Fernanda Palmieri

Part 01_Being Observed

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Week 9: Reviews/Crit
6. Week 10 to 12: Design development – Final Design Proposal
7. Week 13: Summative Submission – Block 01

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.

On Thursday the 30^th of February, I joined Eden for her morning session at the Chelsea College of Arts teaching the Graduate Diploma Interior Design in her capacity of technician and media tutor. My observation started at 10am (start of the studio day) and ended at 11:30.

The session was structured in 2 different rooms. Room 1: students were working individually and had the opportunity to have 1:1 tutorial with Eden or the tutor in charge. Room 2: was set up for presentations and group discussions (feedback) with students and tutor sitting around a table and sharing the work on the wall using a projector.

Eden started in room 01 with a ‘hands-on’ 1:1 tutorial, specifically looking at ‘what’ the student was trying to produce in terms of drawings/graphic content and showing ‘how’ to do it. She run the student through the software, took the actions step by step, shared the digital skills needed to fulfil the specific task, and asked the student to apply the learning there and then, making sure they could do by themselves.

Then, she moved to room 2 and joined the group tutorials and presentations. There, I saw 3 student presentations/tutorials. Across all 3, Eden’s feedback was very focused on the different ‘media’ students were using to explore and communicate their research, ideas and design work. Eden was very precise and clear in her feedback pointing it out, for example:

• Where a ‘collage’ was being used effectively to graphically communicate important elements of the design project. 
• When ‘photography’ of the existing site became crucial to anchor a project into a specific context.
• Where ‘mapping’ was not being used to its full potential, providing clear suggestions of how to improve/add to the map drawing to further explore the idea of an experiential journey.
• Where and how ‘physical models’ were being used effectively to experiment, develop and communicate the spatial structures and ideas.
• How ‘3D modelling’ was being under-explored as a tool when used to look/develop a structure from a distant top-down view, instead of used as a tool to explore internal spatial qualities such as views, inside/outside relationships, light and so on.
• And, how ‘plans’ can communicate complexity, challenging the student to use graphic overlays and annotation to communicate ideas of time, light, movement and inhabitation in their plan drawings.

By focusing on the media and technical aspects of the work, Eden showed a great level of sensibility. Her approach was at the same time very constructive for the students, who are learning this new graphic language (design language), and respectful and complementary to the design tutor running the session, who focused their feedback on more conceptual and qualitative aspects of the design (design thinking).

Suggestion:

My one thought was that it could have been beneficial to share some references/precedents of drawings and techniques, either during the sessions or after (via email). By looking and studying ‘plan drawings’ that successfully communicate the idea of movement and time, for example, students can get inspired and understand how different graphic elements/devices were used, prompting them to explore something new. This would require extra work to build up, and constantly update, a portfolio/library of references (including student work from previous years), but something that might be worthy.

Fernanda’s suggestion to provide more references is indeed an area where I recognise a gap in my teaching approach. I have only recently become more aware of this, particularly through my closer engagement with studios and, even more so, in my temporary role as an Associate Lecturer. One possible reason I have overlooked this aspect until now is the ambiguity of my role. While I am contracted as a technician, I am also involved in studio support—an aspect I find both enriching and complementary. Providing feedback on student projects often requires having a broader set of references readily available to guide their research process effectively.

I have already started compiling references directly related to my technician role, such as those relevant to 3D printing and 3D scanning. The suggestion to build a library of references is particularly valuable, and I intend to implement this promptly. However, I anticipate a few challenges in doing so:

• Time investment: Building a meaningful and well-structured reference library will take time, as will regularly revisiting it to keep it fresh in my mind. To address this, I may dedicate time after my sessions—possibly on a weekly basis—to engage in research and update my collection.
• Providing references in the interim: While sending references to students after sessions would be beneficial, it is also time-consuming and does not strictly fall within my responsibilities, as I am not an academic. However, it could serve as a temporary measure while I develop a more structured reference system.
• Managing references for diverse student groups: I work with a large number of students across six different courses, spanning multiple year groups. This diversity necessitates a clear classification methodology to ensure that references are relevant to each specific cohort. I have encountered this challenge before when preparing presentations on 3D printing; for instance, the most suitable examples for MA Design and Maker students may differ from those best suited to first-year BA Interior Design students.

Although these challenges require careful consideration, I recognise that improving my ability to provide relevant references will enhance the support I offer to students.