Intervention Reflective Report

Introduction 

This report is a reflection on the top-down structural changes implemented by CSM BA Architecture in the year of 2024-25, and how these changes impacted my teaching practice and student engagement this academic year. This is important because those changes came to stay, and because there was a significant decline in student engagement. While the changes introduced are beyond my control, I propose to focus on understanding the impact within my space of sovereignty, the studio space, and propose an intervention that can foster a more inclusive approach.

Positionally x Inclusion

I am an architect, urban designer and researcher, interested in how urbanisation reproduces socio-spatial inequalities, and in the role of design and collaborative thinking as tools for tangible and transformative actions. As a white, middle-class, professional and non-disabled women, who grew up in São Paulo (Brazil), one of the biggest, most unequal and violent cities in the world, I am conscious that the way I negotiate the city is always in relation to my identity, entitlements, my past and present experiences (Lynch, 1956), and in some ways, my imagined futures.

For someone who studies urban transformation and understands cities as relational ecosystems, the limits of my own lived experience are too narrow, and that is why collaborations and teaching have become crucial elements of my research and practice. For me, teaching is a platform to practice collaborative design thinking, connect research, education and society, and learn with and from my diverse student groups, who are city users and bearers of knowledge.

In my teaching practice, diversification cannot become a box ticking exercise because diversification and inclusion are fundamental, not only to avoid epistemic injustices and loss of valuable knowledge (Rekis 2023), but to foster a pedagogical space for authentic learning (Barnett 2007), where oneself can be changed by ideas and (Hooks 1994, Barnett 2007), and architectural education can, in alignment with the as the Manifesto for Spatial Practices at Central Saint Martins (CSM), make connections to social processes, generate knowledge and value, and make a wider contribution to society.

Context

At CSM, BA Architecture students choose to enrol in one of 10 different vertical studios for their design module. Each studio (around 20 students) is co-run by a pair of tutors who have full autonomy to propose the design brief, study area and methodology under and within the overarching course structure.

The course used to be divided in three terms focused on Research & Enquire (term 1), Design Development and Experimentation (term 2), and Project Resolution (term 3), with one summative submission in the end of the year. The Block System implemented in 2024-25 introduced the following structural changes:

  • Design course is divided in 2 blocks: Block 1 – 40 credits, and Block 2 – 20credits
  • A new summative assessment in the end of Block 1 (two-thirds of the year).
  • Academic year reduced by 4 teaching weeks

Impact:

Analysing the data for my studio this academic year (2024-25) I confirmed some of my initial observations (intervention plan):

  • Overall attendance was 80% in Block 1 and 65% in Block 2 (drop of 15%)
  • There is a clear breaking point, when students stop attending the studio sessions, immediately after the Block 1 review – formative submission.
  • Disengagement was slightest more evident among second-year students.
  • Chinese second-year students were disproportionally affected:  3 out of 3 students stopped attending studio sessions after Block 1 review.

Figure 1 – Attendance record – academic year 2024-25 – Block system

Data analysis from the previous academic year (2023-24) shows that:

  • Overall engagement was much higher – 93% in term1 to 83% in terms 2 and 3 (drop of 10%)
  • The decline in engagement also happened after the first formative assessment.
  • Disengagement was more evident among second-year students.
  • Chinese second-year students were, in the majority, fully engaged: 2 out of 7 students disengaged from the studio sessions.

.

Figure 2 – Attendance record – academic year 2023-24

The fact that disengagement is more evident among second-year students suggests to me that there is an inclusion issue which contributes to second-year students feeling less supported and more alienated from the design sessions during the design phases. The beginning of the design development stage is the point when:

  • We move from group work (research) to individual work (design).
  • We move from group presentations to individual tutorials.
  • Studio sessions become less structured.
  • We provide less teaching and more independent study and production time.

Under the new block system, unsupported or untutored time was massively amplyfied as:

  • The 4 teaching weeks reduced from curriculum were replaced by independent production time.
  • Students who failed Block 1 had to manage the resit submissions independently and alongside their Block 2 work.
  • Student who want to improve their Block 1 marks had to managed the work for their optional resubmission independently and alongside their Block 2 work.

Intervention Rationale

Although I cannot change the conditions imposed by the new Block System, I would like to address this gap of engagement affecting my students, and more specifically second-year students, which I can see was amplified by the new reality.

I work hard to build a safe collaborative space and a sense of community during the initial Research & Enquire phase to avoid the loss of valuable knowledge (Rekis 2023). I provide highly structured activities designed to create opportunities to learn from the wealth and diverse experiences of others, to foster empathy (Hooks 1994) so that students can develop a sensibility to the study site and city users, and develop a clear position in relation to the social-spatial conditions they engage with. These activities include, for example: site visits, engagement with external partners, group work and presentations, collective discussions and drawing workshops.

