To Crit, or Not to Crit? That is the Question…

Posted on 25th March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

During our final workshop, we focussed on forms of assessment & feedback, encompassing the ever-present art-school crit (or critique).

Commonly structured as a group consisting of peers giving and receiving formative feedback and facilitated by academic staff; the crit can be a daunting and even damaging space for students during their educational journey. The intention of a crit may be pure, i.e. providing developmental feedback for students to improve their artist practice. However, due to a combination of both archaic traditions using the crit as a place for students to ‘cut their teeth’ and get a taste of ‘the real world’ (whatever that means!), plus a lack of student engagement in critical thinking, their usefulness has diminished in the eyes of the student. (Sherwood, 2024)

These concerns are outlined in Sherwood’s (2024) report ‘Crits and Inclusive Learning at UAL’. Through collating student and graduate testimonies, there is an obvious pattern of hope for a positive experience, but that experience falling short due to both staff and students not having the tools to maximise benefits of the crit. Further testimonies from both staff and students are summarised in Blythman et al.’s (2007) report, noting issues ranging negative emotional impacts, differing life experiences, language barriers, lack of contribution, and conflicting feedback.

So, why do we continue to use crits as a legitimate form of feedback?

Group crits provide the opportunity to create an authentic space for students to give and receive constructive peer critique… for me, the emphasis being on ‘peer’. As educators we often centre the transfer of knowledge around ourselves, rather than the students themselves. We should be giving responsibility to students to both lead these conversations, as well as take ownership of their own learning. Through collaboration and peer-led learning, we can give students autonomy for real-life experiences. I mention more on this in my Case Study 1. 

However, without giving staff appropriate training, and students appropriate support, these crits can derail into destructive critisim, rather than constructive critique, or even nothing at all. Ellis, et al.’s (2024) handbook outlines structuring the crit in a way that sets boundaries, includes all present, balances types of feedback, and provides alternative ways to contribute.

From my experience in facilitating crits, I have found students seem more receptive to both contributing and receiving feedback when in smaller groups, in an inviting space, and feel like there is no power imbalance present. Students are eager to cross-pollinate across multiple year groups and courses, and I believe this is where the most successful crits lie. To implement Ellis, et al.’s (2024) handbook, I am aiming to be clearer with setting ground rules at start of session, think more creatively about the format in which feedback can be given, such as providing anonymous digital noticeboards, and providing more tangible evidence of their feedback for students to reference back to.  

References

Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B. (2007) Critiquing the Crit, final report no. LTR – 021007. rep. Brighton: University of Brighton. 

Ellis, M., Sherwood, C. and Tran, D. (2024) Supporting inclusive and developmental crits: a guidance for staff at UAL. rep. London: Arts SU. 

Ghassan, A. and Bohemia, E. (2015) ‘The Global Studio – Incorporating Peer-Learning into the Design Curriculum’, FORMakademisk, 8(1): Art.5, pp. 1-11. 

Sherwood, C. (2024) Crits and Inclusive Learning at UAL: An Arts SU discussion paper. rep. London: Arts SU. 

Posted in All Posts, Reflective Posts | Leave a comment

Initiation as a Condition of Seeing: The Biases that Blind & Bind Us

Posted on 22nd March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

In preparation for Workshop 2, we were given a choice of readings; I chose to reflect on bell hooks’ essay ‘Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us’ from her book ‘Art on My Mind: Visual Politics’ (1995). In the essay, hooks begins by sharing the following Mende proverb:

There is a thing passing in the sky; some thick clouds surround it; the uninitiated see nothing. (Boone, 1986)

Through this aphorism, hooks describes how cultural barriers negatively affect the way African-American art is consumed and critiqued. Without the “metaphysical” opening of our mind’s eye, our unconscious biases will pigeonhole our critical thinking, favouring white-supremacist standards (hooks, 1995). This has huge ramifications within arts education, particularly towards students from global ethnic majority backgrounds. 

hooks supports this critique by discussing Lucie-Smith’s book ‘Race, Sex, and Gender: In Contemporary Art’, (1994) and the biases which “blind and bind” him, and in turn, us. Meaning, without making purposeful choices to decolonise the way we navigate art critique and education, we will always frame such areas in a Eurocentric context. Consequently, expectations for global majority artists (and students) to assimilate into this narrow lens are upheld and result in othering. Through these unconscious biases, curriculums are shaped to uphold white supremacy. As educators, this emerges in the references we provide, the language (spoken and unspoken) we practice, the assessment criteria we use, and more. 

Now, this is not to say these biases are a purposeful choice, nor a form of overt racism, but where we do hold responsibility (and power), is with autonomy to educate ourselves, and unpick these biases. If we choose not to engage with this path, we are no better than those who practice hatred. By creating meaningful connections with students, and providing spaces where Eurocentric ideals and perspectives can be challenged and discussed critically, we can hope to foster a more inclusive learning space for students of all backgrounds. 

It is worth noting that this is of course a difficult line to tread. So often education around hardship and power imbalance falls on those who are most marginalised, further othering the already fatigued. hooks (1995) discusses the issues African-American artists face with either the expectation to assimilate into the Eurocentric standards to reach success, or the automatic othering they face in the framing of their artist practice. Specifically, the theme of revolt that Lucie-Smith (1994) automatically categorises all “minority-ethnic” work under. An example of this sort of failure, which began as a well-meaning way to lift and reframe marginalised artist groups, is the 1993 Whitney Biennale. Unfortunately, through this attempt to “intervene & challenge the politics of domination in the art world” (hooks, 1995, p. 104), the exact opposite was achieved. Through framing all the artists under a pseudo anti-art-world-revolt lens, the cultural hybridity and more subtle themes of identity are immediately portrayed in a deeply problematic and aggressive perspective. Since most consumers and critics of art are not initiated into the condition of seeing (hooks, 1995), they will automatically evaluate the work through the context which it has been fed to them.

