CASE STUDY 2: Planning and teaching for effective learning 

Posted on 13th March 2025 by Maja Mehle

Introduction & Background: 

In the final stage of MA Fashion Unit4: Major Project, Part 2: 3D Realisation (Collection), students require a lot of technical support and advice. During this time there are scheduled activities such as garment fittings and studio practice tutorials. As their Technical studies tutor I am available to students for tutorials 4 days per week, all day. During fittings, I am present to support them with commentary during their allocated slot.  

Evaluation: 

This is an extremely busy and fast paced time and there are days when there is not enough time to see everyone that requires my support and input. Besides my tutorials and one-on-ones, and a permanent full-time technician we also book HPL technicians and pattern cutters, that work with students daily. In my opinion, there is plenty of technical support available for students, but I still have a feeling that some students struggle and need more assistance. This is independent study time, so there is a variety of activities happening: individual fittings, design tutorials, making and pattern cutting support.  How do we better manage the time, space, and resources to have a better teaching and learning environment?  

Moving Forward: 

One to one ad hoc tutorial: Scheduling designated days for one-to-one tutorials and shorter/quicker questions. On fitting days, I will be available to answer any questions before or after fitting slots.  

Communications with pattern cutters and technicians regarding specific students’ needs: 

 I will schedule and dedicate some time to brief pattern cutters and technicians regarding the needs of specific students. Prior to their first sessions a more general discussion and briefing and during busy times, due to time constraints, a group morning briefing session seems like the best solution.  

Assessing levels of tech knowledge and grouping:  

Assessing the student’s skill level and making notes and potentially grouping them in regard to it: for example, students that need more support either at the beginning of the session or at the end. Historically, students that struggle or require more time have been requesting later slots, to allow them more time and more technical support. Another option is grouping students regarding their specific skill to a technician that specialises in that skill. For example, a pattern cutter that specialises in women’s tailoring to be responsible and supporting students that require that skill. A menswear technician to support menswear students and so on.  

Brief students at the beginning of the Unit:  

I will organise a meeting with the student group and discuss the technical timeline. I will explain what the expectations are for each stage/fitting and how to go best about it. I will clearly display a technical timeline on the noticeboard and keep referring to it as a point of information and reference. Be clear of the type of questions and support they can expect from the external pattern cutters and technicians and what my support will be during this time.  

Fitting tutorials:  

During the fitting tutorials I will be making clear notes, that will be shared with students immediately after their fitting slot. Students will be able to individually brief pattern cutters and technicians’ regarding the amendments and corrections and won’t have to wait for my instructions.  

Overall: 

Clearer instructions to students and external staff regarding the timeline and expectations during this busy time. Considerate planning of the sessions and allowing valuable time for briefing and sharing of notes.  

References:

Davies, A. (2012) Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem? Networks, Issue 18, Faculty of Arts, University of Brighton

Posted in Case Studies, TPP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice 3/3

Posted on 7th March 2025 by Maja Mehle

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: STUDIO SUPPORT WITH AD HOC TUTORIALS 

Size of student group:  5-30 

Observer: VICTOR GUILLEN SOLANO 

Observee: MAJA MEHLE 

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? 

Making support during the final stages of Unit4 (last unit) before the final show and end of studies. Tutorials are on an ad-hoc basis.  

Also support in managing the sewing room and distribution of work/tasks. 

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

I have been working with this group for approximately 11 months. Unit 3 and Unit 4.  

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

Students have questions for their specific project. The questions are all about making garments for their final collections. Some of the questions are regarding the final fittings.  

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

Students are making/finishing garments for their final collections. Each student has a different question. Some questions are related to patterns, others to materials etc.  

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

Since this is an ad hoc session, the types of questions vary, so quick thinking is necessary. The environment is fast paced, students are tired and stressed. 

Managing different stakeholders such as technicians and students with sometimes clashing expectations. 

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

By email 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

Communication with students, clarity of my instructions 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

Written form 

Part Two 

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

Hi Maja,  

Thank you again for inviting me to observe your studio support session at CSM while students were preparing for the final show.  You suggested I should focus on your communication with students and clarity of your instructions, so I’ve done that below but added a couple of things that I thought was worth mentioning

First of all, I thought the atmosphere in the studio was busy and positive, with students feeling comfortable asking for help and engaging in discussions about their work. I really liked the way you interacted with the students, the materials and the garments, creating a dynamic and encouraging environment through targeted questioning, constructive feedback, and hands-on demonstrations. 

