IP Unit: Reflective Report

Situated Design: A Three-Session Workshop for Inclusive Curatorial Practice

Introduction

This reflective report critically explores the design and implementation of my teaching intervention titled Situated Design, a three-session workshop series aimed at embedding intersectional social justice through inclusive curatorial practices within the MA Graphic and Digital Communication (GDC) course at University of the Arts London (UAL). As an educator positioned at the intersection of diverse cultural backgrounds and academic disciplines, I was motivated to challenge dominant curatorial norms that often marginalize non-Western, non-dominant voices in place-making. My intention was to create a shared learning space where multiple student positionalities, including cultural, communicative, and accessibility differences, could be visibly and equitably integrated into the exhibition design process.

This intervention resonates with my academic practice in visual communication and design education, emphasizing participatory design and critical pedagogy as tools to deconstruct hegemonic narratives in design presentation. In reflecting on the intervention’s design, enactment, and outcomes, I draw on theories of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), pedagogies of discomfort (Boler, 1999), and situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988) to critically assess the opportunities and challenges encountered. My overarching aim is to contribute to a more inclusive academic environment where diverse ways of knowing and presenting research are not only accepted but are central to our collective learning.

Context

The workshop was embedded within the preparatory phase for the MA GDC WIP (Work In Progress) Show, a high-stakes public exhibition where students present their research projects visually and spatially. The existing exhibition format at UAL traditionally prioritizes polished, final outcomes and often reflects dominant institutional aesthetics, which risks marginalizing students with diverse cultural backgrounds, research methodologies, or access needs. The cohort’s geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity calls for a more flexible, dialogic approach to exhibition curation.

Situated in the GDC department, the intervention’s utility lies in transforming the exhibition from a static display into a dynamic, collective process of spatial and conceptual negotiation. By guiding students through infrastructural mapping, collaborative spatial prototyping, and live activation of their exhibition zones, the intervention foregrounds inclusion as a principle of spatial justice and collective authorship. It positions the exhibition as an ongoing, evolving site of intersectional engagement rather than a mere showcase.

Inclusive Learning: Theoretical Rationale

Inclusion within design education is imperative not only for social justice but also for the epistemological richness it brings to creative inquiry. Design has historically privileged Western, able-bodied, and commercial aesthetics (Flecker, 2020). This intervention aligns with inclusive pedagogies that resist homogenizing knowledge and instead cultivate plurality, autonomy, and participation (Sensoy and DiAngelo, 2017).

Intersectionality, as conceptualized by Crenshaw (1991), was a foundational lens, helping me understand how overlapping identities (cultural, linguistic, gendered, and neurodiverse) shape students’ experiences and modes of expression. Haraway’s (1988) concept of situated knowledges was pivotal in shifting away from universalist, “view-from-nowhere” curatorial narratives towards localized, relational epistemologies where knowledge is partial, contextual, and embodied.

Further, the intervention drew on participatory design principles, notably “designing with, not for” (Muller, 2003), to ensure students were co-authors rather than passive recipients of curatorial decisions. This approach also incorporates the idea of pedagogies of discomfort (Boler, 1999), recognizing that confronting inequities in authorship and representation can be challenging but necessary for transformative learning.

Reflection on the Intervention Design and Challenges

My thinking was shaped initially by student feedback from previous years, where many expressed feeling distanced from curatorial decisions and constrained by normative exhibition formats. Peer discussions within the department and informal consultations with technical staff helped refine the practical aspects, such as timelines and resource availability.

Key decisions included the three-part structure: mapping to foreground relational contexts, spatial prototyping to negotiate shared territories, and activation to embody dynamic participation. The emphasis on “living zones” aimed to subvert static displays and offer ways for ongoing visitor engagement.

However, challenges emerged in balancing structure and openness. There was a risk that too rigid a format could stifle individual creativity or enforce tokenistic inclusion. Conversely, too little structure might lead to fragmented or incoherent exhibitions. This tension mirrors wider debates in inclusive pedagogy around scaffolding versus autonomy (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011).

Further, there were potential risks around uneven participation, where dominant voices could overshadow others during group spatial negotiations. I anticipated that students with less confidence or different communication styles might struggle to assert their perspectives. Accessibility considerations, such as physical access to workshop spaces and alternative communication formats, were addressed but required ongoing attention.

Action and Implementation

The intervention was implemented over three sessions:

Session 1: Ground Work – Infrastructure and Mapping
Students collaboratively mapped their projects’ social, spatial, and relational contexts, building a visual diagram that made visible the situatedness of each research inquiry. Groups nominated coordinators to ensure ongoing communication.

Students and staff working side-by-side during the mapping workshop, embodying an ethos of shared ownership and equitable participation in the development of the group theme.

Session 2: Spatial Production and Arrangement
Students created scaled models of their exhibition zones within a shared grid, negotiating curatorial decisions such as materials and spatial relationships that reflect individual and collective identities.

Students engaging in a collaborative visualisation session during the Spatial Production and Arrangement workshop, June 2025. The use of group Miro boards facilitated collective ideation and the co-creation of categories for the show.

