Fernanda Palmieri – PgCert blog

Blog Task 1: Disability

Christine Sun Kim’s video in Friends & Stranges (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”.

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 2^nd and 3^rd 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 (1^st 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]

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.

Reflection 2

^{Workshop 3 – Assessment and Feedback}

AI x Learning Outcomes

In the post Reflection 1, I introduced the structural tripod ontology-epistemology-practice of higher education (Barnett 2007) and briefly reflected on the past and present significance of the ontological pillar. In this post, I propose to continue this discussion by looking ahead, to a future that is already present, where artificial intelligence (AI) tools are widely available to students, replacing sources of knowledge (epistemology) and the need to develop certain skills (practice).

In the past couple of years, the use of AI tools has increased exponentially among my students and, still, course aims and assessment methods continue to be outcome-based. If AI can produce the outcomes, what learning would be assessed? If AI can replace skills and make knowledge available, what would one be learning in higher education?

The discussion which argues against learning outcomes and/or outcome-based assessments is not new in higher education. Paul Kleiman, in his report “We Don’t Need Those Learning Outcomes”: assessing creativity and creative assessment (2017), argued for ‘a conceptual shift’ away from learning outcomes, and an assessment criterion based on expectations. He argued for a focus on performance, which in this case, could be understood as the learning process that encompasses all different fields of a creative subjective.

Could an ontological shift towards performance, or the process of being and becoming (Barnett 2007), be the starting point of higher education reinvention on this new technological era? I don’t know, but this question is now becoming fundamentally urgent.

References:

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

Kleiman, P. (2017) “We Don’t Need Those Learning Outcomes”: assessing creativity and creative assessment. [online] Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325059666_We_Don’t_Need_Those_Learning_Outcomes_assessing_creativity_and_creative_assessment> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Reflection 3

Drawing Matters

Learning in a material world is different from learning in a digital world, but students are increasingly more comfortable, dependent and, somehow more interested in the digital world. In architectural education, drawing and model making which were once the vital tools for architectural thinking are being quickly replaced by digital tools, and most recently, by 3D digital tools which are similar to “gaming” platforms.

In my studio (BA Architecture at CSM) I insist on making drawing and model making central to the design practice, arguing that the translation of ideas from one’s brain and guts to their hands is different, freer and more direct, than the translation through a digital platform, which has its limitations, specific language and parameters, and works as a filter. But this insistence feels more and more like a personal battle instead of a pedagogical approach. And that is why I chose the reading Drawing laboratory: Research workshops and outcomes (Salamon 2018) for Workshop 1.

The article starts by confirming that, nowadays, drawing is presented to students at CSM as a voluntary pursuit, something not integral to the curriculum, and viewed as less essential. It then goes on to present and reflect on the ‘Drawing Laboratory’ experience that took place at CSM in 2015, which consisted of a series of independent workshops set up to explore the connection between the physical act of drawing and the encoding and retrieval process of human memory.

Based on this experience, the author concludes that the act of drawing supported participants of the ‘Drawing Laboratory’ to generate new creative content and approaches to their project work. And that indeed, it served as a mechanism for observing and measuring the act of remembering, arguing that when used to make sense of the world, drawing is a powerful tool that can help us to engage with and register reality in unique ways (Salamon 2018).

The reading was reassuring. The battle continues.

Reference:

Salamon, M. (2018) Drawing laboratory: Research workshops and outcomes. [online] Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal. Available at: <https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/99/175> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Reflection 4

_{workshop 2 – hand out}

Aphorism | ˈafərɪz(ə)m |

A pithy observation which contains a general truth.

(Oxford Dictionary)

Becoming

I loved this idea that learning is something that you can incite, and that there is some truth in it. The aphorism above, which I picked from the handout given to us in Workshop 2, is followed by a series of annotations related to my teaching practice: “materials and stories that inspire, …briefs and situations that expose students to real-life struggles, …place at their hands the responsibility to investigate and respond, …take their personal views as starting points, …incite them to think and act = learning”.

Why does this idea capture my imagination? I think it is because many times, in my teaching career and learning journey, I experienced moments of intellectual euphoria, of breakthrough, or of clarity, when a new connection is made, and I can see a sparkle of light into the student’s eyes. These moments of authentic learning, which bring participants (students and tutors) into new relationships with the world (Barnett 2007), are the moments of exchange that fuels me to continue to teach year after year.