Communication with students 

The interactions with students were focused and purposeful, seeking clarification through open questions, providing explanations and offering suggestions, often accompanied by demonstrations. You also adapted language for different purposes (e.g. praise, clarify, instruct, explain, suggest), switching to a more directive tone when needed to keep students on track  (e.g. “I can still see pins here, so focus on this part and get it done before you move on to the next.” You also clearly signalled when clarification was needed, using phrases like, “My question is…” or “Last time you wanted to… is that still the case?” This helped to ensure your feedback was targeted and aligned with the students’ objectives. You encouraged a dialogue-driven studio environment prompting students with questions like, “Got any questions? Anything you want to show me?” rather than directly commenting on their work. You also prompted reflection through more targeted questioning such as “Does this need to be hidden/invisible?” or “Do people wearing your garments wear a belt?”, then explaining the possible implications of their decisions. This approach helped students consider both functionality and aesthetics in their designs, also reinforcing industry-relevant decision-making. For example, “Using more layers is more difficulty, but it sticks well so your customers don’t come back with issues, but one is OK for a while.”  You also listen actively and use backchanneling to signal you’re listening (verbal clues like ‘uh-huh’, ‘yes’, ‘right’, ‘I see’, and nonverbal clues such as nodding, smiling, or pointing to specific areas of the garment to show you’re following the student’s explanation)  

Giving instructions 

You use precise language, varied expressions and demonstrations to guide students through their tasks. You reinforced explanations by actively engaging with the garments and materials; instead of relying solely on verbal instructions, you demonstrated techniques while explaining, e.g., “If the idea is to… then you need to…”. This method provided students with a visual reference, making complex processes easier to grasp. Checking comprehension was also a priority, with you frequently asking, “Is that OK?” after demonstrating a technique. Your instructions usually followed questions to clarify what the student was trying to do, ensuring that your instructions were relevant. I also liked the way you explained why it should be done in a particular way, so it was easier for students to understand the reasoning behind each technique, rather than just following instructions. For example, when checking measurements, you asked, “When you measure this, how do you do it?” before providing corrective feedback, “Don’t measure from the top because…”, and then demonstrating.  

Food for thought 

I noticed that you often provide a lot of information and ask if students have understood, which is great. I was just wondering if would help to ask students to recap your instructions to ensure they understood, and the type/sequence of steps/actions is clear to them. I also wonder about the criteria used to assess their work and whether some of your feedback could also relate to that (besides the helpful industry-oriented feedback that you provided). 

Part Three 

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

Thank you, Victor, for this insightful feedback.  

The reason I’ve asked you to focus on communication is because I sometimes worry, that the way I communicate is not clear enough for students to understand. Each year we get students with varying levels of understanding and knowledge of make, so I would like to make sure that the language I use, and ways of communicating, are suitable, engaging and not intimidating.  

The suggestion about asking students to recap my instruction is extremely valuable and I plan to implement this approach in my upcoming sessions. I know that the instructions can sometimes be confusing and complex, especially in such a fast-paced environment, where time is precious. I’ve noticed that students sometimes nod or verbally express that they understand because they either feel like they’ve been put on the spot, or they don’t want to admit that they don’t understand what I am suggesting. Unfortunately, I also sometimes notice that they didn’t understand when it is already too late, for example after they’ve cut the fabric.  

The second suggestion to incorporate assessment criteria into my feedback is an excellent point and has given me much to reflect on. I will take the time to explore how I can integrate these criteria alongside the industry-oriented feedback. I believe this approach will not only enhance the feedback given but also provide students with greater clarity on expectations and learning outcomes, ultimately supporting them in preparing more effectively for their final submission. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. 

Posted in Observations, TPP | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MICROTEACHING: OBJECT BASED LEARNING 

Posted on 25th February 2025 by Maja Mehle

3/2/2025 

Part 1:

ACTIVITY PLAN:  Observation of a Black Tailored Jacket.  

Duration: 20 MIN 

Object: TAILORED JACKET 

Tools: A4 paper and pencils/pens 

Introduction (3 min) 

Explain the context of the workshop.

The description (3min)

Students are asked to listen to a detailed description of a tailored jacket and then draw it and any details from that description. The description: Men’s tailored jacket, single breasted, with jet pockets, long sleeves, and classic lapel. There is a seam at the centre back. It has 3 buttons at CF….  

