Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed:
- Brief 2: Visiblise (written by Can Yang) with corrections and guidance from our former course leader, Barbara Müller, in Unit 1: Research, Risk + Context, 2024–25 Graduate Diploma in Graphic Design, Chelsea College of Arts.
- Briefing presentation slides (designed by Can Yang) based on the brief.
- Lecture slides from one of the three workshop sessions related to the brief, focusing on semiotics and visual codes.
Size of student group: 16
Observer: Catherine Smith
Observee: Can Yang
Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.
Part One (Can)
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?
Visiblise is one of three briefs in Unit 1: Research, Risk + Context, running from November 4th to 29th over four weeks. The brief is designed to strengthen students’ research and analytical skills while supporting the development of their visual language within the context of visual communication.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been teaching as an Associate Lecturer on this course since 2022. With this year’s cohort, we began working together in September 2024. The number of students varies each year—this year, we have 16 students from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. Some aim to refine their professional graphic design skills for practice beyond academia, while others intend to pursue an MA degree.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
- To undertake practical research methods and apply findings to explorations of graphic design problems and challenges (LO1).
- To demonstrate a critical understanding of the theories, debates, and contexts relevant to graphic design practice (LO2).
- To use reflection and self-evaluation to inform decision-making and experimentation, taking responsibility for one’s own learning (LO3).
- To communicate project ideas with clarity and an awareness of audience needs (LO4).
- To select and apply appropriate methods for generating ideas and developing design solutions (LO5).
For further details, please refer to the brief.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Students will produce a spatial text-object and a transcription device (please see the brief for a glossary and explanation of terminology), a presentation for formative assessment, and a process book with specific requirements.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
The terminology and selected readings/references are primarily within philosophical discourse. To meet different needs, students could benefit from additional perspectives on how knowledge can be acquired—particularly in applying semiotics to practical and social contexts.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
Ideally, students will be informed in advance that an observation/review is taking place. I will explain that the purpose is to reflect on and improve teaching practices, ensuring that the brief, workshop activities, and discussions are as effective and engaging as possible. The observer’s presence will be introduced as a supportive and constructive element of the session, rather than an evaluation of individual student performance.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
I would appreciate feedback on:
- The design of the brief, ensuring alignment with Level 6 learning outcomes.
- The effectiveness of workshop activities.
- The clarity of instruction.
- Strategies for fostering more critical discussions during workshops.
How will feedback be exchanged?
Feedback will be shared through a written report with a follow-up discussion during the tutorial/review. The observer could provide written comments on the clarity, structure, and effectiveness of the brief, presentation materials, and workshop activities. This will be followed by a reflective report where I will address areas for improvement, and strategies for enhancing engagement and critical discussions in future sessions.
Part Two (Catherine)
Visiblise brief
Page 1: Overall impression is that it looks good. Nicely laid out, clear column structure and headers breaking the information down for the reader-student.
Upon reading I did get confused quite quickly though. There appear to be a lot of elements and terms used which overlap and create uncertainty in my mind about what you are asking of me. You have a unit title that is “Research, Risk and Context”, and this appears to be one brief within it. What relationship does it have to the mothership unit brief? I wonder if an explanatory sentence that links back to the unit aims would be helpful as a starting section.
Then once we are into it, we are thinking “what is vizibilize?” before learning it is about creating a visual language. Because you don’t give an eg of what you mean by a visual language it may be hard for some students to grasp what your intention is. You then ask for a spatial text object and a transcription device. I imagine you want the visual language rendered through these devices but I am unsure. Then you introduce 3 stages and tell me I will be using cyanotype and collograph etc. I don’t know why I will be using these and it feels possibly arbitrary.
You then tell me I will be observing and analyzing but at this point I don’t know what phenomenon I am observing, analysing etc. I imagine I am supposed to select it but other than suggesting it links to a prior project (why?) I have no idea what the source topic is. If the project can be about anything or should be about something specific then you need to be much clearer on that.
I would like to know/see what they made in response to it, and what your thoughts were when you saw it. Was it what you were expecting? If not, in what ways? What do you think went well or could have been improved? The real answers to your questions lie in looking at the work and asking them about how they found the brief!
Your bibliography is interesting – I see what you mean about philosophy. Before we get onto content though I ask which are required and which are the further? There is no way of knowing. Re. content – you need design on here. These texts are challenging, and whilst there is nothing wrong with that per se, you need to show how these theoretical concepts apply to graphic design practice knowledge production. You are not asking them to write an essay after all. You might find Lucienne Roberts and Jonathan Baldwin’s 2006 text Visual Communication: From Theory to Practice, or even David Crow’s Visible Signs more palatable, as they deal with theory in use, rather than in the abstract. It’s fine if they are all understanding it and able to work with it, but the brief doesn’t really set out how they relate so working from this alone, it’s not clear why these texts are there.
It is not Harvard referenced accurately, which will then make it difficult for the students to see a model for what you should be asking them to produce. Use CiteThemRight to edit it.
