic circumstances’ (Liasidou, 2012). This idea of Inclusive education has given me a theoretical framework to approach the development of my artefact, aligning as it does with my beliefs about teaching as an action of care.


I began by asking some students about their experience of using the studio space and accessing Technical assistance. While most students reported feeling comfortable, I noted that many of the students of colour admitted they found it difficult in the beginning. One student reported being reluctant to ask Technicians for help as he felt they were ‘a little scary’. These observations along with comments from my colleagues and from T&L research at UAL (Appendix 1), supported my supposition that some students were being excluded from accessing our technical support and that this could have consequences for their learning outcomes. Recognising and acknowledging this, I was inspired to develop an artefact (Appendix 2) which might help to overcome these barriers.


My fellow Technicians and I work variable shifts across a number of studios. We look after the machinery and the safety of students as well as working individually with them on their projects on a first come- first served basis. Students are introduced to one or two Technicians during Induction Workshop. But in the studio, they must rely on spotting the tiny staff button we wear to identify the rest of the Technical team. This arrangement can seem quite opaque. Adopting a Universal Design Approach, where ‘each initiative should be of benefit to the whole community while of specific benefit to those currently disadvantaged’ (Universities UK, 2019), I felt that explaining the working practices of the studios, making the implicit explicit, and introducing all the Technicians to the students, would enable them
to fully participate in studio practice. It would empower students by helping them to decode the tacit knowledge of how the studio spaces and the Technicians who work in them function, reducing social anxiety and fear of the unknown. This removal of doubt acts to democratise the use of the studio space for all students, because to achieve Social Justice it is essential that we consider ‘the equity of support and professional services between international and UK students’ (Arshad & Lima, 2012).


This fear which is manifested in the students ‘a little scary’ comment, also links to ideas of identity and belonging. It resonated with me because, as a person of colour myself, growing up in a white dominant society, I have personal experience of ‘othering’ and through this, an appreciation of what it feels like not to belong. This feeling of alienation is cited as an important contributing factor in attainment and retention outcomes in Higher Education (Bunting & Hill, 2021).


At UAL the data shows BAME students have a disparity of attainment compared to their White Home counterparts (UAL, 2023). They also exhibit a lower rate of retention. UAL has pledged to eliminate the continuation and awarding gap between White and BAME students as part of their Anti-racism strategy (UAL, 2021) as well as their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy, which seeks to ‘create a fairer and more inclusive institution for all’ (UAL, 2023).


One of the methods UAL has identified to address this, is to increase recruitment of BAME staff to reflect our countries diverse population. Our team of Technicians at LCF already surpasses this target. However, issues of inclusion continue to be problematic. Crenshaw’s theory of Intersectionality points to a more nuanced overlapping of identities among individuals (Crenshaw, 1989), not something that can simply be homogenized within the umbrella term BAME. A queer, Chinese student may not feel any more understood by a heterosexual Black British tutor, than a White one. The binary nature of ratios of representation can only go so far towards creating a sense of belonging in the student body.


In the strand of my artefact where the Technicians construct their own descriptor using the ‘fun fact’ methodology, I hope to engage with this complexity of intersectional identity, by a ‘focus on the local-cultural characteristics of the groups involved’ (Hahn Tapper, 2013). This approach encourages each Technician to examine their own positionality and responsibilities towards building an inclusive community with our students, in a way that is not prescriptive. ‘Our narratives, through intersectional reflexivity, acknowledge our privileges and disadvantages as well as the power of our positions in academia.’ (Jones & Calafell, 2012)


These narratives built around the Technician as a person, with activities and interests that could resonate with students, make us seem more approachable. The feedback I received from my PGcert cohort reinforced my belief that this artefact could help to humanise us by ‘breaking down those hierarchies of authority’. Another of my cohort added that she often uses this methodology. ‘We all get to know each other that way … I remember stories more accurately than a name.’ Creating these connections on a human level can help ‘to break the vertical patterns characteristic of banking education. Through dialogue, the teacher is no
longer merely the one who teaches but one who is taught in dialogue with the student, who in turn while being taught also teaches. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow.’ (Freire, 1970)


When speaking to colleagues about this artefact, the response was positive. They, like myself, have observed that look of confusion, so welcomed the development of a formalised device which could increase the equity of access for all students.