Session 3: Activation and Programming
The final session involved designing interactive elements—prompts, live programming, publishing—to animate the exhibition zones, inviting visitor participation and creating a living exhibition presence.

Final arrangement of the showroom featuring three groups’ collected posters displayed throughout the space. The activated room on the right-hand side was designed for screenings and interactive programming.

This approach foregrounded dialogue and co-creation, challenging hierarchical authorship. For my academic practice, it meant shifting from instructor-led directives to facilitative coaching, supporting students’ agency in shaping their own representation.

Evaluation of the Process

Through this process, I learned that inclusivity in curatorial practice requires ongoing negotiation and reflexivity. Success depends not only on well-designed structures but also on responsiveness to emergent group dynamics and individual needs.

To evaluate effectiveness, I propose multiple feedback mechanisms:

  • Student reflections and surveys focusing on whether they felt their voice was authentically represented and if the process enabled equitable participation.
  • Observational notes from workshop facilitators tracking engagement patterns and power dynamics.
  • Exhibition visitor feedback to assess if the living zones fostered meaningful interaction and conveyed diverse perspectives.

The intervention revealed that while the theory of inclusion provides a vital framework, practical enactment demands adaptability and critical self-awareness to avoid reproducing exclusion.

Conclusion

This intervention deepened my awareness of the complexities involved in enacting intersectional social justice within design education. It reaffirmed my commitment to pedagogies that embrace discomfort, partiality, and multiplicity of voices, challenging dominant narratives in curatorial practice.

My positionality as an educator with a transnational background informed my sensitivity to cultural diversity and epistemic justice, yet also necessitated humility to listen and learn continuously from students’ lived experiences.

Moving forward, I aim to embed more participatory elements in my teaching while remaining vigilant about structural inequalities that can inadvertently resurface. Situated Design has been a meaningful step towards a more inclusive academic culture, underscoring the potential of collective authorship and spatial justice in shaping equitable design education.

References

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)

Campos, M. R. (2017). Queering Architecture: Appropriating Space and Process (MA thesis). University of Cincinnati.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.’ Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241-1299.

Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). ‘Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy.’ British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813–828.

Flesler, G., Neidhardt, A. and Ober, M. (2025). ‘A Conversation on the Discomfort of Feminist Design Pedagogy.’ In Mareis, C., Paim, N. et al. (eds.) Design Struggles: Intersecting Histories, Pedagogies and Perspectives. Amsterdam: Valiz, pp. 205–225.

Haraway, D. J. (1988). ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.’ Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575-599.

Muller, M. J. (2003). ‘Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI.’ In Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sensoy, O. and DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Blog Task 3: Bilingual Design and Anti-Racism: Navigating Language Barriers

Working within a global-facing art and design institution like UAL has made it clear to me that race, class, and language are not peripheral to education. They are central to how students access learning and feel valued. While institutional rhetoric often celebrates “diversity,” in practice, structures of support and recognition remain uneven. Racialised and international students are frequently left to decipher an implicit curriculum shaped by British art school norms that privilege whiteness and Eurocentric discourse.

In light of this, Garrett (2024) highlights how systemic racism shapes the academic lives of racialised scholars in the UK, from precarious contracts to the erasure of long-term career trajectories. This critique resonates with what I have observed in staff conversations at UAL, where international students, particularly those racialised as non-white, are sometimes described as “challenging” or lacking in “criticality.” These comments reflect more than bias—they reveal how certain cultural and linguistic expressions of thinking are consistently devalued.

Taking this further, Bradbury (2020) identifies how institutions often embed low expectations for bilingual learners. This is especially visible in how we assess and feedback on the work of students using English as an additional language. Rather than seeing their multilingualism as an asset, it is frequently viewed as a shortcoming. Students who articulate ideas in non-standard English or draw on unfamiliar intellectual traditions are seen as lacking clarity, rather than expanding what design education might look like.

In response to these systemic issues, I recently gave a talk at Asymmetry Art Foundation, a London-based non-profit dedicated to supporting curatorial practice and contemporary Chinese art. During this talk, I shared my ongoing research on bilingual design and the politics of local language in visual communication. More specifically, I examined how the act of typesetting Chinese and English together in design reveals tensions between narrative, translation, and meaning-making—challenging conventional typographic principles rooted in Western Eurocentric design traditions. For international students at UAL navigating similar tensions, these practices offer a compelling model of cultural and linguistic resistance that validates their lived experiences.

Yang, Can giving a talk at Asymmetry Art Foundation titled Designing Across Language and Distance, Asymmetry Art Foundation, 2025.

Connecting these insights to broader institutional dynamics, Sara Ahmed (2012) describes diversity policies as often being “non-performative”: they appear progressive but fail to change the structures that sustain exclusion. This contradiction was highlighted by the backlash against the Advance HE video, as noted by Orr (2022), where anti-racist messaging was dismissed as “wokeness.” However, the problem isn’t the language of inclusion—it is the fact that whiteness remains the unspoken standard across our marking criteria, reading lists, and even knowledge system.

