sreynolds's blog

In preparation for our session on February 12th, we completed pre-selected readings, one of which was How Art Became a Force at Davos by Carole Becker. The reading reflects on Becker’s experience at the Davos conference after being appointed Dean of Columbia University’s School of the Arts. She noticed the absence of creative practitioners in discussions on pressing societal issues. In response, she made a concerted effort to invite a diverse range of creatives—from writers to cartoonists and musicians—to engage with topics such as climate change, gender discrimination, and disability inclusion, among others. Becker provides specific examples of these collaborations. 

This reading immediately reminded me of a discussion we had in week 1 of the PG-Cert, where we used a timeline of global events and connected them to education. The point was that societal changes inevitably impact education, which, in turn, profoundly influences creative output—whether in film, visual arts, or fashion. Artists have always used their work to challenge societal views and inspire change, so it raises the question: why should creative practitioners be excluded from important discussions on critical global issues? 

Furthermore, the reading highlights the ongoing marginalization of the arts, with funding cuts and reduced education opportunities at all levels. Creative disciplines are often dismissed as unnecessary in society, yet reports like Becker’s challenge this view, demonstrating the significant role the arts play in addressing societal concerns. 

“Perhaps others with equal resources and motivations soon will follow, recognizing that artists understand how to talk across cultures, incorporate difference and connect to diverse groups through hearts and minds.” Becker, C. 2019

Reference:

Becker, C (2019). How Art Became a Force at Davos. World Economic Forum.

Introduction & Background  

I gave 2, 2-hour workshop on beading/embellishment to second year fashion print students, as part of their brief where they had to use analogue techniques rather than digital.  

I received positive feedback from the students, who said they enjoyed learning new techniques and this would be something that they would take forward. The workshop started by showing the groups samples, books that we have in the workshops that they can use as reference/inspiration and followed with showing an example piece that I had made that included all the techniques they would be learning in the session. The rest of the session I divided up into 10-15 minutes per technique, where I would show the group (of 8-10 students) and then consult with them individually.  

Moving forwards

• OBL: Having read and learnt about the importance of Object Based Learning (OBL), I would introduce this more to the workshop. I already felt that having samples and examples to hand would be valuable to the session, to show students some more developed visuals that they could develop their samples into. However, I feel that on reflection, some deeper initial observation of the samples and techniques with prompted questions such as; what was the maker trying to achieve, what materials can you see in the sample that have been used, what tools do you think were used, etc. To try and draw out a more inquisitive and reflective stance rather than jumping straight into how it was made. 

• Record the session: Encourage students to document the techniques with videos and drawings so when they come back to do the technique in future, they have that to refer to. I encouraged students to repeat techniques, particularly ones that were trickier to master, and hoped that would create a kind of muscle memory. But this is not very fitting with diverse learning needs 

• Additional to encouraging recording in some way: In future I would endeavor to create some hand-outs of the techniques to have something that the students can again refer to, or have links to recourses that they can access tutorials or instructions to the techniques involved  

• Conclude the workshop: I feel to better conclude the workshop in future, there would be several ways to round up what students have learnt, that being; 

• Peer to peer feedback: Asking each student to show a favorite technique & why/give explanation to where they might use it. This would give opportunity to develop some dialog and language around the technique and critically analyze what they have done. 

• A summary on the techniques learnt – again, perhaps handing out pre-prepared guides on the techniques taught, or where they can access them. And refering back to the books and samples in reflection to what they have learnt in the session  

Having these reflections, and taking on a more rounded approach to teaching the workshop, I feel that students will not only learn the embroidery techniques, but also given the tools to be more observational, critical and have learning resouces to reflect back on.

When we were asked to lead the microteaching session, I felt quite anxious, and that anxiety stayed with me throughout. I also questioned the purpose and nature of object-based learning (OBL), particularly in an online setting. However, the readings I did beforehand, such as K. Hardie’s work on the Innovative Pedagogies series, helped to clarify these uncertainties. However, it was only after participating in and delivering the session that I truly understood the value of OBL. I now recognise that objects provide meaningful context for learning, whether it’s exploring abstract ideas, learning new techniques, critiquing design, or encouraging personal reflection. 