As educators, we hold an immense amount of power in shaping how our students navigate their studies through both theory and practice. To successfully decolonise the curriculum and disentangle the unconscious bias of ourselves and those around us, we must continuously engage in critical thinking, and encourage initiation of our collective informed intellect(s).

References

Boone, S. A. (1986). Radiance from the Waters: Ideals of Feminine Beauty in Mende Art. New Haven and London: Yale University Press

hooks, b. (1995) ‘Talking Art as the Spirit Moves Us’, in Art on My Mind: Visual Politics. New York: New York Press, pp. 101–107. 

Lucie-Smith, E. (1994) Race, Sex, and Gender: In Contemporary Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers. 

Whitney Biennale 1993 (1993) [Exhibition]. Whitney Museum of American Art. 4 March – 20 June 1993.

Posted in All Posts, Reflective Posts | Leave a comment

Case Study 3: Assess and/or give feedback for learning

Posted on 2nd March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

Contextual Background 

As a technical member of staff, I do not partake in formal/ summative assessment. I do, however, give informal formative feedback during taught workshops, drop-in sessions, group crits & 1:1s. The feedback I give tends to be supporting realisation of an outcome; be it learning a technique, developing a process, or a physical product for a unit hand-in. Since I am studio programme based, I witness the continued skill building and artist practice development throughout their studies.

Evaluation

The ad-hoc nature of this feedback focuses more on holistic comprehension and skill-building, rather than box-checking to complete an assignment. Danvers (2007) discusses this difference as deep vs. surface learning, the former characterised as ‘active understanding’. Additionally, as there is less of a hierarchy in place between student/technician vs. student/academic, I find students do not feel the pressure to always present their best work, but are more open to learning and growing through mistakes in the technical space. (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006).

Generally, the nature of the feedback is successful in immediately supporting their outcomes, but as technical staff we are not always made aware of marking criteria and may not get to see the project at its endpoint. For instance, I provide 1:1 tutorials with students who need technical support for their offsite show artwork. Although I am able to guide them in realising their project as well as exhibiting it appropriately, I am not always present for the installation, as well as being out the loop with unit criteria e.g. artwork restrictions, and not being involved with summative assessment. This may cause disconnect and opposing opinions with their academic tutors who hold power over their grade. 

Moving Forwards

Considering how my role can develop in assessing and giving feedback, I have outlined the following reflections:

  1. Developing trust through contact time 

The beauty of being a technician lies in being able to have more face-to-face time with students, and seeing them progress through their years of study. Offering dedicated drop-in time is something I programmed into the course, and adjusting these slots to fit the needs of the students (e.g. moving to when students tend to be more onsite,) has been a successful way to increase meaningful exchanges with students (Gibbs, 2015). Guzzardo et al. (2020) discusses the importance of student/staff interactions in achieving student success, ultimately fostering a more open and safe space for seeking out and taking on critical feedback.

2. Bridging academic-technical disconnect

To tackle this, I plan to implement constructive alignment through meeting with YLs to further discuss and integrate technical teaching with unit-specific assessments (Biggs & Tang, 2007). As mentioned before, I have begun this through 1:1s, however, implementing more structured feedback models may assist in clarifying learning outcomes, and aligning formative feedback with summative assessment. This will be developmental to that specific unit, and help me practice transparent pedagogy (Li, 2018). However, it is important for me to not lose the informal, ad-hoc nature of feedback occurring already, as this tends to be where students are most comfortable and excited about developing their practice (Addison, 2014).

3. Reciprocal feedback and accountability

Although technicians tend to foster a more equal ground for student interaction, there is still an underlying hierarchy of staff/student. Therefore, we must be careful not to allow this to affect student autonomy and critical thinking. Additionally, feedback is not only a tool to develop student learning, but “to provide information to teachers that can be used to shape teaching” (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). Implementing check-ins when I give feedback during both ad-hoc and taught sessions allows students to develop self-sufficiency over their own practice, and help me understand what students need the next time we meet (William, 2011).

4. Maximising reflective feedback & self-regulation

By motivating students to take ownership of their learning, they become less dependent on external teacher-support. To achieve self-regulation, we must facilitate good feedback practice for our students (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). For instance, by integrating technical into the course assessment model as suggested in point 2, I could implement formative feedback in a documented format e.g. digital form. This would be something that is designed to be continually referenced back to and updated from both ends, to increase student engagement by encouraging active reflection from staff and student. My concern is that this will be an additional administrative burden for students who may already feel overwhelmed, and overburdened staff. Further reflection on making this an engaging process would involve group discussion with other technical and academic staff.

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.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) ‘Using constructive alignment in outcomes-based teaching and learning’, in Teaching for quality learning at university. 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 50–63. 

Danvers, J. (2007) ‘Qualitative rather than Quantitative: The assessment of arts education’, Networks Magazine, pp. 14–19. 

Gibbs, G. (2015) ‘Maximising student learning gain’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 193–207. 

