The space in which students work can have a huge impact on their ability to learn. At its worst, a poor space can actively hinder studies, while at its best, a positive, welcoming studio environment can enhance and uplift learning outcomes. Orr and Shreeve describe the studio as a ‘signature pedagogy’ in art and design education, which shows its critical role (1).

In my current teaching setting on BA User Experience Design at LCC, we are lucky to have a dedicated studio space in which all our sessions take place, which is known as ‘the Atelier’.

The studio space is also available to students outside of scheduled sessions, however uptake of this open access workspace is currently very low.

I would like to undertake a qualitative, participatory study of my student group’s needs and preferences at the start of the new academic year, (as each year’s group will have their own unique expectations and needs). From this, I will endeavour to make whatever alterations to the space I can (both during session time and outside of it) which would cater to their needs. The findings from this research will directly shape both our own studio space for that year, and provide students with their own toolkits to construct optimal working spaces and systems for themselves.

For students with neurodiversity or physical disabilities, it is easy to see how a closer study of their preferences and needs can make for a more hospitable work setting. Meanwhile, fostering an inclusive studio space which offers a welcome to all can better support students in many other ways. For example, for students experiencing financial hardship or difficult home life, ensuring that they have a reliable and welcoming workspace can be an extremely practical tool in aiding their studies. For other students, a workspace which is visibly inclusive and welcoming to all can foster a greater sense of belonging, again, contributing to greater presence in the space and better study outcomes.

References:

(1) Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. 1st edition. London ; New York: Routledge. (P.88 – 90)

Additional references and themes I plan to explore:

“The Atelier” in a Montessori context

Fattizzo, T. and Vania, P. (2021) ‘Montessori Creativity Space: Making a Space for Creativity’, in D. Scaradozzi et al. (eds) Makers at School, Educational Robotics and Innovative Learning Environments. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 113–117. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77040-2_15.

M.Ed), J.B. (M A. (2023) The Artist’s Studio: The Atelier and Atelierista, BarrKinderplay. Available at: https://www.barrkinderplay.com/post/the-artist-s-studio-the-atelier-and-atelierista (Accessed: 23 May 2024).

The ‘design studio’ as a general concept

Salama, A. (2006) ‘Editorial: Committed Educators are Reshaping Studio Pedagogy’, Open House International, 31(3), pp. 4–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-03-2006-B0001.

Race and space

Sibrian, A., Thomas, N., Moses, T., Mercer, L.E., (2023) Designing Collective Racial Healing Spaces https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=iasdr

Disability and space

Charleston, E., Foale, K.,Joynt-Bowe, S., Gendered Intelligence, and The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (2023) The Trans Dimension Guide to Inclusive Events. Available at https://gfsc.studio/assets/pdf/Trans-Dimension-Guide-To-Inclusive-Events_1.0.pdf (Accessed: 23 April 2024)

Class and design studies

Matos, A. (ed.) (2022) Who can afford to be critical?: An Inquiry Into What We Can’t Do Alone, as Designers, and Into What We Might Be Able to Do Together, as People. 1st edition. Eindhoven: Set Margins’ publications.

And many more to come

Kimberle Crenshaw’s ideas about intersectionality were arguably the moment the concept began to gain widespread recognition, thanks to her lucid explanations backed with tangible, real world examples, particularly focussed around the intersection of race and other identities. Others wrote about these ideas even earlier, like the Combahee River Collective — a group of black feminists, in 1970s, who stated:

“The major source of difficulty in our political work is that we are not just trying to fight oppression on one front or even two, but instead to address a whole range of oppressions. We do not have racial, sexual, heterosexual, or class privilege to rely upon, nor do we have even the minimal access to resources and power that groups who possess anyone of these types of privilege have.”

The Combahee River Collective (1)

My particular area of interest is the intersection of disability/neurodiversity and trans identity.

According to a study, trans people are 6 times more likely to be autistic than the general population — one of the authors notes:

“Both autistic individuals and transgender and gender-diverse individuals are marginalised and experience multiple vulnerabilities. It is important that we safe-guard the rights of these individuals to be themselves, receive the requisite support, and enjoy equality and celebration of their differences, free of societal stigma or discrimination”

University of Cambridge (2)

It is important to question the definition of neurodiversity as a disability, as the authors of this letter do. Neurodiversity can mean that some practitioners question neurodiverse trans people’s right to access the care they need.

“Without pretence, the mention of neurodivergence when speaking about transgender people is to imply that there is less capacity for making good choices about our bodies, evaluating risks and benefits. We can assure you as intelligent neurodivergent practising doctors, responsible for the care of others, that this is not the case. A divergent neurotype does not invalidate one’s gender identity.”