Shifting toward meaningful change requires embedding anti-racism into the everyday practices of teaching. This involves asking difficult but necessary questions: Whose ways of speaking are legitimised in crits? Whose histories are deemed central to design? What types of knowledge are rewarded or penalised in assessment? To move beyond surface-level inclusion, we must create space for diverse forms of intelligence, multilingual creativity, and epistemic difference.

Finally, given UAL’s large population of international students—many of whom bring transnational and non-Western perspectives—it is not enough to simply welcome them into an existing system. Anti-racist teaching involves rethinking that system from within. We must support students in ways that are contextually relevant, intellectually generous, and critically aware. Only then can we begin to realise the inclusive values we so often claim to uphold.

References:

Ahmed, S. (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bradbury, A. (2020) ‘A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp. 241–247.
Fry, T. (2009) Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Oxford: Berg.
Garrett, R. (2024) ‘Racism shapes careers: Career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp. 2–11.
Orr, J. (2022) ‘Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke’. The Telegraph [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU (Accessed: 24 June 2025).

Formative assessment: Intervention summary proposal

Proposed title: Situated Design: A Three-Session Workshop for Inclusive Curatorial Practice


As part of the preparation for the MA GDC WIP Show, I propose a three-session workshop series titled Situated Design, designed to embed inclusive learning into the curatorial process of exhibition design. This intervention addresses the diversity of student perspectives, positionalities, and research contexts by making the exhibition process itself a shared learning opportunity.

The workshop will guide students through (1) infrastructural mapping of their research in relation to place, people, and systems; (2) collaborative spatial prototyping of shared zones; and (3) developing a ‘living’ presence for each zone through participatory acts like prompts, live programming, or publishing. Each step emphasizes inclusion: ensuring every voice is situated, heard, and considered in how we collectively shape the exhibition.

The diversity considered includes cultural background, communication style, access needs, research context, and personal identity. These differences are often flattened in traditional design displays. By situating knowledge relationally—rather than through dominant narratives of polished outcomes—we enable a more equitable platform for students to shape how their work is received.

The idea builds on participatory design principles and inclusive pedagogies such as “designing with, not for.” It is directly linked to my teaching context at UAL, where students come from wide-ranging geographies and disciplines, and often feel detached from exhibition-making processes driven by institutional or aesthetic norms.

Potential questions to reflect on:

Agency – Who holds curatorial authorship over what gets shown and how? How do we maintain openness while ensuring clarity and coherence?

Tone – If the format becomes too systematic or templated, does it risk becoming rigid or forced? How can structure enable rather than limit expression?

Equity – Are all students equally supported in expressing their research context? Whose voices or practices might unintentionally be marginalised?

Autonomy – How can individual approaches be maintained within a shared spatial and conceptual framework?

Next Steps: Collect feedback from students on the draft session plans, refine prompts for each zone, and liaise with staff and technical teams to support spatial and material resources.

MA Graphic Design Communication studio, Camberwell College of Arts — a shared space of inquiry, collaboration, and ongoing experimentation. This classroom hosts the early stages of workshop that will shape the Work-in-Progress Show.

Notes to references:

1.0 Spatial Practices
The actual way people use and move through space in their daily lifestyle.

  • Fry, Tony, & Eleni Kalantidou. (2015). Design in the Borderlands. Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Campos, Marissa Renee. (2017). Queering Architecture: Appropriating Space and Process (MA thesis). School of Architecture and Interior Design, College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, University of Cincinnati.
  • Flesler, Griselda, Anja Neidhardt, and Maya Ober: “A Conversation on the Discomfort of Feminist Design Pedagogy.” In Design Struggles: Intersecting Histories, Pedagogies and Perspectives, edited by Claudia Mareis, Nina Paim et al., 205–225. Amsterdam: Valiz.
  • Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/7/75/Lefebvre_Henri_The_Production_of_Space.pdf
  • Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

2.0 Representation of the Space
The maps, plans, the design — all abstract visual languages used to capture and represent the space.

3.0 Engaged / Situated Space
Spaces that are infused with our emotions, memories, and meaning — entangled with lived experience, identity, and context.

  • Haraway, Donna J. (1988). “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
  • Abdulla, Danah. (2018). Design Otherwise: Towards a Locally-centric Design Education Curricula in Jordan (Ph.D. dissertation). Goldsmiths, University of London.
  • Escobar, Arturo. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  • Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

Blog Task 2: Intersectionality and Faith in Design Education

Faith is often an under-acknowledged presence in higher education, particularly in creative disciplines where rational critique and visual literacy are emphasised over personal belief systems. Yet, religious identity continues to shape how students navigate academic spaces—how they speak, listen, dress, represent, and choose what to disclose. In design education, where communication is both medium and message, understanding how faith intersects with other identity markers such as race, class, gender, or migration background is vital to creating inclusive learning environments. Reflecting on my teaching at UAL, I’ve become increasingly aware of how complex and often invisible these intersections can be.