If “by locating when and why we have felt excited or fulfilled by an experience, we gain insight into the conditions that allow our creativity to flourish” (Amulya, 2004:1), then I can say that authentic teaching and learning is my call, it is what enables my creativity to flourish.

References

Amulya, J. (2004) What is reflective practice. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229021036_What_is_reflective_practice (Accessed 17 Mar 2025)

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

Record of Observation 1

Peer to Peer

Observer: Eden Chahal > Observee: Fernanda Palmieri

Part 01_Being Observed

Tutors: Fernanda Palmieri + Oscar Brito-Gonzalez

Status and history of the learning group

Week 1: Course started in October with site visits and a walk from Grow Studios Hackney Wick to Grow Studios Stratford led by artist Simon Cole., followed by students’ presentations of their first impressions (personal take) of the site Stratford Town Centre – Civic Hub.
Week 2: Learning forum with external partners: Grow Studios, Creative Land Trust, Newham Council and Unit A University of East London: discussions and exchanges to understand start to understand the existing conditions/problems and conflicting desires for the area.
Week 3 to 7: Students worked in groups to undertake site research and build a collective sensibility to the area and local communities. They used ‘situated actions’ as a tool of engagement and investigation, and devised urban strategies for the site.
Week 8: Individually, students developed/designed a meanwhile intervention on site as a response to the group work and their personal research and interest. The meanwhile project informed the development of their design brief for the final project.
Week 9: Reviews/Crit
Week 10 to 12: Design development – Final Design Proposal
Week 13: Summative Submission – Block 01

Content of the Session

At the moment students know:

WHAT they are designing: individual building brief

WHY they are designing it: research and strategy

FOR WHOM: communities they engaged with or identified + Grow Studios

WHERE the project site is: including drawings and documentation of the existing project site + analysis of conditions observed, opportunities and constraints.

Students are now working on their design development:

HOW the architecture will translate and respond to all the knowledge acquired.

This is the first session after Christmas break and the 1 of 2 sessions before the summative submission on Thu 30/01, when students are submitting their design portfolio (thesis) + reflective journal. It will be structure as 1:1 tutorials.

Part 02_Observing

by Eden Chahal

I joined Fernanda for her 1:1 tutorial at CSM, observing her work with four students over 1 hour and 45 minutes as they discussed their individual projects.

From the first interaction I observed, I noticed an ability to leave space for the students to express themselves. Even when students struggled to articulate their ideas—often messy at this stage of the process—Fernanda refrained from rephrasing or interrupting. Instead, she subtly allowed them the space and time to explore and articulate their thoughts. This approach is something I will reflect on and adapt in my teaching.

Over the course of the tutorials, I noticed a pattern in the way she led the feedback:

Uninterrupted time to present their work, without interjection (a comfortable 10 to 15 minutes).

Fernanda then took control of the discussion, delivering focused feedback that didn’t call for immediate dialogue. She began by highlighting the strengths of the project before suggesting multiple directions rather than prescribing a single solution. This always included sketching, acting as a demonstration of design process, which she commented aloud: for instance, saying, “Here, if I draw a courtyard, I can check the plan to see if I could add openings. Once I have this sketch, I’d explore how it looks in section.” This method seems effective, putting the students in the position of the designer, I imagine it can ease apprehension about starting to draw – as they have already seen it in practice in a very concrete manner.

Fernanda also used our direct environment as a tool of engagement and pedagogy, with 2 of the 4 students, she referred to the teaching space to give them an idea about volumetry. This is a spontaneous, directly actionable learning methodology for the students. For one, it was about visually measuring the room and comparing it to the space they were working on in their project. I can imagine this becoming part of the student’s independent study time – trying to absorb volumetrics, comparing them, to better understand and compose with spaces.

The sketching phase allowed to open a discussion, opening to a more interactive phase.

Each tutorial was concluded with clear suggestions for moving forward, covering references to explore, project directions, and the tools or resources students might use to represent their ideas. For one student, this approach uncovered a challenge with focusing on drawing, leading to a suggestion to alternate between mediums like model-making, drawing, and referencing. I imagine this to foresee a moment of panic and offer a lead on facing it during times of independent study.

Even though the structure seemed to repeat itself, it was also tailored to each student.