The success of this approach is reflected on the level of student engagement and quality of the research they produce collectively. When revisiting my second-year Chinese students’ portfolios for example, the ones who completely disengaged from the design sessions this year, I was please to find the evidence of their learning in the research phase. It is a shame to see that momentum losing up when, in the ‘design development’ phase, students are asked to work individually and more independently.

While third-year students in previous years seem to perform better under these more individualistic practices (Garrett 2024) which are part of architecture education, it is clear to me that the block system posed a bigger challenge and all students, including second- and third-years, found the lack of structured opportunities for peer-to-peer learning challenging and discouraging (see figure 1).

Intervention Aims and Structure

The idea is to promote a more inclusive and participatory approach during the design stages and capitalise on the momentum built in the in the Research & Enquire phase, by taking students out of their individual design work at a specific time of the day, and bring them together for a group presentation and discussion.

Proposed Studio Day

  • 10:30 – 15:30: individual or group tutorials.
  • 15:30 – 17:00: presentations and discussion.

The presentations would be assigned around pre-established themes including: architectural projects, design practices, spatial experiences, drawing and model making techniques, and technical aspects, and would consist of brief student led presentations, where a small group of students share references and inspirations, followed by a group discussion facilitated by the tutors.

In this way, we could collectively build a studio vocabulary (references) as diverse and rich as our student cohort (Richards & Finnigan 2015), encourage students to attend the studio sessions by providing the structured space for exchanges and peer-to-peer learning, while removing potential anxiety or shame around presentations by focusing the analysis and discussion on the work of others (precedent studies). Additionally, this would provide a space for students to practice their presentations and analytical skills routinely in a “low stake” environment (Russel 2010).

Evaluation

I would expect this intervention to work as a “small learning” method that allows students to construct a foundation – vocabulary of projects and practices – from where individual knowledge and design ideas can grow from (Shen & Sanders 2023).

If successfully implemented in the next academic year, I expect to see a reduction in the disengagement affecting students across the design phases, and consequently, an improvement in the overall attendance after the formative submissions and Block 2.

I also expect that the shared resources and inspirations would foster more design experimentation during the design development phase and support a more confident sense of self-authenticity (Shen and Sanders 2023) to all students, resulting in a richer design process that better responds to the socio-spatial complexities of their urban sites and research.

Conclusion 

As an educator who believes that learning should be authentic, enabling and transformational (Barnett 2007, Hooks 1994), I am aware that my learning as a teacher is a fundamental element for the effective learning of my students (Ashwin, Boud, et al 2015). And, it is when students bring their findings, perspectives and inspirations to the studio space that my learning as a teacher happens, that is what fuels me to continue to teach year after year.

In that sense, the intervention proposed is designed not only to allow students to act and interact in a different and more collaborative way during their design development work, but to foster theirs and my creativity. And, the success of this strategy relies in part in students perceiving my authentic excitement and fulfilment as a teacher during these sessions.

Here is where both the success and failure of this intervention can get realised. With student engagement and exchange, there is learning, creativity and teacher’s fulfilment. Without student engagement there is no learning, creativity or teacher’s fulfilment, and consequently, no student engagement. 

References:

Ashwin, P, Boud, D, Coate, KL, Hallett, F, Keane, E, Krause, K-L, Leibowitz, B, MacLaren, I, McArthur, J, McCune, V & Tooher (2015). Reflective Teaching in Higher Education. [online] Reflective Teaching, Bloomsbury Academic. Available at: <http://reflectiveteaching.co.uk/books-and-resources/reflective-teaching-in-higher-education> [Accessed 14 jul 2025]

Barnett, R. (2007) A will to learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

CSM. A manifesto for spatial practices at Central Saint Martins. [Online] Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/190112/Spatial-Practices_Manifesto.pdf [Accessed 14 jul 2025]

Garrett, R. (2024). Racism shapes careers: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp.1–15.

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. Educations as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Lynch, K. and Lukashok, A. (1956). Some Childhood Memories of the City. In City Sense and City Design: Writings and projects of Kevin Lynch (1995) 4th ed., 2002. Massachusetts – London: The MIT Press Cambridge.