Guzzardo, M.T. et al. (2020) ‘“The Ones that Care Make all the Difference”: Perspectives on Student-Faculty Relationships’, Innovative Higher Education, 46(1), pp. 41–58.

Li, S. (2018) ‘Critical transparent pedagogy in teacher education’, TESOL Journal, 10(2). 

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218.

William, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, pp. 3–14. 

Posted in All Posts, Case Studies | Leave a comment

Case Study 2: Plan for and support student learning through appropriate approaches and environments

Posted on 2nd March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

Contextual Background 

I usually teach within a dedicated Painting Methods & Materials (M&M) Room (see Fig. 1), occasionally stepping out of that space to teach in a shared bookable seminar room (see Fig. 2) to house larger groups. I consistently run morning workshops, and find that students can be slow to actively engage in the session.  

Fig. 1 – Painting Programme Methods and Materials Room
Fig. 2 – Bookable Fine Art Seminar Space

Evaluation

In M&M, there is an abundance of natural light, and the space has been curated in a way where tools, examples, layout, and design flow to allow for ease of teaching and working. Not only this, but care to include wellbeing items such as plants encourage a positive environment for student engagement (Marshalsey, 2023). The setback to this space is that due to the size; classes are capped (numbers dependent on process), as well as independent working off-limits during the workshop. Whilst these issues are mitigated by use of a shared bookable seminar space (DG21), this room functions mainly as a lecture room for other courses. Therefore, substantial tidying and setup is required, along with a less specialised and inviting space which lacks natural light.

For example, I run Y1 U4 Bookbinding in DG21 on Friday mornings and the rather dark and daunting nature of the room seems to impede interaction when I ask for student participation. Use of a non-specialised space cause for discomfort for staff and students, as well as the time of day playing a part in the sleepy and disengaged nature.

Moving Forwards

  1. Alternative timetabling

Although I do not have complete control over the scheduling of these workshops, to mitigate any lack of engagement from early morning sessions, I plan to discuss with year leaders to implement an equal range of morning and afternoon workshops (where applicable) to encourage those who are more active later in the day (Yeo et al., 2023). The issue being, is that I tend to run many full-day sessions e.g. Risograph Printing, Stretcher Making, which must begin in the morning to be completed in one day. I could consider splitting these over two separate teaching days, but from experience, workshops scheduled over multiple days have a significant drop off in attendance. Additionally, due to space and staffing constraints, this would be difficult to programme.

2. The social aspect of engagement

For students to achieve better learning gains, engagement is a necessary marker of comprehension during hands-on technical workshops. To better motivate my students, I have integrated an object-based activity with music at the start of my sessions to encourage chit-chat & excitement about the materials, equipment, and methods. I have already found this to play a huge impact on student confidence to answer my probing e.g. “can anyone tell me what they know about ‘X’ process already?”. When trialling this in M&M vs. DG21, I found students were more actively engaged in M&M. The more inviting, communal setup and smaller group size evidently plays a role here (Exeter et al., 2010).

3. Sense of place

As mentioned in ‘Sensory Affect, Learning Spaces, and Design Education’ “placelessness can foster negative feelings in both educators and students.” (Marshalsey, 2023, p. 120) She goes on to discuss that without forming an intimate attachment to a learning space, students (and staff) may experience “existential outsideness” (p. 121). This concept is apparent in use of multi-use spaces such as DG21; the room does not hold particular attachment from students/staff, unlike M&M. Therefore, does not foster an engaging learning environment. To combat this, the simplest route would be to stop teaching in DG21, however, increasing course sizes will likely not permit this. Instead, I could encourage residency-esque use of space through temporarily displaying (unobtrusive) artworks on walls, hosting peer-led crits and collaboration, and even bringing plants.

4. Design of learning environment 

As aforementioned, environment plays an integral role to student learning experience. M&M has been moved 3 years running, and each year it is designed with collaborative input to ensure that it functions as a technical course-specific space for workshops, presentations and independent working. The opportunity to create the ideal learning space from a blank canvas (Marshalsey, 2023), means careful planning and preparation prior to the academic year, as well as development of the space as each term goes by. In doing so, the room has cultivated an “existential insideness” which students seem to resonate with (Marshalsey, 2023, p. 121). For example, going from a large open-plan space with no windows, to a smaller one with lots of natural light has greatly improved the way students engage in workshops, and when independently working. This obviously has reduced our class sizes, but the alignment with student ideals for learning/studio spaces is clear: plants, plenty of natural light, visual examples/inspiration, books, wood features etc. (Marshalsey, 2023, pp. 84-85).

References

Exeter, D.J. et al. (2010) ‘Student engagement in very large classes: The teachers’ perspective’, Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), pp. 761–775. 

Marshalsey, L. (2023) Sensory affect, learning spaces and design education: Strategies for reflective teaching and student engagement in Higher Education. London: Routledge. 

Yeo, S.C. et al. (2023) ‘Early Morning University classes are associated with impaired sleep and academic performance’, Nature Human Behaviour, 7(4), pp. 502–514. 

Posted in All Posts, Case Studies | Leave a comment

Review of Teaching Practice 3 – Tutor Reflection

Posted on 2nd March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

In response to my tutor review, (see full document in Appendix B) I will reflect on comments below:

It was noted that my teaching room was well set out & an inviting space for students to come into. Careful curation and development of this space has been of great importance to me, since working in a warm & engaging space is positive for myself & my team, therefore also beneficial for students.

