On Intersectionality

I write this blogpost in the wake of the UK supreme court ruling that clarified the terms ‘woman’ and sex’ in the Equality Act as referring to biological women and biological sex (Carrell 2025), which was a hugely disappointing regression for trans- and women’s rights. Despite the beliefs of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, the category of ‘woman’ as a social construct is a foundational feminist argument that seeks to destabilise the constraints and ideologies applied to women as historically contingent (see Scott 1986). At the heart of this ruling seems a move toward privileging the bodies and power of a system of global hegemony defined by heteropatriarchal, racial capitalist values. As I was watching our assigned videos and hearing this news, I couldn’t help but think that our value as a person in this framework of the world is determined by our fitness to produce capital. If one is not able-bodied, they are deemed an unproductive worker. If a woman is not having children, they are no longer productive to the needs of the nation-state in the production of labouring bodies (for more on this see Rubin 1975). Or if a racialised person is seeking equity, they are told they are asking for too much.    

What struck me in the conversations with Ade Adepitan and Christine Sun Kim was their exceptionalism, particularly in the discussion with the para-Olympians. Their respective interviews highlighted their intersectionalities between disability, racialised identities, and perhaps gender, but it was not lost on me that both of these people were highly successful in their respective fields. I struggled with this, as I also grappled with Kim’s discussions of accessibility, communication, and visibility; Kim articulated how her desire to be visible was represented in the increased scale of her artworks. The model minority was a stereotype created by the white elite in the 1960s to encourage Asian Americans to succeed by merit (Yu 2006). This has created further separation of collective action. Communication seemed to be a common thread in the last two videos, with a desire to fit into a hearing, and a cis-gendered gay community respectively. Adepitan spoke about how making societal adjustments for people that were not able-bodied could allow people to shine and live up to their potential.

Inclusive practices in these interviews seemed to imply a levelling of the playing field, allowing people with disabilities and their intersectional identities to overcome systemic discrimination. These expressed desires, however, seemed to reinforce the hierarchies of our capitalist society, where our virtue is defined by our productivity. Is it too radical to dismantle these systems altogether? In my own lived experience as a racialised woman, I have developed a sense of perfectionism to mitigate systemic bias, for it has never been enough for someone like myself to be mediocre or to merely exist. This is so tiring, can we not just exist? In my own teaching practice, I draw upon decolonial frameworks that map and outline these drives toward capitalist success through coloniality/modernity, illuminating how institutional practices reinforce such ideologies. 

To answer the last part of the blog task: our teaching team provides lecture slides days in advance, with layouts on a blue background to assist students with colour blindness. A 2023 report from UAL noted that 15.3% of the student body has a declared disability, with a ‘particularly large percentage of dyslexic and neurodivergent students’ (Careers and Employability at University of the Arts London, 2023). My own research interests lie within material culture, so I teach with tangible objects, and touch-based senses which employs multisensory learning. 

Works Cited

Careers and Employability at University of the Arts London (2023) Evidence – inquiry into employment and career support for young disabled people leaving education and entering the job market and workplace. Careers and Employability YDP0017. London: University of the Arts London. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/124755/pdf/ (Accessed: 19 April 2025).

Rubin, G. (1975) ‘The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Economy” of Sex’, in R.R. Reiter (ed.) Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1975: pp. 157-210.

Scott, J.W. (1986) ‘Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis’, The American Historical Review. 91.5: pp. 1053-1075.

Carrell, S. (2025) ‘Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules’, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/16/critics-of-trans-rights-win-uk-supreme-court-case-over-definition-of-woman (Accessed on 18 Apr 2025)

Yu, T. (2006) ‘Challenging the Politics of the “Model Minority” Stereotype: A Case for Educational Equality’, Equity & Excellence in Education 39. 4: pp. 325-333.

Contextual Background 

I work on the Unit 10 module for dissertations across the Fashion, Jewellery, and Textile programme. To ensure parity, we use a process of double assessment: the primary supervisor is the first marker, and this is marked in relation to a secondary grader. If there are major discrepancies or disputes, the assessment is forwarded to a third marker, sometimes fourth. In this 24/25 co-hort, there was one dissertation that was marked with an A, B, and third mark of C – illuminating the problems of parity, judgment and subjectivity in the process.  

Evaluation 

What I have learned from this process and my own shifting patterns of assessment is how much the assessor’s experiences and relations shape the final mark. For example, in my first year, I abided by standards that were comparable to my own undergraduate education from a school that had a bell curve, and did not have more than one or two papers at an A. I was insecure about my authority, thus instead of reaching diplomatic conclusions about the final assessment, I was dogged about my opinions, perceiving discrepancies as a comment about my skillset. Now, in my fifth year of assessment, I rely heavily on diplomacy and the secondary eyes of experienced and inexperienced assessors. I always try to reach a medium ground. In the case mentioned now, however, I was the primary supervisor, and my own expert knowledge in the field compelled me to try to push the grade higher.  

Moving forwards 

Having now read more pedagogical theory on assessment itself, I am moving forward with an increased sense of ambivalence. I write about this in my final blog post, through Barrow’s work particularly, understanding how assessment acts a tool of discipline, that may or may not lead to the student’s resistance against the institution itself (2006). Oftentimes assessment reflects how the instruction was understood (see Barrow, 2006; William, 2011, p. 3); in the case of the dissertation, this would have taken place over the whole course of Cultural Studies, where we taught critical reading and research skills. There are also institutional power dynamics – constituted by colonial histories – which reward linguistic achievements (Broadfoot, 1996, p. 30), disproportionately undervaluing students that do not have English as a first language. Moving forward, I will ask more questions. 