Richards, A. and Finnigan, T. (2015) ‘Embedding equality and diversity in the curriculum: An art and design practitioner’s guide.’ York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/retention-and-attainment-disciplines-art-and-design [Accessed 14 jul 2025]

Russell, M. (2010) University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. [online] Available
at: < https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Shen, Y. and Sanders, E. (2023) Identity discovery: Small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education. [online] Journal of design, business & society, Volume 9 number . Available at: < https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00049_1> [Accessed 14 jul 2025]

Rekis, J. (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account [online] Hypatia, Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi:10.1017/hyp.2023.86 [Accessed 14 jul 2025]

Blog Task 3: Race

In Video 1, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right (2023), Asif Sadiq, a senior executive at Adidas, focuses on a critique of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion training in corporate and institutional spaces.

He argues that, despite the investments, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion training do not produce meaningful change. This failure, he continues, is the result the of training content which reproduces the dominant cultural perspectives, delivers single stories, prioritise specific areas, fall into generalisations and stereotyping, and mostly, focuses on the challenges and negative aspects of diversity experiences instead of the benefits and potentials. Up to here, despite the wide generalisations, I followed his argument without much trouble. My alarm was raised when, after these observations, Asif Sadiq concludes that the responsibility to get educated, to create a fair space to talk about differences and produce transformative changes, lies with the individual, not the institutions.

For me, it is this responsibility-shift, from institution to individual, which is very troubling. While it is unclear whether Asif Sadiq, a man of colour, was aware of the pervasive mechanisms of the neoliberal discourse of his responsibility-shift proposal, in Video 2, Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke (2022), Professor James Orr, a white British academic from Cambridge University, clearly uses shifts and inversions with great dexterity and awareness to argue that, at Cambridge University, there is no evidence of the perpetuation of institutional racism. And, to build his argument, he presents a series of conversations where he uses the visible diversity of the interviewees to validate his opinion.

His critique is aimed at the Advance HE frameworks for gender and race equality which, he claims, preach a vision of society rejected by the “general public” and push a particularly ideological line about “white fragility or about how we’re all racists”. Advance HE frameworks when applied by the institution in the form of training or admissions, he continues, become ideological mandates which produce “diversity bureaucracies” that can jeopardise academic freedom and teaching excellence.

I searched online for an official public statement or a comment from the University of Cambridge responding to the The Telegraph‘s video by Professor James Orr and I found nothing. Is this silence what Cambridge University understands as freedom of speech?

While I am quite critical of UAL’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mandatory trainings which feel like box ticking exercises, applications of the Advance HE frameworks in spaces such as the PgCert Academic Practice are examples of initiatives where the institution provides a safe space to talk about differences, share experiences and where individuals can fulfil their responsibility as learners.

I am sure that the PgCert graduates will promote meaningful changes in their practices and in their spaces of sovereignty at an individual level – mine is a vertical design studio in the CSM BA Architecture. However, at institutional level, UAL is playing the same responsibility-shift game. Lecturers, technicians, librarians and frontline staff, many on precarious contracts like mine (hourly paid lecturer) and reduced teaching hours, are offered to take volunteering “learning hours” (PgCert) and charged with the institutional responsibility to fulfil UAL’s commitment to social justice.

I wonder how far UAL can still push this responsibility-shift game. I wonder how far I will go on playing it.

References:

Video 1 – with Asif Sadiq:

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. (2023) YouTube video, added by TEDx [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw 

Video 2 – with Professor James Orr:

Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. (2022) YouTube video, added by The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU

Intervention summary proposal

I teach a design vertical studio, at CSM BA Architecture, with a mix of second- and third-year students. And, in the past few years, the proportion of international students in my studio, mostly Chinese, have increased significantly.

I have successfully worked with Chinese students, helped them to integrate, and enjoyed their ambition and the work produced and had excellent student response in terms of engagement and outcomes. This year however, all my second-year Chinese students disengaged from the studio sessions after the formative review and resorted to using AI to produce their summative submissions.

In an attempt to see through this picture, I propose to look into and compare the data of this academic year and the previous one to identify what could be leading to last years’ outcome.

Structural Changes x Studio impact

  • The overall course was reduced by nearly 4 weeks this academic year.

Impact: Less teaching time was replaced by independent (unsupported) study time.

  • New Block system (2 blocks) replaced the previous structure of 3 terms: Term 1 – Research and Enquire, Term 2- Design and Experimentation, Term 3 Design Resolution.

Impact: New system penalised the ‘Design and Experimentation’ phase the most. Students didn’t have support and time to make mistakes, learn from mistakes and/or unexpected outcomes.

  • New summative (high stake) submission in the end of Block 1 (Feb).

