Month: March 2023

I was excited about setting up the microteaching activity as I am a strategist and normally need to understand the bigger context before I can delve into the details of a subject. This can be to my detriment as I struggle to get to the point but at times, I appreciate having all the information I need to make decisions. Being forced to focus knowledge into 20 mins and knowing how compact this session needed to be felt constricting but not impossible. In fact, I find it more productive to teach one thing well rather than teaching several things superficially. 

Considering the second part of the brief to be object-based I looked back at my recent practice and realised that little of it was, in fact, object-based and I questioned this as in the end of my units one of the components is a physical garment. We have a range of making workshops which run like a micro-factory. We use this workshop to test the digital garment development process. Those are slower days but the learning is intense. I have come to understand that the object brings learning closer to the student. Hardie (2015) states that ‘if objects are seen away from their functional setting, we are likely to study them more closely”. 

Topic selection and object:

I decided to stay in my field of understanding of product development and prepared an exercise for the evaluation of a T-shirt. I hoped this would be straightforward to grasp as most people own a T-shirt ad this is an everyday item but often the public is unaware of the attention to detail that goes into making a garment. I decided to further focus this on a specific area – the neckline construction to narrow down the topic. I had two t-shirts, one washed and one unwashed to compare stress testing. 

Session setup: 

I designed the session as a flowchart in Miro as I am trialling this platform to use with my students with a view to making sessions work as a flowchart or mind map and can be linked to other sessions and lectures visually. The aim is to create links and interconnectivity between different topics influencing a process or a product.

Learning outcomes:

Step 1: Garment Definition

Overview of garment definition in Techpack and explained function of the document in the garment evaluation document. This section did not go as well as I hoped as there was too much information on the slide and the learners only need to understand one very small element of the Techpack I wanted to explain the process of product development as context but this was unnecessary and only led to confusion with the learners. 

Step 2: Garment Evaluation

I explained the garment evaluation process and all areas that we evaluate in the process in an industry setting and the corresponding pages of the techpack they relate to. This was simplified to suit the frame of the learning but still excessive information and unnecessary for the purpose. 

Step 3: Garment Evaluation – Design

Items that would not be discussed in the session were removed on Miro board (as below) and focused students to the green post-it which correlates with page 4 of the Techpack. Learners had received a handout for this. At this point, I had framed the exercise in better detail and the learners breathed a sigh of relief that the task seemed manageable at this point. 

Step 4: Analysing the quality of the neck construction of the t-shirt – Group activity

• I asked the learners to check for stretch and one group noticed that a thread had snapped during a previous test. This would constitute a quality fail and requires further investigation.

• I asked the learners to check for the placement of the label and I had two examples, one new and one washed five times. The washed item did not perform well on the label quality and for the price this was deemed unacceptable. This is not an immediate QC fail but would need to be addressed at the next production run.

• I asked the learners to check for the placement of the loop to hang the branding and this was incorrectly placed on both T-shirts. This is not an immediate QC fail but would need to be addressed at the next production run. 

This part went well and engagement and interest peaked. All learners were encouraged to make decisions on what was deemed acceptable and unacceptable. I explained that often there is a discrepancy in quality between what was specified and what was received which has its roots in cost cutting when production goes to scale. We discussed relationships between price and quality and could confirm this with Hardie (2015) who points out that secondary information can lead inti branding and values. 

Following a short discussion, I could tell that the learners had grasped how the process worked and how QC throughout the development process is crucial. 

Step 5:  Formalising feedback

I rounded off the activity by asking the learners to put in words any QC concerns they had found and specified the language to be neutral, simple and factual with a solution for how to amend the problem. One group did better on this than the other who would have benefitted from seeing an example and seemed to lack knowledge and process on how to proceed. When faced with an object and forming an opinion about the object risk-taking is a factor that is more real and encourages deeper involvement (Hardie 2015).

Feedback from the learners 

The feedback I received after the session was that it was interesting to get a glimpse behind the scenes on how garments are being defined and how they go through the development process. 

There was a consensus that the beginning was too intensive and that there was too much detail when the group where only addressing one area/ problem finding of the garment. I entirely agree with this comment and wish I had left out a lot of the context that was irrelevant for the learners.

The students wanted to see a perfect sample of the T-shirt, but I explained that this does not exist and that if the development team are strict, they will be able to find problems with every single garment that comes out of the production line. The key is to set the parameters to an acceptable level for the brand. 

Further reflection: 

I would like to seek out opportunities to teach object based in my classes and encourage students to analise the impact of their work on product. Often, I send students on fieldtrips to shops and department stores, but I realise under guidance they would achieve a deeper understanding of the garments observed and their context.

I found the guidance on structure and inspirational ideas in Hardies text useful and I look forward to trying this out with a view to encourage critical thinking and establishing powerful debates which m cohort is often timid about. 