As this artefact is still in development, I have not had the opportunity to gather data on its effectiveness in increasing student engagement with Technicians. However, there are a number of ways in which I will be able to do so once the artefact is put into practice.
It will be possible to quantify the number of students accessing the artefact because the hosting Sharepoint site records the number of views. Although I will not have information on who views the page, this can indicate how often the resource is used.


Whether it lowers the barriers to accessing technical support can be gauged qualitatively through observations, both in the frequency and confidence with which students request assistance. I will ask my colleagues at the beginning of the year to pay particular attention to the quantity and quality of student engagement. Then at the end of the year, I can collect their observations to see if the effect of the artefact has been realised. It would also be useful to collect data directly from students, possibly by adding some questions to their student survey to determine whether some increase in technical proficiency has been noted, improving the quality of their work and thereby increasing attainment and retention.


When I began the PGCert, I was revisited by that feeling of being out of my depth, faced as I was with a new situation. The academic language and theoretical learning in the course have at times felt rather remote from the day to day realities of my practice. However, on reflection, I now recognise how the pedagogic theories around inclusive learning and teaching have become the scaffold around which my artefact has taken shape and how the theory underpins the actions that I take in facilitating student learning. My artefact, in helping students decode the workings of the studio, mirrors my journey through the PGCert, which is helping me to decode the workings of becoming a Critical Educator. It has made me realise that I have a part to play towards creating a ‘shift in the field of higher education itself, so that HE moves toward inclusive practices to develop a transformative approach in all its actions: that is, to develop flexible and anticipatory approaches’ (Finnegan & Richards, 2016); that institutional transformation cannot happen without individual action.


Appendix 1
This transcription is from an interview with a UAL student where she describes her anxiety around asking for technical assistance:
‘I’ve never spoken to a technician until this year. I’ve wasted so much time to just to be afraid and scared to reach out to anyone. You don’t you just don’t know how to go ask for help from
tutors. Like if I’m phrasing my question this way. Does it sound too stupid? If I’m asking a technician about help for my project? Is it like, is it too rude? Is it am I taking too much of that time and what I think it would be great if tutors and technicians can be more engaged in what students, especially international students, in what they’re doing personally and try to, you know, kind of reach them out in the first step and try to start a conversation with them. Because it’s really, it’s hard for some of them to reach out at first.’
UAL Teaching, Learning and Employability Exchange (2022) Student focus: International Student Experience [Podcast]. 26 May. Available at: https://interrogatingspaces.buzzsprout.com/683798/10685297-student-focus-international-student-experience (Accessed: 14 July 2023)


Appendix 2
A description of the Artefact:
My artefact will be a short video introducing students to the studio and the Technical staff. It will explain where technical staff can be found and what we are able to assist them with. Each Technician will introduce themselves with their name and a fun fact about themselves designed to emphasize their approachability. Some examples of prompts to assist Technicians develop their script could range from: ‘My favourite food is a traditional dish called … ’, ‘I raised money for charity by taking part in a …’, ‘The scariest thing I’ve ever done is …’
Here is an example of an introduction: Hello, my name is E-Sinn. I am a Garment Technician with a background in men’s and women’s tailoring and draping soft separates. My fun fact is: I did some busking on the Charles Bridge in Prague, playing on a violin I purchased at a street market.
The artefact will be captioned and include a verbal (Name Drop) and written version of each Technicians name to accompany the video, to provide the information in different formats.
The artefact will be hosted on the Technical Resources Sharepoint which course teams link to Moodle. It will also be accessible through QR coded posters and free-to-take stickers at entry points to the studios.