Impact: This point impacted heavily on student attendance and engagement

Research and Enquire are the foundation of my studio teaching. In Studio 2, we take the learning outside the studio space to the city, engage with external partners, spend time on site, use situated actions as investigative tools and devise urban strategies collectively. During research phase students engage with different policy documents and readings, engage with city users (interviews) and group discussions. I can see how the language and cultural barriers can exclude international students from meaningful engagement with all these activities, specially when Chinese students tend to stay and work among themselves.

However, when I revisited the Block 1 submissions for this assignment, it became clear that the portfolios of the international students presented good evidence of their learning from the group research. It is the lack of design process and the disconnection between the knowledge produced and the proposals (AI generated) which is concerning.

This evidence leads me to think that, it was not the immersive research method and group work that caused the disengagement. But the fact that there was no supported time to make mistakes and learn from the mistakes, time to learn from peers, and to challenge the knowledge produced.

Intervention:

Given the limitations of this exercise, I will focus my intervention on developing and introducing a routinely and structured activity, which is possible within my capacity and contract, to: 1- prioritise studio time for group discussions and collaborations during the design phase, and 2- motivate students to test ideas and take risks, to allow mistakes and unexpected outcomes to be explored.

Blog Task 2: Faith, religion, and belief

UAL mandatory training course Breaking Bias includes a TED talk entitled “What does my headscarf mean to you?”. Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a Muslim woman of colour, starts by pointing out that the way she wears her headscarf determines the way people see her, and asks the audience how surprise they would be if she told them she is a racing car engineer, who designs her own racing cars, and runs her University’s car racing team. “Because it is true” she says. The “surprise”, she explains, is the product of our unconscious bias, or the filters through which we see the world. (Abdel-Magied 2009)

To understand why the racing car engineer’s challenge is so powerful, we need to look at Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality because what causes the ‘disassociation’ between Yassmin’s image and the image of a racing car engineer, is not only her headscarf, but the interplay between her ‘visible’ identities of faith, gender and race.

We live in a world shaped by the ideas of patriarchy, white supremacy and Christianity, and our individual and collective filters, or the ways we see the world, have been shaped and valued against those backgrounds. In the video 1, Appiah (2014) argues that it is because different groups, cultures and beliefs are framed against Christian assumptions that “some vast generalisation about religions” are made. And Singh (2016) reiterates in video 2 that it is this “tendency to try and paint entire communities with a single brush stroke” that leads to stereotyping, and explicit and implicit forms of discrimination.

Systemic forms of discrimination are so intrinsically structural to our society that it becomes difficult to recognise them. In the article ‘Is race still relevant? Student perceptions and experiences of racism in higher education’ (Wong et al 2021), the authors find that “there is a wider challenge for racism to be recognised as racism”, and call universities to urgently acknowledge the existence of racism and to ensure that all students can recognise it.

Jaclyn Rekis in her article Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account (2023), argues that, in relation to religious subjects in higher education environment, the result of a “knower” being undermined because of their religious identity has a negative impact in their knowledge-producing and dissemination efforts, creating a dysfunction in the overall epistemic practice and/or system. The result of this injustice, she argues, is a loss of knowledge.

Everyone has an experience of the city which makes my students “bearers of knowledge”, the most valuable source of knowledge in my teaching and learning practice. In my studio, BA Architecture CSM, I consciously and passionately try to create a fair space to avoid any epistemic injustice, and loss of valuable knowledge, but I know that my efforts are not without “filters”.

Yassmin, the car engineer, closes her talk with a brief anecdote: A father and his son get involved in a bad car accident. The father dies in the crash and the boy is taken to hospital in need of an emergency surgery. When the surgeon looks at the boy, the surgeon says: “I can’t operate this boy, this child is my son”. At this point Yassmin stops and gives the audience 10 seconds before she asks: “How was that possible?” And, in my head, I was thinking how was that possible. She then says: The surgeon was his mother. (Abdel-Magied 2009)

Videos:

What does my headscarf mean to you? (2009) YouTube video, added by TED [Online] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18zvlz5CxPE

Is religion good or bad? (2014) YouTube video, added by TED [Online] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2et2KO8gcY

Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in the Classroom (2016). YouTube video, added by Trinity University [Online] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk

References:

Rekis, J. (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account [online] Hypatia, Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi:10.1017/hyp.2023.86.

Wong, B., Elmorally, R., Copsey-Blake, M., Highwood, E. and Singarayer, J. (2020) Is race still relevant? Student perceptions and experiences of racism in higher education. [online] Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1831441

Blog Task 1: Disability

Christine Sun Kim’s video in Friends & Strangers (Video 3 – Art 21) was the video that really spoke to me, and it is not because I identify with her disability. I still cringe remembering my reaction when a sign language interpreter told me that there was not such a thing as “one” sign language, to which I indignantly replied “Why?”. A question that Sun Kim documented in a piece of work entitled “Shit hearing people say to me”.

figure 1 – Christine Sun Kim (2019) MOMA, New York.

