flo’s pg cert blog

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Costume Workshop – Sculptural Skeletons and Structures (part 1)

Size of student group: Approx. 10 students

Observer: John O’Reilly

Observee: Florence Meredith

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?

This is a session which is open to any student enrolled on BA(Hons) Performance: Design Practice, as a standalone workshop. However, it has been specially flagged to stage students who are participating in an elected project called We Move next term (unit 8), for whom the approaches and content introduced to them in these workshops will become relevant.

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

This workshop is the first part of two parts – the group will be made up of learners at different stages of their academic journey, who are coming together as a unique group for this specific occasion. I regularly support some of these students in the open access costume studio space, and/or have led costume workshops they have attended in the past year. I have never worked with others.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

Across these two workshops, we will explore different materials and techniques that can be used to create structure on and around the performing body – responding to, extending, or exaggerating the form. Participants will develop tools which enable them to investigate and recognise the qualities of structural costume materials, their creative potential, and what they need to consider in their application.

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

Students will actively experiment with selected materials, draw structural diagrams, then collaboratively design and create a wearable, kinetic mock-ups within in a limited timeframe.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

The uncertainty of who will or won’t attend – and consequently the unpredictable levels of costuming ability, how many materials will be required, and how long parts of the session will take. The pacing of this workshop, which I have not delivered before – some sections make take more of less time than I anticipate.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will email them ahead of time, and verbally tell them at the top of the session.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Does the session sustain clarity in its aims, objectives and outcomes? Is it over-complicated?

How will feedback be exchanged?

Written, and/or verbally

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Pedagogy of the senses

The class preparation has been done in forensic detail – forensic in terms of care and attention to details but also in the sense that this class is about the signs and clues of materials which help fashion students understand how they might be used. It is an ingenious pedagogy by Flo which blurs the knowledges and disciplines of science and fashion, chemistry and craft.

A large square table around which the whole group will sit is laid out with materials for each  individual students – coloured pencils, black cloth, thin strips of hard material and A3 paper – like a table setting for dinner

It can be useful to create a sense of belonging in a class through reference to a popular event, and Flo instigates a discussion about the award-winners for costume design in the previous evening’s BAFTAs.  Equally, Flo’s version of the ‘icebreaker’ also enables people to bring something of themselves into the classroom, asking each person ‘what is your favourite material?’

Flo’s icebreaker is a reminder that what often works for student engagement is a task that gets them to bring something of themselves to the class – in this case along with disclosing their material choice they bring maker-intelligence in asking them also to discuss their preference. The range of materials cited by students is a tacit way of highlighting diversity in the room – Flo’s opening strategies create a positive atmosphere and a sense of purpose and learning.

Flo contextualises the workshop in terms of future units, then specifying that the session’s focus on the moving body and kinetic structures. The session is a sequence of exercises asking students to use their senses to identify the property of materials and what they may be used for.

The first exercise uses the black cloth as a blindfold, helping students focus on the feel and touch of the material. The students bend, feel, run their fingers across the strips, sensing how heavy or light it is. Flo directs students to “write down or draw the qualities you sensed in experimenting with the material”. This is their ‘data sheet’.  It is such a nice idea naming this sensing as ‘data’ and perhaps that concept of data as something that is sensed could be something that could be explored a little more in class. Flo gives time for students to pause, gather their thoughts and feelings, draw and write, identifying the material and sharing ideas. There is a rhythm to this pedagogy that Flo is confident and skilful with.

For the next part Flo asks the students to explore the material further, “see what you can do with it.’ Students engage in different explorations and experiments with each material: dropping it in water; another tries to cut the material; someone else irons; another is bending it. Flo encourages everyone to use the room and material to make something. This guides students to different ways of knowing, and they are very engaged – perhaps this tacit practice and skill they are engaged in could be made more explicit? 

It’s an all-round meaning-making activity where each student is working out an understanding for themselves of the material property and its possible use, while sense-checking themselves through the data gathering and the conversations with each other.

Each task brings knowledge forward from the previous one and for the final part of this workshop, Flo puts objects on the table and asking students to think about structure – the to create a diagram, thinking about its skeleton. Students work out with each other different ways of representing structure, some of this sense of know-how comes from the earned confidence of the session.

