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.