Joe Mercer PG Cert 23/24

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: embroidery software induction

Size of student group: 1-1 sessions 

Observer: Joseph Mercer

Observee: Noor Khazem

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?

Fashion and textiles students are expected to produce textile development samples and eventually produce final outcomes in the form of textile pieces or garments. These include embroidery as an engineering or as an embellishment tool. 

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

The sessions will be one-to-one software inductions, most probably with students I haven’t worked with before. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

The induction should enable the students to do the following.

1. To successfully convert their artwork into an embroidery design 
2. To gain the ability to exploit the characteristics of the stitches and software functions to produce their desired aesthetic 
3. To understand some of the editing processes required before an artwork is translated in the embroidery software 
4. To gain insight into the entire digital embroidery workflow 

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

The students should be able to start converting and designing their artwork using the embroidery software independently. The students may also begin the fabrication process if they have time to do so.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Software inductions can be unpredictable due cancellations, lateness, walk-ins/interruptions – I am concerned that the observation may feel disjointed or have extended periods where there is no teaching. 

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

The student will be emailed in advance of the induction and reminded again at the beginning of the session.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

1. Feedback on how I may be able to enrich the induction with with more knowledge about embroidery as a discipline as opposed to a strictly instructional/demonstrative session.
2. My general manner with students – I’m interested in my balance of formal/professional and friendly/personable. 

How will feedback be exchanged?

Verbally (post observation) if there is time, and/or through this feedback form.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Upon arrival in the workshop Noor talked me through the space, being unfamiliar with textile design this helped to contextualise her teaching. She explained that she would be inducting a student and working through some digital programmes with them. The space itself was a little noisy, with a combination of the machines and music making it difficult to clearly hear conversation at times. Although the sound of the machines is unavoidable in a workshop context I wonder whether this can pose a challenging environment for some students to learn in and whether there may be somewhere quieter Noor could discuss work with students if this was the case.

When working with students Noor presents herself as an equal, giving the impression that she wants to collaborate with students to achieve their ambition. This comes through her conversational skills, the presentation of her expertise and her body language. She listens carefully to students using eye contact and responding regularly. She also sits next to students to work with them and offers multiple possibilities for development. This allows students to retain ownership over their work whilst benefitting from Noor’s knowledge and experience. She backs this up with references and personal inspiration both to educate the student and to create a conversational atmosphere, and asks questions – Are you interested in (…)? Have you seen (…)? – allowing the student space to respond and have an opinion rather than telling them what to do.

She was constantly using physical material to contextualise digital processes, using tape measures to describe the size of a piece, presenting material samples or different stitching patterns in a way the student could interact with and finally offering the opportunity to immediately test a portion of the student’s work on the machines. This draws upon techniques used in object-based learning where the student gains embodied experience alongside theoretical knowledge. This is also exercised in the way she helped the student realise their work; when they first made a mistake she showed them how to rectify it, the next time she talked them through fixing it themselves rather than intervening, giving them tacit experience to draw upon when working independently. At one point she helped set up a piece of the student’s work on a separate computer whilst the student carried out a more complex task themself, this made the production process more efficient but may have removed a learning opportunity from the student. At times she stepped away from students to tend to other machines – although the workshop was relatively quiet it is clear there will be times where Noor is required to manage several students, machines and processes at once. She would then regularly check in to make sure they weren’t stuck whilst continuing ongoing processes elsewhere.

Overall it is difficult to find anything for Noor to work on, she was incredibly considerate in her approach to the students and uses the workshop environment to empower them to carry out their own work confidently. She exhibited comprehensive expertise and was very capable in translating this to students. My only recommendation would be that perhaps she focus students towards gaining embodied experience of programmes and processes to enable them to return to her with more ability and higher ambitions in the future.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

I really value Joe’s feedback and will be using some of it to strengthen my case for restructuring the workshop.

Notes on noise:

The workshop is indeed a noisy working environment – usually, there are more machines working than there were on the day of the observation. In my request for a different workshop structure (where we split print and embroidery in to two workshops) we would be given a new room with the potential to create sound barriers to muffle the noise. Regarding the music, I receive requests for music when it’s not on, as many students seem to have become used to it and have mentioned that it is a contributory reason as to why they enjoy being in the workshop. However, if a student did find it uncomfortable, it’s extremely unlikely they would tell me. I think I will add a question about music to a feedback form I want to make for the workshop to establish comfortable working conditions for the students. If the music is played, I can check in with students to see if they are happy with the volume level.

Notes on efficiency vs. teaching and learning:

I agree with Joe’s point about the student missing a learning opportunity while I resized her artwork. This is a regular cause for concern, as I find that the workshop is extremely overstretched, and technicians are unable to offer the teaching support required for students to build long-lasting and transferrable skills. For embroidery to take place, two rounds of editing need to occur, one round of editing on the original artwork, and another on the embroidery software. As we are providing both print and embroidery services, and the demand is extremely high for both, we are often unable to teach students how to edit their artwork in detail. In this case, the student only needed to resize her artwork, so although I demonstrated how to do this before, I could have talked her through what I was doing, to reinforce the process. Teaching students the entire process is critical in granting them creative agency and the ability to interpret and transform the discipline.

To add further context to what was described, two more software appointments were scheduled, each of which overlapped with the student I was supported by 30 minutes. The students booked in for these appointments didn’t attend, but if they did, I would have less time to support the student I was seeing. Again, this highlights a systemic and structural issue in the workshop, which I am trying to change via splitting the workshop. In other UAL colleges, the embroidery workshops only offer embroidery services and have a similar ratio of staff, so we have approximately double the workload.

General notes:

The workshop was very quiet on the day of the observation, but as this can change rapidly, I noted that I was still behaving as though the workshop was busy. Perhaps I need to be stricter with late appointments so that I rush students less and work with them for an adequate length of time. This would also mean I’m less worried about students turning up at short notice, cutting my time with another student short.

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.

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.