Orr & Shreeve (2017) provide a valuable breakdown of pedagogic practices, offering a structured way to evaluate my own teaching methods. I appreciate the clarity of their framework, which defines common arts teaching strategies in an accessible way. By using this article as a reflective tool, I can assess my current teaching approaches and identify some areas of growth. I have broken down how I currently structure my workshops and the changes I have been making after reflecting on this article and other readings from the PgCert. 

My Role as a Media Technician

My responsibilities include:

• Delivering workshops on camera and lighting equipment for Lv4 – Lv7 students.
• Teach lighting and cinematography techniques for Film & TV BA and MA courses.
• Manage studio spaces and support students outside of workshops.

Current Workshop Model

1. Learning Objectives – I start the session by defining the goals of each session 
2. Contextualization – Explain the industry application of the equipment or technique.
3. Demonstration – Use a ‘show and tell’ approach for hands-on engagement.
4. Practice – Assign exercises to reinforce technical skills.
5. Reflection – Conclude with peer discussions on key takeaways.

Here is an example of my current workshop breakdown and slides, for a LV 4 class:

Workshop Breakdown – https://docs.google.com/document/d/17neFYYR5SzwLMYqMEdzld9PC9bYWp_FCYv9De3-6_ug/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.rv0asgj75d0d 

Slides for Workshop – https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YPsXOjouRCEndtMW-LFlohs0D3oSmfYJDZ372k4E-xk/edit?usp=sharing 

Workshop Improvements & Implementation

After reviewing these teaching strategies, I have begun to action these changes:

• Embedding reflective activities: I now allocate time for students to consider their learning progress. Using Amulya’s (2004) model, I encourage peer discussions where students articulate their key takeaways to a partner, reinforcing their knowledge.
• Peer-to-Peer Learning –  I have been starting my sessions with paired activities where students explain equipment setup to each other. This promotes collaborative learning and helps me identify students needing additional support. 
• Improvements to interdepartmental communication – This year the technical and academic team have started to hold a review of each unit’s performance. In this forum I’ve asked to have more of an input and to be given access to the units guide. This way I can accurately research what equipment we should purchase and have some autonomy on how this best integrates with the learning pathways of the students.

By implementing these changes, I aim to foster a learning environment where technical knowledge is embedded in experience, aligning with Amulya’s (2004) principle that ‘knowledge is created through the process of active reflection’ (p. 4). I have already begun to see positive results, increasing student engagement and retention. Moving forward, I will continue refining my workshops to support deeper learning and better integration with academic content. 

Future Professional Development:

To continue improving my teaching, I plan to:

• Engage more deeply with pedagogical theory, exploring student-centered learning approaches in technical education.
• Seek professional development opportunities, such as external industry training, to ensure my technical knowledge remains current.
• Develop structured resource materials, including online tutorials, to support students outside of workshop time.

REF’s 

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A., 2017. Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. London: Routledge. 

Amulya, J., 2004.What is Reflective Practice? Center for Reflective Community Practice, MIT.

In our third TPP workshop, we spent significant time discussing assessment and how critique is used in our work. As a technician, I am not heavily involved in determining when technical skills are introduced within the courses I support. However, in my time working in higher education, I have noticed a recurring pattern in how university modules are structured. Typically, each year progresses with an increase in either the quality or quantity of equipment available to students.

This structure of equipment progression serves two main purposes. Firstly, it mitigates the inevitable student demand for “more equipment” as they advance through the course. By creating a clear incentive—where access to higher-end equipment is gradually unlocked—staff can manage expectations. If students at Levels 4 and 5 express dissatisfaction with equipment availability, staff can justify this by pointing to future access: “That is ring-fenced for your graduation shoots.” This implies that the progression is not just an arbitrary institutional decision but an intentional part of their learning journey.

While this staged approach has practical benefits—such as ensuring students develop the necessary experience before handling high-value equipment—there is a notable lack of input from the technical department regarding when students gain access to, and develop proficiency with, advanced camera and lighting equipment. This lack of coordination can lead to inefficiencies in skill development.

Russell (2010) outlines how assessment can be designed as a cumulative process, where feedback and critique build progressively across multiple modules. Instead of treating each module in isolation, they propose a holistic approach that ties assessments together, fostering both technical skill development and resilience to critique.

Typical Assessment Model

Improved Assessment Model

If this approach were applied to technical skill development, it could significantly enhance students’ learning experiences. Taking a broader perspective—where the timeline of technical skill acquisition is mapped across multiple modules—would allow for stronger connections between different learning experiences.

Currently, many of the technical exercises I design exist in isolation from the wider curriculum. I am often unaware of what the academic team delivers outside of my sessions. Even when I am, there is minimal communication regarding what skills students should have already developed or what they are expected to achieve by the end of a session.

By using this model as a framework, we could address these gaps. Breaking down the technical roadmap for each module would allow us to strategically sequence exercises, ensuring that each session builds upon the last.

For instance, consider a group of Level 4 film students. They need to develop a vast array of skills to take a film from concept to completion. If every module follows a traditional assessment model, technical bottlenecks emerge at the end of the semester, creating a last-minute rush for technical support. This increased demand, combined with limited technician availability, means some students inevitably miss out on the guidance they need.

Instead, by designing a series of interlinked technical exercises, we could alleviate this crunch. For example, video content created in one session could serve as material for a separate module, allowing students to apply their skills in a progressive, interconnected way. This structure would not only distribute workloads more evenly but also give students more time for lateral thinking, self-study, and early engagement with technical support. By spreading out these learning opportunities, students would have greater flexibility to request assistance when they need it—rather than in a last-minute rush at the end of term.