Broadfoot argues that the debates for the reform of assessment practices reveal the ‘tension that exists between, for example, educational goals defined by industry and those of teaches’ (1996, p. 25). In my classes, the students largely prioritise practice-based learning, as their tutors in those pathways emphasise their vocational training. CSM as an institution is a source of talent for the fashion industry, which is an industry that seems to prefer obedient and uncritical workers. As someone who has worked in it, I saw first-hand how critical research skills, and understanding theory was necessary to make a strong practitioner. I witnessed too many problematic moments with designers and creative directors appropriating marginalised cultures, reinforcing sexism in the workplace, and misunderstanding capitalist directives. Assessment thus offers a check point to critical self-evaluation, but also reinforces capitalist relational dynamics of competition, ranking the students in an order that would reflect their plausible success in industry. It also can shape the possibilities for future trajectories as academics, should they want to pursue a postgraduate degree. 

Going forward, I think assessment of praxis would be an interesting step to push for, but unfortunately these lie in administrative conversations, which I have not been privy to. In the meantime, I think the opportunity for the students in the Unit 10 dissertation lies with the formative feedback, as it offers encouragement or critical intervention. 

Moving forward for me, is not necessarily about resolving this problem of parity, but rather I am seeking to understand how assessment works on an ideological level, so I can better understand and inform myself about how to practice assessment through critical engagement. There is not a clear quantifiable process for this, but rather to assert my own decolonial aims and practices as intervention into the institutional policies. This is how I aim to move forward.

References (additional to word count) 

Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, 31:3: pp. 357-372.

Broadfoot, P. (1996) Education, Assessment, and Society: A Sociological Analysis. Berkshire: Open University Press. 

William, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’ Studies in Educational Evaluation 37: pp. 3-14.

 

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: BA Design for Art Direction, Year 2, Semester 2, Art Direction Unit, Briefing and workshop

Size of student group: 55

Observer: Christin Yu

Observee: Adam Gibbons

 

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
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 a unit briefing session which will include a short check in, some information about the unit theme, timetable, and learning outcomes, followed by workshop tasks, led by myself with a colleague, Erik Hartin co-facilitating. In the latter part of the session, there will be a shared reading and discussion, followed by questions.

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

This is my first session with this group since their first semester of year 1.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

Familiarisation with the brief, introduction to active ludic research methods, agreement on terms of sessions

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

Students will make notes on the session and feed back orally.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Variety in language ability within the cohort, and variety of challenge in the language of the material we are exploring, my unfamiliarity with the group and any disabling factors which might affect certain students or groups of students.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students have been informed in advance via email, and will be reminded orally in person.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Clarity of instructions and ability to involve a range of participants.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Either in written form or through a conversation.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

As we entered the classroom, it was noted that there was a tight turnaround between the two classes, without much time for the physical preparation required to set up the classroom itself. I thought that you did a great job at imagining and executing a plan to accommodate this, as you offered the students an opportunity to engage with an icebreaker activity, while simultaneously setting up AV and reorganising the tables in a circular manner around the room itself. This physical layout was conducive to group conversation, as the students in each micro-cluster were able to view each other, while also having visual access to the screens and the convenors. 

There was a strong utility of communication practices, such as raising hands to signal a taught session or instruction was about to occur. It was a helpful opportunity to see how respect and boundaries can be established in the classroom, without being paternalistic or overly disciplinary. This was also highlighted and illuminated in the slide that established respectful practices, which was inclusionary in tone, and participatory – allowing the students to interject and add. 

As an initial session in a module which explores the theme of ‘Comfort’, there were effective and affective demonstrations of the theme through the learning activities. One of the main exercises asked the students to initially work in their groups to order a stack of words associated with comfort and then to reconvene in the larger group to order them as well. I appreciated the discussion of organisational strategies beyond the chronological. There was a session that employed physical movements, which I noted in our follow-up discussion. The movement itself perhaps engaged with the student’s own positionality through an embodied physical experience. For some, it also placed them into discomfort – I noticed that the students were more apprehensive about getting up and moving about under the gaze of their fellow students. In my notes I asked: 

• What was the hopeful outcome of this exercise? 
  • Physical standing seemed to make the session more boisterous, but the directive was to gain order and participation, what skills did this develop? 
  • How can you alleviate some of the apprehension of participation? (This was perhaps when you discussed discomfort, which I thought was a valuable way to understand the theme itself!)

Finally, some last suggestions and thoughts arose from the description of terms that were crucial to final project. In the introduction of ‘digital assets’ and ‘publications’, I noted that I had trouble understanding what ‘assets’ meant. I wondered whether there was an opportunity to develop an activity alongside the definition which signalled whether the students understood the concept or not. How do you verify comprehension of taught terms and the project itself? 

Part Three

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

The feedback I received has been very helpful and affirming, particularly in relation to the structure and tone of the session. 

I set out to prioritise community building and connection between students in this first session of the unit, as well as between students and staff. This was the intention of using the themed icebreaker slide. Adopting the method of having a slide ready for students to engage with on entering the space has worked well this term on subsequent occasions as well, and it’s becoming a routine that students are more and more familiar with. It is a welcome formula to employ in relation to the obstacle of challenging room management/timetabling – one session always starting at the same time as one ends, and 100 people have to navigate two small entrances to the room – as well as timekeeping, providing meaningful activity for those arriving at the start, and alleviating pressure for students and staff. By planning not to make the beginning of the session too front loaded, thereby alienating any latecomers, this method contributes to an inclusive approach as well as providing an opportunity to engage with concepts related to the project.

It was also affirming to receive positive feedback around inclusive communication practices within the studio such as non-verbal communication and the Agreements and Aspirations slide that we explored as a group in a non-hierarchical way.