Written part (approx. 3 min) 

Students are asked to write at least 10 words that come to their minds when tutor says TAILORED JACKET. Words can be parts of the jacket or descriptions such as: tradition, skill, menswear… 

Discussion (10min)

The TAILORED JACKET is shown. After the second part we compare the words and drawings. And look at the tailored jacket and go through the details of the jacket. Students can touch the jacket and turn it inside out, try it on. Discussion, comments, and Q&A. 

Part 2:

How did it go: My Microteaching session was the last one in the day, and all the sessions before mine were exciting, engaging and inventive. I’ve started with a bit of introduction and nerves but quickly got into it and even ran out of time due to the richness and complexity of the topic.  The group has produced outstanding results, with the drawings and writing the association words. The results and the comparison of the words ignited an interesting discussion from all the participants. I’ve also tried the jacket on and invited participants to try it, touch it, and feel the materials. This was extremely well received.

Feedback from my group: The positives from the group were: the personal story included during the specialist explanation and the background of the garment; visual demonstration of wearing/trying on the jacket; inclusion of complex topics such as gender bias, digital vs analogue, AI; clear/enough information on each part of the activity and duration of it. 

Points to improve: to be clearer of what the outcome of this session is, beside the observation of the garment; a glossary of the specialist terminology and the spelling as a handout, for students to take away; suggestions for future research; 

Part 3:

Reflection to the feedback: Because I ran out of time to finish my session, I wish I would go quicker through some of the parts. I misjudged the complexity of the topic and potentially the level of understanding of my group. This can also sometimes happen during the “real” teaching session with students, so it is something I will be working on in the future. This could be achieved by assessing the level of knowledge of the group or map out a detailed plan of the session, what to include or not include in the session and clearly explaining what the learning outcomes are. Setting clear learning objectives will also help me determine what information include in the session and what the important parts are.

The trying on the jacket and touching it was extemely well received.

“In many instances objects may be seen [in museums and galleries] but not touched. Likewise books, websites and digital databases present objects for study: rich resources, however, the physical handling of an item is denied.” claims Hardie in the HEA Report.

I do agree with the participants feedback, that the handout with vocabulary would be beneficial, particularly for students not familiar with specialist language, topic, or students whose english is a second language.

References:

Hardie, D.K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. York: Higher Education Academy. 

Willcocks, J. Orgill, G. (2024) XPE Jan 2024 Part 1 and XPE Jan 2024 Part 2. Available at: https://ual.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Sessions/List.aspx#folderID=%2261e304ce-5498-4672-a72b-b10600e460e4%22 (accessed on 15 March 2025) 

Willcocks, J. (2018) Object based learning. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/colleges/central-saint-martins/about-us/museum-and-study-collection 

Below are the sketches of 5 workshop participants:

Posted in Microteaching, TPP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice 2/3

Posted on 25th February 2025 by Maja Mehle

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: ”Embedding Climate, racial and Social Justice in the handbook” – Staff Development Training for MA Material Future (CSM) 

Size of student group: 10 pp  

Observer: Maja Mehle 

Observee: Monika Gravagno  

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? 

By September 2026, Climate Race and Social Justice should be part of every student’s learning experience, in line with the UAL’s Climate Action Plan. All courses will need to demonstrate that they operate at ‘shift’ level within ‘The Framework’ by this deadline. As part of this process, Course Leaders need to make modifications in the Course handbook to embed the Principles for CRSJ. Monika, in her capacity of Climate Justice Curriculum Developer offers a 3-hour training to CLs and Course Teams to embed the “Principles” in the handbook. The training session Monika delivered on the 23rd of January was for the MA Material Future at CSM.  

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

This is the first training I deliver a training for the MA Material Future at CSM. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

  • Course Leaders (CLs) and Course Teams understand the context of the Framework: 
  • Its broader context within the Climate Action Plan and Annual Operational Plans.   
  • Key deadlines that need to be met.   
  • How to effectively use the Framework.   
  • The handbook audit process and the type of data collected. 
  • Understand the principles of CRSJ (Climate, Race, and Social Justice): 
  • Learn relevant terminology and how to use the “Glossary for Educators” tool.   
  • Engage practically with the terminology and provide teaching examples. 
  • Mapping the handbook: 
  • Identify where CRSJ principles are already embedded in the curriculum but not explicitly referenced in the handbook.   
  • Propose specific sections in the handbook (at a unit level, course description, learning outcomes, aims, and objectives) where these principles can be embedded. 
  • Writing modifications in the handbook: 
  • Draft text to embed CRSJ principles into the handbook as modifications.   