Khan, S., Sellen, M. and Carey Jones, B. (BMJ) (3)

This is one clear example of how intersecting identities can impede people’s rights, in this case access to care.

Trans people are also nearly twice as likely to be affected by a physical disability than their cisgender peers, at all ages (4). It is vital that these intersecting identities are respected, and any barriers to care and other rights are challenged (not just by those within the affected intersection of identities!)

In this video (5), Chay Brown reflects on his experiences as a trans, neurodiverse man. He notes how his intersecting identities can present both privileges and challenges. Because he is white, cis-passing, and his disabilities are often hidden, he benefits from advantages that those identities, (or perceived identities) bring, especially when compared to some other trans and/or disabled people. Identities can also intersect to offer privilege.

When asked what prevents disabled people from feeling included within the LGBTQ community, he particularly noted issues with access to venues. (Infrastructurally this is part of a complex history of gay venues sometimes needing to remain hidden, either in basements or upper floors of premises. This history presents access challenges to this day).

He also notes how a lot of trans and queer events are tied to alcohol and loud music, both of which can be challenging sensory experiences.

This is something that I have collaborated on researching, as part of GFSC’s ‘Trans Accessibility Zine’, which aims to support queer venues and events coordinators who are keen to improve their welcome to disabled and neurodiverse members of their community. The zine reflects on the challenges of accessibility across intersecting identities:

“All we can really do is try to make things better. We want this to be a care oriented process — that means people shouldn’t feel bad for not being able to accommodate everyone, because universal accessibility is a myth.”

“Access is personal. There are no hard and fast rules. It’s important to remember that what makes an event accessible to one person may make it impossible for another.”

The Trans Dimension Guide to Inclusive Events

When reflecting on the welcome offered to students with disabilities in my context, I am especially mindful of invisible disabilities, such as those talked about by Chay. Some students do directly approach staff members to let us know their needs. However, UAL’s data dashboard shows that 17% of students have a declared disability. This means that in a typical class of 40 students, an average of 7 students will have some form of impairment. And this is just those who declare on admission! In a subject like UX, we often discuss the needs of our users. I want my students to understand that UAL offers a safe space to be open about their needs as ‘users’ of the university, where they will be heard and supported in the ways they most need.

Sources

1. The Combahee River Collective (1977) The Combahee River Collective Statement. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20170224021117/http://circuitous.org/scraps/combahee.html (Accessed: 23 April 2024).
2. Transgender and gender-diverse individuals are more likely to be autistic and report higher autistic traits (2020) University of Cambridge. Available at: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals-are-more-likely-to-be-autistic-and-report-higher-autistic (Accessed: 23 April 2024).
3. Khan, S., Sellen, M. and Carey Jones, B. (2023) ‘Diversity in gender identity and neurotypes’, BMJ, p. 382. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382/rr-8
4. Smith-Johnson, M. (2022) ‘Transgender Adults Have Higher Rates Of Disability Than Their Cisgender Counterparts’, Health Affairs, 41(10), pp. 1470–1476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00500.
5. Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month 2023 (2023). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yID8_s5tjc (Accessed: 23 April 2024).
6. Charleston, E., Foale, K.,Joynt-Bowe, S., Gendered Intelligence, and The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (2023) The Trans Dimension Guide to Inclusive Events. Available at https://gfsc.studio/assets/pdf/Trans-Dimension-Guide-To-Inclusive-Events_1.0.pdf (Accessed: 23 April 2024)

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Teaching session

Size of student group: Class size is 35, attendance is variable, anywhere from 25 – 33ish.

Observer: Lindsay Jordan

Observee: Emma Charleston

Part One (Introduction)

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

This is the third session of our new ‘Human Centred Design’ unit, which runs until the end of the academic year. This is their second unit (of two) in the first year of the User Experience Design BA course. They will receive a brief after easter, the sessions until then are designed to consist of quickfire exercises introducing various human centred design concepts and methodologies.

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

I have been working with this group since September 2023, as ‘Year 1 Lead’ (i.e. their main point of contact for year 1)

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

To develop their understanding of human centred design methodologies and concepts in readiness to apply to a brief they’ll receive after easter. In this session specifically, to introduce auto-ethnography, immersion, and interviews.

