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.