A lesson I took from Flo’s practice is that this pedagogic creativity and complexity is possible with clear planning, organisation and the trust of the teacher in the knowledges and skills brought by the students.

#materials #sensoryknowing #documentation

FYI

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017) ‘Teaching practices for creative practitioners’, Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Taylor and Francis Group

Makovicky, N. (2010) ‘“Something to talk about”: notation and knowledge-making among Central Slovak lace-makers’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 16.

Part Three

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

I felt apprehensive ahead of this session, as it was a complete re-design of some workshops I had previously delivered. The course leader had also asked me to open these workshops up to multiple year groups. With so many elements out of my control, I had spent a reasonable amount of time planning a session that could achieve the learning outcomes for a group of learners with a diversity of skill level and experience.

As a practitioner who is in the process of developing an identity as an educator, I found Johns insights very encouraging, enlightening, and clarifying. I felt delighted and enthused by this positive, generative feedback. The references shared were also very interesting to reflect upon, and have offered me more terminology with which to describe and discuss my pedagogic practice.

John’s use of the term ‘forensic’ is fascinating. On reflection, scientific methodologies are a significant part of my own approach to my craft, as well as a source of inspiration in teaching. I often discuss new materials, research methods, and innovations in sustainability with my brother, who is a Mechanical Engineer. The parallels between our disciplines in regard to these elements is surprisingly strong. This is something I would be interested in exploring further, as a way of unpacking historical, gendered assumptions around different disciplines within arts education, and how this reflects/permeates into professional practice.

The opening conversation around the BAFTA’s felt very natural, and I am interested in spending time considering the most effective ways of creating belonging in this way – I understand from Johns observation that it is equally possible to incite feelings of exclusion through an informal conversation like this.

I found John’s remark on the way in which the icebreaker highlighted the diversity in the room encouraging. Celebrating and respecting the value of diversity is essential to creative interdisciplinary practices, and is something I would like to draw attention to in every workshop I deliver in this space in the future.

Reflecting on Johns observations around the use of ‘data sheets’, I wonder if in future I could use some verbal prompts, or introduce the concept more comprehensively by showing examples from different disciplines. Alternatively, I could try drafting a ‘data form’ to further this idea of forensic investigation – though this may be too prescriptive, and dampen the expansive approach that the students took to this task.

Reflecting on John’s final comments, I have taken away a new appreciation for my own certainty in the abilities of the students to bring knowledge, creativity and expansive energy to the collaborative learning space.

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice   

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Group interim tutorial  

Size of student group: 4 students  

Observer: Florence Meredith  

Observee: Nina Manandhar  

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? 

Interim Review Group Feedback for the Creative Identity Brief.  We have been running tutorials on rotation between 3 tutors. Please see a copy of the brief, plus tutorial timetable for reference.  

Creative Identity – Tutorial Schedule.docx 

Aims are to assess progress since Tutorial 1 and support project development. A client brief has taken place since the previous tutorial on Feb 5th.  

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

Stage 2 lead since September 2023. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

The overall Learning Outcomes for Creative Identity project are: 

To identity key themes and motivations of their practice and use this to create a self-initiated project for their portfolio 

To develop technical skills in relation to their chosen medium  

To develop creative team building skills, where relevant  

To build and understanding of the positioning their work in a Fashion Communication context  

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

Come away with actions to take their projects forward. 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

Via email ahead of the session and reminder in person on the day. 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

Feedback style and methods 

Ways to be challenging and encouraging? 

How can I provide helpful feedback to students whose work may be outside my expertise? 

Facilitating Critical feedback between students.  

How will feedback be exchanged? 

Verbally and written. 

Part Two  

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

I really enjoyed observing this group tutorial. The atmosphere you created and held felt really positive and productive. The students were engaged and focused throughout – not just when their own project was being discussed. I was really impressed by the eloquence and confidence with which they were able to communicate their ideas, choices, and concerns. The students evidently understood what the aims of the tutorial were, which made for a really constructive, interesting, enjoyable session.  

Feedback style and methods 

The way you framed much of your feedback as questions generated a really dynamic, constructive discussion, which the students responded really well to. This enabled them to self-critique, and take responsibility for their individual artistic and practical choices in a way which felt professional and mature. More direct observations peppered through the feedback, only when clarity was needed. 