The two aspects of her work which I found fascinating are the use of universal infographics and visual art as creative and analytical tools to unpick and examine her own positionality and emotional responses to the world around her. And her engagement and contextual responses to space, cities and people.

Echo is an idea related to space and time. And ideas of echo and repetition from sign language form the basis of Sun Kim’s visual language, which she uses as a reflective and analytical tool not only to examine her intersectional identity (deaf, sign language “speaker”, women, mother, recipient of free childcare, Berlin resident, collaborator) but to develop a real sensibility towards world around her.

Sun Kim’s work talks about different modes of discrimination and privilege, and gives visibility to what cannot be heard or seen. Visibility is the recurrent theme in videos 2, 3 and 4, embodied as scale by Sun Kim, and as the space and time to shine in the Paralympics to athlete Ade Adepitan. Visibility, it is argued, has the power to transcend the barriers of the world, to create convergence and connection and “shape social norms” (Video 3 – Art 21).

UAL context

Space and time for teaching and learning have been consistently slashed by the University in the 3 years I have been teaching the design module in the BA Architecture at CSM. From 24 weeks in 2022-23 to 18 weeks in 2024-25, students and design tutors have seen an enormous reduction in teaching time. Because the most dramatic cut happened from the last to the current year (a total of 4 weeks), and this reduction was implemented alongside a new summative assessment in the end of block 1 (oct- jan), the overall impact of these changes can yet not be visualised.

As a direct result of these decisions, students were left to their own resources, required to work more independently, and to face and additional high stake assessment (Russel 2010) in the middle of their learning journey. Attendance to the design studio sessions in Block 2 (feb-may) is the lowest by far when compared to previous years, especially among students awarded lower marks for their Block 1 submissions (oct – jan).

As a hpl tutor, I feel that the changes disabled me. I am required to deliver the same course for the same number of students, but with 20% less time and space. Perhaps the students are feeling disabled too. These decisions were not taken with “everyone in mind” or to “remove barriers” (video 1 – UAL Disability Service). And I can only see the retention and awarding gap in this module widening up this academic year.

References:

Video 1:

University of the Arts London. The Social Model of Disability at UAL. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdnjmcrzgw&t=2s

Video 2:

Paralympics GB (2020). Ade Adepitan gives amazing explanation of systemic racism. 16 October. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsxndpgagU (Accessed: 26 April 2025).

Video 3:

Art21 (2023). Christine Sun Kim in “Friends & Strangers” – Season 11 | Art21. 1 November. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpRaEDlLsI&t=83s (Accessed: 26 April 2025).

Video 4:

ParaPride (2023) Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month 2023. 13 December. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yID8_s5tjc&t=15s (Accessed: 26 April 2025).

Russell, M. (2010). University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. [online] Available
at: < https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Case Study 1

Knowing and responding to your students’ diverse needs

Background

Everyone has their own experience of negotiating the city, and every year in Studio 2 (CSM BA Architecture) we set a first pedagogical task designed to take those personal and individual ways to seeing the world as the starting point of the students’ learning journey. This academic year (2024-25), for example, we kicked started the year with a walk in East London led by a local artist and asked the students to record their ‘first impressions’ of this part of the city informed by their idea of the ‘Civic’, without defining how to do it or which media to use.

Evaluation

It’s difficult to evaluate the overall impact of this approach, but for me this is the moment I start to get to know the students, their individual interests, claims, feelings, needs and personal experience of being in and negotiating the city. For the students, this is the starting point of their learning journey, and first time they have to connect to their gut’s instincts to respond to a pedagogical task in Studio 2.

This year, just after this initial exercise, we jumped straight into group-work and students embarked into a long site investigation and strategic design phase of around 6 weeks. For some students, the initial ‘impressions’ (ontological perspectives) were consolidated in that one session and carried through to inform their main line of the inquiry, building brief and design proposal. For some students, the group-work ended up overriding their initial approach causing a certain sense of loss.

Moving Forwards

The reduction of the teaching time this academic year, a total of 3 studio days compared to last year, has put a significant pressure into the remaining sessions. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the student’s ontological perspectives is one of the foundations of my teaching practice and despite the constraints, it is something I want to further develop and explore as a pedagogical approach.

How it happened:

In relation to the task and evaluation presented in this case study, the work produced and shared by the students during this initial task was great. Students presented their ‘first impressions’ in a studio session and, collectively, we talked about the relevance of their personal and emotional responses in relation to the studio brief and study area. This was a moment of “reflective practice in action” where we consider the situation, decided what was relevant and how, and made the connections to the brief and subject of study (action). (Third 2022, p.31).