I often remind everyone of my (and my colleague’s) name(s) if I see students I am unfamiliar with, but it is good practice to adjust my sessions, so I always give a reminder at the start to make them more comfortable.

I always use music during sessions to make students feel comfortable, but the use of it during the OBL activity at the start was a new addition thanks to my reflections from microteaching. I will be implementing more aspects of dedicated time for OBL as an icebreaker during my sessions as I found it extremely successful with engaging students in the process.

A personal priority for myself is to always make students feel welcomed and listened to, no matter their background or skill level, so the fact this was picked up on as a positive aspect is rewarding. I will continue to treat my students with consideration & kindness, as this fosters better relationships & encourages their learning.

I often try to link processes to other more familiar methods/materials to ease explanation. I think it is a useful tool as mentioned “meeting students where they are” (Biggs & Tang)

The mixture of digital slides and in person examples was picked up on as helpful and clarifying. I usually remind students these slides are all available on SharePoint after the session, but it would be useful structure this into my notes at the start to ensure students are clear.

Use of artist examples with various backgrounds is important to me to ensure students are given diverse inspiration. I would like to develop the artist examples I choose by giving additional artists/books/websites in the references slide, with not only a range of ethnic backgrounds, but including artists/writers with other visible AND nonvisible diverse characteristics.

Going forward, I will implement a slide to leave up during image production with clear instructions about expectations on what we are producing e.g. the 2 layer image, so students can reference this whilst making without needing to ask for reminders.

If I were to scale up this session, I would need to consider a larger room, and careful timetabling to ensure smooth running. I could likely run this session for a MAX. of 32 students across a 2-week period. DG21 (bookable seminar room) is suitable, but less inviting & inspiring to teach/students to work in. Additionally, this would require staff time to set-up the multi-purpose space.

I would not be able to induct all 32 students in 1 afternoon in the Riso room, as it is very small and only has 2 machines. I would need to offer short time slots, which may not account machine failure or issues with image preparation.

By increasing group size and taking away from teaching in an inviting fit-for-purpose space, the session no longer feels to be a safe environment, rather formal & daunting. Resulting in students being less comfortable asking for help & speaking out, and therefore, less comprehension. Ultimately, I believe group size is best left capped at 10. However, if I were forced to run this session for a larger group, I would probably develop Option B further (see Appendix A).

My options would be to either split this session into a short lecture & separate printing day or reduce image production through larger collaboration on a single print. Waning student attention span means it’s preferable to complete an induction/session within one day, however, larger groups would result in not all students using the Riso machine at every step, thus not successfully reaching the learning outcomes. 

Conversely, more collaboration is a positive learning experience for the students to develop real-world skills. Giving students frameworks to plan and prepare within their own time also gives autonomy for future practice.

(Appendix A)

Option A

  • Offer initial part of the session as larger group lecture (30-45 mins), then have students begin to plan images in pairs, giving a framework of info e.g.
    • Rough drawing/description of image
    • Description of layer separation choice
    • Colour choices and order
  • Give 30 mins-1 hr for this section, so whole session is 1-1.5 hrs, allowing time for face-to-face questions & troubleshooting.
  • At end of session, I would approve plans made in class.
  • Students would then be expected to go away for 1 week & complete their image separations in own time. They could drop in for support via email or dedicated drop-in hour e.g. Tuesday afternoon.
  • We would meet directly in the print room the following week in slot bookings assigned to them e.g.:
    • 10.00-11.20, 8 students (4 pairs)
    • 11.20-12.40, 8 students (4 pairs)
    • 13.40-15.00, 8 students (4 pairs)
    • 15.00-16.20, 8 students (4 pairs)
  • 32 students total printing across 7 hrs. vs max 10 students printing across 5 hrs. aka. an increase in x2.3 capacity.

Option B

  • An alternative option to expand this session, is to only offer the session as a collaborative zine workshop, with 4+ people working together at once to make a single 8-page zine. Aka. each person would produce either 2, 2-layer A6 images or 1 A5, then in their group these would be compiled together into 1 A3 sheet & printed into a single zine.
  • I could offer this to a group of 24 students (6 groups) in the time frame of the original session but require a larger room to teach.
  • I would again, need to assign slots after the intro & image production in the morning e.g. 
    • 14.00-14.45, Group 1 & 2 (8 students total)
    • 14.45-15.30, Group 3 & 4 (8 students total)
    • 15.30-16.15, Group 3 & 4 (8 students total)
  • 24 students total printing across 5 hrs. vs max 10 students printing across 5 hrs. aka. an increase in x2.4 capacity.
  • This capacity increase just beats the previous offer, although on paper seems to cover less students, (24 vs. 32), the time spent to teach the students works out as more time effective for Option B.

(Appendix B)

Review of Teaching Practice Form – Chelsie Coates – 27th Feb 2026

Review of Teaching Practice – Chelsie Coates 2Download
Posted in All Posts, Teaching Observations | Leave a comment

Review of Teaching Practice 2 – Peer Observation

Posted on 2nd March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

Below is a record of my observations, questions and suggestions after observing my peer. Find the full document in the Appendix:

Overall, induction was definite success, all students engaged in all 3 monoprint techniques during session. All students were heavily engaged & listening intently during demonstrations. None seemed distracted/ on phones apart to take videos of processes

  • Opportunity to develop digital archive of processes in picture/video format so students can recap during independent working?