I liked the way in which the tutorial felt fluid and conversational but was anchored with a clear summary of the main action points for each individual. Although the hour had a clear structure, through which each student’s project was given an equal amount of time, the session flowed very naturally. The students seemed to be familiar with this structure, the anticipation of which perhaps enabled them to relax and more readily engage in the feedback of their peers. 

Ways to be challenging and encouraging

I think you did a fantastic job of balancing these two things. The students seemed enthused but focused by the end of the tutorial.  I was really impressed by how readily this group shared and discussed where they were within their process honestly and openly – there was very little defensiveness or fear of judgement, which I would surmise was down to previously positive tutorial experiences with you.  

The questions you chose to ask did an excellent job of highlighting strengths in the work, as well as revealing specific areas of concern. Once they had identified potential barriers and/or elements to build upon, you were very encouraging, guiding them toward practically actionable points to move their work forwards.  

You are exceptionally skilled at drawing out the individual strengths within each students work, and highlighting ways in which this could be pushed further, or clarified. 

How can I provide helpful feedback to students whose work may be outside my expertise? 

Beyond the very personal nature of the unit, which requires students to bring in their individual artistic identity, the subject matter was well within your expertise. You were not only able to immediately offer relevant subject knowledge and references, but you also used your knowledge of their individual academic journeys to empower them participate in peer to peer feedback. This made for a delightfully excited and enthusiastic exchange of references, experiences, and creative solutions between the students within the tutorial. 

Facilitating critical feedback between students

As above, you did a wonderful job of encouraging peer to peer critique and feedback within the group. You made a concerted effort to open the conversation to the whole group, who were a little unsure at first, but were engaging confidently by the end of the session, without you needing to actively pull them in.  

Part Three 

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

For the Interim Group Review, I decided to work with small groups of 4 students per hour, which I hadn’t done before, previously working with up to 6-8 students an hour. I am pleased Flo attended this session with smaller groups and received positive feedback about the session facilitating peer-led self-critique. 

I feel I did get lucky in that the hour Flo observed, there was a lot of opportunity to draw on the commonalities between the work each student made with this group. Some of the later groups didn’t elicit conversational flow, but this highlights the importance of carefully assigning groups to best encourage peer exchange. 

I am pleased Flo affirmed my ability to challenge, push and direct as well as listen and facilitate, which is something I have questioned. In terms of being directive, I find it easier to provide practical strategies for students. My core drive is to draw out students’ authentic creative voices, this can make it more difficult to be directive when it comes to challenging concepts, as it can seem almost contradictory. But thinking about how questions are framed, and more industry referencing could be helpful here, empowering them to critically evaluate their own ideas. 

Peer-led group tutorials are something I am keen to build in more into the Stage 2 projects. It was encouraging to have such considered feedback from Flo on the session. Moving forward, I will plan more peer-led work throughout the year, to encourage this way of working from early on.  I will also think about ways peer reflection could be extended beyond the physical classroom, through spaces created by educational technology tools.  

Contextual Background

The way in which I asses student learning and exchange feedback is informal, organic, and formative. Outside the confines of a technical workshop session, which only represents a small part of my interactions with students, its occurrence relies on the student actively choosing to put themselves in a position of vulnerability, by bringing their work into the studio during technical hours.

Evaluation

The unique freedom and structure of the studio, a signature pedagogy of creative arts education, has the propensity to “reproduce cultural norms and issues of power and exclusion” (Orr and Shreeve, 2017). There is a notable imbalance in which students who benefit from discriminatory patterns of racism, sexism, ableism, and classism dominate the space. “Young, white, middle-class” male students consequently receieve a disproportionate amount of formative technical feedback compared to their peers, further perpetuating this problematic cycle of imbalance (Whittaker and Broadhead, 2022).

Moving forwards

Addressing representation  

We have made some efforts to address the monoculture of representation within the costume studio environment (Whittaker and Broadhead, 2022), including the hanging of artwork in the studio space (e.g. large posters of designs by black costume designer Ruth Carter), and the referencing of relevant, contemporary practitioners within learning resources (e.g. queer, Indian performance artist Debashish Paul, disabled textile artist Ruth Carter etc). However, a more formal audit of the objects, materials, imagery ad references could be a more effective way of highlighting the bias of representation within the department, so that it may be addressed and acted upon more explicitly and confidently (Whittaker and Broadhead, 2022).  