Page 2: Formative Feedback sounds great – I assume you are using Tracey Waller’s old model from Camberwell? Great to see it still in play at CCW after all this time. It seems a little tight on time, to submit the night before the feedback tutorial: when do the tutors review the work? Or do they just respond to it, seeing it for the first time in the tutorial itself? Would another day of review time be useful (I realise it is not always possible).
With the Learning Outcomes I would use sentence case – these are pretty important items on a brief and they look a little too subtle here. The use of lower case looks slightly out of place here, although I can see that it is a design decision for the briefs, and headers. That’s fine but it is inconsistent to sometimes use it at the start of sentences, and other times not. (I am being very picky here!).
I am interested in why the binary of “you do / you do not” for each LO? If I didn’t know better then I would imagine you were marking in a binary fashion, rather than assigning grades for each LO. I think the sentences themselves are useful descriptors, but perhaps you can think of an alternative intro that is more nuanced. Even “How well do you…” could work, and at least flags that you are not just saying Yes or No when you are marking.
Briefing slides
Slide 1: Is it Unit 1, Project 2, rather than Brief 2? Not sure if it might be helpful to be more specific about that. Not a big deal, but I am a stickler for consistency between curriculum elements so I do notice this stuff! (Not sure the students would particularly mind or notice!).
Image reference is not Harvard.
S2: Do you want to add in the breaks? Some of our participants don’t like it if we don’t flag when they will be / how long for.
S3: is it a brief or is it a project? I think you have 3 projects within unit 1. I would be sure to describe them as projects, and then the document that is the brief (with the accompanying class) is differentiated.
I really like this timeline. How long after the project 3 formative is the summative handin? Is there a reason you haven’t added a date?
S6: is that a quote from that reference cited at the side? If so, please use quote marks otherwise you might accidentally be modelling plagiarism. Fine if you have paraphrased though.
S8-10: I like the way these build. I know it’s basic but it works!
When you show an eg of work, do you talk about it and in what way it is visual language? I imagine you are doing this and it is really helpful.
S16-23: these are what I needed at the start! Consider what would happen if you placed tem before the rest of the instructions and just explained what a visual language is? The brief then would be so much clearer! Also, I wonder if you can add in a slide even before that, where you ask them to chat together in pairs about what they think an eg of visual language is, or find their own etc. Then share back to the room. Then you go through yours, and then follow up with the brief etc.
S27: you refer to testing event day here but it is not listed on the brief itself. I think it is the same as formative assessment but not sure?
You are asking them to present and give details of timings etc but these details are not on page 2 of the brief itself. This is important info that should be on the brief.
S29: appears to be a suggested template structure for their presentation slides. Do you need to be clearer about whether it is mandated or optional to follow this?
S30: you talk about an area, but this is not mentioned on the brief. Anything like this needs to be on the brief.
S31: what kind of experiment? Do you need to give egs as bullet points?
Overall comments:
Whilst after seeing the egs in the slides I understood what you meant I don’t think it is clear enough in the brief. I think that there are too many different elements vying for attention and it dilutes the clarity that a brief requires. Students bring enough complexity and the fact that they get to select a starting point will require greater clarity over what you are asking for.
I also wondered about the gap between the use of the lit on the brief (the refs) and its absence in your briefing presentation. This feels significant. Why is it not mentioned when you show the egs of practice? If you disaggregate theory from practice in your delivery how do you expect them to be able to integrate them or apply theory in use? Perhaps this comes out in what you say when you present the egs but the fact that you do not quote from any of those sources did make me wonder why then are they there? How do they link, in practice? I would review what they have produced in light of that question and see how far you feel their work has been informed by this thinking. If it has not, does it need to be? Or should you select different references and then integrate them more fully into the briefing? I don’t have an opinion on it, but your students might. Why not ask them?
Part Three (Can)
In my future teaching practice, I will make several adjustments to the Vizibilise brief based on this feedback to improve clarity and coherence. While the structure and layout were effective, I recognize that the conceptual framing needs refinement. One key issue raised was the lack of a clear connection between this brief and the broader unit, Research, Risk and Context. To address this, I will introduce a short opening section that explicitly explains how this project fits within the unit’s learning objectives.
I also see the importance of defining “visual language” earlier in the brief. Instead of assuming prior understanding, I will include an example or an initial discussion prompt where students can explore and share their interpretations before I introduce specific methodologies. Additionally, I will ensure that technical processes, such as cyanotype printing, are better contextualized—clearly explaining their relevance to the project rather than presenting them as arbitrary tools.
Another area for improvement is the integration of theory and practice. I acknowledge that while the bibliography provides valuable theoretical references, its connection to the practical work is not explicit enough. Moving forward, I will carefully select required and supplementary readings and actively reference them in class discussions and briefing slides.
Lastly, I will refine structural details: ensuring consistency in terminology, improving the accuracy of citations, and reconsidering submission timelines to allow tutors adequate review time. These changes will help create a more accessible and engaging brief that better supports students’ learning and creative exploration.