Though religion and spirituality are not always explicitly present in students’ visual outputs, they often shape implicit values, aesthetic sensibilities, and ethical priorities. For example, discussions around symbolism, colour, or gesture often reveal underlying cultural codes tied to belief systems. One student once hesitated to depict a human figure in a poster design, and in our conversation, it became clear that this choice was shaped by a religious upbringing that discouraged idolatry. Such moments underline how vital it is to acknowledge and create space for faith-based perspectives, even when they do not immediately announce themselves in a secular academic setting.

In the UK, UAL’s student population is religiously diverse, yet the institutional environment often frames faith as a private or secondary concern. Jawad’s (2022) article on visible Muslim women in sport highlights how the intersection of gender, religion, and public visibility leads to complex negotiations of identity. Although her context is sport, the same applies in design education, where faith-based modesty, silence, or symbolism may be misinterpreted as disinterest or passivity by tutors unfamiliar with such perspectives. Crenshaw’s framework asks us to resist such flattening. We must remain aware that visible (and invisible) religious identities intersect with ethnicity, gender, and language to shape how students experience inclusion—or exclusion—in the classroom.

Reki’s (2023) writing on epistemic injustice is particularly relevant here. Religious students may feel that their modes of knowledge—ritual, silence, or oral tradition—are discounted in an academic environment that privileges secular, rationalist critique. This leads to what Reki terms “testimonial quieting,” where students self-censor for fear of being misunderstood or dismissed. During the feedback sessions, I now ask not just what is being communicated, but how and why—inviting alternative epistemologies into the room.

My own cultural background—as someone raised in post-socialist China where Buddhism was often repressed or politicised—makes me sensitive to the tensions between faith and state-sanctioned education. Religion was historically framed as an obstacle to progress, and this legacy shapes how some East Asian students approach spiritual topics: with caution, indirectness, or internal conflict. I don’t position this experience at the centre of my pedagogy, but it informs my alertness to the silences in the room—the things that are felt but not spoken.

Ultimately, a pedagogy informed by intersectionality is one that remains attuned to both voice and silence, visibility and absence. In doing so, we open a space in design education where faith is not “othered,” but held as one of many intersecting forces shaping who we are and how we create.

Bibliography:

Crenshaw, K., 1990. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp.1241–1299.

Reki, J., 2023. Religious identity and epistemic injustice: An intersectional account. Hypatia, 38, pp.779–800.

Appiah, K.A., 2014. Is religion good or bad? (This is a trick question). [online video] TEDx Talk. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2et2KO8gcY

Nanbu, H., 2008. Religion in Chinese education: from denial to cooperation. British Journal of Religious Education, 30(3), pp.223–234.

Cottingham, J., 2005. The spiritual dimension: Religion, philosophy and human value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jawad, H., 2022. Islam, women and sport: The case of visible Muslim women. LSE Religion and Global Society. [online] Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/

Pew Research Center, 2023. Government policy toward religion in the People’s Republic of China – a brief history. [online] Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/08/30/government-policy-toward-religion-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china-a-brief-history/

Trinity University, 2016. Challenging race, religion, and stereotypes in the classroom. [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk

Unit 2 – Blog Task 1: Intersectionality and the In/Visibility of Disability

Kimberle Crenshaw’s (1990) theory of intersectionality provides a vital framework for understanding how disability does not exist in isolation, but intersects with other identity factors such as race, gender, class, and language. Crenshaw argues that systems of oppression do not act independently but interlock to create complex modes of marginalisation—an idea clearly illustrated through Christine Sun Kim’s experiences as a deaf Asian American artist.

In Friends and Strangers (Art21, 2023), Sun Kim describes how her education in the U.S. was shaped by constant denial—being told “no” when requesting interpreters or accessible tools. Her deafness intersects with race and language: not only are her needs sidelined institutionally, but even within her Korean-American family, sign language was absent. This layered exclusion speaks to both structural and intimate failures in accessibility.

Her exhibition at the Wellcome Collection with Thomas Mader (1880 THAT: Christine Sun Kim and Thomas Mader) further interrogates invisibility in design and language. Their collaborative works deconstruct ableist soundscapes and challenge who gets to participate in public discourse. Their approach resonates with James C. Scott’s (1998) critique of “legibility”: governments and institutions simplify complex realities to render people visible to authority—but in doing so, often erase lived knowledge. Sun Kim’s work reclaims this erasure by making the non-auditory visible and politically resonant.

Artwork label from 1880 THAT: Christine Sun Kim and Thomas Mader, Wellcome Collection, 2025.
The label features a multi-language system incorporating written text, sign language demonstration, and a QR code linking to an online audio guide—foregrounding accessibility and inclusive modes of communication.

Design decisions often compound these invisibilities. In The Politics of Design, Ruben Pater (2016) critiques the overreliance on a single icon—the wheelchair—to represent all disabilities. He argues that this reinforces a limited view of disability as permanent and homogenous. Instead, many disabilities are temporary or dynamic. Similarly, the ColorADD® system offers a more inclusive design strategy. By incorporating graphic symbols to indicate colour for colourblind users (ColorADD®, 2024), it counters the legibility bias critiqued by Scott and reflects a more decentralised, adaptive approach to accessibility.