For my microteaching session, I aimed to compare hand and machine embroidery, focusing on the goldwork technique. I chose this subject to introduce my colleagues to a relatively unknown technique and provide a comparison that would broaden their understanding. I also wanted to encourage my students to adopt a more critical approach to their embroidery. I was keen to see if examining embroidered objects more closely would encourage a more analytical and reflective mindset. I presented a slideshow that covered a brief historical overview, followed by an exploration of materials used, and also included some images of digital embroidery to encourage colleagues to reflect on the materiality of the medium and the potential themes we would be discussing. 

For the interactive exercise, I asked colleagues to examine two images of goldwork—one created by hand and the other by machine—for one minute. Afterwards, I used Teams whiteboard to have them add pre-planned annotations to the relevant sections (see image below). We then discussed how to distinguish between the two embroidery types, as well as the limitations and benefits of each approach. 

The response from my colleagues was positive, which was a pleasant surprise considering how nervous I was. I had feared that my anxiety might have affected my engagement, but they all enjoyed learning something new and particularly appreciated the historical context. The presentation was visually engaging, and thye said that I became more animated when discussing the technical aspects. 

Reflecting on the session, I would focus more on the technical details of goldwork and provide a deeper explanation of how it is created. One colleague suggested it would have been helpful to see physical materials used in goldwork. At one point, I held up some foam which used in the technique when using machine embroidery, and looking back, incorporating more props and physical objects to discuss the technique and imagery would have been beneficial, especially in a physical setting. This reinforces the importance of visual learning through objects—more tangible elements would have enhanced the experience. 

Another area for improvement would be to give more specific instructions on what I wanted my colleagues to observe in the images for the 1 minute allocated. Without clear direction, there was some confusion about what to focus on. I should have asked them to consider the regularity of stitches, investigate materiality, or assess whether one image conveyed more emotion than the other, for example. In hindsight, the lack of direction hindered the learning process. 

Lastly, I would consider adding a summary at the end of the session. My focus was on completing the task, and I didn’t fully think about concluding the session. A summary would have helped colleagues reflect on what they had learned and take away key insights, providing a more fulfilling ending. 

The microteaching session was challenging, especially overcoming my nerves, but it was incredibly valuable to receive feedback from my peers. It reinforced the importance of visual OBL, and I feel more confident incorporating this approach into my future teaching. 

Hardie, K. (2015). Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Higher Education Acedamy

1. Contextual Background (c.50 words):  

Provide a brief background of the teaching context, summarising the diverse needs of your students. For example, for the PgCert I would say that many of our participants are either in full-time teaching work or juggling part-time teaching with professional/creative practice. Many have dependents and caring responsibilities. Many are working with learning differences. 

2. Evaluation (c.100 words): 

Map out your current strategies for meeting the needs of your students, and evaluate the effectiveness of your approach(es). 

3. Moving forwards (c.350 words)  

Detail other strategies or practices you have encountered (through reading, observation of peers, and/or your own experience as a learner) that may be applicable to your teaching context.  

Show how you will take, or are taking, these ideas forward.  

Reflect on any outcomes from experimenting with or implementing new strategies, noting successes and limitations.  

Summarise how this reflection will influence your future practice. 

4. References (additional to word count)  

List any references you have cited in Harvard style, in alphabetical order. Visit https://www.citethemrightonline.com to see the different categories of sources that can (and should!) be referenced. 

Case study 1: Creating content that aligns with neurodivergent learners, in particular reference to dyslexic learners  

1. Contextual Background 

This case study explores creating resources for the embroidery software Wilcom, using imagery, videography, and considering font type, size, color, and text count. Research indicates art and design subjects have more dyslexic students (Bacon & Bennett, 2012), highlighting the importance of resources supporting these learners effectively. 

2. Evaluation  

In our workshop, we continuously aim to make resources more user-friendly, especially as our student cohort grows. Previously, I created a detailed document to guide users through Wilcom software, from setting up a page to designing. This document was originally intended to train UEL technicians, but it is now available to students. However, it is lengthy, wordy, and not very accessible.  

In contrast, we have developed simpler, more visual guides for other workshop facilities, i.e. formatting images for fabric printing. These streamlined resources have proven more effective, as students now prefer self-directing with the references instead of seeking assistance and have made the process more accessible overall.  

3. Moving forwards (c.350 words)  

As study has shown, visual thinking is a consistent characteristic of dyslexia (Grant and French, 2017), so it is fundamental that we use this learning style to teach the programs. All too often, we have students in the workshop commenting that they have dyslexia, or are neurodivergent, and as such, they have low self-confidence when it comes to using new software and technology. Often students will not come into the workshop because they are fearful that they will not understand. A study by Mortimore and Crozier (2006) found that for individuals, even at higher education level learning, have persistent challenges when it comes to skills such as note taking, completing coursework and exams, and a particular challenge is mastering keyboard skills, which reflects this feeling amongst students. 

