Category: Reviews of Teaching Practuce

Review of My Practice by PgCert Tutor, John O’Reilly

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Stage 2 GCD Practices, Typography, BAGCD, Central Saint Martins
Size of student group: 30
Observer: John O’Reilly
Observee: Stephen Barrett

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 third session of a five-week ‘block’ titled GCD Practices: Typography for Stage 2 of BAGCD. These sessions explore skills, techniques, approaches, theories relating to our five GCD Practices: Computation, Contexts, Lens, Print Production, and Typography. The sessions have been designed to be standalone allowing students to explore theoretical and practical knowledge relating to each GCD Practice and utilise this knowledge in their platform projects.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been working with this group for two previous sessions but have also taught them in Stage 1 as a Unit 1 tutor and then as Typography Tutor in Units 2 & 3.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
Upon successful completion of this unit students will be able to demonstrate to an appropriate level the following learning outcomes:
1: Make critically informed choices about media and methods appropriate to your chosen platform relevant to your practice (AC Enquiry)
2: Investigate and evaluate historical and contemporary contexts of Graphic Communication Design approaches in relation to your Platforms and your practice (AC Knowledge)
3: Develop your practice by initiating iterative and interrogative experimentation appropriate to your chosen platforms (AC Process)
4: Examine how media and messages can be used to effectively communicate with relevant audiences (AC Communication)
5: Present evidence of the design decisions that have informed the production of your work and reflect on how they have helped to develop and locate your practice (AC Realisation)
AC = Assessment Criteria

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
During the three-hour session students will design a simple grid-based typeface, by hand using pens/pencils.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Accommodating / engaging students from a broad range of interests and abilities.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?
Emailed in advance of the session and informed at the start of the session.

What would you particularly like feedback on?
Any aspects of planning and delivery would be welcomed.

How will feedback be exchanged?
Notes on form, emailed after the session.

---

Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions

Pedagogy of constraint and problem space 

It’s easy to forget the pedagogic value of narrating the timing and place of a teaching session, where it sits in flow of a unit’s ideas and practices, and Stephen provides positioning of this class, running through slides and contextualising with reference to a previous session. 

The subject matter is around typeface design, and he is inclusive in explaining the very basics, not assuming a standard knowledge-base across the classroom, as he explains typefaces come in different shapes and sizes, the exercise is around grid-based typefaces. He explains ‘the grid’, and there is a really powerful use of visual examples. As much he has curated a rich collection of visual examples from graphic design history, they are delivered as a compelling story. He contextualises the work, the concerns, the drivers, the technologies of the time which afforded the creation of these typefaces, such as the work by various designers associated with De Stijl.

As I follow the unfolding of the class Stephen has seamlessly threaded at least five significant learnings through the session: 

1) A brief lesson in design-history that situates the practices of making typefaces. 

2) The key learning of the experience of ‘restriction’, central to the cognitive experience of design practice, where the problem space of creativity is situated by a horizon of ‘restriction’.  This can initially be experienced as the scarcity of means or resources – but also where the ingenuity of designers is in discovering creative resources in the problem itself. 

3) Stephen locates this problem of constraint/restriction for students in the workplace, where one is constrained by the client, the budget, the deadline, the available space. 

4) The lesson and learning from the assigned task of designing a letterform. 

5) Learning from quantity, and the creation of capacity that comes out of “the production of more”. 

Stephen gets the class to fill the grid with their letterforms, it is such a useful exercise in the pedagogic power of iteration – the embodiment and movement involved in doing a practice. You can sense some resistance from students to the quantity being asked for, but Stephen has already flagged up this ‘worry’ about quantity for the students, and by doing so makes this worry feel ok. 

From Max Bill to Wim Crouwel and the idea of creating a visual language, to Peter Saville, to letterforms designed to be read by computers, Stephen’s narrative is chronological, aesthetic and conceptual. 