How to improve:

Knowledge consolidation: Propose a reflective task – “reflective practice on/for action” – where students could individually reconsider the situation, think about how it could feed forward, (Third 2022, p.31) and propose ways to consolidate this ontological perspective as a forms of knowledge, translating it into a visual or written format such as: a manifesto, poem, collage, mapping, diagram, image or video. In this way they would practise reflective practice (learning consolidation) and demonstrate it (produce outcomes). This outcome could then become the first page of their portfolios and design thesis, a point to start from, re-visit, re-consider, re-invent and retain.

References

Raven, L (2025). Reflective practice – Developing Personal and Professional Insights. Lecture – Wednesday 12th February [online] Available at:< https://moodle.arts.ac.uk/mod/folder/view.php?id=1378604> (Accessed 17 Mar 2025)

Third, S. (2022).  Reflective Practice in Early Years Education. UK: Fanshawe College Press Books.

Barnett, R. (2007) A will to learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Case Study 2

Planning and teaching for effective learning

Background

Design teaching in BA Architecture at CSM follows the ‘unit’ system whereby small groups of students from different year groups work on a design project, for the full length of the academic year, led by a pair of design tutors and practitioners. Tutors have, within the course structure and pre-established learning outcomes, full autonomy to define the unit’s agenda, study area, teaching approach and pedagogical tasks. Students apply for the ‘units’ of their interest and must choose 2 different units for 2nd and 3rd year. The idea behind this system is to create an environment of learning that mimics professional practice, promotes peer-to-peer learning, and offers a wide range of different approaches to design and architecture at BA level.

To maximise the learning opportunities within the ‘unit’ system, I have developed a teaching approach connected to research which takes the city as a laboratory and connects the learning to real-life situations. In my ‘unit’ (Studio 2), learning also takes place outside the institution, through site experience, observation, and engagement with a wider set of external partners and audiences.

Evaluation

So far, this approach has produced outstanding results in terms of student engagement (attendance) and achievement, and although it is not specifically designed to satisfy employability targets, it seems to prepare students to practice and professional life. This week (1st of week of March 20205), for example, I received an email from an alumnus (2023-24) who is taking his first work placement: “I’ve had the opportunity to participate in an international competition where our team won the first prize, and I’m now involved in the rehabilitation of a traditional barn in Viscri, a UNESCO heritage site. My experience in Studio 2 has been incredibly valuable – especially during the competition, where we worked on transforming a 32-hectare former industrial site into a cultural hub with minimal intervention for the well-being of the community.”

If signature pedagogies are “particular pedagogic approaches which enable students to learn to think and act as a professional”, blurring the boundaries between academia and the reality of practice (Shulman, 2005), then I see my pedagogical approach to the unit system as a signature pedagogy in architectural education.

Moving Forward

How it happens now … (elements based on Orr & Shreeve 2017)

  • > how to improve/enhance:

Studio:

The limited student accessibility to studio space at CSM makes difficult to create a studio/student centred culture where students are using the studio as a social-learning-production space consistently, like a professional architects’ studio.

  • > On the days we have our studio sessions I actively promote the studio as social space where learning is visible and open to discussion through active participation. I facilitate discussions amongst peers and group work, and I encourage students to stay and produce work in the studio to create an active studio space where cross poliantion can happen.

Brief:

The briefs must align with the course aims, learning outcomes and pre-defined format, but there is no pre-defined requirement in terms of teaching methodology, design approach or connection to real-life situations.

  • > My approach is to develop briefs based on real-life situations, promote engagement with external partners and communities, and connect the learning to the policy context, independently from how “real” the live project is. Every year I work to find a new situation and establish new collaborations, building a new opportunity for learning and knowledge production.

Research:

“Research is a term used in a specific way in art and design but which lacks clear definition. It refers to a process of finding and exploring information on which to base the generation of conceptual, visual and material ideas.” (Orr & Shreeve 2017)

  • > In my studio research is generated “by the students’ own interests and subjective responses to the world” (Barrett 2007) and in this way the students become bearers of valuable local knowledge. Because the university does not promote continuation or knowledge consolidation opportunities beyond the course structure or teaching contracts, my approach is to connect teaching to my own research work. In some previous years, I secured independent funding to further develop the research, involving the graduates as co-researchers. Those projects became the students first placement, as well as an opportunity to experience a live research project, consolidate their knowledge and see it applied to real-life situations and policy contexts.