Creating boundaries

Looking to technical departments which share characteristics with my own, I discovered that our colleagues in Fashion use a sign-up system for the structuring of time spent helping students in the studio space. In theory, this model would offer an opportunity for us to monitor patterns, and create parity. However, when myself and my colleagues have tried similar approaches, we have found that the students who we are trying to forefront do not sign-up. This could perhaps be solved by making these tutorials mandatory, and in the setting of time based limitations (e.g. 20 minutes per student (/group) per project) so that both ends of the spectrum of engagement with us are addressed.

Removing barriers

Within this, an option for a private tutorial, away from the open access space could be introduced for those who feel exposed or overwhelmed by the open studio space. Another way of making ourselves more accessible to students may be through the introduction of online tutorials, as modelled within the pg cert itself. Although the sensorial, physical nature of the technical work involved may be less easily communicable in this scenario, an online interaction still affords an opportunity for meaningful, productive, positive interactions to take place with students who may feel intimidated by or are unable to physically visit the studio for any number of reasons, including caring duties or health issues (Bamber and Jones, 2015).

(491 words)

References 

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging Students, Enabling Inclusive Learning’. In Marshall, S., Fry, H. and Ketteridge, S. (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Pp. 152 – 168.

Broadhead, S. and Whittaker, R. (2022) ‘Disaggregating the Black Student Experience’. In Broadhead, S. (Ed.) Access and Widening Participation in Arts Higher Education: Practice and Research .3. Pp 51 – 72. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. (Accessed on: 11^th December 2023).

Contextual background

I collaboratively plan workshops and create learning resources which compliment or link to unit briefs, or respond to specific areas of technical interest, alongside the facilitation of formative interactions in the open access studio. Our aim is create learning experiences which equip students with the tools they need to develop their practice, and realise innovative, unique physical performance outcomes.

Evaluation

Pre-production periods for circular projects are very short, and costume production is often left until the last possible moment by our students. This often leads to panic, and a stripping back of their design in question order to meet the deadline. Although part of becoming a practitioner is learning one’s own limits, and boiling a design down to its most important components is an important skill to acquire, there is currently lost potential for high quality explorative, playful, experimental, investigative learning experience (Curry, 2017) for lack of appropriate time management.

Moving forwards

Facilitating lived physical experiences

Currently, my technical costume colleagues and I deliver very few workshops which offer students the lived experience of making a costume from start to finish. The effect of this is apparent in students attitudes to planning a realisation process, which is often unspecific and unrealistic. In recently replacing what were previously corset making workshops with more explorative, creative, investigative materials workshops for BA(Hons)P:DP students, one of the very few opportunities for students to acquire the experience of a full making process to draw upon was lost (Orr and Shreeve, 2017). Alternative workshops which afford this opportunity could be instated going forwards, in addition to the redesigned workshops.

Designing a technical curriculum

The aforementioned workshops could be part of the development of a ‘technical curriculum’. In conversation with a colleague who teaches at LCF, I learned that something akin to this is used within various Fashion programmes, in order to appropriately scaffold technical skills, tacit material knowledge, and physical lived experiences alongside, and in relation to, academic development. This is an idea which has already started to be discussed within my department, and with the academic staff it relates to. We hope to initiate this in the coming academic year.

Modelling different approaches to planning

Self-regulation and the use of project time plan is an essential part of professional costuming practice. Development of this skill is not an explicit part of our teaching in the costume studio. Inspired by the microteaching activity of a pg cert colleague, I would like to trial a practical object-based workshop which models different approaches to planning, using relatable processes to exemplify the complexity and unpredictability of any practical project. In conjunction with this, we could introduce an expectation of tangible, recorded time plans as means of monitoring student progress through a project, and enabling them to develop self-monitoring skills (Bamber and Jones, 2015). This would only have meaning if mandatory technical check-ins were instigated as part of this ‘technical curriculum’.

(489 words)

References

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging Students, Enabling Inclusive Learning’. In Marshall, S., Fry, H. and Ketteridge, S. (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Pp. 152 – 168.

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) ‘Teaching practices for creative practitioners’. In Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (eds.) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Milton: Taylor and Francis Group.