He asks students to put away their laptops, and nearly all of them do, not re-appearing until the very end of the task. Stephen makes himself accessible walking around the workspaces – it is a difficult skill for a teacher judging when to offer comment, support and guidance, or when to keep a distance and let students discover what the doing of the task feels like. This feels especially important in this task. As much as the session is about the experimentation and task of designing the shape of a letterform, looking around the classroom it is also about students designing the shape of their body in trying out letterforms. Arms reach and stretch-out, curving; necks and backs lean over, connecting with Stephen’s grid; taut hands bend and curl, directing the pen/pencil through the movement.  

When it comes to analysing and evaluating the work Stephen also suggests concepts for students to consider such as ‘aesthetic’, ‘legibility’, ‘innovation’, and asks them to choose one design they like. These concepts also become useful reference points for students to dig deeper around how they look at their own and at each other’s work. Stephen probes again, “think about the criteria you are using for liking your own work and liking other people’s letterforms.” When there are lots of moving parts (in your head and your body) when you are literally trying to figure-out what you are doing in the figure of the letterform, the pedagogy of the reference point is critical. The reference point as a kind of stillness in complexity. 

Stephen’s suggestive teaching is also reminder of the pedagogy of creative direction that students will experience at work, if they are lucky to work with a supportive and creative leader who probe with questions. He asks and suggests: “In developing your letterforms what might you have to adapt?”; “Maybe there isn’t enough complexity?”; “Each letter doesn’t have to have visual characteristics but needs to work as a whole.” There is so many significant learnings going on in Stephen’s teaching, from the place of being a graphic designer. A question for Stephen is how am I developing this making-thinking pedagogy for myself? To what extent does it/can be made explicit for students? Or maybe it doesn’t need to be? 

#constraint #quantity #capacity #evaluation 

Further reading

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017) ‘Teaching practices for creative practitioners’, Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Taylor and Francis Group.

Lury, C. (2021) ‘What is a problem space’, Problem Spaces: How and Why Methodology Matters. Polity Press.

---

Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged

Thank you for the very detailed and positive feedback, John. I found the feedback very encouraging and affirming. I put a lot of thought into the sessions, the activities and how these are contextualised, both in terms of the history of the subject and industry/commercial practice so it’s really good to read how you picked up on all these aspects. I will definitely follow up on the readings. Your question at the end of the feedback is thought provoking: ‘A question for Stephen is how am I developing this making-thinking pedagogy for myself?’, a question I will take forward as the PgCert progresses.

Review of My Practice by a Peer

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Unit 3 Project briefing and workshop, Stage 1, BA Graphic Communication Design, Central Saint Martins
Size of student group: 30
Observer: James Hopkins
Observee: Stephen Barrett

Part One
Completed by Stephen Barrett prior to review

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
Briefing session and workshop for unit 3, Stage 1 (first year students), BA Graphic Communication Design. In Unit 3 the students rotate through the five GCD Practices: Typography, Lens, Computation, Contexts and Print Production. This is the first session of the Typography rotation (three sessions in total). In this session I will be co-teaching with a colleague (Clare Skeats, who is new and so I’ll be leading the session). We will present the brief and there is a workshop looking at typography and publications, students are given a range of physical publications to analyse and discuss how they’ve been designed in relation to content and how they are intended to be read.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have worked with the Stage 1 students since the beginning of the academic year, as a Unit 1 tutor (group of 30 students) and as Typography Tutor in Unit 2.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
Upon successful completion of this unit students will be able to demonstrate to an appropriate level the following learning outcomes:
1: Explore, and apply an awareness of technical, historical and contemporary contexts of Graphic Communication Design. (AC Knowledge)
2: Share your understanding of the expanded landscape of Graphic Communication Design by consolidating a range of outcomes and written reflections in the form of a publication (AC Communication) 
3: Use writing to review, investigate and reflect on the development of your Graphic  Communication Design practice (AC Realisation)
AC = Assessment Criteria

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Over the course of the three sessions (and time in between), the students design a cover and sample of inside spreads for a paperback of short stories (content is supplied). They are looking at two aspects of typography: designing text for looking at (the cover) and designing text for reading (the text pages). In this first session (approx 1.5 hours), the students will analyse a range of examples of text design in the form of different publications, and feedback to the group as well as being briefed on the project.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Large group with diverse interests and ability / knowledge level.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?
Emailed in advance of session and at the start of the session.