REFERENCES:

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

Reflection on Neil Currant’s lecture by Mikha Mekler

I reviewed the session by Neil Currant on compassionate assessment and found it mind-opening. I always struggle with over-empathy and over-compassion especially as I teach 100% international student cohorts and understand the extra challenges my students take on. My students are largely very bright but being away from home and often combatting a fairly new second language and a new system adds layers that I often feel the university has not fully addressed.

The way I show compassion aside from being truly interested in the students and their cultures and backgrounds is that I give my students all of the knowledge and experience I have and facilitate easy access to me and my knowledge. I broaden and update my own knowledge through a range of means and gather it for the students to tab into freely and generously. I share all I have with individuals, small groups and classes. My strategy is that if I give them everything I have and they act on it and process then they are set for success.

I am however left to trust in the institutions’ policies and processes in implementing Learning Outcomes and quality assurance and we operate within those frameworks. Sometimes we come across students who do not always fit the structure. At times this is challenging as they are clever and talented in their own way but not when they are here to be formed within our process and the system does not wholly fit them.

This comes to a head when the Learning Outcomes are ambiguous and students are unsure of what they are required to do (Davies, 2018). This happened to me a few times and since then I make sure that I have clarified with the course leader which of the Learning Outcomes are addressed by the components the students are submitting and I can help them shape those around their personal expertise and interests. I am however resolute in thinking that the language in the Learning Outcomes could be simplified in some units I teach on and hope to be able to work into this when it comes to reevaluating the units.

Questioning the function of assessments during the lecture was an interesting excursion revisiting practices of the pandemic of pass/ fail assessments and this assessment practice takes away a large portion of the measurability of the work which Davies (2018) states is the foundation of constructing Learning Outcomes. It is impossible to understand the position of the students if a range is not given which I am sure is more disconcerting to the students than to the tutors. We are an awarding body said Neil and I am adding that the award might need to be earned at a university hence we need to be structured so we can produce talent ready for a challenging industry. This makes good sense and is an internal reminder for me to lean on when constructive feedback is given.

I typically try to lay out the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria very clearly over the unit and refer back to them often especially when I find gaps in students’ work so the student is able to construct their assessments according to what is required. In order to understand what this would look like I enjoyed and exercise during Seminar 1 when I was paired with Andrew Goldberg and we worked on expectations in order to be able to assess, moderate and benchmark the assessments.

Andrew and I were really well aligned in what we expected and could draw the above table up with relative ease. I was relieved at this and take faith that with some thought we can achieve at least fairness. Neil explained via Arthur (2023) that fairness is constructed if everyone starts at the same place which our students do not. Students come with a range of talents, challenges and privileges and do have not got an even starting plan.

Students will have to work harder at individual elements of their assignments depending on the education they have had prior but are we able to balance the challenges against talents and privileges? The procedure of implementing learning outcomes and assessment criteria is a function of devising fairness by treating everyone the same.

Lastly, I was really interested in thinking about the function of feedback. Feedback as a motivator was mentioned by Neil. In my view, this is all it should be, an opportunity to review the work and understand how to improve the work. This realisation helps as an overriding attitude when assessing next time. What is helpful to the student and what is not. I am trying to think about how my feedback is perceived. Sometimes too positive, sometimes perhaps a little too factual referring back to the Learning Outcomes and the assessment brief, reminding them what they needed to do while I push the square peg hopefully gently into the round hole. I worry that I cannot change the hole as I get in trouble with fairness and in conflict with other tutors marking the same unit. So all that is left is changing the peg.

What would happen if we just passed or failed students? Is pass/fail a motivator enough and perhaps to the detriment of the better students and the benefit of the less confident students. Of course in the industry the higher achieving students have better initial access to the workplace but does this mean that the student at university must be trained to be competitive? The disjointed place we are in as tutors are that we would like to work collaboratively but as a world-class institution, we are under pressure to produce world-class talent for the industry and make the education pay off for the students. Another conundrum that we need to navigate and balance.

Neil mentioned that for feedback to work trust is key. The trust of the student in our ability, trust in our knowledge and trust that we want the best for the student. In this case, how can we build trust between students and tutors – when our system encourages distrust between tutors and students through penalties and a punitive and unforgiving system? Can we uncouple that? Can trust be built outside of the assessment so this can be detached? Can students feedback on the feedback provided and form how tutors approach feedback? When I input the grades in the marking criteria in the OATS sheets I am pleased that the sentences are prewritten for me as they are not attachable to me as a person. The written feedback is different in the assessment and I stay on the factual side assessing the projects and not the student but often I feel removed from the people and from myself.

I am choosing in my practice to deliver constructive feedback in person and with a solution attached e.g

Problem: The layout is not communicating well and it is hard to know where to look for information in your portfolio.