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

During this session, students will (hopefully) show some homework examples, document the process of signing up for a new service, and (later) learn about conducting interviews by writing some test questions, and trying them out on their peers.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

I am still wrestling with the best ways of exploring students homework — the first session we did a general show and tell (with me prompting students to tell us about their work), the next session we did ‘I like, I wish, I wonder’ comments on Padlet. This session I am still deciding how to best show off what they’ve done!

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will mention it to them at the start of the session.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Any thoughts on catering for students with lower language levels very welcome. These is also a totally new session I have not delivered before, so any thoughts on the exercises are very welcome!

How will feedback be exchanged?

Informally verbally after the session if time, as well as written for the purposes of the PGCert.

Part Two (Observations)

This was a session for around 30 User Experience Design students, all grouped around tables. When I arrived, you were already in the thick of it, showcasing students’ preparatory work on the big screen via Padlet or something similar. I really liked how you dove into reviewing and discussing their work, picking out students to highlight their efforts and ask them to say more. This way of doing things not only keeps everyone alert but also shows you’re in tune with their individual needs – particularly re: language and comprehension.

Re: nudging those who hadn’t done their pre-tasks yet (‘those of you who haven’t done it yet, it’s a really good idea to do it’: it’s a nice gentle push. If you’re aiming for full house participation, we need to get a bit more creative. Biggs’ ideas on constructive alignment come to mind – can the pre-tasks be woven into the grading or featured on the unit schedule/scheme of work?

Moving onto autoethnography – a tricky concept. Your colleague took the lead here, but when you jumped in with that breakdown of ‘auto’ meaning ‘self,’ I thought that was a clever way to simplify it. Assuming autoethnography is something you and your colleague want to continue with, I think showing or providing students with a couple of examples of autoethnographic outputs would deepen their understanding and appreciation of its processes and ethical considerations and also engage students in critical thinking about research methodologies. The coffee shop example is a good one and could have been developed further, i.e. the ethnography of south London cafe culture (or, say, Apple device users) is one thing, and would result in a particular set of findings. As your colleague says, it’s a subjective view of an object and is inherently objectifying, and there are ethical issues to this. An autoethnography of south London cafe culture or Apple device users is another, and would yield different findings. These two simple examples are both good choices to show how autoethnography is likely to yield more sympathetic, more nuanced, and less stereotypical observations.

The whole ‘raising hands to answer’ thing can be a bit hit or miss. Trying out Dylan Wiliam’s approach could spread the engagement around more evenly. Picking someone suitable — apparently at random — keeps everyone focused and ditches the pressure of the spotlight moment: “Xing, if I say the word ‘immersion’, what comes to mind?”

Your presentation setup with the three-column slides – task, tips, options – was clear, actionable, and gives them the nudge they need. Could it incorporate more collaborative/peer actions?

The interviewing exercise covered consent, avoiding leading questions, and distinguishing between survey and interview questions. We try to teach this kind of thing on the ARP unit. What I’ve learned is that it’s something everyone thinks they can do, but very few people actually can. So you give them loads of great resources and they don’t think they need them, and then they send out a bad set of questions and get very little back! I imagine this is a really central skill in UX as well. How will you make sure they test their research instruments thoroughly and learn from that experience?

That’s about it! Would love to know what you’ll do in regards to any of the above.

Part Three (Response)

Getting full participation on homework tasks remains a challenge. Some students have indicated that they especially value knowing they’ll get concrete, actionable feedback on homework, and this ensures their participation (I have reflected on it further in this blog). However, for others, this does not serve as a motivation. One way I have succeeded in upping participation (albeit still not achieving universal homework completion) is to make clear that we will actively use and build on homework tasks in the next session. Most students enjoy the chance to see how a simple, intriguing homework task can be built upon in class, particularly when these are collaborative.

We did indeed explore auto-ethnography and other similar processes in more depth — at the end of this session, we set students the homework task of a ‘cultural probe’, in which they set each other participatory tasks to complete. In the next session, we also set them an observation task which involved visiting a public location and documenting it from a number of different perspectives. As described above, we expanded upon these in the following sessions as well, which did indeed lead to high levels of student participation.

I really appreciated Lindsay’s comments around the ‘hands up’ approach. It is a somewhat old fashioned teacher default that I have increasingly learned does not serve a positive function. And yet, very slightly changing my wording (for example, ‘what does this word mean’ becomes ‘what does this word make you think of’), the pressure on students is drastically reduced, and there is much more openness to answer, safe in the knowledge that there are no wrong answers. I also used this observation in a later session directly to the students as we discussed good interview questions — I noted the advice I’d been given about asking questions to them, and shared this example, and was pleased to see several of their faces lighting up with recognition and reflection on the challenges of asking a good question!