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

  • Practical knowledge of UAL’s  “The Framework” for CRSJ integration.   
  • Skills to map and embed CRSJ principles into course handbooks.   
  • Drafted modifications for course descriptions, unit-level aims, learning outcomes, and other handbook elements.   
  • Confidence in using tools like the Glossary for Educators to align terminology with CRSJ principles.   

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

No 

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

Informed by email and asked to give consent by email. 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

General feedback. 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

Written and also chat about it ? 

Part Two 

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

I have attended an online workshop on Embedding Climate, Race and Social Justice Principles in the Handbook, intended for the Material Future Course at CSM.  

The start/introductions: 

You were very welcoming and ensured that there was enough time for everyone to join. The ice breaker introductions helped create a relaxed and personal atmosphere. The online meetings and sessions can sometimes feel boring and gloomy but the “in depth” weather question made it light and funny and somehow connected us all when we realised that quite a few participants were unwell days before the workshop.  

The question: Who wants to go first, kept everyone at ease and gave us time to prepare a bit.  

Intro to the workshop: 

You gave clear instructions and an explanation of how the workshop will go and what it is about. The presentation that you shared was a good visual help to understand the RCSJ principles. The glossary for educators was also helpful. Considering the complexity of the topic you regularly paused and checked if anyone had any questions and if everyone is ok with how fast you were going through slides.  

Mentioning the word bible but noting that it is a religious reference straight after, was very considerate and mindful and you set a fitting example for everyone.  

The activity: 

You listened patiently and gave a calm answer when one of the participants provokingly ranted about something. There was also a bit of hesitation from the team before the activity, you kept calm and explained what the point of the activity was. You also took comments on board and listened to suggestions regarding the Miro board and separate rooms. You managed to calm the situation, steering through the instructions and the team was happy to continue with the activity.  

General notes:  

You kept the lead and energy levels throughout the whole hour. There was a slight confusion just before the activity started, but you managed to navigate through it. You kept the pace but also allowed questions, breaks and suggestions from the team. I have noticed you understand that people deal with the change differently and sometimes need a bit more encouragement to participate in tasks.  

Suggestions/questions:  

The ice breaker activity worked for this group size but could seem a bit long and repetitive if there were more participants. It was a little bit unclear what the roles of all the participants were, were some participants only observers? 

The timing of the workshop: For better attendance and engagement: Is there a possibility to organise this workshop during the quieter times? Out of term times? The Material Futures course leader seemed in a bit of a rush, he even noted that he is extremely busy. His colleague did not join the meeting, because it is such a busy time for them. He even rushed through the introductions and did seem a bit absent. He relaxed as soon as you started the presentation and the activity.  

Part Three 

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

Maja’s feedback has been invaluable in helping me reflect on my teaching practice. While I am encouraged by the positive aspects noted, I also recognize areas where I can improve clarity, adaptability, and scheduling. 

The “weather report” icebreaker exercise I planned fostered connection and created a space for participants to relax and share something about their week, but for a group of 10, it took 20-25 minutes— a significant portion of a three-hour workshop. In hindsight, a shorter activity could have still allowed participants to connect and reflect while preserving more time for other exercises or longer breaks during the workshop. The exercise also exceeded my estimated time by 5-10 minutes, impacting the overall session flow. Moving forward, I will select more concise icebreakers that balance engagement with time management. 

As Maja observed, during the first activity, I noticed some uncertainty regarding participant roles and the assignment of the terminologies from the Glossary. This initial hesitation was resolved by Mia and Hannah, whose suggestions on dividing the terminology were insightful and helpful. Their input reminded me that I don’t need to control every aspect of facilitation. Instead of feeling pressured to solve everything, I appreciated stepping back, trusting participants’ contributions, and embracing collaborative problem-solving. This shift challenged my tendency to self-judge when things don’t go as planned, and I want to continue fostering shared responsibility in future sessions. Letting go of complete control not only eased my facilitation but also created a more dynamic and inclusive learning environment, where participants felt valued and empowered to contribute. 