In design education—particularly within graphic design—there is an urgent need to rethink how communication itself is conceptualised. Too often, visual communication privileges normative audiences: sighted, neurotypical, and hearing. This raises a fundamental question—who are we designing for, and who gets excluded in that process? If students are only taught to communicate to the “majority,” they reproduce the very systems that marginalise others. Educators must emphasise the politics of visibility and legibility in design practice. Awareness of typography, colour systems, sound, language, and interface must go beyond aesthetics into the realm of ethics and access. Graphic design is not neutral; it can exclude as easily as it can include.

Disability is not a static label but a fluid experience shaped by systems of visibility and power. As Sun Kim’s work demonstrates, access is not just about ramps or subtitles—it’s about reimagining participation, authorship, and belonging. Crenshaw’s framework reminds us that these systems overlap and compound, and meaningful accessibility must account for the whole person—not just the parts made legible to policy.

Bibliography:

Art21 (2023) Christine Sun Kim in “Friends & Strangers” – Season 11. [Online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpRaEDlLsI [Accessed 23 May 2025].

ColorADD® (2024) Color Identification System. [Online] Available at: https://www.coloradd.net/en/coloradd-code/#:~:text=ColorADD%C2%AE%20is%20a%20unique [Accessed 23 May 2025].

Crenshaw, K. (1990) ‘Intersectionality’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241–1299.

Pater, R. (2016) The Politics of Design: A (Not So) Global Manual for Visual Communication. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers

Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Metal Magazine (2025) ‘Christine Sun Kim and Thomas Mader: Reimagining Communication’. [Online] Available at: https://metalmagazine.eu/post/christine-sun-kim-and-thomas-mader [Accessed 23 May 2025].


✎Reading Reflection 4 –Learning in Commons

Reading Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts by Addison brings forward questions about how we define and measure learning. The text unsettles the idea that learning can be fully captured through predetermined outcomes. Instead, Addison advocates for an approach that allows for negotiation and emergence. This perspective brings me back to my own struggles with formal assessment structures in design education. There is often an expectation that learning should follow a linear path, but in my experience, true intellectual and creative growth unfolds in unpredictable ways.

When I teach, I notice that students often approach assignments with an acute awareness of assessment criteria, sometimes to the detriment of their own creative and critical instincts. They ask: “What do I need to do to meet the outcome?” rather than “Where can I take this idea?” This fixation on predefined goals is what Addison critiques, pointing out that “learning outcomes are too often framed in terms of what students should have achieved by the end of the course” (Addison, 2014). The assumption is that knowledge is something to be attained rather than embodied or situated. But what if learning is more about movement, about the shifting nature of ideas as they develop through dialogue, making, and reflection?

Christine Schranz’s introduction Commons for Design, Design for Commons in Commons in Design proposed another way of thinking about knowledge production. Schranz describes the commons as an ongoing negotiation, a space where different voices interact to create something collectively. She writes, “The commons are places of sharing and negotiation, where different voices contribute to a collective understanding” (Schranz, 2024). In this way, learning is not about arriving at a fixed destination but about engaging with others in a process of exchange. My own experiences with students have reinforced this. The moments when they challenge each other’s ideas, when they push beyond what was expected, are often the most meaningful.

This is also where Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society enters the conversation. Illich critiques traditional education for its rigid institutional structures, which condition learners to believe that knowledge is something dispensed by an authority rather than something created through lived experience. His argument pushes me to reconsider how much of my own teaching is shaped by institutional expectations. If learning is to be meaningful, it must be freed from rigid frameworks that dictate what “success” should look like.

In the history, the experimental ethos of Black Mountain College challenges conventional notions of education outside of hierarchical governance structures that risk stifling innovation. The college operated on the belief that learning happens through doing—through risk-taking, improvisation, and collaboration. This history reminds me that as an educator, I am not just delivering content but facilitating conditions where knowledge can emerge organically. It makes me question whether I, too, sometimes fall into the trap of seeking measurable results at the expense of deeper, less predictable forms of learning.

Reading these texts, I return to a simple but pressing question: How can I create an environment where students feel empowered to pursue knowledge beyond the limits of predefined learning outcomes? Addison, Schranz, Illich, and the experimental practices of Black Mountain College suggest that the answer lies in allowing uncertainty, in continuous dialogue, and in recognizing that learning is always in motion and in commons.

References

Addison, P. (2014). Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: From performativity towards emergence and negotiation.

Schranz, C. (2024). Commons for design, design for commons. In Commons in Design (pp. 14-20). Valiz.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. Harper & Row.

PAGES Teacher Resources. (2016). Leap Before You Look: Black Mountain College 1933-1957. WexPages. Retrieved from https://wexpagesonline.edublogs.org/files/2016/08/PAGES-Teacher-Resources_Look-Before-You-Leap-11e6hel.pdf

✐Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice 3

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 

  1. 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.
  2. Briefing presentation slides (designed by Can Yang) based on the brief.
  3. 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.

