Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 3D Scan & Render / Polycam & Blender
Size of student group: 10–15
Observer: Marysia Tańska
Observee: Greg Orrom Swan
Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
— This session is a part of a unit called Dynamic Visual Communication where students look at various ways of working with visual communication to capture and express their work.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
— Autumn term I worked with them on single brief with them running for 4 weeks, where I saw them once a week.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
— To be able to understand how to 3D scan using photogrammetry apps on your phone.
— To understand where 3D scanning sits currently in technoligcal development and how it might be used in the learners work.
— Introduce 3D software Blender to clean-up and edit the model and make an export render
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
— At least one 3D scan of their work, in a digital 3D format
— An output of a rendered image / possibly animation.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
— Some objects can be tricky to scan, especially if the students miss or mis-understand the instructions, if the 3D scan fails, they can become distracted or disheartened.
— Students can become bored or confused about either the phone or laptop software, and then disassociate with the lesson.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
— Via introductory email, and reminded verbally at the beginning of the session
What would you particularly like feedback on?
— How to manage the difficulties of having a multi-skilled cohort, and having some students being keen and willing to listen, and others needing 1-on-1 support to be able to comprehend what we’re working on.
How will feedback be exchanged?
— Via online call, and email
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
At the start of the class, you referenced previously shared information about the session, introduced a plan for the class, and set expectations about the output of the lab, which I believe helped contextualise the topic as well as equipped the students for learning from the exercise, including learning from failure.
During the lecture, you provided a technical introduction which placed the session in a wider context, as well as gave students a good foundation to explore further on their own. There was a lot of visual materials on the slides which usually gets positive feedback from the students. In my experience, the students particularly appreciate visuals of the technical process and the final outcomes, both of which were excellently illustrated in your slides. You explained technical terms such as photogrammetry and LiDAR, compared them, and discussed their potential in a creative practice context, giving the class a bigger picture. You explained the limitations of the technology, setting expectations for its potential use. The scanning process visuals were paired with example scans of spaces and objects, with connections to your own practice, which seemed helpful for imagining how the skills from the session can be used in the future. You included an example of previous student work which is usually well-received.
I really appreciate your choice and wide range of examples as well as their contextualisation, including:
– scans at different scales and for different purposes,
– examples relevant for students’ studies and practice,
– your own work,
– playful works,
– works with a strong poplitical context,
– accompanying the examples with a practical commentary and tips.
Some technical aspects of the lecture, particularly about points and 3d models, seemed to assume the students’ prior knowledge of working with 3d models. If I remember correctly, you mentioned it was not necessarily the case for everyone in that cohort. Maybe it would be worth including a few slides’ intro to point clouds, meshes, etc.? The alter frgments about light and texture seemed helpful.
You provided time for questions but I think it may not have been enough for the shy students to speak up. Maybe you could consider giving them slightly more time, or an option to ask anonymously? For example, via Padlet, which is useful for later reference, or Mentimeter.com, which allows for real-time feedback.
You mentioned you shared the slides with the students after the session. For some people, access to class materials before the session may be important for accessibility reasons. Although I appreciate that particularly as an HPL the timing may be challenging, maybe it would be worth sharing the slides earlier next time? There is also the screen visibility aspect. It was good in this room but in alternative settings, when someone is sitting far or with their back to the screen, it may be easier to look at the slides on their own device, either from a shared file or from a Teams meeting. Some students also like to make notes directly on slides.
While the slides had a lot of very informative visual materials, I believe they could benefit from slightly longer descriptions and making sure there are links and references to explore further. You could also consider providing links to learning resources such as articles or video tutorials.
During the scanning demo, your explanation of how to prepare the object and the environment for scanning was very clear. You also illustrated it with an example followed by a commentary on the practical implications, accompaniedd by a list of tips with reference to visual materials. While demonstrating, you kept on commenting on the process and how to adjust it for different objects. I think you told them to start scanning and then decided to do the demo. It seemed like a simple oversight but it may be worth ensuring clearer communication next time.