I also acknowledge Maja’s point on scheduling workshops during quieter periods to improve attendance and focus. However, this remains a challenge, as course teams often have limited time for curriculum development. The January workshop was scheduled in November based on a course leader’s indication that it would be a quieter period, yet it turned out not to be, and no course team members attended. Moving forward, I recognize the importance of taking more responsibility by proactively confirming availability with course leaders. This means not only checking their schedules but also ensuring they can be fully present and engaged before finalizing dates. 

In response to Maja’s comment about ambiguity around participant roles, which created uncertainty regarding whether some individuals were observers or not, I will ensure greater clarity in future sessions. This can be addressed by taking more time at the beginning of the session to repeat who observes and who is actively participating. 

Posted in Observations, TPP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice 1/3

Posted on 25th February 2025 by Maja Mehle

  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: UNIT 4 SHOWS SUPPORT WITH AD HOC TUTORIALS 

Size of student group:  5-30 

Observer: Monika Gravagno 

Observee: MAJA MEHLE 

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? 

Support during the final stages of Unit4 (last Unit) before the final show and end of studies. Unit 4 is the students’ final project and involves a final collection of 4-8 finished outfits.  

 There is a lot of physical making during this time. Tutorials are on an ad-hoc basis, regarding the actual physical garments/pieces and how best to finalise them.   

Also support in managing the sewing room, Communication between students and technicians and distribution of work/tasks for technicians. 

(the observed session in question is just after one of the important deadlines- show selection, so the atmosphere in the studio might be a bit more relaxed and less busy, but also low at the same time) 

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

I have been working with this group of students for approximately 11 months. Unit 3 and Unit 4. My role is 4 days per week, supporting make and presence in the studio.  

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

Students have questions regarding their specific project. The questions are all about making garments for their final collections. Some of the questions are regarding the final fittings.  

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

Students are making/finishing garments for their final collections. Each student has a different question. Some questions are related to patterns, others to materials etc.  

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

Since this is an ad hoc session, the types of questions vary, so quick thinking is necessary. The environment is fast paced, students are tired and stressed. 

Managing different stakeholders such as technicians and students with sometimes clashing expectations. This is an unpredictable session, so some students won’t need support, or might only have a quick question while others might have longer questions.  

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

By email and extra reminders in person just before the session. Due to the stressful environment students can decline participation.  

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

Communication with students, clarity of my instructions. 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

In writing and optional in person catch up.  

Part Two  

I attended a one-to-one tutorials in the MA Fashion studio with Maja. The environment was relaxed and friendly, fostering an open space for discussion and exploration. 

Maja provided a thorough introduction to the studio layout, including how space is allocated for students, areas dedicated to machinery, the scheduling of technicians, and the broader context of how the tutorials fit into the preparation for the final show. This explanation was very helpful in understanding how work is organised within the studio. 

Student 1: 

Maja addressed specific questions on fabric lining and zip positioning by encouraging the student to think about the jacket as a tailored piece. She guided the student to consider how the jacket should feel on the body and how comfort should be a priority. Instead of prescribing solutions, she supported the student in exploring their own answers. This approach was effective in developing the student’s critical thinking and decision-making skills. 

When the student presented a potential silk material, Maja acknowledged and encouraged the choice, reassuring the student that there was room for adjustments if needed. However, I observed that there was no discussion regarding the sustainability or environmental impact of the material choice. It could be beneficial to integrate questions about material selection beyond aesthetics and functionality, prompting students to also reflect on environmental consideration when it comes to materials choices. 

On a separate question regarding shoe fitting, Maja used sketching to clarify ideas, which was an effective communication tool and she presented multiple solutions (elastic bands, pads), and even provided free materials she had collected. The students found this very helpful.  When students took the materials, it might have been useful to encourage them to take only what was necessary to minimise waste and ensure resource availability for others. 

Student 2: 

Maja initiated the conversation with an open-ended question, “How are you getting on?” This created a welcoming atmosphere for the student to share any of their questions. She also ensured continued engagement by asking “What about the rest of the collection” and making herself available for follow-ups. This approach was open, friendly and ensuring availability for follow up questions. 

Student 3 

When presented with a question on “how to hold the lining of a skirt” Maja demonstrated a proactive approach by saying, “Let’s go and check” or “Let’s test it,” reinforcing a hands-on problem-solving attitude. She also effectively utilised teamwork by directing students to specific technicians for expert advice. This provided the student with precise technical guidance on the issue. 

During this interaction, when an elastic strap was offered as a solution, the student was allowed to use the stock available in the studio. However, neither Maja nor the other technician prompted the student to measure how much they needed before cutting the material. Implementing a practice of measuring before cutting could help minimize waste and encourage a more mindful use of resources in the studio. 