Bibliography
Liasidou, A. (2012) ‘Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), pp.168-184.
Universities UK (2019) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK. Univeristies: Case Studies. London: Universities UK.
Arshad, R and Lima, P (2012) Attracting international students: equitable services and support, campus cohesion and community engagement. London: Equality Challenge Unit.
Bunting, L. and Hill, V. (2021) ‘Relational Reflections: How do we nurture belonging in creative Higher Education?’, Innovative Practice in Higher Education, HE Special Edition, pp.139-165.
UAL (2022), Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report 2021/2022. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/?a=389423 (Accessed: 12 July 2023)
UAL (2021), Anti-Racism Strategy Report. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/296537/UAL-Anti-racism-action-plan-summary-2021.pdf (Accessed: 12 July 2023)
UAL (2023) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/equality-and-diversity (Accessed: 12 July 2023)
Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp.139-167.
Hahn Tapper, A. (2013) ‘A Pedagogy of Social Justice Education: Social Identity Theory, Intersectionality, and Empowerment’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(4), pp.411-445.
Jones, R. and Calafell, B. (2012), ‘Contesting neoliberalism through critical pedagogy, intersectional reflexivity, and personal narrative: Queer tales of academia’, Journal of Homosexuality, 59(7), pp.957-981.
Friere, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. UK: Penguin Random House.
Finnegan, T. and Richards, A. (2016) Retention and attainment in the disciplines: Art and Design. York: Higher Education Academy.

Values and Knowledge

What do we need to know in order to teach well? What values inform the way we teach? Mapping our reflections on these important questions was an effective way of cataloguing our responses, especially for our cohort of mainly visual arts practitioners. It was a revealing method for encouraging self examination of our beliefs and how much these personal principals can affect how we teach. Do we need to be good people to be good teachers? Can we learn to be ethical?

Values were also in the forefront when we examined UAL’s climate, racial and social justice policies. This ignited an interesting debate around the authenticity of the universities ethical stance. As argued in Holmwood (2018), the commodification of academia is at odds with a meritocratic institution. It has led to a neo-liberal ideology which diverts responsibility for issues of inequality and racism on to the individual as the consumer of education. Can a for-profit institution be genuine in promulgating social purpose as their guiding principal? UAL’s policies could either be viewed as merely a USP for branding the university or an honest attempt to build a better society through the education of future generations. As an employee of UAL it seems incumbent on me to fully participate in this debate and to seek clarity on the policies, the framework for measuring progress in these areas, and to try in whatever way I can, to integrate it into my teaching practice, as these values do in fact align closely with my own beliefs; to approach it from a place of hope. As Hooks (2003, p.xiv) affirms, ‘When we only name the problem, when we state complaint without a constructive focus on resolution, we take away hope. In this way, critique can become merely an expression of profound cynicism, which then works to sustain dominator culture.’

Holmwood, J. (2018) ‘Race and the Neoliberal University.’ In Bhambra, G. K., Gebrial, D. and Nişancıoğlu, K. (eds.) Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press.

Hooks, B. (2003) Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Routledge.

Constructing a (Shorter) Line to Assessment

Reading Allan Davies’ (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’ Network, Issue 18, prompted me to think about how it applies in the context of my work. Davies, unlike Bloom’s taxonomies presents a model of deliberate ambiguity which allows for the particular nuances of the creative arts; having some over-arching structure to the learning outcomes while leaving space to explore divergent pathways.

As a Technician, I am not party to the assessment criteria and this affects my ability to advise students. Even when I have read the Learning Objectives for the course module, which we are not routinely given access to, they can be (following Davies’ suggestion) deliberately ambiguous. So I have to make certain judgements about what I feel is important, when I am teaching students, and then cross my fingers and hope that the course teams would agree with me. Which in most cases, they would. But in those circumstances where there is doubt, I usually frame this to students in terms of the different choices they can make and the reasons they might have for choosing one over the other, and leave it to them to make their own mind up. The student will have been party to the introduction of the Learning Outcomes (LO) in their initial brief for that project, where they should have discussed the LO’s in more detail and so they should be the best judge of which part of my advice best aligns with their Learning Objectives. This becomes part of their ‘research’.

The full version of this post can be found here.

Compassionate Assessment

Neil Currant’s tour de force seminar in Compassionate Assessment really resonated with me. It is understood that assessment is a necessary, but sometimes deleterious, part of the learning journey. So how can it be done in a way that minimises the distress to the assessee? Currant’s research into Pass/Fail grading indicates that Compassionate Assessment does not lead to a lowering of standards. Just as we make reasonable adjustments following the social model of disability for those with disabilities, which have benefit for all students, assessment frameworks could be more flexible, without detriment to the quality of that assessment. The key is to understand the student, their learning style, background and motivations.