You were walking around the classroom, helping the students set up their objects, being encouraging, and explaining that a good outcome may need a few scanning iterations by trial-and-error, and experimentation. Your technical instructions were clear and explained to how to accurately capture details. You also helped students set up their objects on a one-on-one basis, referring to the demo and were checking in with them throughout the process. The students were given some important tips during the lab which were not included in the demo, such as taking the three rounds of pictures. I think it would be helpful to include it in the demo next time.
Most of the students did their first scan quickly and started experimenting, working in groups and looking for new objects to scan, including their bodies. They seemed very engaged and to be having fun. I find that a clear sign that you managed to interest the students in the topic, explain the process well, and incite curiosity for further exploration. You were supporting them with case-specific issues throughout the process, such as how to scan a face.
At first, the students in the back seemed to be getting less attention. Some were distracted and not engaging. I appreciate usually not all the students are equally motivated to participate or equally interested. Still, maybe it’s worth to consider ensuring the people in the back get an equal share of attention from the start? They did seem to get on with the scanning process after you reached them slightly later.
A few people did not bring an object to scan. Some of them seemed happy to explore the classroom and found something, while others seemed confused. Maybe it would be worth preparing a few example objects as a backup and having them available?
As a suggestion from someone with 3d background– maybe an intro on what kinds of 3d data you can work with would be useful? I.e. how to process the output they get from the scan (point cloud / mesh) and where they can use it, particularly in the context of the course. Maybe some further learning links would be useful?
The students seemed very engaged in the exercise and to be having fun. They were experimenting a lot, changing objects, and doing multiple takes. I also really enjoyed the session as a learning experience.
I believe the session setup divided into a theoretical and practical part worked really well.
You seemed not to get much of a break. Please remember to take care of yourself 🙂
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
The feedback you offered verbally and written is both helpful and keenly observed, so thank you your time.
Playful
Firstly, thanks for the feedback about the session being playful, fun, and engaging — I have often felt that this session is engaging and well received by the students, so it feels great to have that confirmatory feedback.
This playfulness in academia is something that has been emerging throughout this first unit of the PgCert and its something that I may take forward into the Action Research Project in Unit 3. This feedback by you Marysia has fed directly into this development of thinking about pedagogies, and I’ve read papers by Nørgård and Moseley (2021) and looking next into Hans-Georg Gadamer.
Key points in demo + presentation
You observe that I should consider including some of the key points that I say individually to students within the demo. Thank you for this — I have often felt myself thinking ‘oh I should remember that for when I demo something next time’, but often forget. Since receiving your feedback, during a subsequent lesson I have actioned this, and I wrote notes during a session, to include next time.
Further and more specifically, you suggested I include a clear instruction regarding scanning the object: “do three passes circling around the object, high, mid, low” I heard myself say this, and thought that it was clear. In the afternoon repeat teaching session that day, I already included this into my demo and lesson notes. So, thank you, because had you not been there, I would not have been reflecting on the words I use to support students and considering how they might be useful next time.
The point also about including more technical and descriptive words within the presentation is very meaningful for me to consider its usefulness without me being there presenting.
Student attention/engagement
To the points on students being distracted by me telling them to start and then going back on my word and asking them to watch me demo. This was an oversight, and I rectified this in the afternoon session.
You observed that some students were distracted once we had started the scanning, either by a lack of objects to scan or perhaps because not being sure what was required of them. This is a re-occurring challenge, and sometimes its to do with English language skills, and as you observed some students as soon as I had helped them understand by giving them 1-on-1 support. I try and prioritise those students who look confused but often the louder students at the front of the class grab me before I can get to the quieter ones at the back. This is something I am keen to work on, and I intend to be much more conscious with my initial class support to ensure all students are beginning work.
I wonder if there is any academic literature on prioritising students in dynamic active groups like this?
The students who did not bring objects are unfortunate because they were required to bring one, but I recognise that this may not always be possible. In the future, as you suggest, I will bring additional objects with me to scan as back-ups to ensure each student has a decent 3D scan when they leave the session.
References
Nørgård, R. T. and Moseley, A. (2021) “The Playful Academic An editorial,” The Journal of Play in Adulthood, 3(1). doi: 10.5920/jpa.954.