Dialogic Exchange:

“Crits, reviews, tutorials: These discursive situations prompt critical thinking and self- evaluation and develop the language of the discipline.” (Orr & Shreeve 2017)

  • > It is in the exchange between peers, student groups, with tutors and external partners that the learning happens in Studio 2. My approach is to situate those exchanges in the real–world and create situations where students become “co-constructors of learning rather than recipients” (Orr & Shreeve 2017). It means students have the opportunity to take ownership of their learning journey. It also means I learn while teaching.

References

Shulman, L. S. (2005) Signature Pedagogies in the Professions. [online] Daedalus, Vol. 134, No. 3, On Professions & Professionals. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998?seq=1 [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Chapter 6 – Teaching practices for creative practitioners [online] Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available at: >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328810465_Orr_S_and_Shreeve_A_2017_Art_and_design_pedagogy_in_higher_education_knowledge_values_and_ambiguity_in_the_creative_curriculum_Routledge> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Anderson, J. (2019) ‘Live Projects: Collaborative Learning in and with Authentic Spaces’ in Reframing Space for Learning: Excellence and Innovation in University Teaching. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.

Case Study 3

Assessing learning and exchanging feedback

Background

In architecture education (CSM BA Architecture), the learning assessment is outcome-based and done through a final portfolio submission containing a graphic narrative that communicates the design thesis. While learning outcomes and teaching activities are designed so that students can gradually build fluency in the visual language of design and architecture, the formal assessments are summative and punctual, in February and May, and the feedback is not visual but written. There are another two opportunities for formative feedback, before the summative submissions, in the format of reviews (crits).

Evaluation

These contradictions, ‘gradual x punctual’ and ‘visual x written’, make the assessment activity and feedback writing an onerous process which is disconnected from the teaching activities and ineffective in enhancing student learning. In the diagram below, which follows Russel’s (2010) assessment diagrams, I visualised my course timetable/structure (Block 1 runs from October to January, and Block 2 from February to May). The diagram shows that, on average, teachers spent of 30% of their time on marking, moderation and feedback writing –  assessment activities disconnected from the teaching or learning.

Moving Forward

To counterbalance the ineffectiveness of the current assessment and feedback formats, I have followed and further developed a dialogic (Orr & Shreeve 2017) and visual approach to teaching which incorporates informal reviews and feedback opportunities (individual 1:1 tutorial, group tutorials and collective reviews) to every studio session. In this way, I can create a pattern of frequency of ‘low stakes’ reviews (Russell 2010) where I can exercise my reflective teaching practice and offer timely and comprehensive feedback directly related to what the students are learning and producing.

While this consistent dialogic-visual approach can enhance learning by maximising the discursive situations which “prompt critical thinking and self- evaluation and develop the language of the discipline” (Orr & Shreeve 2017) during the teaching weeks, the problem that the formal assessment points are so onerous and ineffective does not go away.

I want to present this diagram to the department and maybe promote a conversation around the current assessment practice.  I also would like to present this diagram to the students and collect their perspectives on this (subject to my line manager approval).

References

Russell, M. (2010) University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. [online] Available
at: < https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Chapter 6 – Teaching practices for creative practitioners [online] Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available at: >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328810465_Orr_S_and_Shreeve_A_2017_Art_and_design_pedagogy_in_higher_education_knowledge_values_and_ambiguity_in_the_creative_curriculum_Routledge> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Microteaching

Object: Chair

Microteaching session – Group 1 – 3/02/2025

I started the activity by explaining that I don’t use object-based learning in my course (BA Architecture), but that when I taught Design and Architecture Foundation, we used a series of activities based around objects. One of these activities consisted of a 5 weeklong brief where students created an object and then ‘questioned’ the object created.

The objects resulted from specific movements or activities involving 2 or 3 students (human bodies), and came to be through the materialisation of a “space in between” their bodies. Students used a variety of techniques and materials to produce this sculptural pieces/objects, and then went through a process of ‘questioning’ the object through practical action – changing the circumstances and/or conditions of interaction surrounding the object.

Design and Architecture foundation (2019)

In the impossibility of undertaking the whole activity, I chose an object which derivates from the ‘space in between’ the human body, and that I could bring to the teaching room. I chose a chair, placed it on a table and I invited the participants to ‘question’ the chair by putting it out of context.

Participants started to talk about the chair and the fact that it was elevated on a table which already caused a shift of hierarchy. I agreed but asked my question again in a slight different way: How could the object be put in a different scenario, in relation to a different condition or circumstance?