What would you particularly like feedback on?
Organisation, communication, workshop strategies.

How will feedback be exchanged?
Via written notes, emailed after the session.

---

Part 2
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions

A very different learning environment to the workshop – more of a formal setting but feels very open. Stephen and his colleague worked collaboratively discussing how to approach at the start of the session.

Room – nice and open – big windows, could be useful to have examples of graphics works on the walls, or maybe past student work – I find in my role showing examples of processes / successful works helps inflame students’ imaginations of what’s possible. Is this room a shared space which hinders this? 

Screen at the front was very clear to see for students to follow along on their own device and really useful when there’s a technical issue with Moodle. I was sat at the back of the room and could hear very clearly – Stephen has a very clear tone and calm voice. 

I thought the use of the books as physical props instead of just what was on the screen added another dimension to the learning, for example showing different parts and how they relate to the brief. I found this very helpful personally – softening the barrier of the physical and digital. 

Stephen made sure to ask students if they have any questions after a longer period of talking about the project – and gave positive verbal feedback to their questions, “good question.” “that’s a good point etc” – students felt very comfortable asking. Also clarifying if his responses had answered their question and making sure all questions were answered, which felt very reassuring. 

Stephen asking questions while talking about the brief felt like it kept students engaged with what he was saying during longer periods of talking. 

Good movement around the space and interaction with students, sitting down with them and joining the discussions/being engaged. The way the tables were set up in smaller groups allowed a flow around the room and with two members of staff a table never felt left out for long periods. How would this work with a larger group if not all students could get one on one contact time? 

The lesson felt like it was in three parts: presentation, small group discussions and a larger discussion – felt very fluid between the three parts. I liked the larger discussion at the end but wondered if quieter students might have felt more comfortable speaking out if the layout of the room was set up as one large table from the beginning so that the barrier of speaking in front of a larger group would have been broken earlier on? I saw the poster of the table layouts on the wall so perhaps this already happens on different days? 

Felt clear about how students should prepare for the next session and again asked students for any final questions. Really enjoyed the session overall, I felt it was a really interesting experience observing a different working environment. 

---

Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged

Could be useful to have examples of graphics works on the walls, or maybe past student work – I find in my role showing examples of processes / successful works helps inflame students’ imaginations of what’s possible. Is this room a shared space which hinders this? 

A great idea, and something I definitely echo and endorse as a teaching strategy and have employed at past institutions. As you hinted at, this is a shared space and the studios are used by multiple classes and staff so we can’t use walls as permanent displays unfortunately – a downside of shared spaces. We sometimes leave work from previous classes up, as this does help encourage a culture of ‘ambient learning’. We also have window galleries dividing the staff offices and the studio spaces, which we often use to display student work and objects from commercial practice of from the museum and study collection. The open-access spaces themselves have a mix of student/graduate work displayed as well as various signs and architectural lettering. But I agree, more of a culture of work in the studios would be conducive to learning.

I thought the use of the books as physical props instead of just what was on the screen added another dimension to the learning, for example showing different parts and how they relate to the brief. I found this very helpful personally – softening the barrier of the physical and digital. 

Great to read that you picked up on the use of both physical and screen-based examples used in teaching. We see the benefits of this approach and I’m very interested in object-based learning as a way for students to appreciate design, materials, typographic detail etc.

How would discussions and feedback work with a larger group if not all students could get one on one contact time?

Classes are usually c.30 students, and are organised around the basis that if students require more involved tutor feedback then there are either two tutors, one tutor + a Graduate Teaching Assistant, or classes are smaller: 15 students per tutor. We can’t really provide one-to-one feedback for every student in these sessions (especially if there is one tutor to 30 students), but the course provides one-to-one tutorials and students can sign up for additional support if needed. 

I liked the larger discussion at the end but wondered if quieter students might have felt more comfortable speaking out if the layout of the room was set up as one large table from the beginning, to ease them into the larger discussion at the end?

An interesting idea, but I wonder if this would make rest of the session activities more difficult, both in terms of students working in small groups, and feeing comfortable to engage as a group, and also for the staff moving around the space. But maybe worth trying / discussing alternative setups with course colleagues to see how it might affetc things.