Ref 

Russell, M. (2010) Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. ESCAPE Project, King’s College London. Available at: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf

The majority of my workshops revolve around one or multiple pieces of equipment. Since my goal is to actively integrate these objects into the learning environment, my approach aligns with an object-based learning (OBL) teaching strategy (Hannan, Leonie & Duhs, Rosalind & Chatterjee, Helen, 2016).

The learning outcomes of my sessions primarily focus on the development of physical skills and tangible abilities that students should be able to demonstrate by the end of the session. To reinforce this, I structure my workshops so that whenever I introduce a piece of information, students immediately have the opportunity to practice using it. The sequence in which I present this information mirrors the process of preparing equipment on set, ensuring that students engage with the material in a way that reflects industry practice.

I also make a deliberate effort to integrate the object (camera, light, etc.) directly into discussions, ensuring that every student has some level of physical interaction with it. This hands-on approach is critical, as I believe that physical engagement enhances their understanding. When introducing a new concept, I follow this structure:

1. Explain verbally and/or show an example on screen/or live demonstration.
2. Encourage immediate hands-on practice—allowing students to physically engage with the concept.
3. Reiterate the explanation, reinforcing the key learning points through direct interaction with the object.

An important aspect of OBL is providing students with the broader context of why an artifact is significant to their learning. I usually draw on my industry experience outside of UAL to establish this context. I recognize that this aligns with the ‘examples from practice’ teaching strategy. As Orr and Shreeve (2017, p. 75) describe, ‘examples from practice provide students with authentic insights into professional thinking and doing, helping to contextualize learning within real-world applications.’ While this approach is often effective, there are instances where I encounter artifacts that I have not used in practice. In these cases, I must rely on independent research or seek guidance from the academic team to gain a deeper understanding of the artifact’s relevance. 

After moving into this full time role recently, it is inevitable that I won’t have as much time to gain these industry insights organically. Although I continue to work as a practitioner outside of UAL, I have been exploring ways to maintain and develop my industry knowledge through the university. Recently, I reached out to the Learning Support Officer to inquire about available funding and professional development opportunities, particularly for training on newly acquired industry equipment.

Ref’s 

Hannan, L., Duhs, R., & Chatterjee, H. (2016). Object-based learning: A powerful pedagogy for higher education. In H. Chatterjee & T. Hannan (Eds.), Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education (pp. 13-30). Routledge.

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Signature Pedagogies in Art & Design. London: Routledge. 

How students reflect during my sessions

Something I often see in my workshops when students are presented with a problem is they follow a standard problem solving pattern. They refer back to their past experience and rack their brain for a previously used solution (see fig.1, Raelin, J.A. 2002). In my experience unless this is highlighted by an educator or practitioner, this might be where the exercise ends. By creating more of a co-teaching environment and implementing more reflective exercises into my work, I am trying to avoid the above problem solving issue. Getting the students to work together and think back on how we solve the issue that I present to them, helps to promote a team working environment, which is what their future in the film industry would be built upon. 

In my experience the best way to help students to overcome an issue is to give them the space and time to find the solution themselves. I tend to try and keep a more informal tone to the sessions. However, I’ve noticed that I may prematurely jump in by providing the answers to an open question. There have been cases where I feel the students aren’t understanding after an explanation I’ve given to the class. I’ll then jump in with the solution without providing the necessary space for the students to digest the given information fully. Raelin provides some insight into how our behaviour affects those around us. Fig.2, (Raelin, J.A. 2002) is a visual map of Ralin’s ‘skills of reflective practice’ where he provides  some useful definitions into breaking down group discussion and the reception of information. After reading this I have been giving more thought about how and when I choose to speak as well as slowing down the pace of my delivery in class. I have been thinking through my use of language more thoroughly and revisiting any examples I give out, to ensure they are actually helping the student to understand. I have also started making basic visual guides for some of my workshops, so the students have a handout they can follow along and refer back to outside of class. (see appendix A).

Problem solving when there is a wide skills gap in my classes

In my workshops there is a consistent disparity between each learner’s background and needs. No matter what level (4 – 7) that I am working with this will be the case in every class. To try and tackle this issue in my workshops I have been changing the layout of my space and increasing group lead exercises to help cultivate a more co-teaching environment. 

‘Co-teaching can be seen in its facilitating of individualized support, while enabling the educators to address their students’ diverse needs’ (Zach and Avugos, 2024).

I have implemented this largely through increasing the amount of group work in each class.  Making sure the students have more group exercises allows them to build closer connections with their peers as well as promote them to interact and support each other. I have also started to signal this at the beginning of my workshops. Stating the ground rules of engagement within the space, so they know it is safe to ask questions and to help each other. In addition to this, now the focus is less transmissive as the students are no longer sitting still while being fed information verbally from me. I can move around the space and help anyone who is behind and answer questions more thoroughly and in more detail.

In conclusion, after looking into reflective practice and co-teaching I have modified my own delivery, giving more time and space for the students in my class to take  information in. I have also changed the structure of my workshops, increasing the amount of group exercises and discussion. This has promoted a more co-teaching environment and allows me more time to move around the space and support the students on an individual basis.

Refs

Raelin, J.A. (2002). ‘I Don’t Have Time to Think!’ versus the Art of Reflective Practice. Reflections: The SoL Journal, 4(1), pp.66–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/152417302320467571.

Zach, S. and Avugos, S. (2024). Co-teaching in higher education: Implications for teaching, learning, engagement, and satisfaction. Frontiers in sports and active living, 6. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1424101.

Appendix A https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zOmHVDVzQEhCt-b1DFJ84-23N0uu6rQeIKulqX2_nNI/edit?usp=sharing