✐Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice 2

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Workshop

Size of student group: 24

Observer: Guiseppe Renga

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?

This session is part of an ongoing exploration of visual documentation methods within the Typology course. It focuses on alternative ways of seeing, material processes, and the act of imprinting vision beyond digital tools. The workshop ties into critical design theory, referencing key texts such as Walter Benjamin’s The Task of the Translator and Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind, to challenge conventional notions of perception and documentation.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I have been working with this group since the start of the academic year in my capacity as an Associate Lecturer, leading workshops and seminars that encourage critical engagement with visual and typographic practices.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

-Develop an understanding of how materiality and process shape visual documentation.

-Experiment with imprinting and documentation methods, challenging conventional ways of seeing.

-Explore the relationship between objects, texts, and perception through hands-on making and theoretical reflection.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

Mental Drawing – Drawing from memory.

Blind Drawing – Drawing without looking at the paper.

Cyanotype Print – Using light-sensitive paper to create imprints.

Printed Scan – Experimenting with scale and perspective through photocopying.

Your Choice – A final documentation piece that integrates or extends these methods.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Students may have varying levels of familiarity with cyanotype printing and alternative documentation methods.

Some may struggle with the conceptual shift from traditional representation to material/process-based documentation.

Managing time effectively to allow for both experimentation and reflection.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students will be informed on the date during the session starts. The observation will be framed as a reflective practice to improve teaching and learning experiences.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

How effectively the workshop structure supports students’ understanding and engagement.

Whether the balance between theory and practice is appropriate.

How students respond to and integrate the critical readings into their documentation processes.

The overall clarity and flow of the session.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Feedback will be shared via written reflection. Any insights or recommendations will be incorporated into future iterations of the workshop.

Part Two (Guiseppe)

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

Hi Can, 

Thank you again for inviting me to observe your technical practice in exploring cyanotype printing and imprinting vision through different tools. As you have suggested, your workshop focused on documenting which doesn’t merely mean reproducing reality but about translating and transforming perception. The workshop was developed through a series of five visual documentation methods, focusing on material processes and alternative ways of seeing.

To begin with, I really enjoyed preparing this workshop, in which students received clear instructions about its structure, including the typology of tools they were going to use, the schedule, and the reading list. 

The classroom was formed by circa 20 students all sitting in a circle based in an Open Space. 

The space seemed quite challenging because of the lack of privacy and proper separation from other classrooms, and in delivering these workshops within this design how do you capture the attention of your students? Were you already prepared to work in a similar space? Besides that, all the students were listening, taking notes and pictures of the slides you were sharing on the screen which I found quite hard to read due to the size of the fonts and the background colour. Would you think I will be better at adopting colours and family fonts and sizes that are more readable (e.g. white colours and sans serif fonts) in particular by students affected by neurodiversity? Notwithstanding, the lack of a super clear presentation was obviated by detailed instructions and guidance printed on 2 A4 papers. 

The flow of the first part based on the theory was impeccably enriched by great references within the field of Architecture, Pop Art of artists and practitioners from South Africa, France and so on and on. The description of the artists’ technique was meticulous with an abondance of example from different historical periods. Moreover, I found very inspiring a reference to John Bergers, Ways of Seeing book written in 1972. 

The second part focused on cyanotype print and the use of light-sensitive paper to create a direct imprint. The process was explained scrupulously and the amount of tools was enough for all the students. With a huge amount of joy and excitement suddenly all the students were keen to lay on their paper the chemical emulsion and swiftly hide them wherever there was a bit of darkness available. I enjoyed the session and the fact that all the students were eager to imprint the objects and shapes of a certain personal value. Don’t you think that you could do something slightly different next time by maybe redesigning the layout of the space with a dark area big enough to host all the students ‘artefacts? 

Moreover, I loved the fact the students were recycling a lot of paper containers like egg trays or paper cups which became proper treasures. Hence this led the workshop to generate the unpredictable and let the students explore the unknown. Finally, you have been able to incentivise all the students to have fun and work with multiple experiments which has positively affected the kinship and affinities among them.  

Part Three (Can)

Reflecting on Guiseppe’s observations, here’s how I would address and adapt the points raised:

  1. Space and Attention: Since I cannot control the group size or the space setup, I would focus on adjusting my teaching methods to work within those limitations. I could experiment with alternating between group discussions and hands-on activities to keep students engaged in the open space. Additionally, using visual or auditory cues to refocus attention could help manage distractions in the environment.
  2. Font Legibility: I understand the feedback on font legibility, but I believe my handout already employs a clear visual communication approach with legible type and high contrast between headings and body text. From a design perspective, I don’t see it as a legibility issue, but I do acknowledge that the lighting, screen resolution, or the way the material was displayed may have affected its visibility. In the future, I would consider ensuring that handouts are distributed in advance and may also experiment with adjusting font sizes or color schemes when displaying material on screens to further improve readability in varied environments.
  3. Space Layout for Cyanotype Process: Given the space constraints, I would look into structuring the cyanotype activity in smaller group rotations, allowing for a more organized space for students to lay out their objects. I could also experiment with temporary partitions or designated areas for different activities to create a clearer workflow, while still working within the open space available.
  4. Incorporating Unpredictability and Recycling: I’m glad my colleague highlighted the students’ creative use of recycled materials. I plan to keep encouraging this experimental approach, as it not only adds an element of unpredictability but also aligns with the workshop’s focus on transformation and exploration.