The Pass/Fail research also highlighted the affect of grading on self-censorship, a fear of risk-taking when the negative impact of failing is seen to be too great. Especially within the creative arts, where creation requires constant testing of new ideas, almost all of which could be considered failures along the road to the final outcome, risk-taking should be encouraged. I am often asked by students if they are doing something ‘right’ or if their samples will be ‘marked’. I see the relief when I tell them they won’t be. But more importantly, I see the freedom that it gives students to experiment, to collaborate with their classmates, how much less self-conscious they are about showing me their work in progress and how much easier it is for them to ask me for help. And as a result, how much deeper their learning becomes.

Designed for Teaching

Our first in person seminar was a celebration of the effectiveness of different Teaching Activities in addressing particular Learning Outcomes. Having no formal training in Teaching, reading through UAL’s Course Design Toolkit and Student Guide to Assessment Criteria (UAL, 2023) gave me really important insights into how the mode of delivery of a lesson can lead to specific outcomes. The seminar itself was an elegant manifestation of a lesson plan, using different activities, modes of discourse and knowledge exchange. We experienced group working in different formats, exercises which encouraged ‘Enquiry’. The activities asked questions, and we, the students, were able to exchange examples of our own experiences of teaching, passing on ‘Knowledge’. Moving around the room as we brainstormed around different modes of teaching was the embodiment of a learning journey, a ‘Process’. We presented our work verbally and in a variety of visual formats, illustration, diagram and text, sharing our learning with each other; ‘Communication’. Reaching ‘Realisation’ by an evaluation of our work through discussions and consideration.

The breadth of responses to these activities expanded my ideas of what can be achieved through a well designed lesson. Drawing examples from our own teaching practices encouraged us to examine, contextualise, enhance and transform our collective knowledge and to critically reflect on ‘both the way in which (we) understand what it is to be university teachers and (our) educational practice’ (Dall’Alba, 2005). Lindsay embodied the teacher as a collaborator-facilitator and the session enabled active participation and engagement, creating a space for us to both learn how to teach and how to be a teacher.

Dall’Alba, G.(2005) ‘Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of
being university teachers’, Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), pp. 361–372

UAL (2023) Assessment Policy. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/study-at-ual/course-regulations/assessment (Accessed: March 20, 2023)

The Micro Teach

As a Technician, I have only had minimal input into lesson planning, so when faced with the task of delivering a Microteach, the first thing I did was to read the brief and the supporting material closely. I quickly decided on an object, my very worn and continuously mended cashmere sweater, as a lot of my thoughts about teaching are affected by my concerns with sustainability issues in my industry. The obvious approach to a teaching activity was to prepare a workshop around learning the technique of Sashiko mending, the element I wanted to highlight in my object. But in the process of identifying the Learning Objectives I wanted to set, it became clear that what I wanted my cohort to take away from my session was a broader examination of their own personal relationship to mending and the sustainability of their own clothing. I asked myself whether this was possible, given the time restraints and decided to at least make an attempt. I hedged my bets by telling myself I would time a rehearsal of my lesson and if it was too long, I would revert to a workshop style session.

I began by gathering information around the technique of Sashiko itself. Then I expanded my circle of enquiry to the wider issues around sustainability of clothing and cashmere in particular. Having amassed this body of information, I looked at the structure of the lesson and how to present the information in a way that would amplify the physical presence of my object in drawing out conversations, thoughts and discussions. At each step, I tried to imagine what responses I might get from my cohort. I was also conscious not to appear judgemental or to be forcing my opinion on the cohort.

I tested a number of activities for potential learning outcomes; group work around a number of provocative statements about planetary resources, brainstorming, word association and round table discussions. Finally, I arrived at the framework of storytelling to at once remove the judgemental element and to engage the emotional response to the harsh reality of the situation.

I began my microteach with a question: Imagine you have a sweater that you have had for a few years and have just discovered a hole in it. What would you do with it? I asked my colleagues to write down a few thoughts on how they would answer this question, then asked them to hold the thought of this imaginary sweater in their minds as I described my journey of how I went about answering this question. I felt that this would encourage them to approach the information I presented in a collaborative frame of mind and in a mindset of interrogation. In conjunction with the tactile quality of handling my sweater and the visual representation of the time and care that I had taken with it, would provoke a more visceral and instinctive response to the subject. I asked them to examine the sweater and to note the worn patch as an example of ‘before’, and the tiny sashiko stitchings as examples of ‘after’. I talked them through my struggles with finding a sustainable solution to extending the life of my sweater, using this as a framework to introduce facts and information around some of the issues, accompanied by visual images to accommodate neurodiverse learners. And then I asked them how they might now answer the question I first posed to them in the beginning of the session. I was hoping that I had given them enough provocations to spark thoughts and discussion on the impact of sustainability in their own lives.

