Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed:
Creative Making: Advanced Visualisation and Computational Environments – MSc Creative Computing
Size of student group: 60ish (we very rarely get the full cohort in class)
Observer: Greg Orrom Swan
Observee: Mahalia Henry-Richards
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 is the last session of the term, and we are running a ‘demo day’ meant to be a lower pressure review than a crit and allow the students to test the work they’ve been making.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been teaching this cohort since October 2023 and have been co-teaching on this specific unit (Creative Making: Advanced Visualisation and Computational Environments) since January.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
The students will get experience playtesting their projects and have an opportunity to get feedback on their work.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
They will showcase their works in progress for testing and feedback.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
It’s the last class of term and participation in the demo day is not officially graded, so I’m uncertain the level of engagement the students will have with this session.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I will tell the group via message on Slack before class.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
We have only run one of these demo day’s once before on this course and although they are meant to be more relaxed than a crit/traditional review, it would be good to get feedback of how the format works and/or any improvements or suggestions that we can take forward in the future sessions
How will feedback be exchanged?
Through this form and email, and short meeting if needed.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Atmosphere:
As soon as I arrived, the room buzzed with a jovial and energetic atmosphere. Smiles and laughter throughout the space, with students and tutors sharing positive emotional responses.
Interaction:
Your demeaner is warm and approachable, marked by an engaging smile and excellent active listening skills. This facilitated emotionally sensitive interactions that were a pleasure to observe. During a student presentation, you effectively supported them to clarify key points on deadlines and needs, e.g. finding a graphic designer within one week.
Positive reinforcement was consistent throughout your interactions, both verbal and physical confirmations. Questions posed by you were open-ended and supportive, probing into the effectiveness, narrative, audience.
You evidenced a future-oriented (futurity) approach, consistently encouraging consideration of what was next, and how it could be improved — “maybe in the future it could have additional controls?”
Managed to elicit important peer feedback that went beyond simple “it’s nice” praise.
You express genuine interest in the students’ work by getting physical involved, which was received well, you showed excitement, and asked inquisitive questions about construction and functionality.
You take a subtle yet observed criticality — allowing students to contemplate next steps without feeling overly criticized. For instance, “sound might be good, especially as it’s a cassette player” stimulated reflective thinking in the student without the effort already put in being dismissed.
In dialogue with a dominant or even challenging student, you demonstrated remarkable skill in guiding them towards self-critique and understanding of their project’s deficiencies without direct criticism: “If you had to leave it in the exhibition tomorrow, what would you do?” This enabled the student to recognise the work needed themselves.
I’ve reflected a lot on this question phrasing, and it has inspired me to be much more conscious in the way I ask questions to challenging or demanding students — to be not direct in the critique.
You have a great ability to guide students through suggestions without being imposing, encouraging them to consider enhancements like adding vibrato to a sound. This method of using “have you considered…” questions rather than “you should…” statements empowered students to adopt the suggestions as their own, feeling supported rather than overly instructed.
This is astute and has sparked a lot of thoughts and reflection about the way I ask questions in my crits.
Thoughts for Futuring:
The high noise levels, while invigorating, poses challenges for concentration and audibility. Potentially, you could offer opportunities for students to take a break whenever they like and/or offer a space for people to go if they are feeling overwhelmed?
Could the spatial distribution change, as everyone was clustered towards the front?
Introducing a hard structure of timing and project showcase duration could lend clarity to this potentially vague demo format. It might be good to consider how students are seen by tutors and ensure parity of time and feedback across the projects. I observed it could be good to be especially conscious of time spent with projects in varying formats, e.g. comparing a project that is durational or immersive (VR, film) to when the work affords the ability to just turn away to give feedback (laptop-based game).
An additional hard structure could be that the students fill in a sheet of things they want feedback on? To allow quieter students to express their concerns without necessarily speaking up verbally to peers or tutors.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thank you for sharing your insights – reflecting on my teaching through your eyes has been enlightening. It’s both affirming and reassuring to learn that you view my interactions with students as largely effective. Some of your observations have prompted me to consider aspects of my teaching approach that I hadn’t previously examined. This feedback is useful in guiding my thoughts towards refining my techniques moving forward. Additionally, your comments on the session’s format are also immensely valuable and I will definitely take them into account for the next iteration of this session.
Your observations about the challenges posed by the space constraints and the issue of loudness are very valid. The limitations of our small building and restricted access to additional space are real challenges, but your suggestions inspire me to try to explore creative solutions to enhance the environment for everyone’s enjoyment. Implementing designated areas within the room and organising attendees into groups with scheduled times may help mitigate these concerns, reducing the potential for overcrowding.
Your suggestions for introducing more structured elements into future sessions are particularly beneficial. The idea of having the students bring a list of topics they seek feedback on or assistance with is a straightforward yet potentially impactful enhancement. Additionally, ensuring fair attention from tutors for each project is an important point and one we can manage more effectively in future sessions.
During our discussion your feedback on offering stronger critiques where appropriate resonates with me. I recognise that I sometimes hesitate to deliver more pointed feedback, concerned about how it might be received. However, I know that some students may indeed welcome such critical insights and I am motivated to improve in this area, aiming to offer more pointed critique confidently and compassionately.