Overall, I’m grateful for the feedback and would integrate these suggestions to improve the workshop, ensuring it remains accessible and engaging while maintaining the spirit of experimentation.

✐Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice 1

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Adobe InDesign for BA Year 1 

Size of student group: 10 

Observer: Can Yang 

Observee: Giuseppe Renga 

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 (Giuseppe)
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? 

I teach Adobe InDesign which is a powerful tool that helps student in the composition and construction of portfolios, magazines, zines, books, pamphlet, leaflet and presentations. 

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity? 

I usually work with these cohorts for the entire duration of the course that lasts 4 days. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

The creation and customization of the workspace within Adobe InDesign. Moreover ,students will get more familiar with the main panels incapsulated in the software like the Layers, the Properties, The Pages and the Styles panels. The recreation of a small magazine by using a combination of images and text supported my the use of a gamut of digital tools like: the frame, the type and the shape tools. 

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)? 

These students will be able to design their own portfolios, zines, leaflets and so on and on. 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

Because these sessions were delivering online my main concerns were about the lack of physicality of the students which might determine a lacuna in the control of the classroom with a consequent reduction of attention from the attendees. 

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

My observer Can Yang has been able to observe me on an online record session. 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

Ways of interactions with my students, methodologies used to inculcate concepts to the students, gamut of exercises developed. 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

The feedback will be exchanged through this document. 

Part Two (Can)

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

Observer: Can Yang 

Date of Observation: March 10, 2025 

Lecturer: Giuseppe Renga 

Course: Adobe Certified Professional (ACPro) InDesign Online Session 

Duration: 100 minutes (40 minutes lecture, 60 minutes demonstration) 

During the session, Giuseppe Renga began by introducing the recording of the online session, providing clear instructions on where participants could find the resources and outlining the schedule for the day. He also asked the participants if they could hear him clearly, which helped establish a comfortable and interactive atmosphere right from the start. This kind of effective context-setting is essential for remote learning, ensuring that students feel prepared and informed about the session’s structure. 

Giuseppe then moved on to introduce the historical context of digital tools, particularly focusing on Adobe’s role in the design world. He highlighted the evolution of digital design practices, discussing the contributions of European philosophers and artists, which effectively grounded the students in the theoretical underpinnings of design. By connecting these historical figures to modern digital tools, Giuseppe managed to create a link between abstract concepts and practical applications, providing students with a broader understanding of design’s cultural and philosophical context. 

The thematic exploration of art, design, and fashion was a particularly engaging part of the lecture. Giuseppe used artists like Andy Warhol, Salvador Dali, César Manrique, and Piet Mondrian to illustrate how everyday commercial products can be transformed into art. He also explored wearable art and fashion brands, which tied into the broader concept of design’s role in both aesthetics and commerce. This approach encouraged students to think critically about design beyond its traditional boundaries. However, I believe the session could have been enriched by including references from a wider range of cultural contexts, allowing for a more diverse and global perspective on the evolution of design. 

When Giuseppe introduced the ABCs of Graphic Design—Aesthetic, Balance, and Content—he provided a clear and concise explanation of these fundamental principles. The inclusion of these core concepts was important in grounding the students in graphic design’s foundational ideas. It would be interesting for Giuseppe to incorporate a small hands-on exercise to allow students to directly engage with these principles in practice. For example, giving students a brief design task where they could apply Aesthetic, Balance, and Content to a simple layout using InDesign would help them internalize these concepts more effectively. 

The latter half of the session focused on demonstrating InDesign’s tools and functions. Giuseppe did an excellent job of explaining each feature and showing students how to use the software effectively. He paced the demonstration well, giving students time to follow along and practice. The practical nature of this part of the session was beneficial, as students were able to apply the theory and tools discussed earlier. However, I noticed that some of the visual materials used in the slides were not accompanied by image credits or captions. While this did not detract from the content, including such credits would improve the professionalism of the presentation and align it with academic best practices, especially when referencing well-known artists or copyrighted materials. 

In terms of overall feedback, Giuseppe’s session was highly informative and well-structured. The combination of historical context and practical demonstration provided a well-rounded learning experience for the students. However, there are a few areas for improvement. Incorporating more diverse cultural references could broaden the students’ perspectives, and adding an interactive component, such as a hands-on exercise, would allow them to apply the theories presented. Lastly, including image credits and captions on slides would enhance the academic rigor of the presentation. 