Group of 6 was perfect for session. Meant 2+ students could be working on each process at any one time, without waiting to print. Organic movement around processes. Alba managed students well & was able to give verbal feedback & support to each one individually during the session.

  • How would you ensure a larger group fully understands each process?
  • Perhaps create a scheduled timeline for rotating groups of students on each process?

Asking students if they have done other printmaking was good way to engage so they immediately draw on previous skill set. Mix of experience made for a diverse group of learners for Alba to manage.

Letting students choose colours & pick imagery increased engagement & created higher reward process.

  • Colour-theory during offset ink rolling engaged the students in the process of gradient. Good for future independent work.
  • Using non-print metaphor was useful in the gradient rolling. Could this be utilised more to encourage retention?

Use of the digital prompt regarding multiples/matrix info was good visual aid for students to understand difference with monoprint to other forms of print.

  • Could prompts shown can be tailored more to the session itself, and signposting to access info after session?

Preparation of direct monoprint inking done by staff – perhaps be done by students to engage more in that process and get practice with inking to support future access. 

  • Noted that due to time constraints with larger groups, may not be possible. 
  • Noted almost all students did ink up either during demos / gelli plates, but larger group might not have enough capacity for everyone to try.

Students struggled with inking gelli plates correctly. Focus on process? E.g. before moving to offset, students pair up (pairs might be less pressure than on own) & ink gelli plate together, whilst teacher checks? Might also be implemented with other processes to ensure every student has had go at inking all methods correctly?

Drawing attention to student examples on wall encouraged making & creativity + opening possibilities of monoprint. Exciting examples on wall & students asking how to emulate look of many of these.

  • Would it be useful to have a physical archive of examples of each specific process so they can really understand the differences between each/ possible mark-making & reference easily?

Great do’s & don’ts on technique given + opportunity for experimentation & development. Showing outcome of what not to do during each process was useful retention tool.

Using multiple mark-making techniques, tools & materials gave students a solid understanding of range of possibilities available to them & sparked excitement.

During gelli printing, there was reference the different type of ink used in each process.

  • Is it worth extrapolating on why certain inks for each process & benefits of water-washable inks? May reduce mistakes for future access.

Asking for volunteers during demos was good use of student-led learning. Verbal encouragement given to volunteers boosted confidence & made more comfortable.

  • What might you do in a situation with no volunteers?

Counting: useful tool introduced for printmaking.

  • To encourage retention, can everyone count out loud together?

Discussing use of monoprint as digitised artworks used in animation etc. was good inspiration.

  • Digital examples could be useful!

Offset seemed harder for students to grasp, with use of machinery & stencils not going to plan. 

  • Is it worth thinking about offset becoming a workshop within its own right, OR developing an advanced offset workshop to build on introductory one?
  • Opportunity to return after lunch was great way to let students further develop the processes and feel more comfortable.

Doors being open to rest of workshop with music during could be distracting to some students e.g. neurodivergent.

  • Can doors be closed during talking/demo & reopened when making begins?

Appendix:

Review of Teaching Practice Form – Alba Gomez Urquia – 19th Feb 2026

Review of Teaching Practice – Alba Gomez UrquiaDownload
Posted in All Posts, Teaching Observations | Leave a comment

Review of Teaching Practice 1 – Peer Reflection

Posted on 2nd March 2026 by Chelsie Coates

In response to my peer review, (see full document in Appendix) I will reflect on previous comments below:

Presentation:

Through my current presentation, the overuse of text is distracting & confusing for many students, especially ESL. Including this information as an additional post-session handout would be more successful in supporting future student learning. By cutting down on text in-session and replacing each slide with a visual diagram to aid learners, I would aim for a reduction in confusion & better understanding in-session. Going forwards, I would cut out these slides & draw my own diagrams for each stage of binding. Using the step-by-step text as a digital handout for referring back to at a later date post-session.

Hands-on Activity/ Demo:

It was noted that the difference in pacing in the group caused some friction. E.g. fast-paced learners waiting around. I have written more about changes I could make in Case Study 1, but essentially, shifting my focus from teacher-centered learning to student-led and collaborative learning would help with the pacing of the session, giving students more autonomy and confidence to continue developing their skills outside of the classroom. For instance, grouping students in mixed skill level pairs or threes to support completing and understanding the process, as well as fostering a community within the cohort. 

Additionally, to refocus students who are not paying attention to the demonstration, and therefore fall behind, I could adjust my language around the timed structure of the session. By focusing on distinguishing ‘watching’ and ‘doing’ time, students would hopefully be more likely to stay on track during the process. For instance, I could spend 2 minutes demonstrating 3 steps and then give 5 mins for students to complete this process. Once everyone has completed these stages, we would move as a group to the next set of steps.

Alba also mentions asking questions during steps. For this workshop, I could ask whether students know what the next step might be, or ask a more confident student to demonstrate for me. This might encourage comprehension & (again) peer-to-peer learning.

Participation:

It was noted the sleepy/unmotivated nature of my group. The time of day (Fri morning) definitively plays a part in this. To activate my group prior to the hands-on making, I could introduce OBL as an icebreaker tool at the start of the session. By offering examples in front of them & having them discern information about the materials, construction & context in small groups, this might awaken some more interest in the process & make them more comfortable to speak up during the presentation aspect of the session. Additionally, by asking more questions during the introduction of equipment e.g. can anyone name this tool, this might encourage students to more actively participate.