For the refined resource, we will utilize screenshots of the software, digital drawings where relevant, and research will be commenced on suitable font size and color…. tbc….. 

References  

• Bacon, A. and Bennett, K. (2012) ‘Dyslexia in Higher Education: the decision to study art’. 

After Session 2, we will begin our case study reviews. I’ve chosen to reflect on the learning resources available in our workshop, particularly focusing on Wilcom embroidery software. This topic resonates with me personally, as I am dyslexic and know that lengthy, wordy instructions often don’t make sense.

Through further reading on dyslexia in education, a subject I hadn’t previously explored, I found the findings both fascinating and validating. One key insight is that individuals with dyslexia can become disheartened by repeated failures in the education system, leading to lower self-worth compared to their non-neurodiverse peers (Bacon & Bennett, 2012). Additionally, research by Hughes and Dawson (1995) shows that this lack of self-worth in education can extend to feelings of low personal intelligence, affecting social and professional aspects of life.

While I don’t attribute all my feelings of low self-worth and intelligence solely to dyslexia, it does shed light on factors that contribute to these emotions. As an educator, I want to emphasize that having dyslexia is a valuable asset, especially in the arts. My goal, as I will discuss further in Case Study 1, is to create resources that support dyslexic students. I believe it’s a societal issue that “standard intelligence” is often based on IQ and reading speed, rather than a broader understanding that intelligence can also encompass practical skills, memory, and other strengths.

References:

Bacon, A. and Bennett, K. (2012) ‘Dyslexia in Higher Education: the decision to study art’, International Journal of Art & Design Education. 

Hughes, W., & Dawson, R. (1995). Memories of school: Adult dyslexics recall their school days.

Reading Clare Sams’ article How Do Art and Design Technicians Conceive of Their Role in Higher Education, 2016, really resonated with me, as it captures themes that often arise in discussions among groups of technician colleagues. One key point that stood out is the desire to be valued for the full range of our contributions—not only for providing technical and practical advice, but also for our role in supporting the overall wellbeing of students. Our work goes beyond being a mere aid for students; we are skilled artists and makers in our own right.

In the article, Clare Sams (2016) interviews Technician A, who explains that she and her colleagues often feel that their support is not truly appreciated by academic staff. This sentiment is one I encounter frequently and was something that surprised me when I first started at UAL. Before joining CSM as a support technician, I worked as a visiting lecturer at UEL. In my experience, the environment there was quite different. Even though I wasn’t working as a technician, we (as academic staff) interacted with technicians in much the same way I do now. Our lunchroom was shared by both technical and academic staff, and small group meetings with the student year groups involved all staff members, allowing technicians to contribute to curriculum discussions and stay informed about deadlines, briefs, and other important details. This level of involvement and cross-team collaboration was valuable not only for staff but also for students. Technicians understood the objectives of the projects they were supporting, which allowed them to plan workshops effectively around peak usage and deadlines. This also helped foster mutual respect between students and technicians, as technicians were seen as equal members of the academic team.

In contrast, at UAL, interactions between technical and academic staff are rare. We often learn about briefs and deadlines through students, rather than directly from academic staff. We’re seldom invited to student shows or crits where students present their completed work. Additionally, the contractual benefits for technical staff differ significantly from those of academic staff. For example, technical staff have fewer holiday allowances, lower grading bands, and no time allocated for personal practice development. These discrepancies reinforce the feeling that technical staff are undervalued.

To address this, technicians should be more actively involved with the staff running the courses. Bi-termly in-person meetings would provide a valuable opportunity to stay informed about upcoming projects and deadlines. This would allow technicians to plan workshops around deadlines, provide input on what is possible in the workshops, and contribute to the practical outcomes of the students’ work. Additionally, it would give us a chance to propose specialized workshops that could benefit students.

Furthermore, technical staff should automatically be invited to crits, shows, and other relevant events. There should also be an effort to equalize benefits across the board, ensuring that all staff in student-facing roles receive the same grading, benefits, and recognition.

References:

Sams, C. (2016) ‘How do art and design technicians concieve of thier role in higher education’.