Questions for Reflection: 

  1. How to balance theoretical content with practical exercises to increase student engagement and learning retention? 
  2. Could a brief recap or summary at the end of the session help reinforce the key points discussed and aid student understanding? 
  3. How might incorporating case studies or examples from more global cultural contexts to make the historical and artistic aspects of the lesson more inclusive? 

Part Three (Giuseppe)

To begin with I want to say thank you for observing an online recorded session of the Adobe Certified Professional I have delivered to the BA Creative Direction for Fashion Year One students from London College of Fashion.     

To deliver the ACP sessions, I used Blackboard Collaborate. Normally, each session started at 10 and finished at 16:30, including a one-hour lunch break and two 15-minute tea breaks. By sharing my screen, I showed the students how to use Adobe InDesign, underpinned by theoretical didactic material via a separate presentation. Moreover, all the sessions were recorded and shared with the students via Moodle to help those students who were working from a different time zone.    

Although students are contacted via email at least 48 hours before the start of the course with all the vital didactical resources attached, I have never thought to share with them a reading list or a theoretical context that could have been linked to an artefact to be created in the classroom. Nonetheless, in my last year, I have been practicing with my students the design of their major final degree show poster based and inspired by those created by the Bauhaus artists by adopting the dogmas and axioms of simplicity, balance and aesthetic explored by the German avant-garde. Upon your feedback, I will certainly include in future more examples related to a variety of art movements to inspire the students even more and to make them curious.  

Moreover, I firmly think that the attendees would have also been guided in a better way if I had created a map of the course which would have facilitated my students in being oriented and engaged with the flow of the lecture that consisted of a fusion of theory and practice. In addition, a final recapitulation of the key concepts touched and analyzed throughout the course could be refreshing and clarifying for the students in particular after 5/6 hours spent in front of a screen.  

Furthermore, whilst you have mentioned the lack of examples of art practices explored by different practitioners I have been inserting in my slides examples inherent to fashion illustrators such as Elsa Schiaparelli and Rene Gruau’ as well Tony Viramontes and based on their artefacts I have tried to shift their styles towards artifices that I have collaboratively constructed with my cohort.  

Finally, although I have inserted at the end of my presentation a reference list, I evince that it will acquire a more professional appearance if I include the written reference to each image deployed during the presentation with a list of the image at the end of the presentation. 

✎Reading Reflection 3 – Integrating Aesthetic Learning and Research Models in Higher Education for Art and Design

In Aesthetic Learning About, In, With and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study, Lars Lindstrom explores the intersections between aesthetic learning and the arts in education. By categorizing aesthetic learning into four dimensions—learning about, learning in, learning with, and learning through the arts—Lindstrom offers a comprehensive framework for integrating the arts into education. This framework challenges the traditional view of art as an object of study and emphasizes the dynamic roles that art can play in shaping personal, social, and intellectual development.

The study highlights that aesthetic learning goes beyond intellectual knowledge and includes personal engagement with the artistic process. Learning about art pertains to studying its history and theory, while learning in refers to personal experiences with art, and learning with involves collaboration with others. Lastly, learning through stresses the transformative process of creation, where students use art to make sense of and navigate the world. This holistic approach could encourage students to engage with the arts in varied and meaningful ways, bridging critical reflection and creative practice.

Lindstrom’s model reminds me the discussion around developing research models for higher education students, particularly in visual communication. It is essential to provide students with a framework that encourages critical reflection on their motivations, practice, and societal relevance as they begin their research journeys. Christopher Frayling’s categorization of research in Research in Art and Design (1993)—Research into, Research through, and Research for—serves as a complementary model for guiding students in understanding the diverse aspects of their research. These categories, which mirror Lindstrom’s framework, create a model that includes intellectual inquiry, creative production, and practical application, offering a complete approach to research.

Figure 1: A diagram illustrating the intersection of three key areas in research: Personal Interests (self-reflection), Visual Communication Relevance (practice), and Societal Challenges (theory). The central overlap represents the analysis process, with the surrounding area indicating the broader context that shapes the research. (Yang, 2025)

For students in higher education, particularly those in the visual communication context, it is necessary to understand the intersections of their Personal Interests, Visual Communication Relevance, and Societal Challenges. These three areas form the basis of any research journey, helping students critically reflect on their identities, the relevance of their work to the field, and the broader societal issues they are engaging with. A visual model can represent these areas as three overlapping circles, with analysis at the intersection, surrounded by context. The model encourages students to recognize the dynamic relationships between self-reflection, practice, theory, and the external factors that influence their research.

By incorporating such models, students are better prepared to understand their research processes and the significance of their work in relation to both personal and societal concerns. This diagram has been applied to the tutorial group session with my cohort in developing deeper engagement with the research journey and ensures that students are equipped to address complex challenges in the art and design fields.

References:

Lindström, L. (2012) ‘Aesthetic Learning About, In, With and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study’.

Frayling, C. (1993) Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art. Available at: https://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/9/frayling_research_in_art_and_design_1993_OCR.pdf (Accessed: 15 March 2025).

Nelson, R. (2022) Practice as Research in the Arts (and Beyond): Principles, Processes, Contexts, Achievements. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.