I’m pleased to hear that the teaching materials – the printed and laminated lists of terms relating to histories, materials, policies and innovations around the theme of comfort – provided such a range of possible interactions from students. The note about different ways of ordering them was helpful input, reminding me that I can keep exploring the other ways a single, simple teaching material can be adapted to fulfil various enquiries and learning outcomes. 

Considering the various dynamics that were observed, where students appeared more or less comfortable with different sections of the exercise, I’m mindful of the challenges described in Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens’: From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces (2013), in which they report students making “a conflation of safety with comfort”.  In the chapter Conflictin Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom (2010) bell hooks observes the conditions under which students find ways to enter uncertain territories, and in her book Imperfect Solidarities (2024) Aruna D’Souza makes an argument for the right to opacity via Edouard Glissant’s post-colonial theories.

Alongside these influences, I was reflecting that experiencing discomfort can be a gateway to gaining new perspectives and knowledge, as well as a theme to explore through both intellectual and embodied means and perhaps working towards the conditions for brave spaces should be an aspiration if the discourse is seeking to include an exploration of social justice.

I’ve been offered feedback on a couple of occasions that it would help to have a clearer sense of where tasks would lead participants, and this is an aspect of session planning that I’m trying to develop; improving the constructive alignment between brief, workshop task, learning outcomes and materials submitted for assessment.

The feedback about checking for comprehension is welcome, and I have gone on to follow up on this in subsequent sessions, as well as being more mindful of specialist vocabulary and encouraging students to highlight unfamiliar terms and bring them to discussions.

After filling out this form out to share ahead of the observation I was able to reflect more on what the learning outcomes for the session were: Knowledge, Process, and Communication.

• Students becoming familiar with terms related to the theme of comfort using various ordering methods
• Students entering into ludic group activities
• Students being able to explore and express ideas in small and larger groups
• Students becoming familiar with each other, their tutors and the structure of the unit

References:

Arao, B. and Clemens, K. (2013) From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice. In: Landreman, L.M. (ed.), The Art of Effective Facilitation, Routledge  

D’Souza, A. (2024) Imperfect Solidarities. Floating Opera Press 

hooks, b. (2010) Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. Routledge

Contextual Background 

I co-run a module on that is part of a multi-pathway program with MA Fashion Histories and Theories, MA Fashion Image and MA Fashion Communications students. The course itself is called ‘Re-imagining Fashion Histories: Tracing Parallel Cosmologies’ and culminates in a group presentation that asks the students to imagine an alternative future or world that addresses the problems of the current moment. Last year, the presentations lacked research rigor and creative imaginings; this year, the discussions have been fraught with political tension.

Evaluation 

To tackle, what we perceived as the apathy of the student body, my co-convenor and I spent time in the first session to deliver a robust project brief. This included examples of imagining Otherwise from makers, artists and practitioners, who both sought to envision into a future, but also retrieved mythologies from the past. The project was originally derived from Amy Twigger Holroyd’s Fashion Fictions (Holroyd, 2021-2023), which we referenced, but we adapted our version to emphasise frameworks of coloniality and alternative temporalities. This helped the students to deliver robustly researched projects this year. However, we were challenged with tensions between students who grew up in America as racialised people. One student had voiced sentiments that agitated several members in the class, regarding cultural appropriation and racialised violence. I was advised by a student after the class that I should have shut down the conversation, but there were several students who had their hands up and wanted to participate in the discussion.  

Moving forwards 

Now in the second year and second iteration, I feel that the initial problems of apathy were effectively motivated by a clear project brief that demonstrated examples from alternative imaginings. We also revised some of the seminar readings to ensure accessibility, and it seemed that the students were much more engaged with the theoretical underpinnings of the module itself. In my first case study, I wrote about the privilege of being in an arts classroom, and my surprise this year of having to moderate and yield agitating perspectives, but this is undoubtedly a reflection of the political polarisation around the world. 

John Palfrey asks: ‘Must a community tolerate intolerance in the name of free expression?’ (Ibargüen IN Palfrey, 2017, iv), which reflected my own questions as I heard in the aftermath of one such class that one of the students was crying in the bathroom. The student who had advised me that I should have shut down the conversation was a racialised student and asked why these teachings of colonial histories have to bear so much more weight upon the racialised students. I wondered whether the opportunity to learn from tense conversations should outweigh the trauma that particular students could face. Lee Bollinger’s tolerance theory ‘holds that the act of forgiving those who express hurtful views develops empathy and strength in those who forgive’ (Palfrey, 2017, p. 119), thus I conclude that having these conversations is not only necessary, but learning how to mitigate differences is a crucial learning outcome. The problem is also time itself – should the module have taken place over ten weeks, rather than five, perhaps some of these tensions could have been productively debated. 

In the future, I will plan to incorporate histories of discussion in the classroom, including Palfrey’s strategies for mitigation. Perhaps an oversight was our understanding of the discussion abilities of an MA co-hort. In my last session, I gathered that the students felt apprehensive about critiquing group projects wanting to encourage each other instead. If discussion skills were taught in the first session alongside the delivery of the project brief, and then simultaneously encouraged with each successive seminar, then perhaps each student would feel empowered to mitigate when tense conversations and viewpoints arise. 

References 
Holroyd, A.T. (2021-2023). Fashion Fictions. [online] Available at: https://amytwiggerholroyd.com/Fashion-Fictions [Accessed 12 Mar. 2025].

Palfrey, J (2018) Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Patchworking an Otherwise (MA Fashion Module)

Size of student group: 53

Observer: Adam Gibbons

Observee: Christin Yu

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
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?