Alba’s suggestion about having an informal discussion about non-related topics or even easing into the topic by discussing favorite book-related artists interested me to encourage student participation. I agree that I do not think they lack interest, but I do think confidence plays a role since they are all 1st year BA students.

Additional notes:

Leaving some time at the end to share results & have a small group discussion on the processes e.g. challenges, parts they enjoyed would help in concluding what they have learnt. I could bring the session back to the learning outcomes to ensure they are clear on what they have learnt, or if they will need to see me again for additional understanding.

Appendix:

Review of Teaching Practice Form – Chelsie Coates – 6th Feb 2026

Review of Teaching Practice – Chelsie CoatesDownload
Posted in All Posts, Teaching Observations | Leave a comment

Case Study 1: Knowing and responding to your students’ diverse needs

Posted on 18th February 2026 by Chelsie Coates

Contextual Background

I programme and run a wide range of technical workshops for Painting students at Camberwell across BA & MA. Painting is the largest Fine Art cohort at Camberwell, and consequently, we have an extremely diverse group of students who learn at varying paces due to language, neurodivergence, disability, work & caring commitments, financial & educational backgrounds & more. 

Evaluation

In workshops I teach, pacing plays a vital role to process learning. If a student falls behind, they may not complete the process to a best-practice standard, which holds weight in technical training. Adversely, students progressing at a faster pace may not feel challenged by the session & grow disinterested. For instance, I run a session where BA Y1 students are expected to complete 2 simple books using a plethora of fiddly equipment. In a group of 12-18, there may be 2-4 needing additional support and 1-2 who excel. 

To identify students needing additional support, I apply verbal & physical check-ins during practical components & 1:1s during making. To assist this, I usually lead the sessions with a support technician to aid students working at various paces. Additionally, almost all my delivery will be accompanied by a digital presentation with instructions to be referred to during & post session. 

Whilst these reactive and post-care methods are generally successful, I am mindful that they are rather teacher-centred, and my support may become focussed on the most vocal, leaving the wider (and quieter) group without appropriate provision. Additionally, the faster learners may become disenchanted with the programme if they do not feel challenged.

Moving Forwards

To address the concern of supporting students with various learning paces during my sessions, I would like to consider the following five adjustments:

1. Skill-checking at start of session

When starting a workshop, enquiring who has had any experience with the process(es) would help me identify those who may be faster learners & need a further challenge to retain interest. Additionally, it is an opportunity to sense-check students who seem less confident & recognise where extra support or time is required. By identifying the higher-skill students, I can utilise their expertise to support students who are less confident, whilst developing autonomy in both directions. (Ghassan & Bohemia, 2015)

2. Focus on peer-teaching

As mentioned in Adjustment 1; by reducing the teacher-centric nature of the classroom, I can encourage independence & confidence through process (Ghassan & Bohemia, 2015). By grouping students with mixed skills near the start of the workshop, I would aim to nurture a cyclical teaching environment, where more-able students guide less-able students, and less-able students provide important lessons on supporting learners and confirming comprehension. Wong et al. (2003, p. 417) supports this concept by noting that “interacting with a more knowledgeable peer can learn to become as knowledgeable as the peer”. Firstly, this alleviates the teacher pressure to be giving constant manual support to students mid-process. This would also allow me to focus more on facilitating and ensuring comprehension from the whole group, rather than focussing on the select few. Secondly, (and perhaps more importantly,) by giving ownership to students over their learning in the classroom, this encourages students to develop their educational experience outside of taught sessions, which ultimately is the cornerstone to self-regulated learning. (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2010)

3. Move to collaborative learning 

Laal & Ghodsi (2012, p. 487) note the social, psychological, and academic benefits to collaborative learning such as:

  • Development of social support systems
  • Diversity understanding
  • Modelling and practicing cooperation
  • Development of learning communities
  • Increase in student self-esteem & reduction in anxiety
  • Promotion of critical thinking skills

To approach the session as a facilitator rather than a transmitter of information, I can encourage student discussion & deep comprehension, supporting the aforementioned benefits. By noting at the start of session that students are expected to check in with their neighbour at each step, or even on a timed schedule e.g. every 10 mins, this will democratise knowledge between the group. Confidence will be built in the natural leaders, & students needing more time will experience support without feeling embarrassed for speaking out in a large group. 

4. Differentiation in outcomes

By providing a higher-level or additional process for faster learners to nominate themselves for, students who complete their assignment well before the given time can still feel challenged & interested in the process. My concern with this adjustment is not only the additional workload on staff to develop teaching materials, but the further encouragement of insular & lone working/learning in the classroom. I believe that providing additional resources or higher-level tasks would be more useful to encourage self-regulated learning as an aftercare method post-workshop.

5. Separating groups by skill level

Although this may streamline a workshop, my biggest concern with separation, is that this will encourage division within the cohort. Since Gibbs (2015, p. 206) notes that “social and collaborative learning leads to much better learning gains”, the community part of learning will be lost. Additionally, the logistics of finding out student skill level prior to the session & then organising the groups as well as developing a hierarchal set-like system may bring upset to students who were placed in lower sets during their (not so long ago) school years.

Ultimately, to shift towards a more collaborative and peer-to-peer learning environment would aim to provide a framework of community support for the diverse group of learners I encounter.

References

Ghassan, A. and Bohemia, E. (2015) ‘The Global Studio – Incorporating Peer-Learning into the Design Curriculum’, FORMakademisk, 8(1): Art.5, pp. 1-11. 