Curry, P. (2017) ‘The Enchantment of Learning and ‘The Fate of our Times’. In Voss, A. and Wilson, S. (eds.) Re-Enchanting the Academy. Seattle: Rubedo Press. Pp.33-51. Available at: http://www.patrickcurry.co.uk/papers/The%20Enchantment%20of%20Learning%20(print%20version).pdf (Accessed: 22^nd December 2023)

Contextual background

I concurrently support a large number of students across the performance programmes, at different stages of their academic journeys. The students bring a variety of technical ability and experience to these interdisciplinary and experimental programmes, which evolve into specialist needs that shift and change through the development of their individual performance practices.

Evaluation

Anticipating and supporting such a vast web of specific technical needs can be challenging. Familiarity with briefs, leading technical workshops, and attending production meetings help my colleagues and I to anticipate or react to trends of interest. For example, last year there was an influx of interest in use of Latex. Consequently, we sought additional training in order to support the use of this very specialist material, producing openly accessible learning resources, and planning the delivery of workshops. However, we cannot always anticipate what our students will require, and a reactive approach is often not immediate enough for the timescales we work to.

Moving forwards

Teaching technical research skills

I would like to place more focus on the development of independent technical research skills and tacit sensorial ability (Makovicky, 2010) as objectives within pre-planned technical workshops, as well a organic interactions with students in the studio, to empower them with the ability to acquire the specialist knowledge they require independently. This could be through the introduction of activities such as Object Based Learning (Orgill and Willcocks, 2024). I will bring this to the table at my next departmental technical de-brief, with a view to bring this into our joint delivery of workshops in the new academic year.

Fostering communities of practice

The diversity of practice in the studio creates a rich and creative pedagogic environment, which has more potential to facilitate organic dialogic exchange between peers (Orr and Shreeve, 2017). Following a discussion with my postgraduate certificate colleagues around ‘where learning takes place’ in a workshop, and on reflecting upon strategies which “build community” offered by Bamber and Jones (2015) I would like to investigate facilitating a creative social club or activity within the studio to cultivate a stronger culture of knowledge exchange and peer to peer learning in a low pressure context.

Sustaining dramatic friendships

The fifteen hours of timetabled workshops we deliver to BA(Hons)P:DP students in their first year at CSM instigate the formation of dramatic friendships (Patience, 2008), which are an important part of the way in which we relate to and understand students on an individual level, and lay a foundation for positive, productive interactions with them gong forwards. However, these relationships can wane, through reduced contact time. Encouraging active participation in the ecosystem of the studio through the above means, as well as the instigation of some mandatory (as oppose to optional) workshops spanning across the fullness of each program may help to sustain these relationships.

(466 words)

References

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging Students, Enabling Inclusive Learning’. In Marshall, S., Fry, H. and Ketteridge, S. (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Pp. 152 – 168.

Makovicky, N. (2010) ‘“Something to talk about”: notation and knowledge-making among Central Slovak lace-makers’. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute .16. Pp.80 -99

Orgill, G. and Willcocks, J. (2024) ‘How to…use objects to support learning and teaching’ [online seminar]. Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice: Theories, Policies and Practices. University of the Arts London. 24^th January.

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) ‘Teaching practices for creative practitioners’. In Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (eds.) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Milton: Taylor and Francis Group.

Patience, A. (2008) ‘The Art of Loving in the Classroom: A Defence of Affective Pedagogy’, in Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), pp.55-67. Available at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol33/iss2/4/ (Accessed: 20 January 2023).

Preparatory reading

I chose to read an intriguing paper by Patricia Broadfoot, written in 1996, which investigated the wider implications of assessment within education. I was fascinated by the ways in which it looked at assessment as a consolidator of existing discriminatory structures. I found the feeling of distrust in this system relatable. Despite laws, policies, and attitudes changing since the writing of this paper, the structures within which higher education sits means that it contributes to the further division of opportunity and wealth in the UK – and consequently helps to maintain existing hierarchies and power structures.