I did manage to race through my story in under 20 minutes and we did have time to go around the group to elicit individual responses to my ‘lesson’, which as a whole showed engagement with the topic and a real attempt to make some sense of its relevance to their own lives. Although all the themes I covered in my presentation I felt were necessary to build the narrative arc, it resulted in a mild preoccupation with time keeping and less interactivity. I think more pauses for direct discussion at intervals throughout would have drawn out more conscious parallels about how mindset affects behaviour change. I was also aware that there was not as much directed attention to the ‘students’ as I would have liked; eye contact, checking for understanding and gauging levels of attention. There were encouraging responses from the practical, saying that the lesson had shown them how easy mending could be and they would try it, to the philosophical, how it made them think about the affect of their own actions on other people and places. I would have liked a bit more time for discussion to be able to determine the participants responses. I had wrestled with whether to state the learning objectives more overtly at the beginning of the session, but did not want to prejudice how the individual responded. This made it more difficult for me to quantify the outcomes, but felt that overall, the Learning Outcomes were within touching distance, if not fully realised.

The feedback was generally positive and someone suggested that this could be developed into a workshop around thinking about sustainability. I was relieved that I was able to elicit the learning outcomes I had set out to achieve and it has given me some confidence in my abilities as an educator.

As a final thought, I was also interested to note which types of information produced the most thoughts and questions in the cohorts’ minds: surprising statistics, emotive images, hard hitting text or performative storytelling. If there was a way of measuring the response to each of these, I would be interested in which of these educational tools was most effective.

Constructing a line to Assessment

This week began with a perusal of Allan Davies’ Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? Network, Issue 18: July 2012. I had to look up the references to Bloom’s 1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals in order to understand the thesis of Davies’ argument.

I broadly agree with the necessity to standardize assessment criteria to ensure a fair system of grading. This is especially nuanced in the creative arts, as some of the received wisdom of what is ‘good’, can be in danger of depending on subjective opinions. Style or fashion can be very culture specific and to critique something, it is important to have an understanding of the context in which it is being presented. The student must believe that their teacher understands their context. The objectivity of the teacher is important to ensure trust in the fairness of assessing creativity.

Bloom’s taxonomies of prescriptive language may be difficult to apply to the particular nuances of the creative arts. Davies, instead, presents a model of deliberate ambiguity; having some over-arching structure to the learning outcomes while leaving space to explore divergent pathways.

‘So, I suggest, in art and design whilst it is important that students know what they have to do on any course of study, it is not necessarily through published learning outcomes. Learning outcomes might be seen as necessary for administrative purposes but they are not sufficient in helping students develop an idea of what they will be learning and how they will go about it. Indeed, in a highly supportive context, learning outcomes might be so generalised as to only define the landscape and the boundaries of their intended learning. The knowing of what to do becomes developmental and personalised.’

Identifying and refining keywords and outcome descriptors can paradoxically lead to confusion and a sense of meaninglessness in the brief.

Rather than measurability, the focus should be on meaningfulness

Art and Design uses the process of iteration to research, develop, review, synthesize and repeat, over and over until a successful conclusion is reached. Assessment needs to accommodate this process.

Unless a teacher has been party to the design and development of a programme, he or she will not necessarily understand how what they are expected to do fits into the whole. Programme design in such a complex landscape is often a negotiation of the language that embraces it. Only the course designers have a real understanding of how things fit together.

As a Technician, I am not party to the assessment criteria and this affects my ability to advise students. Even when I have read the Learning Objectives for the course module, which we are not routinely given access to, they can be (following Davies’ suggestion) deliberately ambiguous. So I have to make certain judgements about what I feel is important, when I am teaching students, and then cross my fingers and hope that the course teams would agree with me. Which in most cases, they would. But in those circumstances where there is doubt, I usually frame this to students in terms of the different choices they can make and the reasons they might have for choosing one over the other, and leave it to them to make their own mind up. The student will have been party to the introduction of the Learning Outcomes (LO) in their initial brief for that project, where they should have discussed the LO’s in more detail and so they should be the best judge of what to take from my advice. This becomes part of their ‘research’.