Gibbs, G. (2015) ‘Maximising student learning gain’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 193–207. 

Laal, M. and Ghodsi, S.M. (2012) ‘Benefits of collaborative learning’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp. 486–490. 

Wong, W.K. et al. (2003) ‘Reciprocal tutoring using cognitive tools’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), pp. 416–428.

Posted in All Posts, Case Studies | Leave a comment

OBL Microteaching Reflection

Posted on 18th February 2026 by Chelsie Coates
Fig.1 – close up of glass muller artefact

During my microteach session, I wanted to introduce a process which my peers may not necessarily be familiar with; oil paint making. Rather than using a tutor-led teaching approach through ‘usual’ lecture-style techniques, I chose to implement a facilitator-foreword approach, aiming to understand the process through analysing a glass-muller used for grinding paints (Fig. 1). Doing this let me implement theories and methodologies I had been learning over the course of the past weeks. Specifically, space for silence in the classroom (Harris, 2022), object-based learning (Tohidi, 2026) and student-led learning (Gibbs, 2015).

I chose to use one of the frameworks introduced to us by Dayhna Tohidi (2026) in our OBL guest lecture: Prown’s Forensic Analysis (1982). Prown’s methodology is “based on the proposition that artefacts are primary data for the study of material culture, and, therefore, they can be used actively as evidence rather than passively as illustration.” (1982, p.1) My goal was to speak as little as possible, but simultaneously facilitate a ‘safe’ space for students to discuss their thoughts without fear of being called out for being ‘wrong’. I teach oil paint making within my programme, but do not look critically at the objects that we use to teach the process. In removing the immediate and obvious purpose of the object (and hoping no one in the group would know what it was) my main goal was to pique curiosity & conversation in this session (see student notes in Appendix D). The ‘forensic’ aspect of looking at an object and having students dissect, deduce and hypothesise about its materiality, function, context & meaning interested me as a way to incite student self-sufficiency. Through pushing students to deeply examine a singular object, we might engage and encourage them to use their critical and analytical thinking hats (Fig. 2). Once they have done this process, a dual feeling of both contribution and understanding may be achieved. 

After exploring each specific area of Prown’s Framework, (1982) mostly without interrupting or over-promoting, (other than the basic prompts in my presentation (see Appendix A,) I used reactive teaching to decide when to move the group along. I was fortunate (or perhaps attentive) enough to stick close to the timing I had planned for each slide (see timings in Appendix B). However, I did run out of time at the end, after opening up the conversation for a collective choice to be made on whether to learn the true function of the object (see session plan in Appendix B). Although all students agreed on wanting to know the purpose & context, I am aware that this could’ve been more difficult to handle, with possible differing answers.

Fig. 2 – wide shot of group discussion & prompt slides in background

Feedback & Reflections:

Below is a compilation of feedback from my peers, as well as personal reflections & responses.

  • Students were especially interested by the choice of object. I see this as a sort of ‘unicorn’ of OBL… Would it be difficult to find another object so vague and conversation inducing as the glass muller? 
  • My choice of ‘minimal-intervention’ style was noted, allowing room for student-generated ideas. I did not try to fill any awkward silences, which we as educators often overcompensate to do. I was still attentively listening and ‘sense-checking’ on when to move the group along to the next part of the activity.
  • Use of digital slides was praised for being a simple prompt for participants to remember discussion points, without me verbally repeating myself over & over. 
  • The silence in the context of students (rather than a microteach to teacher peers) may end up in lack of participation/ engagement. How would I tackle this? Perhaps I can include further structured prompts for disengaged students. Rather than overcrowding the slides, adding these as verbal prompts so they are not as heavily relied on.
  • Conversation direction may skew to ‘groupthink’ (Fisher, 2022), where students are easily swayed & converge on a singular idea. In this case the item being a paperweight. Should I direct any ‘wrong’ answers or allow them to be fleshed out?
  • Managing differing desires in outcome e.g. whether they would like to know the function of the object or not might require me to split the group so those who do not want to know leave with the prompts in my session plan & those who would like to know stay to see the final slides. My concern is this may cause divides and group discourse, in turn reducing the social aspect of learning. (Gibbs, 2015)
  • To clarify my learning outcomes or goals to ensure students are clear. It was noted they can be intangible outcomes such as fostering conversation, relationship building, icebreaking etc. Using skills I developed in Workshop 2 (Kennedy & Aloysius, 2026) I used the ‘Learning Outcomes Framework’ (see Appendix C) to rewrite such LOs, drawing from the ‘Action Verbs and Domains of Learning’ Table (Fig. C1):

Alternative Learning Outcomes: (see previous LOs in Appendix C)

  1. To discuss the purpose and context of the artefact we are looking at today. (Comprehension)
  2. To compare hypothesises pertaining to the artefact with the group. (Analysis)

Finally, how might I integrate this session into my current teaching practice?

Rather than using this as a standalone session, it could be a practical icebreaker to begin a session, aiming to encourage more active participation during the process contextualisation and hands-on making. By adjusting the learning outcome(s) of this specific part of the session, I can make the end-goal & unit alignment clearer for students who may struggle with understanding the purpose of a workshop. Additionally, moving away from technical workshops being exclusively about building hard ‘making’ skills, but for discussion and critical-thinking skills whilst also building relationships across the class. Ultimately, fostering a cohesive & well-socialised group is referenced by both Bamber & Jones (2015), and Gibbs (2015) to increase overall student gains and enable inclusive learning.