The session is called ‘Patchworking an Otherwise’ (or Re-existing Decolonial Worlds through Patchwork) and focuses on building autoethnographic practices through objects. It is part of a five-week module titled ‘Re-imagining Fashion Histories: Tracing Parallel Cosmologies’, which teaches a cross-pathway curriculum between MA Fashion Image, Fashion Journalism and Fashion Histories and Theories. The session initially explores autoethnography through my own research practices, presenting decolonial theory and patchwork as a relational framework that sutures together histories that have been fragmented, but will lead into a praxis of autoethnographic writing and engagement. The end of the session will allow the students to engage with their group work/presentation via object/archive imaginings.

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

This session is the fourth week in a five-week programme. The last two sessions were taught by outside practitioners, but I have a familiarity now with the students. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

An opportunity to develop autoethnographic research methods, which may or may not be employed in their final project. It is an opportunity for the students to engage with learning through emotion. The aim is for the students to develop LO Enquiry (through a development of decolonial theory and how to employ it, LO Knowledge (through a framework of decolonial theory), LO Process (by engaging in the writing processes and how to engage with autoethnography), LO Realisation (by developing training to employ autoethnography as a research method) and finally LO Communication (by giving the opportunity for the students to share their writing with others, and receive possible feedback).

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

The students will produce a piece of writing that engages with autoethnographic research, which may potentially be used in the imagining of their alternative world (see project brief).

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

The difficulty of sharing personal experiences – potential ground to expose vulnerabilities and traumas that may not be anticipated, moreover, to predict the sensitives that we may have both sharing and receiving those kinds of stories. In the past, some students have had difficult in engaging with themselves because they think that it is not a legitimate or objective form of knowledge collecting. 

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will make an announcement at the beginning of the session, ensuring that the students know I will be under observation and not the students. 

What would you particularly like feedback on?

My sessions sometimes engage with dense theory, I would like to gain an understanding of its accessibility. 

How will feedback be exchanged?

In person or via email.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

The room was nicely prepared with a large shared table in front of a projection screen and concentric rings of chairs around it. An introductory slide with the session title was on the screen as students arrived.

There was a welcoming atmosphere as students came into the session. Your introduction of key, session-specific terms – autoethnography, patchwork – was clear and set the tone for the session – you came across as very comfortable with the terms and theories you were introducing, and your confidence provided a sense of security for the students to rest in.

From the beginning you went directly into delivery of lecture material. 

• I wondered if there could be an opportunity to cushion the introduction to bring the group together. A check-in of some sort maybe?

Nonetheless, the students seem to be on board with diving straight in. Throughout your lecture you provided useful prompts, repeatedly inviting responses from students – “what does this connote?”, “What is it in its physical form?”, and reinforcing the language of the lecture, connecting the idea of Patchwork in relation to history. 

When gathering student responses you reflected-back student’s observations, which seemed like a really effective way to consolidate responses. You used affirming language with students and implied an Invitation for curiosity through this process. 

There were a lot of responses from students throughout. The back and forth dialogical approach you fostered held the session. 

• I was impressed by how you moved dynamically from leadership position to co-teaching position and back to leading.

The structure of the lecture modelled the storytelling themes that underpinned the session. It unfolded in neat chapters or sections, introducing ideas incrementally, beginning from a close image reading and bringing out a language of material culture in the rich description of images from the Missionary Exhibition. 

• I had some trouble catching the session plan slide and would have appreciated being talked through it more.

• It felt as though energy dropped a bit in the second part of the talk – and in response to this a 5-minute reflective writing task was helpful to shift this dynamic.

• I was asking myself if this task could have benefitted from more direction, some modelling of the task perhaps? However, students adapted well to occupying a feeling of uncertainty and responded openly to the feelings that the exercise brought up for them.

You directed students to explore the positionality that comes out of self-reflective writing practice and went on to add compassionate language around this – accepting that students might want to protect themselves and maintain boundaries between public and private thoughts, expressions. 

I was conscious that sessions of this sort with a large volume of information being transmitted require a lot of concentration energy, and that the interactive dynamic and empathetic atmosphere that you encouraged provided an environment which allowed for a lot of ground to be covered and for students to remain highly engaged.

Part Three

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

Thank you Adam, for the helpful feedback and enriching comments. 

I arrived to the room that morning prior to meeting you in order to set the room up in a semi-circle around the table. In the past, my co-convenor and I, have spoken about the class size in relation to the space of the classroom, so we already had several sessions to structure the setting.

As the materials were derived from my thesis research, the terms were well-trodden ground, as I have had to present and share them in many different capacities and to different audiences. I enjoy teaching on the MA module, because the theoretical language can be too dense for BA classes. 

I will reflect upon introductory exercises. There was plenty of time in the session itself, so perhaps an icebreaker might be helpful as the students always seem to filter in at varied points of time. Our previous sessions were quite dense in their theoretical frameworks, so I was imagining the theoretical delivery was already practiced. But perhaps I can introduce a framework that might be an easier way into the materials. 

I did admittedly gloss over the session plan, as I think I have become used to sessions organically unfolding in that particular class. But I also understand how important it is for the students to be able to anticipate when they will be able to take a break. I have been trying to grapple with different techniques between timed sessions and improvisational sessions. Perhaps my overreliance on my ability to read the class could be alleviated with a timed session plan. I will make sure to focus on the schedule and mapping out a plan for the students ahead of the class in the future. 