One participant said he had a ‘story with chairs’ and told about his personal experience in drama class, when chairs where used to represent a plane crash debris and destruction (also as broken body extensions), which was a great start. But the next participant went back to discussing the ‘dominant’ state/understanding of chairs, talking about how emotions can be expressed through interactions with a chair while seating: leaning back, rock, screeching. Or how chairs were assembled to be uncomfortable in a specific project to challenge the conceptualisation of chair – uncomfortable chair as a prompt to start a conversation and challenge existing preconceptions.

With the objective of redirecting the conversation I gave a practical example of a chair being used as goal posts (kids playing football) when the circumstances around the object and therefore their significance of space/object changes, and explain that the understanding of conditions and circumstances as defining elements of a building (context) is crucial in architecture education – architecture as a contextual response. At this point I showed 2 archaeological artefacts in plastic bags and talked about the fact that they are meaningless without context. By themselves, these pieces of flint have no archeological significance.

Participants commented on the way stones were presented/framed in a particular way, which again (like the chair on the table) changes the perception. And questioned the relationship between history and objects and potential bias (male perspective on/interpretation of historical objects).

Audience feedback

P: Participants

F: Fernanda

P: Questioned how would you work with students, bigger groups, to propose such an activity/conversation?

F: The activity was structure through workshops and group-work with conversations and feedback happening between the groups and with the tutors with directly and timely feedback on the action / discussing being taken.

P: Wondered if the fact that the students of the Foundation course created/built their object gave them the entitlement to then question/deconstruct it? Common sense aspect of a chair makes the deconstruction more difficult, it is a loaded object, as opposed to students making their own objects.

F: Yes, it’s difficult to ‘break the common sense’, to see beyond the dominant state of spaces and objects, to see the possibilities which are yet not there, hence the importance of the activity to encourage this.

P: It would’ve been easier if you had given us some kind of parameter to start with. When you gave us the practical example of the ‘chair as goal posts’ I understood what you meant by questioning.

Reflection

Indeed, a chair is a very ‘loaded object’ (too much history and meaning) and therefore a very difficult object to deconstruct/question. Perhaps the session would have been more effective if I had asked the participants to play with the chair, and physically change the relationship body-chair as a starting point. Turning the chair upside down, for example, would immediately break with the ‘dominant state’ or ‘meaning’ of the object, turning it into a structure with legs spiking up instead of a structure for seating.

It was also interesting to feel the frustration of one of the participants who said I should have given parameters or examples to start with, because I actively avoid doing that in my teaching practice.

The amount of time I give students to figure things out varies according to the brief or task. But it is in this initial space, which I agree can be uncomfortable, that students must connect to their gut’s instincts and come up with a first response, even (or specially) if they don’t fully understand what is being asked. It is always in this first movement of reciprocity that I encounter the diverse and unique starting points for each student or group.

During Leslie Raven’s lecture Reflective Practice, Leslie started by giving the participants a task, to map our understanding of reflective practice, emphasizing that there was not right or wrong, and that she would not give us prompts or parameters. The prompts came after we all felt quite uncomfortable, but had the opportunity to put down a word or drawing on paper. The prompts came few minutes later in the format of questions not examples. At some point in this first part of the lecture, Lesley explained that it is in this uncomfortable space, when we have to connect to our gut’s instincts, that a deeper level of metacognitive experience happens.

Reflection 1

Workshop 2 – Aims of Art Education – Group work

Ontology, Epistemology and Practice

It was interesting to be able to collectively organise these concepts/values (given to us in Workshop 2 – Aims of Art Education) in a triangle-cycle diagram. The idea to assess the concepts/values against a pre-established criterion: Knowledge (Epistemology), Society (Ontology) and Skills (Practice). And to arrange the three categories in relation to each other, came from the book A Will to Learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty (Barnett 2007).

In the book, Barnett argues that, historically, higher education has been founded mainly on epistemological and practical pillars, but that a third ontological pillar must be recognised and considered, the pillar related to being and becoming, embodied in education as the will-to-learn. Without will, he argues, nothing is possible, “there is no energy neither the right conditions for one to embark on and commit with a long personal project such as higher education” (Barnett 2007).

While one might argue that Art Education is and has been based and sustained by these 3 pillars (and here it is interesting to verify how balanced those 3 sides of the triangle turned out to be in our diagram), most of its mechanisms, such assessment and learning outcomes, which are structural to higher education, do not contemplate the ontological pillar.

As a group, we decided to place ‘human flourishing’ at the centre of out triangle-cycle diagram. However, until we can grasp the significance of the Ontological pillar in higher education, the idea of a holistic assessment, for example, is hollow and not possible, let alone the idea of ‘human flourishing’.

References:

Barnett, R. (2007) A will to learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.