Thoughts on student engagement/IRE exposure task
Overall student engagement in the IRE exposure task was positive, although it took several attempts at the exercise before students began to talk critically about the task. On reflection, this reinforces how perceptual learning in technical workshops often requires repetition before students can meaningfully articulate differences, aligning with experiential learning models (Kolb, 1984). I positioned the IRE lighting test at the beginning of the day, as it is arguably the most tedious from a student’s perspective. As it is repetitive, less exploratory, and the least stylised exercise. This decision was intentional as I felt students would be more receptive to this task earlier in the day, before cognitive fatigue set in. Engagement was generally good, however I observed moments where focus drifted. This highlights that it is sometimes necessary to repeat technical instruction to sustain student engagement, a challenge widely discussed in engagement literature (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). As with the proof-of-concept test day, once students viewed themselves at multiple exposure points, they were better able to identify where they felt most naturally represented. This reinforces the value of comparison and reflection in developing evaluative confidence, echoing Schön’s (1983) concept of reflection-on-action.
Example of student exposure test and Monk Scale
Reflections on tone and instructional clarity
During the presentation I provided visual examples from my proof of concept and test findings. (Link to workshop slides). In these the grey card was hard-mounted in the shot to ensure consistency and enable accurate post-production comparison. Although I mentioned this verbally, I did not insist on it as a requirement. This led to students holding grey cards by hand, repositioning them between shots and placing them inconsistently.
Example shots from proof of concept test shoot
Examples of student lighting test set ups
In hindsight, this suggests the task may have required clearer modelling and more explicit instruction. Research on instructional design highlights that students benefit from explicit modelling of both process and purpose, particularly in technical and practice-based contexts (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). I often aim to maintain a relaxed atmosphere and a flat structure, favouring a collaborative, co-teaching style. However, this pedagogical choice resulted in some outputs being difficult to compare, due to inconsistent grey card placement. As Biggs and Tang (2011) note, effective learning depends on alignment between teaching intentions, instruction, and outcomes.
In some examples (see above) students handholding grey cards shaded students’ faces, unintentionally altering their exposure. Additionally some students shot very short clips which limited the amount of usable footage I could compare. These inconsistencies slightly hindered the post production process and could have easily been avoided. In future workshops I will retain my relaxed teaching style while introducing clearer non-negotiable technical requirements, ensuring students understand both the “how” and the “why” behind these constraints.
Pivoting in response to student behaviour
During the second half of the workshop when setting out these tasks, I thought it would be useful for students to have visual references to indicate what they were being asked to aim for and explore (Link to slides). In this task, however, they began to try and recreate some of the references instead of just using them as inspiration. While watching this I chose to pivot the rest of the session toward recreation while keeping the key parameters the same. I chose this approach as I felt that within the class, they could still explore the concept I was trying to communicate, but recreating scenes from references allowed the students to be more actively engaged. This adaptive response reflects a more student-centred and responsive pedagogical approach, prioritising meaningful engagement over strict adherence to the original task design (Biggs and Tang, 2011). By reframing the exercise, students remained focused while still working within the same exposure and colour constraints; as a result, the learning outcomes were still met through this different approach.
I found this exercise particularly enjoyable to teach, I could help guide students naturally towards finding solutions to their problems in real time. Throughout the day, I spent a lot of time helping to iron out any questions or problems that the students faced in each setup. Looking at the feedback forms, this was also what the students most enjoyed and found the most rewarding aspect of the day. It allowed me to cement concepts from previous workshops which they brought into the conversation. I think that by attaching the task to something they found inspiring and breaking this recreation into manageable steps, they could more clearly see how they might apply this process in the field when shooting their films.
Overall, this experience has highlighted the importance of flexibility in practice-based teaching for me. While technical accuracy remains essential, responding to student behaviour and motivation in real time can support deeper engagement and more effective learning, particularly in workshop-based environments.
REF’s
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004) ‘School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence’, Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59–109.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.