The openness of the task and the uncertainty of the reflective writing exercise are intended provocations to encourage students to think about the difficulty or the connotations of what it means to write research. As the discussion hopefully highlighted, I wanted the students to think about what it means to write ‘objectively’, and also to think about how they were conditioned to writing for an audience. My previous classes engaging with autoethnography have challenged the students to think about the value of their own stories. I will reflect on the comment and perhaps think about adding more directions while maintaining the openness. Perhaps I can run back-to-back writing exercises, one with structure and one without, reflecting on their differences.

The density of the theoretical materials is something that we spoke about when we unpacked the session together. I was thinking about this more recently, sitting in on a lecture that was too dense to follow. I will think about how to break up the session with small containable sections that unpack the theory, perhaps paring it down with exercises.  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Seminar on Gender/Sex/Sexuality

Size of student group: 24

Observer: Karen Matthewman-

Observee: Christin Yu

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
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?

The session will review content from the lecture delivered prior to the seminar on Gender, Sex and Sexuality. The component will introduce the students to seminar practices, the course outline, deliver an introduction to the learning outcomes of the session, and build practices of discussion. The seminar itself, and its slides are built on course materials built by the lecturer this morning, Nicola McCartney. 

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

This will be the first session working with the group, although some of the students may have been a part of my Annotated Bibliography sessions. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

To review the lecture materials, and the review the set reading. Although the session will largely be an introduction to the fellow students, and the course materials. 

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

The anticipated outcome is to develop seminar skills – mainly inclusive discussion formats. Their gained understanding of the theory will help to build the essay which is due at the end of the course. 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

While the session is scaffolded around the seminar slides, the first session always takes longer with introductions. 

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will introduce the students to you (Karen) at the beginning of the session, ensuring that I will be reviewed/observed and not the students. 

What would you particularly like feedback on?

N/A

How will feedback be exchanged?

Via email – unless Karen suggests otherwise

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

The Learning outcomes and context were expressed clearly before the session so I could picture what I was coming into. I will first outline what I observed, and then make a few possible suggestions, points to reflect on or questions. These are not to say ‘you should have done it differently’ but more to ponder as you move forward with this and similar classes and make choices about how to meet the outcomes you have.

The space: This was one of the small CSM seminar type spaces. Always a tight squeeze, and in addition because it is in a creative area, lots of ‘stuff’ to negotiate as well as tables and chairs including, rather puzzlingly, a large bag of sharp sand spilling onto the floor and a big tray of dying plants. There was also a tutor who had run a little late still in the classroom collecting his stuff. This reminded me so much of many lessons I have had at UAL. The issues of shared space, and how we make the best of it, with so much out of our control in terms of the set up and no time to ‘make it our own’. 

You did well to maximise the space, and students were sitting in a horseshoe around a large bank of tables with the screen in front of them. A few stragglers came late but most were ready. You spent the first five minutes setting up your slides and getting ready for the session. The students were generally looking at their devices or chatting quietly as the lesson was about to start. 

You welcomed the students and as it was the first session took time to orient the students to the assessment, and the resources on Moodle. You told the students about the purpose of the seminars- to focus on the content of the lectures and building towards the assessment essay task, and you signposted some supplementary resources through Moodle. The discussion started about 10 minutes into the session. 

You asked the students anti-clockwise to introduce themselves as well as saying something about their reaction to the lecture. You told them they didn’t need to say anything apart from their name if they didn’t want to. The first students were a little uncertain as to what to say and kept their input short or chose to pass. The discussion got warmed up and contributions became longer and more insightful. This turned into a real discussion, where issues around gender and identity, politics, personal gender and sexuality issues, family all were introduced. The introductions slowed as discussion moved backwards and forwards not continuing around the circle until you prompted the introductions to continue. I left after 45 minutes when the introductions had still not been completed. I am interested to know how the session wrapped up.

My reflections

The students seemed comfortable with you and were able to express quite challenging and personal opinions without fear. I think you definitely created a ‘brave space’. As I didn’t see a lesson plan with timings, I am not sure if this went according to plan. For a future observation a rough timed plan might be useful as it helps see the shape of the class.

There is nothing wrong with a discussion in this format taking the whole lesson. There were students who dominated and some who said little to nothing. That is also OK- listening is also participation and some students take longer to warm up. If you wanted to bring more students in and maximise discussion time you could bring in a few strategies. I will set out a few ideas.

While you are setting the slide up you could give students 5 minutes to work in pairs, introduce each other and find 1 thing in common that they found interesting from the lecture. If you think pairs are risky as one might not have seen the lecture then you could increase the groups to three. This would get students working while you are setting up but also help those who don’t like speaking in a large group to get involved. (This is an activity called Think, Pair, Share) The feedback could then be quicker, as each small group could share their one common discussion point with the whole group, and the introduction might also be quicker and more focused, giving you time to do something else in the session.  

You said that one aim was to teach ‘seminar skills’. I only saw one short section, so I am wondering about how this could happen in ongoing sessions. I wonder if some shared seminar ‘etiquette’ could be discussed, along with what ‘engagement’ looks like. You could introduce ideas of active listening and ‘reflecting back’.  It was clear some students were doing this already e.g. ‘I liked what A said about …. And I agree with…”. Perhaps after the discussion these things could be noted as good practice. You could also point out what you noticed about some students dominating, and ask how they think this might be addressed. You could also discuss the idea of critical friends, the power of words, and not saying things likely to hurt or make people feel ‘othered’ (noted what happened after I left!). The idea that an act of speech equals engagement /participation can also be challenged. Can n act of writing be active participation? What about forming a question? What about finding three key words from the lecture?

You brought in some great literature and thoughts as the students were talking. I wondered if they would remember these and how you might record them. You could have a little chart or notebook and return to them at the end of the class, making sure these were noted by the students for reference later.  