One area for improvement was observed in communication with this student. In one instance, Maja interrupted the student with “No, no, no.” While this may have been instinctive and prompt by the need to give a feedback, I wonder if waiting for the student to complete their thought before responding could create a more supportive learning environment. Replacing “No” with another response could further encourage student engagement. 

Conclusion: 

Overall, Maja demonstrated clear, open, and proactive communication with students. Her approach fostered independent thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration with her team.  

Potential areas for development: 

  • Encouraging discussions on material sustainability and environmental considerations in decision-making. 
  • Promoting mindful resource use to minimize unnecessary waste. 
  • Waiting for students to fully articulate their thoughts before responding or suggesting a feedback 

Part Three 

Maja’s reflection: 

Sustainability is a huge part in Fashion and students are encouraged throughout their studies to make informed decisions about the materials they are using. As a Technical Studies Lead, I am supporting sustainability by organising dead stock donations of high-quality fabrics and trimmings that students can use in their projects. The course is also working with The British Fashion Council Fabric Initiative, where they organise the donation of deadstock materials to Fashion schools around the UK.  

As a part of my Carbon Literacy Pledge, I am trying to organise waste cages/boxes where students can donate any materials that they no longer need, to be used by other students.  

I appreciate Monikas comments regarding the discussion about sustainability and waste management and I agree, that during the tutorials I could question this more, so it does not get forgotten. 

The sustainability conversation usually happens in the first phase of their project, when students do their research and design, but I understand Monikas point that this could be questioned throughout the project. 

I have been working with the same students in question for a year and have an idea of their material preferences and if something is suitable for their collection or not. I also encourage all students to return any unwanted materials or trims that they will not use.  

I often feel that by giving them several material choices I am enabling them to experiment and test to make the decision what works for them. Some solutions are not prescriptive but need to be tested to see what works best. I also know that sometimes if I don’t give them materials to test with, they will not do it.  

The comment regarding not letting students finish what they were saying is something I will be mindful of more during the tutorials.  

Posted in Observations, TPP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reflection no 1: Macdonald & Michaela 2019 The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy:

Posted on 14th January 2025 by Maja Mehle

The reading takes us through the considerations of design critique and moral goods of studio pedagogy. Considering all the various aspects of design tutors’ critique such as: moral goods of practices, goods of student development, goods of self-cultivation, goods for stakeholders, and why critiques matter.  

In the text there are examples of 6 interviews with instructors, practitioners, and their reflections on critiques in their studios, during their teaching.  

While reading some of the most interesting words for me were ‘moral goods’ and ‘studio ecology.’ Studio ecology meaning that the studio environment is a “living” ecosystem, that needs to be nurtured and stays active by critiques and interactions between tutors and students. The text also differentiates between critiques as “end of project, front of panel critiques and in my case far more relevant (for studio ecology) weekly, one-to-one tutorials. 

In my teaching practice I do critiques or tutorials every day. Students are given a project, and I support them throughout their making phase. The making phase is abstract at the beginning and turns into real towards the end of the project. During the abstract phase I encourage students to think widely and openly by showing them examples to inspire their creativity. I encourage them to research, test and invent. The ideas are speculative, with a lot of open questions and almost no definitive answers. During the last phase, the critiques become more instructional, stricter, with clear goals, deadlines, and outcomes.  

As expected, the first phase is far more enjoyable for both me, and the student and the second phase can sometimes be frustrating and difficult but as if not even more important. One example of this is when a student wants to do something that I know they do not have enough time to do. Telling this to a student honestly is sometimes met with resentment and can encourage negative environment and result. I always voice my concerns and encourage student to consider them and then suggest that they “do it, how they think its best.’  

References:

McDonald, J.K. and Michela, E. (2019) ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Design Studies, 62, pp. 1–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.02.001.

Posted in Reflections, TPP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hi!

Posted on 9th December 2024 by Maja Mehle

Welcome to my PgCert blog. 

My name is Maja Mehle, and I am a Technical Studies lead at MA Fashion at Central Saint Martins. 

My role focuses on teaching and supporting students focusing on the art of garment making, starting from researching materials, techniques, seams, patterns and shapes to helping them develop their own unique making language. 

I’ve decided to do the PgCert to put my teaching into a context and start writing.

Posted in Uncategorised | Leave a comment