I appreciate the positive feedback on my slides. Generally our sessions do include a lot of collaboration (albeit not in the moments you observed) — we will continue to prioritise this!

Planning and undertaking good interviews is, as you rightly reflect, a hugely challenging skill set to teach. After your departure we went on to challenge them to write a good set of interview questions based on their subject matter, and in the next session, we studied and analysed a real world research interview, and reflected on how the openness of the questions welcomed full, complex answers from the interview participant. As they undertake their own projects after the easter break, we will be revisiting good interview practice as they undertake their own interviews in real life!

As noted by Orr and Shreeve (2017), the crit is one of several signature Art and Design pedagogies, and for most people who have passed through a creative education, crits are a memorable part of that.

Sadly, for many (myself included), crits were a somewhat negative experience. This was usually for a combination of reasons, including:

• Length/endurance — on my undergraduate degree, crits were an all day event, with up to 40 students individually presenting and having their work critiqued by tutors. Everyone was expected to be present, engaged and focussed for the entirety.
• Harshness of critique — I recall leaving most crits feeling despondent, hopeless, and like nothing I could possibly do would be of a high enough standard.
• Lack of support with feedback — due to the time pressures, social pressures, and lack of 1:1 tutor contact time, it often felt like there was no recourse to challenge, discuss, or get further advice on feedback given during crits.

Orr and Shreeve however, view the crit more positively, noting that:

“…when practised well, the Crit is a pedagogic tool which helps students to develop a critical and evaluative approach to creative work. Students are also able through the Crit to defend and evaluate their own work, a trait that will be important when operating in a professional context.” (p 88 – 90)

During one of our PGCert workshops, we reflected on crits through the medium of roleplay. I was assigned the role of a somewhat stern tutor, described as follows:

Tutor 1: “You have been working in the art and design school for eighteen years and you know what’s what. As a practitioner yourself, with something of a reputation, you know how tough it is out there in the real world, and you reckon you’re doing your students a favour by giving them a hard time during crits. The way you see it, if they can’t take a bit of harsh criticism now, they’ll never survive out there. And if course you believe it’s your job to pronounce judgement on their work. They’re here to learn, aren’t they?”

This was initially deeply entertaining (because this is extremely not me, but I have encountered this character). However as the roleplay unfolded, it became apparent how deeply horrifying it was to actually play out this role to its fullest extent.

The students I was critiquing were:

• A keen, competent student who lacked confidence in her work (whose confidence ‘Tutor 1’ dutifully further diminished with a scathing critique — “After all, how else will she improve?”)
• A thoughtful, creative student who was hindered by her financial situation and need to work substantial hours to fund her studies (who ‘Tutor 1’ noted would need to put in a lot more hours and effort if she was to reach her potential, and showed a complete lack of empathy for her financial situation — “If she’s here to undertake a creative education, that should be her priority!”)
• A shy, anxious, non-first language English student who struggled to convey ideas in the critique (who ‘Tutor 1’ quickly gave up on trying to engage with).

The whole experience was heartbreaking, exhausting and awkward to play out, yet for all of us, albeit perhaps not quite to such parody extremes, tutor 1’s behaviour rang true with attitudes we’ve seen or heard about in crits.

As a tutor myself now, 15 years on from my undergraduate degree, I aim to put kindness at the heart of my pedagogy. I try to reflect this in the way I directly speak to students, but there are also ways to structure the ‘crit’ which reduce its negative impacts and enhance its positive ones. I primarily achieve this by reducing the size, length and formality of crits, and continue to reflect on the vital role the crit plays in creative education, and how to make it better for tutors and students.

References

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. 1st edition. London ; New York: Routledge. (P.88 – 90)

Introduction

As tutors, we aim to support students independent study by setting rewarding homework tasks which expand on skills introduced in class. I want to reflect on how different methodologies for reviewing this homework can provide valuable opportunities for formative feedback.

How it is now

Homework tasks are typically uploaded to Padlet. In a classroom of 40, there is limited time for review — though I do always make sure some reflection is offered. (Where possible, we set homework tasks that are expanded upon even further in session).

Where homework will not be worked on further in session, we have tried a few models for review, including:

• Tutor highlights: tutors pick a few examples and use them to highlight good practice and areas for development that might apply more generally.
• Small group show and tell: in groups, students spend time explaining their homework to one another and offering verbal feedback
• ‘I like, I wish, I wonder’: students are given a designated block of time to write comments for one another following this feedback model.