Perhaps think going forward about different ways to set up the discussions each week. You could:

• Share key words/ concepts from the lecture and ask students to rank them/ discuss them/ choose one to present on/ put them in their own sentences. 
• Mix writing reading and speaking tasks- a class could begin with 10 minutes of free writing about the lecture or making notes ready to prepare. You could ask a few students to share questions.
• Give a small group (maybe three students) the task of coming up with some questions to be discussed from the lecture each week.

Preparing a non-slide-dependent icebreaker at the beginning of each session might also engage the students but also give you setting up time that you need if you are using slides.

In conclusion I really enjoyed coming into this class- it felt like a privilege to share such brave, original and honest refection on the issues raised in the lecture. You created a warm, scholarly and honest space. I hope my reflections have been helpful and I look forward to hearing what you think. 

Part Three

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

Thank you, Karen, for the kind and helpful feedback. 

I did want to preface my response to the feedback by writing initially about the course, the team, and the structure of teaching. I am a seminar leader in a co-teaching Cultural Studies team, meaning that there are a team of six with varied specialism that both deliver lectures and moderate seminars. Our delivery for these specific seminars are planned from lecture materials and templates that are offered by the designated lecturer on the Thursday previously (which includes me on some weeks). These seminar slides offer various activities, from listing key words, to working with partners to unpack lecture content, to working in groups of three to develop critical readings. Our continued discussions within the team have highlighted how these prepared slides and activities offer parity for the separate groups. My own teaching aims to privilege discussion practices; I seldomly ‘teach’ in the traditional way, as I think that seminars, separate from lectures, should offer students spaces and opportunities for conversation.

Scheduling and room layout seems to be a consistent unknown in the initial delivery of the seminar – that is, the first seminar always comes with a bit of tech management and spatial organization. As you mentioned, there was someone occupying the space for a bit overtime. I think with the observation and the initial unfamiliarity with the new set up and seminar group, I was admittedly flustered, trying to welcome students into the classroom while also setting up the materials. I will prepare an icebreaker exercise to occupy the students while I was managing the technical set up in the future.

When I initially started working on this team, I had a much more rigid structure of organization to my timings and lesson plans. As I have developed my teaching practices, and my own expertise with the theoretical materials, I have rid myself of the timed plan, as I want to students to maximize their comprehension with the questions and conversations they develop. There were dominating students, and quieter ones, but as the seminars have progressed, the quieter voices have been contributing, and I have tried to moderate and contain the dominating voices. One problem that was emerging was the digression to the extremely personal, but I have now encouraged the students to develop their insights and comments through the theoretical materials, which seems to be working. 

I have now introduced activities for the students to work in pairs and small groups. My hope also was that the familiarity of the students, attending each week, would encourage the quieter students to feel safer contributing in the larger group discussion. This seems to be the case, with the quieter students becoming active contributors.

I will take on the advice about teaching seminar skills and etiquette in the future, as I tried to fold this into the middle of the sessions (around seminar three). The active listening and reflecting back aspects are also important skills to learn, and I sometimes forget that for some of the students, this may be the first time that they have engaged with a seminar. In the past, I have been weary to point out the dominating students, as I feel pained to minimize their contributions, but I think for the health of the overall discussion, I need to assert my authority to create an atmosphere where it is not normalized. In the past, I have used writing activities, but they have not been as effective as the conversations generated; there is also a writing activity, and other complimentary classes which focus on writing. I think this seminar is really an opportunity to develop discussion: clarifying, unpacking the theoretical materials, and complicating them.

You highlighted an important point about the references that I make as the students are talking. I will discuss good note-taking skills. Some of the students have followed up by asking about the references, but more than anything, getting the theorists names out there, for them to hear repetitively, I think is important. 

Between working on assessments, thinking about my assessment in this module (moderated by comments about how my writing needs to be more reflective, and foreground myself), and reading about assessment, I have grown more ambivalent about assessment.  For the final taught session of our PgCert spring semester, I elected to read Mark Barrow’s ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, which explores assessment through Foucauldian lenses. The reading describes how learning in the institution and assessment itself can be a tool of discipline. More optimistically, it can lead the student to self-reflection and self-examination. This latter stage, theorised through Foucault’s technologies of the self, imagines that students can build an attitude or understanding of the institutional practices of education, leading individuals to critique the limits imposed on them (as students) (Foucault, 1997 b, p. 319 IN Barrow, 2006, p. 367). Education, ideally, will facilitate these eye-opening processes, allowing students to see the power systems that are part of the institution, empowering them to resist the structures imposed upon them. 

In my conversations with Karen, who has been a supportive advisor, I have been recommended to edit my writing to ensure that I am focused on my reflections, instead of composing the entries as essays or arguments. In my own lessons, I teach students how to unpack critical arguments in theoretical texts, building an understanding of their practices and culture at large through these conceptual frameworks, with the aim of developing their own critical abilities through writing. I am interested in interrogating power and offering decolonial strategies, but I am once again confronted with this goal of submission and assessment. Submission – what a double entendre – submitting the final assignment and submitting to the calls of the institution. 

I grew up in an environment where marks mattered. This was shaped from my own parents’ upbringings in South Korea where Confucian meritocratic systems were metered by quantifiable learning outcomes. I was conditioned and socialised from a young age to believe that higher marks led to some inherent value within myself, and this was anxiety-inducing. I am an adult now, and I understand that this is the disciplining ideology of education systems at play, but I nonetheless have a voice in my head that is shaped by this social conditioning and learned perfectionism. So I have a choice between submitting to institutional demands to get higher marks or to submit what I want to write about. I often think about the time that Rage Against the Machine was asked to refrain from using swear words during their performance on the BBC. It was an iconic moment, where an institution that moderated itself through the politeness of civil society asked a radically political band to censor their own lyrics. Of course it went awry. I think those acts are called for under the bleak times.

