Looking through the feedback there was an overall positive response towards the workshop. Most students felt they had at least some improvement in their knowledge of how to approach lighting people (see student responses below). I managed to answer most students’ questions and created space for them to explore lighting a variety of different people with diverse skin tones. This aligns with inclusive learning principles, which emphasise the importance of creating learning environments that recognise and support learner diversity (Hockings, 2010).
Looking through the feedback from the students’ lighting tests, there was a trend in responses indicating that they generally thought their skin tone looked most accurate between 40–50% IRE. This contrasts with long-standing, historically white-centric guidance that suggests skin tones should aim to reach approximately 70% on the IRE scale. Through this particular test in the workshop, the students were able to explore how different exposures affected their skin. Some comments from the students focused on how darker exposures “gave them more depth,” while brighter exposures were described as “very pale” or washed out.
Through this workshop, I now have access to a much more diverse set of lighting test images across a more diverse range of people. Thinking back to my initial objectives set at the start of my APR project, I feel I have achieved most of my key aims. Upon reflection, however, there are some improvements to the workshop design and implementation that I will bring forward in the future. These include enhanced feedback and data collection methods, a more interactive and reflective round-up session, clearer learning outcomes and technical language, and further adjustment of exercises in response to student feedback and engagement on the day.
Improvements to feedback forms and questionnaires / data collection
Although I gained some useful feedback from the questionnaires, on reflection I feel that I could have gained deeper insight if I had adjusted the tone and specificity of some of the questions. For example, asking students what they had learned was too broad, particularly given the full-day structure and range of activities. In future, I would break this down more clearly identifying the learning objectives for the session and ask more targeted questions aligned directly to each objective. This reflects the principle of constructive alignment, which emphasises coherence between learning objectives, teaching activities, and assessment or feedback mechanisms (Biggs & Tang, 2011).
This approach would encourage students to engage in more focused reflection and support formative assessment by prompting them to reflect on learning processes rather than simply reporting outcomes (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). It would also provide more meaningful data that could be mapped directly against intended learning outcomes, allowing me to refine the workshop design more effectively.
Incorporating a more interactive round-up session
At the end of the workshop I held a short round-up session, this was primarily a summary of the day and an opportunity to ensure students would complete the feedback forms. In future, I would intentionally create more space for active enquiry, discussion and shared reflection. I feel like inciting a dialogue between the whole class so they can all reflect on the skills gained and share this with each other, would help solidify their learning. This would help emphasise their gained knowledge as co-constructed through discussion rather than transmitted solely by the teacher (Freire, 1970).
Throughout the day, informal discussion occurred between students about lighting choices and their effects. By drawing these discussions together in a structured closing activity, I could highlight key observations from each group and share these with the wider cohort. This collective reflection supports deeper learning by encouraging students to articulate and test their understanding in relation to others’ experiences (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
Adjusting exercises in response to student feedback
As discussed previously, I pivoted from my initial plan and focused instead on students recreating existing reference images. In future, I will introduce this as a structured challenge from the outset. This adjustment would maintain the exploratory nature of the workshop while significantly increasing engagement, as evidenced both by student feedback and observed behaviour during the session. This aligns with experiential learning theory, where understanding is developed through active experimentation and concrete experience (Kolb, 1984).
This approach also created opportunities to revisit earlier lighting concepts in applied contexts, supporting learning transfer and consolidation (Kolb, 1984). I found this phase of the session particularly effective, as it encouraged natural dialogue, problem-solving, and student-led enquiry. This shift away from slide-led delivery towards participatory exploration reflects inclusive and student-centred teaching practices (Hockings, 2010; Freire, 1970).
REFs
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Hockings, C. (2010) ‘Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research’, EvidenceNet, York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-synthesis-research
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090