Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Stage 1 BA Architecture design tutorials
Size of student group: 13
Observer: Noor Khazem
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:
I thoroughly enjoyed observing Joe’s session with the students. The session began with a brief explanation of what the following hour would entail, and Joe regularly checked in with the group to assess their progress, keep time, or offer support to anyone who had questions.
I thought his approach was warm and open, and he created a space for the students to feel heard; they were clearly at ease speaking with him. I could see that Joe built a lovely dynamic of creative exchange in each of his mini tutorials. Joe would inject relevant references (of an incredibly broad range – music, art, film, experience of site visits, anecdotes, anatomy and science) to encourage further development of the students’ ideas. I also felt that Joe’s pointed questions during the tutorials prompted the students to clarify their aims and intentions and he was able to steer the students towards fulfilling the project brief, refocussing them when needed. For example, when Joe asked, ‘When you say you want to do [this sort of structure] … what is your drive for that?’ This was not only a push for clarification, but also a prompt for the student to consider what their intentions truly are for the project. I could see that the students were motivated after they chatted with Joe and a couple of students were visibly excited and energised.
There was a considerable amount of ambient noise in the teaching space and there was another group in the same room, but this didn’t seem to affect the students who looked focused and engaged in their task. The group worked on a large table and each student had limited table space, but as they were working on laptops/tablets/small sketchpads, this didn’t seem to hinder them. Perhaps this relatively small workspace has the benefit of fostering a feeling of togetherness; the friendly atmosphere within the group could be seen when students would sometimes share ideas or comment on their neighbour’s work.
I thought that the postcards being placed on the wall was a nice way of sharing everyone’s progress whilst exhibiting the different approaches the students had to the task, which I think is good for them to see. During the tutorials, most of the students discussed their work next to their hung posters – I think that moving them away from the group allows them to feel seen and heard with some distance from their peers, without isolating them. The fact that they could still be heard by the group meant that other students could hear some of the interesting references being discussed (if they wanted to listen in) but also offer their ideas to the student who was having a tutorial, which happened on one occasion. Each tutorial lasted about ten minutes and I felt that Joe was very consistent in his support to each of them whilst also providing immensely varied and tailored advice and guidance which contributes to my impression that Joe was truly listening to the students and was sharply engaged and responsive to what they were sharing with him.
In response to Joe’s desire to find ways of being more proactive (as stated on the form above), I think that given the format of the session, Joe was incredibly proactive in his interjections and feedback. Perhaps a session later in the project would offer more opportunity for him to share methodologies and approaches as opposed to only responding to what was being shared, but during this observation, I didn’t feel that this was lacking or necessarily appropriate to add at this stage.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
It has been a great joy of PGCert to meet and interact with other members of UAL from a variety of capacities. Having Noor’s feedback is incredibly helpful because her role as a technician in the Textiles department means she has a very different teaching environment than my own to operate in, and therefore a different and refreshing reference point to draw from.
Both her’s and Karen’s feedback has mentioned the spatial atmosphere of the studio and how this might affect students. I may try to find a way to create more division between my studio and the other which shares the space we work in, hopefully to reduce noise levels which may be distracting for the students. With regard to the table space this is something I have long deliberated over, on the one hand large amounts of work space enable students to spread out, but I have also found it makes them more insular and less likely to have lively interaction with the other students in the studio. On the other hand, less table space reduces the amount of working area per student but heightens the feeling of collective effort and fosters a more sociable atmosphere. Within my own teaching sociability is a key tool in enabling students to feel comfortable showing and discussing their work with myself and their peers so it always something I try to foster with a new group. Perhaps as the project progresses I could introduce more space for students so that they fully realise ambitious pieces of work but have a pre-existing basis of social interaction with their peers.
This may be something I link to the more guided session’s Noor is suggesting. I could have sessions focussing on individual work which culminate in a brief pin up to allow peer discussion.
Overall it is incredibly encouraging to have such positive feedback and I have found it very useful to have written and objective notes to process and reflect upon. I look forward to my opportunity to observe and feed back on Noor’s teaching in kind.