Works Cited

Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, 31:3: pp. 357-372.

Timed Session Plan

Introduction to the aim of the session, which is to explore the multiplicities of our perspectives and our viewpoints in forming knowledge about an object

• Map out session: object observation, discussion
• I will go into a brief history that situates my teaching practices, but if you don’t understand some of these words, please let me know. Oftentimes in the academia, or in the world, we are meant to understand these linguistic or vocabulary trends and turns, such as decolonising curriculum, without understanding what these terms mean. I think it’s important to unlock their meaning and history, instead of assuming comprehension.

Slide 2 (4-5 minute session):

1. Ask someone in class to volunteer an object
2. Divide tasks of knowledge collection: 2-3 people engaged in descriptive analysis; 1 person engaged in extra-textual online research; volunteer engaging in knowledge that is solely derived from one’s relation to that object
3. Show padlet QR code

Slide 3 (preliminary discussion 5 minutes):

1. What do we notice of the observations?
2. Are they easy to categorise?
3. What was difficult about the assignment?

Slide 4+: Teaching Component (5 minutes)

1. Unpacking the session alongside the theory that supported the activity

Key Decisions

            This session was scaffolded around my introduction to material culture, autoethnography and evocative objects workshops, building upon activities and theories which I planned to build with discursive participation, object-based research and collaborative knowledge production. In this activity, I explored the relation between vision and objectivity, emotional learning, familial memory and pluralities of knowing (see Jay, 1988; Crewe, Woodham, and Golyn, 2019; DeRocher, 2018). Initially, I asked a participant to volunteer their personal belonging. This was crucial to highlight the differences between knowing an unknown thing through observation, and an emotionally connected object. Each participant was then asked to review the object through their varied lenses, creating a composite profile of the object. After the session of observation, I offered an unpacking of the exercise through the framework of theory, which led into a brief discussion before running over time.

How the session unfolded/feedback

            The session largely unfolded as I anticipated, with the some of the participants observing what was the unknown object through visual language. In unpacking the observations, I illuminated how modernity forged a hierarchy of senses through visuality, folding in Martin Jay’s concepts around scopic regimes and cartesian perspectivalism into the explanation (Jay, 1988). One feedback comment was that the density of the theory required more time to unpack. I acknowledge this as one of the main challenges to teaching theory. It requires not only a concise explanation of the dense terms, but time to distill and retain the knowledge. In my longer sessions, theory is not only supported by an exercise, and an explanation, but an assigned seminar reading to enrich the learning outcomes. Unfortunately, theory often is difficult to unpack, and I too acknowledge that it needs a longer amount of time to understand. It often requires multiple sessions, building concepts in relation to one another,. I found that the time restrictions of this timed activity was reflective of the restrictions of the unit constraints. Time seems to be a problem when it comes to developing theoretical comprehension. It is also an issue that I do not know how to resolve, as like many of the other issues highlighted in the PgCert sessions, it seems increasingly an institutional problem. And I don’t think the solution is to dilute the theory. I think paring down the theory itself may be helpful, and I will make sure to fold it through tangible examples related to the everyday.

            One aspect that threw me slightly off in the conversation was one participant’s insistance that the way we see, through what I explained as cartesian perspectivalism and the camera obscura, was the way we see the world. It was my argument, drawn from Jay and other scholars, that this singular way of seeing the world was defined by power systems, but I was confronted with a confidence that I did not anticipate (see Jay, 1988 and Crary, 1988). I unfortunately had no time to fully unpack and address the comment. One challenge of the activity was the push and pull between my timed session and facilitating discussion. I always seem to privilege the latter and perhaps do not get through the materials that I have scheduled, which also reflects the practices of my own sessions often. I moved on to draw upon research on family archives and collective knowledge practices to map how our relation to objects enriches or complicates our knowledge and understanding through emotional histories. One feedback comment was that highlighting family archives could be alienating and excluding for people who didn’t have families. In my own sessions, the theories of the family archive are nestled within multiple other kinds of frameworks that we may read objects through. I acknowledge this potential for exclusion, and will ensure that going forward if my sessions are condensed into one or two theories, I will choose more inclusionary frameworks. I continued to write about this microteaching in another blog post, where I thought about play and how it was vital for creative practices. 

References

Crary, J. (1988) ‘Modernizing Vision’, in Vision and Visuality. Ed by. Foster, H. Seattle: Bay Press.

Crewe, V.A., Woodham, A., Gloyn, E. et al. (2019) ‘We are what we keep: The “family archive”, identity and public/private heritage.’ Heritage and Society, 10 (3). pp. 203-220.

DeRocher, P. (2018) Transnational Testimonios: The Politics of Collective Knowledge Production. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press

Martin, J. (1988) ‘Scopic Regimes of Modernity’ in Vision and Visuality. Ed by. Foster, H. Seattle: Bay Press.

Contextual Background (c.50 words): 

I teach Cultural Studies seminars for first-year students on Fashion, Jewellery and Textiles, who represent a diversity of ages, cultural backgrounds and life experiences. Seminars encourage the students to not only participate, but to develop the skills for discussion itself (see Herman and Nilson, 2018, p. 4). Two sessions have passed for this year’s co-hort, and already there are voices that are beginning to dominate, sharing personal experiences that lead the students away from the core theoretical discussion. I need to facilitate building a space where all the students can feel confident to participate, while also focusing on the theory.   