Appendixes:

(Appendix A)

Session Powerpoint Deck:

Microteaching 2nd FebDownload

(Appendix B)

Timed Session Plan:

Microteaching Session PlanDownload

(Appendix C)

Learning Outcomes:

Previous ‘Learning Outcomes’: (see Slide 2 in Appendix A)

This Workshop will Enable You – 

  1. To understand the purpose of the artefact we are looking at today.
  2. To contextualise the artefact we are looking at today.

Learning Outcome Framework:

  • Unambiguous action verb
  • Object of the verb
  • Context or Condition (Kennedy & Aloysius, 2026)
Fig. C1 – Action Verbs & Domains of Learning Table (Kennedy & Aloysius, 2026)

(Appendix D)

Student notes during session:

References:

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging students: Enabling inclusive learning’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 152–166. 

Fisher, C. (2022) Group-think AKA the group-thinking trap: What it means and how to avoid it, UCL News. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/opinion-group-think-aka-group-thinking-trap-what-it-means-and-how-avoid-it [Accessed: 18 February 2026]. 

Gibbs, G. (2015) ‘Maximising student learning gain’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 193–207

Harris, K. (2022)‘Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5 (1), pp. 101–104. 

Kennedy, C. and Aloysius, L. (2026) ‘Theories, Policies and Practice: Workshop 2’, PgCert in Academic Practice. London. 

Prown, J.D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: An introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), pp. 1–19. 

Tohidi, D. (2026) ‘Introduction to Object-based Learning’, Academic Practice Guest Lecture Series. Online: 21 January 2026.

Posted in All Posts, Microteaching | Leave a comment

Object Based Learning and the Luxury of Time

Posted on 16th February 2026 by Chelsie Coates

Reflecting on our first guest lecture on object-based learning, I was left intrigued on the concept. I had not heard of OBL prior to the session, but as a technical member of staff, my teaching methods almost always include objects per-say… However, the nature of that object almost always functions as a vessel for understanding how to practically make something. What was new for me, was the opportunity to look at OBL from a museum & archive perspective as illustrated by Dayna Tohidi (2026). The process made space to something that is somewhat of a privilege in my (and likely my colleagues) day-to-day teaching: Time.

It felt rather luxurious spending a prolonged period dissecting an object using Gillian Rose’s Critical Visual Analysis (2016). This method allowed us to really focus on what we could discern from the image ourselves, rather than be immediately spoon-fed information on the object itself and rushed into a learning outcome. Through this process, we were forced to actively engage with the image/object, stretching our imagination & investigative skills as a team, rather than attempting to take in information the traditional lecturer-listener style. (Gibbs 2015)

Using Rose’s Critical Visual Analysis (2016), we focussed on analysing the following points in Fig. 1 (Tohidi 2026)

  1. Production – Found most conversation stemmed from guessing how the boots were made.
  2. Image – This talking point often crossed over with production, comparison of the two images of the same object was most prevalent.
  3. Circulation – This point felt most difficult to discuss, with the least to say on the matter.
  4. Audience – Felt the shortest to discuss with not much delving into creative options.

Fig. 1 (Screenshot of slide outlining object to discuss)

Since there was a wide range of participants in my group, all from different backgrounds & with differing experiences, there was, proportionally, a wide range of understanding & hypotheses. For instance, one extrapolation referenced by a colleague was that of medieval fayres, whilst most others were influenced by the idea of the American-West. This was immediately interesting since hearing different perspectives from my peers was both enlightening & eye opening. As outlined by Tohidi (2026), one of the benefits found in OBL is: “Introducing students to new ideas and new ways of working & thinking.” 

The whole process really made me wonder how I might implement this into my own teaching. As aforementioned, I indeed regularly use objects during teaching. However, to create an environment where there is no rush to move on to the next talking point, or to ensure a visceral outcome is completed would be the challenge. 

Instead, to apply OBL in my teaching may not be about trying to align any of the frameworks into my workshops… But perhaps to actively make the time & space in these sessions to break the ice, warm students up, or create social connections before beginning the ‘core’ lesson plan? Thus, aiming to encourage deeper learning for the whole session (and future sessions) through collaborative conversations. After all, Gibbs (2015) notes that “social and collaborative learning leads to much better learning gains”. Additionally, Bamber & Jones’ (2015) references to collaborative learning support this idea:

  1. Students who are actively involved with peers […] – especially in learning activities – are more likely to learn, persist, and graduate. (Tinto, 2004: 8)
  2. Peers substantially influence how students spend their time and the meaning they make of their experiences […](Hu & Kuh 2002:570)

Going forward, I should like to experiment with OBL, delving into Prose’s Forensic Analysis to foster a co-operative peer-led learning environment. The first step:

Find the perfect object to test out my theory!

References

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging students: Enabling inclusive learning’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 152–166. 

Gibbs, G. (2015) ‘Maximising student learning gain’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 193–207. 

Hu, Sand Kuh, GD (2002) ‘Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics’, Research in Higher Education, 43: 5.

Rose, G. (2016) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. 4th edn. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd. 

Tinto, V (2004) Student Retention and Graduation: Facing the Truth, Living with the Consequences. Occasional Paper 1. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.

Tohidi, D. (2026) ‘Introduction to Object-based Learning’, Academic Practice Guest Lecture Series. Online: 21 January 2026.

Posted in All Posts, Reflective Posts | Leave a comment