For example, one student seemed anxious, it was hard to tell if they were managing to fully focus on the discussion —nodding but not fully participating—Fernanda invited them to draw over a sketch. After taking a moment to compose themselves, the student engaged with the drawing task. This easy step appeared to help them focus back on the discussion. In this specific case, I wondered if asking them to take notes or alternatively providing them with a written list of steps/tasks to complete, even remaining general, for their time of independent study might have been helpful, especially if a learning difficulty is at play.

This observation left me curious whether this structure was a deliberate teaching strategy or one that Fernanda refined through experience. It’s a method I’m inspired to incorporate into my own teaching, particularly the calm and subtle way in which she guided discussions.

Challenges

I observed three possible challenges, which are not directly linked to the teaching but that could impact its delivery.

Tutorials took place in an open, shared space with multiple groups working at the same table, as well as other tutorials happening nearby. The resulting noise was distracting, and I imagine students—especially those with neurodivergent needs—could be affected. I lost focus more than once, particularly when discussions around where louder or more heated.

Students use a mix of hand drawings, printed plans, and on-screen work. Printed materials seemed to facilitate the most engaging discussions, allowing for live demonstrations and greater interactivity, including work in progress drawings. In contrast, on-screen work, such as unfinished InDesign presentations, was harder to engage with and less conducive to spontaneous feedback. While alternatives like larger screen presentations could help, they might demand polished work, which can be intimidating and incompatible with work-in-progress feedback.

With the one-on-one format, I noticed that students all left immediately after their sessions. Most were working before their feedback but left right after. A studio environment where they would be able to kick start what was just discussed or at least plan their work accordingly could be a lead to ensure the discussion doesn’t fade and is effectively activated.

Discussion in small group of tutorials might allow students to observe more design demonstrations and develop critical thinking by seeing their peers receive feedback. However, I recognise that presenting in front of others may trigger anxiety for some students.

Part 03_Reflection

It’s very interesting that Eden commented on my approach to actively create a space for the students to express their ideas at first. This is indeed something I learned and refined through experience. I remember having the urge to fill that space when I started teaching afraid that students would feel my silence uncomfortable or judgemental (1:1 tutorials are a form of informal assessment).

As a tutor, seating across the student for a 1:1 tutorial is the time to be fully at the moment with them, engaging with their ideas, looking for their rationality and interests which are not always translated into drawings or words. In one studio day as such, I might see 10 to 12 different students individually, and in those first 10/15 minutes I must adjust to the new student and situation, change the language I will use, pick the references I will bring and find the right way to conduct the conversation. I suppose this is one of the ways I practice reflective teaching.

For the students, the 1:1 tutorial are an opportunity to talk about the work, formulate questions and identify struggles, which is probably the most important part of this interaction in terms of learning (metacognitive connections). That is why it is fundamentally important that the students perceive my curiosity and feel comfortable and confident to take ownership of that space.

I am very pleased that Eden perceived this space as a positive and inspiring approach.

Actions:

Open and shared studio spaces are challenging environments to teach. There were indeed moments when students asked to sit in a separate room for a more focused or private conversation, but I don’t normally offer that option to my students straight away. Maybe, for the 1:1 tutorials, I could ask them before we start and give the option of seating in a separate room. It would be interesting to know how they feel about it. However, space availability is a big issue at CSM and this might not be possible.
Yes, it’s very limiting when students bring all the work on the screen. Printed material facilitates the conversation and makes possible to think in a non-linear way – opposed to going from one slide or drawing to the other on the screen. However, there is a clear recommendation/guideline coming from the school that says we cannot demand that students print their work every session. My approach is to constantly talk about how important it is to look at multiple drawings and resources at the same time when designing, explain that design is not a linear process and that having lots of drawings on the table and moving between scales, aspects and media is a key part of design development, and encourage them to bring print outs, sketches and physical models.
Yes, submission time is tricky, we must see students individually (1:1) and focus on their individual submissions, and students tend to leave immediately after their tutorial sessions to get on with the work. The problem is that, on block 2 (after summative submissions), that pattern tends to remain, and it becomes very difficult to get back to the buzzing studio environment we had in term 1 when students were working in groups. Discussions in small groups are a good tactic, and I run the tutorials in small groups just after the submissions this year which was quite effective. Still, students left as a groups just after the tutorials. I might try to implement a couple of ‘touch base points’ with the whole group during the studio day (quick group briefings conversations) and ask the students what they want to get out of these moments in terms of – resources, presentations, conversations. The moments we have to look at and study architecture together are always very precious and I learned that students really appreciate that.