Assessment and feedback

Within my group we had some interesting discussions around the different courses we work with, and how this affects assessment and feedback use and structures. There was also some interesting discussion around the difference between formative and summative feedback, and the unhelpfulness of the focus on summative feedback. This made me reflect on my own students, and the inconsistencies of my own providing of formative feedback – this being unstructured, organic, and entirely down to the student putting themselves in a position to receive it. The weight placed on summative assessment over formative feedback (which in my opinion is far more productive, it being given at a point where a student can steer their developing learning towards something more meaningful), is devalues formative feedback. This seems to result in a bottle-neck approach to deadlines, which result in the individual students missing out on potentially very exciting, deeply critical creative processes and learning.

In this session we had some very interesting discussions about the concept of engagement, what that means to us, and how we think it can be proven. We all agreed that learning outcomes are problematic, and not very inclusive, and seem to be quite a blunt tool.

They are simultaneously too vague, and allow for bias, and yet they are too prescriptive in the fostering of independent artists. We discussed the benefits of different perspectives in the marking process, and how knowledge of the student and their process can be both a benefit and a hinderance in pitting their work against learning outcomes.

Preparatory reading  

It was interesting to be asked to reflect on the providence of the articles we were reading. This is something which I think speaks to wider research questions. I am often finding myself asking students about visual research references – who is the artist, who took the photograph of it, where, when? This is becoming increasingly important with the emergency of AI, which can further complicate the providence, and consequently the ethics of visual research. I wonder if I could be more thorough in citing my sources and their context within my interactions with students.

The author of the article I was assigned was Aesthetic Learning About, In, with and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study by Lars Lindström. Published in 2012, in the International Journal of Art and Design Education.  

Aphorisms

The aphorisms opened up quite interesting conversations around the wider aims of higher education, and how it related to our own individual motivations. Largely, the issue of students as customers, and how this service-provider/consumer dynamic brings an uncomfortable juxtaposition as arts educators.

In relation to the bell hooks aphorism “the classroom remains the most radical space…” we discussed how we unanimously thought that the most interesting learning happens outside the structure of a classroom. Anna remarked upon a very interesting fact she had heard in relation to the etymology of the word ‘company’ – deriving from a late Latin word, it originally meant ‘with bread’, its use stemming from the way in which people would gather around food to do business. We discussed the ways in which doing business around a table and sharing food is not part of contemporary corporate practice, and subsequently the world we are preparing our students for. And yet, we unanimously agreed that we all have our most generative conversations with others at lunch, or in the pub.

This made me reflect on some of the deeply critical conversations I have overheard in the costume studio in passing between students. As a pedagogic environment it is designed, like many other spaces, for learning to take place. However, the informality and lack of structure of such a space seems to allow open, organic conversation to occur.

Key decisions

I decided to design a playful, experimental microteach I am calling ‘The Costume Hat Game’. Part of this choice came from a desire to build on a similar activity that I had recently used in my teaching around the semiotics of costume – however this time, I would be using objects as stimuli in place of images. Materiality and embodied knowledge are core elements of costume practice, so the incorporation of OBL into this activity seems appropriate (Orr and Shreeve, 2017).

I chose four sensorial, colourful, performative objects which seemed ambiguous, but had some aesthetic connection to one another. These qualities were more important than the history of the objects themselves (about which I knew very little) because the aim was to provoke immediate, emotional, physical, extra-rational responses through interaction with these objects (Orgill and Willcocks, 2024). In-keeping with the hat based theme, all of these objects had some association with the head, or hair – both rich areas of costume semiotically.

Dynamic play (Vilhaur, 2010) and “the absurd and the carnivalesque” (Hall et al, 2012) are part of my toolkit as a creative practitioner, and developing identity as an educator, so the framework of a game felt suited for this experimental teaching space.

Aims and objectives for learners

– To notice and engage with personal extra-rational responses to objects.
– To notice and engage with the extra-rational responses of others to objects.
– To critically reflect on the differences between these responses, and on the semiotics of performative objects.

Time plan

1. Object engagement (/observing engagement) in 30 second intervals (approx. 5 mins)
2. Written responses (approx. 3 mins)
3. Guessing game playing in 1 minute intervals (approx. 5 mins)
4. Reflective discussion (approx. 7 mins)

What happened

The session ran roughly to the time. The group engaged with the objects slightly tentatively, but in some surprising and delightful ways. Some participants seemed more energised by the game playing than others. Reflections included comments on the ways in which the game made one think about others’ interpretation of objects, the perplexity and joy of the objects presented, and on the words that came up multiple times.

