Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Stage 1 BA Architecture design tutorials
Size of student group: 13
Observer: Karen Matthewman
Observee: Joe Mercer
Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.
Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
The students will be bringing in a set of ‘postcards’ they made over the past week exploring the client for their project. The project itself is going to be a form of music venue in a site located near CSM. They will have started/completed a collective model of their site so that we can discuss the opportunities and constraints it offers.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
This is the third week I have been teaching this group. I will be their design tutor for this project (which began 3 weeks ago) seeing them once a week to discuss the design and ambition of their individual projects. This brief will run until the end of this academic year.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
By the end of this project the students should be able to present a complete building of their design that is weatherproof, accessible, sustainable and designed for a specific user. The building will be appropriate and responsive to it’s surroundings and developed iteratively through technical drawings, models and atmospheric explorations.
For this session I hope the students will develop an understanding of the spaces their client will need, and start to map out how these spaces will interact. I will also discuss with them how they can use their site model as a basis to analyse the site to best understand how to design within it. This may be different on the day as often exercises are set collectively across studios, but at least some of what is above should be included.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
I will ask the students to list the spaces their clients will need, then draw these as bubble diagrams exploring their scale and interaction. I will also ask them to research the site and begin making diagrams showing environmental aspects such as sunpaths that will influence their design. Same as above there may be adjustments to this on the day.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
The spatial diagrams may cause difficulty as it will be the first moment they begin quantifying the space they need. I am also concerned the postcards and site model may not be finished, so discussion may be diverted into this rather than towards the next steps.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I have already told the students that the session will be observed, I will remind them beforehand on the day and ask if there is anybody that feels uncomfortable with it. If this is the case I will ensure their tutorial is at a time outside of the observation period.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
My interaction with the students, if there is a way I can be more proactive. Much of my teaching is tutorial based so I often find myself reacting to student work rather than bringing proactive methods/knowledge/information to them.
How will feedback be exchanged?
I am happy to receive feedback via email or verbally, though it may be difficult to discuss immediately after the session as I don’t have much time to see each student. It would be great to have an opportunity to discuss any observations so I can fully understand the feedback.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Holistic view of the sessions
There was one group of 11 students seated facing each other around a large bank of tables in an open studio space. There is a separate group with a different tutor working at the other end of the studio around a similar table so there was slight noise interference but not enough to stop either group working. I wonder if a student had hearing issues whether this might cause difficulties, but students seem able to work. When I came in before the session started Joe was already engaging with the students standing near them and moving around the table. There seemed a positive and collaborative atmosphere with students chatting to each other and showing their work. Joe asked all students to put their summary postcards on the wall. work. Almost all students had done the prework.
Joe talks to the group in plenary prompting them with questions- Joe refers back to site visit, discusses how light works and gives options for the students to find solutions. For example “Find a way of drawing the vibration”; “Think about access routes”.
I reflect that a lot of this is done verbally and wondered if for some learners these really key points would be written down. Maybe this had been done before in the brief and this was just a quick oral reminder. Students are asking each other questions and it seems to be collaborative. It feels like a very motivating and real-life task with real clients and specific needs and challenges.
There is a real sense that Joe is an equal to his students while also being an expert.
Joe moves into the stage of talking through postcards on a 1-1 basis. What is unusual to see is what an excellent listener Joe is. He uses active listening skills: eye contact, nodding, affirmative phrases to keep the person talking, “OK, OK” and then after the student has stopped talking Joe will interject with powerful questions or comments.
e.g. “The music side of this, how are you going to link that in?”; “What are the types of sound” Or comments e.g. “Whatever you feel most comfortable with” “you might want to look at” “It still has to fit the brief” “Maybe the light comes in from above”. The responsibility for decision making is always never taken away from the student. Joe never says, “You should” or “I would”. The student retains agency while being helped to discover what they need to for success.
Joe is also able to bring in anecdotes to make the experience more human. He references a trip to Lisbon where he saw performers in an enclosed space and talks of the sensory feeling of the space the music the musicians and the audience and the way they came together. I felt this helped the students better imagine themselves and their clients in their own spaces in a more embodied way.
He also brought up particular architects that individual students might find useful to reference visually. e.g. Peter Zumthor, Tadao Ando. He explained their thinking and showed how that thinking came into being in their spaces.
Joe is not afraid of giving slightly more directive feedback when needed.
e.g. ’”You should write this down”; “ This is a good starting point” or maybe a rationale has not been made clear enough “What is making you want to use containers? If you want to use them then just convince me why that will work”.
Summary
Joe is clearly a very effective teacher who uses an array of strategies to engage with his students to encourage active learning. The task they are involved in is a great example of assessment for learning. It is realistic, achievable, challenging and creative. Students are allowed creative autonomy by Joe, needing to really understand the constraints and possibilities of the brief, while also being shown the ever-constant link of theory and visual research to practice.
One thing I would like to note is Joe’s success using many tools from a ‘coaching’ toolbox. I think it might be a useful avenue to explore as Joe interrogates who he is as a tutor and his pedagogical approaches.
There is little I can give in terms of constructive feedback. If I had more time I would like to see Joe in different modes, maybe presenting to a larger group or seminar, teaching theory. However, all of the activities that I saw were entirely appropriate for the task and managed masterfully.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
I was a little nervous leading up to the observed session but this feedback has given me a great deal of confidence. The positive reinforcement Karen has given has helped me solidify my understanding of my teaching practice as well as highlighting areas I can focus on or push further.
The main revelation has been realising that I use coaching techniques. I am completely unaware of where I might have picked these up from but fundamentally I always seek to teach from a basis of empowerment. I want my students to ultimately come away from my teaching with the confidence to meet challenges and the creativity to navigate them successfully. Part of this is coaxing them towards a convincing project whilst ensuring it always feels like it’s their own.
I hope to refine these techniques further now that I am aware of them, as well as make more practical adjustments; for example I always emphasise the need for students to take notes during tutorials at the start of a project but perhaps I should regularly remind them of this. Similarly much of what they are being asked to do is given in a written brief, but it can be easy to diverge from this when in the depths of a project, so continuously reminding students of the need to refer back to this, as well as keeping a printed copy with me to reference in tutorials will help students keep their work focussed and on track.
Having taught for a number of years it is incredibly helpful to have feedback from an objective and expert source, the fact that the feedback is positive only serves to give me more impetus to refine my teaching practice and explore new ways to inspire students.