Evaluation (c.100 words):

To encourage participation and opportunities to discuss and unpack the theoretical issues, each seminar begins by asking each student, who are arranged in a circle, whether they have a question, comment or provocation about the week’s materials. Set as a weekly practice, this aims to encourage the quieter students to be able to prepare to participate; although, I do not enforce the need to contribute. In the first week, I forged this practice through an introduction of names. I seem to have an uncanny memory for names, which I have found makes the students feel seen, while encouraging accountability for their participation. Sometimes though I feel that I privilege the students’ comfort and empowerment over driving the conversation forward through theory, feeling weary of using my authority to moderate conversations, when it is increasingly necessary.

Moving forwards (c.350 words) 

My understanding of discussion is better informed by Herman and Nilson who argue that learning takes place in conversations of differences and disagreements (p. 13). The privilege of teaching at an arts institution has not been felt so fully to me, until this year, when I have had to yield and moderate comments about not accepting they/them pronouns and positive racism (whatever this means). These kinds of comments are indicative of the pushback against, what I read as decolonial ideas, and seem also reflective of the community at large. With seminars taking place each week, my initial strategy was to establish confidence, openness, and empathy within the classroom before moderating and critiquing the contributions. However, with these behaviours now reiteratively emerging, and perhaps becoming normalised, I need to develop my own authority as a lecturer to challenge these kinds of comments, and also to empower others to do so as well. 

My strategies for moving forward are informed by pedagogical research that addresses discussion and strategies for Gen Z students and narcissists who ‘treat the discussion as a social’ (Herman and Nilson, 2018, p. 38; also see Camfield and Bayers, 2023). While I am weary to use this pathologizing latter term, I do want to treat the repetitive behaviour of a couple of voices that seem to constantly discuss familial histories, and personal anecdotes that are largely unrelated or tangentially related to the themes. Following Herman’s and Nilson’s outline for good discussion, I aim to 1. Reiterate the learning outcomes: a final assessment that needs to unpack theory in relation to an example; 2. Converse about good discussion practices; 3. Moderate and build non-violent communication practices (see meenadchi, 2018). 

With the students working toward a 1500-word essay, that requires them to understand theory, I need to reinforce the learning outcomes in the discussion as well. In my next session, I will facilitate a 5-minute conversation about good discussion practices, build a constitution to moderate discussion, and finally introduce some firm rules to moderate the conversation from digressing. I will ask that the comments need to be qualified or justified through the applicable theory. I will ask the students to assert their ‘opinions’ and personal reflections as arguments that draw upon the course materials to support the perspectives. 

References (additional to word count) 

Camfield, E. and Bayers, L. (2023) ‘From Antagonist to Protagonist: Shifting the Stories to 

Support Gen Z Students’, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Vol. 23, No. 2: pp. 1-14.

Herman, J. and Nilson, L. (2018) Creating Engaging Discussion: Strategies for “Avoiding Crickets” in Any Size Classroom and Online. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

meenadchi (2021) Decolonizing Non-Violent Communication, 3^rd ed. Los Angeles: Feminist Center for Creative Work.

Figure 1 Blistered palm from micro-teaching session by Tanya Noor. February 5, 2025. London College of Communication. Photo is author’s own.

We began our collective micro-teaching session by making blisters on our palms. Tanya, who teaches make-up and special effects at LCF, prepared her microteaching by handing out palettes of wax and paints, initially demonstrating to us the process of creating these grotesque wounds (fig. 1). In my own research I am interested skin and the openings of porous surfaces; and the act of making this wound filled me, and seemingly the group, with joy. This was followed by a session experimenting with different yarns and cords, making our individual interpretations of fabrics. Without the constraint of needing to develop a desired outcome, the session’s timed limitation was creatively freeing. I identified what I was missing and yearning for: play.

Transported to my own childhood classrooms, I remembered the tangible skills that I developed through touch-based learning. In my own session, I explored the scopic regime of modernity. As a concept and theoretical framework, modernity sets the foundation for modernization through a logic that privileges linear progress through rationality, sciences, and technologies. The framework is complicated, but I derive my understanding from decolonial scholars that see this as inextricable from coloniality (see Mignolo and Walsh, 2018). Modern development was driven by resource exploitation, genocide, and human enslavement, setting the foundation for world as we know it today, through the invention of racial capitalism, gendered inequalities, class disparities, able-bodism, and so on. Modernity sought to privilege the visual, losing sense of touch-based, emotional, and other knowledge systems (see Jay, 1988). 

The feedback to my session was encouraging and illuminating. This session was adapted from methodological sessions I run on object analysis, thus it was helpful to receive feedback on the connection between experiencing objects and theory. Comments also noted the desire for the session to be longer as the information was quite dense, and the alienating potential of working with familial histories. In my own teaching practice, the family history component is one theory amongst several that are offered as frameworks to further explore, but it was a helpful comment nonetheless to highlight the need for inclusive sensitivities. As part of the Cultural Studies team, and contextual history/study component, my work is often framed as a theoretical component. However, I was a practitioner in my previous life, and I had forgotten how much creativity and play delighted me.

I conclude this reflection with a desire to investigate play in pedagogy. Importantly, how integral the role of this is to creativity in learning itself. While a survey of Google Scholar reveals research that explores the relevance of play in early childhood education, I aim to explore further the radical potential of the term. Perhaps otherwise known in its adult form of leisure, it seems to be an antithesis to the outcome-driven capitalist society of today.

Works Cited

Jay, M. (1988) ‘Scopic Regimes of Modernity’ in Vision and Visuality. Ed by. Foster, H. Seattle: Bay Press.

Walsh, C., and Mignolo, W. (2018) On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.