Feedback and reflections

Stephen reflected on the way in which the withholding of information about what the session would entail in totality made him feel uneasy. Although this was a deliberate choice, I wondered if more transparency would have enabled more present, enthusiastic engagement with the game.

Julia reflected on how the competitive element of the word based game made her feel uneasy, English being her second language. As a largely visual, physical, tactile practitioner who works with many students who are similarly inclined, or like Julia, speak English as a second language, I would like to develop my pedagogic toolkit to rely less on verbal communication.

This approach was beautifully exemplified in Tommy’s microteaching activity, which used the deliberate exclusion of physical senses alongside drawing, to explore objects and communicate.

(458 words)

References

Hall, C., Jones K., Sefton Green, J. and Thomson, P. (2012) The Signature Pedagogies Project: Final Report. Available at: www.creativetallis.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/2287089/signature_pedagogies_report_final_version_11.3.12.pdf (Accessed: 10th March 2024).

Orgill, G. and Willcocks, J. (2024) ‘How to…use objects to support learning and teaching’ [online seminar]. Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice: Theories, Policies and Practices. University of the Arts London. 24th January 2024.

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) ‘Teaching practices for creative practitioners’. In Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (eds.) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Milton: Taylor and Francis Group.

Vilhauer, M. (2010) Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other. Washington D.C.: Lexington Books.

The hat game

The main objective of this activity is to engage students in the process of considering their own extra-rational responses to objects, as well as the extra-rational responses of others – to notice the similarities and differences, and critically engage with the reasons why this might be in a playful, collaborative way. This should provide a parallel to the presentation of objects (costumes, props, set pieces) which occurs in the staging of a live performance, and the predictability/unpredictability of what it is the audience brings into the room, and consequently how they will read and respond to the (costume) design. Secondly, it is to inspire them to experiment with alternative stimuli in the performance making process, adding to their creative toolkit.

1. The participants are asked to silently engage with the objects presented to them in whichever way feels intuitive to them, within a set time (30 seconds or 1 minute each depending on student/object numbers).
2. They are the asked to secretly write down one word in response to each object.
3. They fold these up and place them in the hat.
4. They are split into teams.
5. In 1 minute intervals, each team has to guess the word pulled out of the hat by a single nominated ‘performer’, who must not use the word in the hat but may use any other words, or physical actions.
6. This continues until all of the words have been guessed. The team with the most guesses ‘wins’.
7. The words are laid out to look at and discuss, along with some prompt questions like ‘which words were the most difficult to guess/explain, and why do you think this is?’, ‘did you find any of the words surprising, and why?’.

The antiques roadshow

The main objective of this activity is to facilitate imaginative, collaborative enquiry and response to the objects. The hope is to utilise the framework laid out by Willcocks in a way which may engage performance design students more readily than quiet contemplation.

1. In small groups, participants are given an ‘antique’ piece of costume, and only given information about the current owner and where they bought or found it, in the style of the antiques roadshow.
2. Within a given time, the groups have to work together as a team of ‘antiques experts’  to surmise details and projected ‘values’ of the object. They do this using a prompt sheet of questions which will include; ‘Who do you think made this object? Where do you think it was made? What is its ‘value’?’.
3. Each group has to deliver their findings, in the style of the antiques roadshow, to the rest of the group as though it were the television programme – in this way, they are encouraged to state things about it sensorially (smell, temperature, surface feel, weight etc). There is potential here for me, or an enthusiastic volunteer, to pretend to be the owner of the antique, or the shows presenter, Fiona Bruce.

n.b. the setup of this could include the use of white gloves/costume pieces/alias in order to amp up the roleplay element.

Abstract pattern cutting

Mini version of what I teach on a larger scale – participants wrap a small object up in cling film, then masking tape. They then draw lines on them over the ‘highest’ points and are show how balance marks work. They then chop the paper off, and try to lay the piece flat.

Materials bingo

Participants are presented with numbered, unnamed raw materials, and individually, or in groups they have to guess which ones has been used in the items (s). With enough items and materials, a bingo card can be filled, and the actual materials revealed (or not?!).  

The design pitch

In small groups, participants have to make up the details of an object as though they jointly designed it for a specific purpose/show, which are written down, or alternatively they are interviewed as such with questions like ‘why did you choose this material?