Interrogation: how does this verbal categorization of learning outcomes tied to assessment criteria affect students whose mother tongue is not the language in which it was written. Is there a nuance in the understanding of the descriptors which could be culturally driven and therefore exclusionary to some groups of students?

Down the Rabbit Hole

Week 1

Duly logged on at 9am with a mild dose of trepidation. The class moved at pace through the ‘getting to know you’ stage and neatly segued into discussion about some pedagogic topics drawn from material introduced to the groups during individual presentations. There was a really lovely circularity to the class structure.

I can see some parallels between the lesson plan and the creative process. Like you would when designing, there was an introduction of the brief. Then the lightning talks by colleagues which presented some ideas and the discussions that followed, were similar to the research and development stage. There was an assessment of ideas and narrowing down of subjects, which compares to the stage of refining and experimentation. Finally in the class, we did produce a padlet of ideas which could compare to the conclusion of the design process which culminates in creating an object.

Our smaller tutor group is a varied and vastly impressive group of artists and scientists with interesting educational, professional and personal experience. But the thread that seems to run through them all, which I found most inspiring, is the social engagement that drives their involvement in education. In just a lightning 5 min presentation, I found inspiration and insight into so many different areas of pedagogy that I cannot wait to delve deeper into. Now if only I had enough time to follow all those paths to their destinations.

I had chosen a journal article Wood, N., Rust, C., & Horne, G. (2009). A tacit understanding: The designer’s role in capturing and passing on the skilled knowledge of master craftsmen. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 65-78 to read and present to my tutor group. The article explored some research into creating digital resources for teaching traditional crafts. I found some relevant parallels between this research and the development of my own teaching materials in my work at LCF.

The researcher, Nicola Wood, undertook some case studies, working with skilled knife makers. Her main conclusion was that there tended to be a high degree of tacit knowledge in the craftsmans working practice. Tacit means implicit or internalized knowledge learned through personal experience.

The craftsmen were not necessarily aware of how they were going about their tasks, and sometimes found it difficult to articulate what it was they were doing. It was a useful reminder to me that I need to continually examine and elaborate on my working practices because some things which may seem obvious to me, may not be clear to others (students) and I will need to find a way to explain it to them.

It did spark some discussion into the value of tacit knowledge as compared to academic learning. Towards the end of the class, when we broke into smaller groups to enable us to exchange ideas on this topic, there were some perceptive points raised about how to give legitimacy to tacit knowledge, as something which is not easily tangible or quantifiable.

Ideas raised in some of the other presentations that excited my interest included pedagogy around giving space for silence in the classroom, how to teach creativity, the awareness of cultural backgrounds in learning styles and education as a means for promoting social change.

I made a note of some literature that my classmates mentioned that I would like to read: Paulo Freire’s Education of the Oppressed and Reimagining Conversations by Victoria Odeniyi.

A lot of these topics related to areas in the readings about creative education that ‘sparked’ my interest, when looking through articles to present in my own mini-talk. I was fascinated by the article Cowdroy,R. & Williams, A. (2006). Assessing creativity in the creative arts. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education Volume 5 Number 2. It concerns how to define and quantify creativity in able to objectively assess creativity in an academic setting. It also identifies difficulties in the creative education sector regarding commodification of arts qualifications in a world of education as a consumer good, something that is bought and paid for. This was also examined in Danvers, J. (2003), Towards a Radical Pedagogy: Provisional Notes on Learning and Teaching in Art & Design. Danvers looks at some of the tensions between academic structures and ways of giving space for critical interrogation, diversity of expression, improvisation and dynamic innovation. Another area that concerns me, is intercultural understanding and inclusivity within the western arts curriculum and as something that affects well being and attainment for overseas and BAME students. I had time to scan a few case studies in the Sixth issue of Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, published April 2018, which introduced me to some of the research going on in this subject and which I will be able to incorporate into my interactions with students in my teaching practice.

I look forward to following the trail of information and discussions down the rabbit hole to new worlds of knowledge and understanding.