Evaluation

‘Tutor highlights’ offer an effective teaching aid for us. However, for less keen students, the knowledge that their individual input will not be closely interrogated allows them to feel comfortable not doing it. For less confident students, knowing it may be displayed to the whole class likewise means they may not do or not upload work. For keen students, there is an expectation and desire for work to be seen and fed back on, and it can be disappointing if they are not highlighted.

Small group show and tell sessions are generally popular, and to some extent force participation and reduce pressure compared to having homework showcased and discussed to the whole room, but some students highlight that they really want feedback from their tutors, not just peers.

As for ‘I like, I wish, I wonder’ — keen students do well at this, but many others still avoid uploading homework or engaging in the commenting process.

Moving forward

Initially, I want to trial adding more formative assessment opportunities with homework centred as the stimulus. In these sessions, everyone’s work will get reviewed by both a tutor and some fellow students, with constructive critique for personal growth emphasised. I also want to find ways of providing short written feedback more often, initially by taking part in ‘I like, I wish, I wonder’ ourselves as tutors.

However, Brooks (2008) rightly notes that “‘more feedback’ is both problematic and too simplistic as a solution”. So in addition to this, I want to expand students understanding of the importance of peer to peer feedback.

…if formative assessment is exclusively in the hands of teachers, then it is difficult to see how students can become empowered and develop the self-regulation skills needed to prepare them for learning outside university and throughout life.

Nicol, Macfarlane-Dick (2006)

Many students still put a large amount of weight on receiving direct feedback from tutors. While they do deserve frequent tutor touch points, I want to work on highlighting the huge value of feedback and discourse with peers.

To do this, I want to develop new group activities which offer more ways of discussing their work with one another — experimenting with different prompts, tools, limitations, methodologies and timespans.

References

Nicol, David J. and Macfarlane-Dick, Debra(2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31: p200

Brooks, Kate (2008) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback, University of the West of England, Bristol: p1

When reflecting on learning outcomes in art and design higher education, I can see both pros and cons to their use.

It does sometimes feel like LOs might be shutting down students’ potential, however, I find the majority of students need and want clear boundaries, and LOs provide this. It is interesting to reflect on how different this might be for me as a lecturer in UX (where there are some clear technical rights and wrongs) versus a field like fine art, which has the potential to be much more open ended (where LOs might feel much more restrictive).

Addison (2014) reflects that LOs can mean tutors fail to recognise learning other than that intended, and how LOs might shut down alternative routes to an outcome and types of creativity.

Davies (2000) also talks about the challenges of capturing somewhat nebulous concepts like ‘creativity’, ‘imagination’ and ‘originality in LOs:

“How do we construct learning outcomes which capture the nature of these terms? ‘Imagination’, for instance is, to a large extent, experiential — how do we measure someone’s experience of something? How do we know that it has developed?”

Davies (2000)

And later reflects on the challenges of convergent (coming together towards an agreed conclusion) vs divergent (expanding outwards to previous unforeseen conclusions) thinking.

Addison talks later about how LOs can lessen teacher idiosyncrasies, which does feel important. This does also make them somewhat daunting though — as a new tutor, it can be challenging to write LOs in a way which I am certain is technically correct, and which uses the right language and phrasing. It can be difficult to ascertain what is a ‘good’, ‘valid’ learning outcome, vs. what is a whim on my part.

At this stage I prefer to have LOs and assessment criteria provided by others more senior than me, which I then strive to meet in my teaching. Ultimately though, writing LOs is a skill I am developing, as it will be a vital part of my practice as an educator. Expanding my reading (such as the referenced Davies (2000) article) and discussing with fellow lecturers and more senior staff will aid in this.

Addison also reflects on the fact that LOs could impede ‘responsive teaching’ (which they describe as ‘learning moments’) and particularly in relation to arts education, I do believe LOs which are too prescriptive can lessen the role of the teacher as a ‘model citizen’ (or ‘inspiring practitioner’) and reduce us to text book readers.

Overall, I do like a structure and a framework to work to, but I also value flexibility and freedom, so striking a balance is important. When marking, it is stressful when students question your grading — and being able to clearly outline to them why their work has been graded that way means it’s objective and unquestionable. The student experience is one of my key arguments in favour of LOs — in practice, the majority of students in my subject areas do find clearly articulated, sufficiently open ended LOs useful and validating.

References

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12063.

Davies, Allan (2000) Effective Assessment in Art and Design: Writing Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in Art and Design. Project Report. University of the Arts London. Available at: https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/629/1/cltad_learningoutcomes.pdf