Solution: Have a look at these graphic and layout resources and decide on a style you like and follow through with it in your portfolio.

If a student has gaps I identify those and tell them proactively how to plug the gaps. I realise that this is often overwhelming too especially when there are a lot of gaps. I realise that I am doing this as I would like to give all of my students the same opportunity to get the best grade possible. I am questioning if this is compassionate or counterproductive as at times it can feel that I load more work onto them.

REFERENCES

Davies, A (2018), Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? – Arts and culture (no date). Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem

by KEN HYLAND
City University of Hong Kong

Thoughts and Reflections by Mikha Mekler

I have made sure my students read and construct knowledge through texts after having been learning in this way myself at the LCF Fashion Business School on the MA Fashion Design Management. I have benefitted from reading hugely during this time and found a solid grounding in my knowledge. I understood that I can rely on my knowledge as I could rely on experts in my field who were scaffolding my arguments. It took away my imposter syndrome and made me secure. 

I have since applied the practice of rigorous research and reading in my teaching and know that as a lecturer I can only do so much and there is an element to get to the deep knowledge that my students need to do on their own in the library or nowadays with a laptop wherever they see fit. 

The Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge text has given confirmation of this practice. I had feedback at times that our course is great but the workload and expectations are high, so I am often in doubt if I ask too much. I further have a 100% international students cohort with only two students having English as their mother tongue so I try to be understanding of this. I am however equipped with new ammunition that my practice makes good sense, and that citation is to the benefit of the learner no matter how tedious it can get at the time. 

The clarity was achieved by the following train of thought: Citation is central to the social context of persuasion as it can both provide justification for arguments and demonstrate the novelty of one’s position Gilbert 1976; Berkenkotter and Huckin 1995), clarifying that appropriate textual practices are vital to the acceptance of claims.

I enjoyed the excursion in the text when the author describes scientific writers and marketing writers stating that science writers do not produce theory but uncover it and in social sciences, particularly in marketing writers are more inclined to pay higher recognition to ownership of an idea. 

In the humanities and social, the established understandings have a wider input field Problem areas and topics are generally more discourse and range over wider academic and historical territory, and there is less assurance that questions can be answered by following a single path and further there might be different truths based on the cultural background of the problem or context around the time of the problem. This may mean that texts date poorly and must be rigorously challenged. 

There is a saying though that good theory doesn’t date so I am now on the path to uncovering how to find the best theory for a topic and understanding that I have found it once I come across it. 

Please play this tune while reading this post (sorry, if you experience an ad. I hope you can wait it out). It is Daft Punk ft. Julian Casablancas Instant Crush (Video)

Wednesday early eve after a long day, a lecture, some admin, a meeting and a seminar on a topic the students found really hard. I needed to leave work, not because I was done but because my kid needed to be picked up. I packed my things in a flurry, switched off the lights, shut the doors and exit.

I am as always in a huge rush when I leave, thinking about the one hundred things I have to get on with when I get home. Nothing unmanageable and some of them are things I even look forward to like putting the kid to bed.

I run down the stairs with my little backpack shouldered, hoping I left nothing crucial behind. As I get to the bottom of the stairs on the ground floor I can hear the tune you are listening to now blasting out of the sewing studio at great volume. My first thoughts were that I love it and question whether I recognise it? Have I come across it before? Who is it by and what playlist would I stick it on? My second thought is that it is louder than is possibly acceptable in a professional setup which probably means that Sarah and the technicians have left and it’s Open Access time.

I peek into the room and a wonderful scene opens up in front of me: a beaming Asian boy with the sharpest buzzcut is on the far right side, what a gorgeous kid. Perfect face, casual outfit, I think white T-shirt and raw jeans. He handles a menswear mannequin and talks to a girl sitting on the cutting table in a yoga seat. Her hair was dyed reddish-brown, swept back into a short messy ponytail with a relaxed fringe. Her outfit is typical fashion student, rags tied tall over her. A mess, but a good mess. She is infected by the mood and smiles a lot while she speaks. I can make out some piercing that only someone like her can pull off. Another gorgeous kid.

On their right is a girl, probably blonde? Not sure what she was exactly doing but she was as cool as the other two nodding along to the music and carrying on working on her materials and a notebook. As I had peeked for a little too long I withdrew but not before getting a glimpse of the back of the Timothy Chalamet look-a-like who worked on a small intricate detail on the stand closest to the door. Fully concentrating and hopefully feeling as lucky to be there as I am to witness the moment.

Standing outside I still listen to the tune, I open Shazam and the app is listening, listening ….. Daft Punk – Instant Crush, of course. I add it immediately to my coolest playlist.

I hold this moment outside the doorway, grateful that I get to work with kids like these and full of joy that they get to have moments like these while being in education. Peaks of utter contentedness when things just work out for a moment. I hope they have lots of those and feel looked after by all of us, tutors and technicians.