James Hopkins PG Cert

Contextual Background 

As a digital fabrication technician in the Creative Tech Lab whereby all foundation students are able to book one-to-one sessions to discuss and aid them along in their individual projects. Each student might have different needs dependent on their projects, what course they’re on, ability, etc.

Evaluation 

I assess students’ needs on a one to one basis, evaluating their familiarity with digital processes, ability and understanding of technical language. With a diverse cohort, students from art, design and communication pathways, it is dependent on their individual projects. It’s effective on a small/medium scale but not possible to see every student on the course. I also am aware of varying student socioeconomic backgrounds and promote the use of off-cut and waste materials within their work rather than buying large quantities of material that they might not use.

I’m also aware of students from different cultural backgrounds where English might not be their first language and try to limit technical jargon when explaining digital processes

Moving forwards

Working on the Foundation course puts me in a unique position as it’s such an important and transitional year, most students are coming straight from school, and it’s my role to prepare them for university and highlight resources they can access in their own time to aid in that transition.

Outside of the workshop students might not have access to certain resources, depending on what device/equipment they own so moving forward I will promote our online teaching tools, for example we have tools on our Moodle page where students can access further resources to develop their practice in their own time, along with LinkedIn learning which all students have access to. I will also promote free online tools I’ve found useful within my own artistic development, stressing the importance of self-directed learning outside of the workshop environment. ‘Is the studio more ‘a state of mind’ than a particular physical space?.’ (Orr et al, 2017) In my role it’s not possible to give every student an equal amount of contact so resources they can be directed to in their own time is very beneficial. This was stressed during my microteach where I utilised a phone app ‘Polycam’ to 3D scan objects, highlighting how everyday objects can be used to progress artistic development.

A bi-product of my role is the mass of off-cuts and ‘waste’ material that is produced. I promote these to students, and again show examples of outcomes using them to highlight their useability. One downfall of using off-cuts is the potential limitations of their shapes and sizes, however I believe it’s a useful tool for students who not might not be able to afford large quantities of material and also for highlighting issues surrounding sustainability, waste, etc. We sell larger quantities of material at an affordable rate and highlight the importance of cherishing a material and not wasting money. Moving forward I will stress the importance of these materials in student projects, for example highlighting how the material can be more than the sum of its parts depending on the context. 

Bibliography

Orr, S, & Shreeve, A (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum, Taylor & Francis Group, Milton.

This reading focuses on signature teaching practices likely to be encountered in creative arts disciplines. I found myself drawn to the section encompassing the ‘studio’ – similar to the workshop environment I work in at Wilson Road. It mentions students ‘create a social learning environment’ (Orr et al, 2017) and highlighted is the ‘centrality of the artefact in learning and the fluid nature of the tutor’s exchanges.’ (Orr et all, 2017) These two points reenforced my own teaching practice as often I have discussions one on one with students or in small groups focusing on an ‘artefact’, example of previous student work, material etc. to facilitate learning and discussion. Our space is filled with examples of work either created by myself, my colleagues or past students and they are central to how I help students with their own projects, without them I would find discussions wouldn’t be as fluid and understanding of what’s possible would be limited. It’s my role to help students understand the possibilities of digital fabrication and I’m conscious of the difficulty of translating 2d artefacts (drawings, ideas) into 3d artefacts with just words alone.

The artefacts also act as a social, peer-to-peer, teaching tool where often discussion amongst students arise after a project is in progress. For example someone creating a deep laser engraving on wood for an architectural model could spark the imagination of an illustration student who would use a similar technique to create a print. Often a student tries a new technique and suddenly there’s an influx of other students wanting to create a similar thing, which underscores the importance of experimenting with new techniques. This highlights the importance of samples we provide and the variety they should process. The Creative Tech Lab where I work is right next to the 3D Workshop and Printmaking studio and I am often explaining to students the fluidity of the workshops and how all processes can, and should, be combined together.

I found myself thinking of an artwork by Mark Wallinger ‘State Britain’ 2007. Here Wallinger recreated a protest by Brian Haw against the UN sanctions on Iraq in 2001. Brian set up camp opposite the Palace of Westminster until 2006. When Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) in 2006, it banned unauthorised demonstrations near Parliament Square in which it was subsequently removed. The gallery space, technically still in the area the protest got banned, acted as a buffer. It was an in-between space where the protest could remain under the guise of art. This made me question the role of the studio, or workshop space. In this environment it’s my role to help students develop artworks and projects, but how can I help when they leave the workshop? I consciously promote self-directed learning and free software like Blender and Polycam, so students can take the workshop environment outside of the workshop and continue developing: ‘Is the studio more ‘a state of mind’ than a particular physical space?.’ (Orr and Shreeve, 2017)

Orr, S, & Shreeve, A (2017) Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum, Taylor & Francis Group, Milton.

Yve-Alain Bois, (2007) Piece Movement: Mark Wallinger’s State Britain, Artforum, vol.45, no.8

The micro teach session was split into a 20 minute teach with 20 minute feedback. For my session I trialled a basic 3D modelling workshop that aimed to blend the physical and digital in an easily digestible way. I gave everyone a piece of plasticine and instructed them to create a physical form. I got them to scan the object using their mobile phone using a free app called Polycam and ended the session showing them an example of a scanned object in Blender (a 3d modelling program) and simple ways of editing the scanned form.

The main takeaways from the session:

• It felt technical but accessible, friendly and playful.
• Enjoyed the balance of tangible language – and able to transfer to a digital space.
• Using phones would be comfortable for students, a good barrier if a computer is intimidating.
• Great movement around the room, changing modes of space.
• I was as interested in the failures, and this narrative got slightly stronger through the session.
• Could have got us to play around with the tech or a mini workshop using blender.

My approach comprised of ‘active learning,’ giving people the same material to create entirely individual outcomes. For the first half of the session I left everyone up to their own devices to create any form they wanted, understating how the scanning would pick up interesting intricacies of the plasticine as they manipulate it. As a technician I am constantly moving around the space, checking on students progress and assessing if they need assistance and I feel it’s important for students to play with the material, or software, in their own time so they can make their own mistakes before jumping in and assisting, learning through doing.

A highlighted bit of feedback was it would have been beneficial to have everyone try Blender and continue to manipulate their object as a digital form. For this part of the workshop I uploaded my own scanned object (one I made earlier) and showed on a large screen some simple ways to edit it. This approach would have been more successful if everyone had access to their own computer where they could continue to edit their object, just in a digital way.

This made me think of the accessibility of resources for students needs. For example, I believe using a free downloadable phone app to scan the object worked well in this case but wouldn’t be as successful if a student didn’t have a phone that could download the app, or perhaps were resistant to downloading software on their own device. I over came this in my session by giving Tim my phone to use with the app pre-installed, and perhaps this could also work if students were paired up or in small groups and shared one device.

The text I read prior to workshop 5 explores current research into university assessment feedback and argues that more feedback is both problematic and too simplistic a solution and the conventional systems of feedback need to be reconsidered.

I initially struggled with the concept of formal feedback in my role as a specialist digital fabrication technician as it doesn’t specifically relate to my role, however after reading this text I realised I am constantly giving feedback, just in a different way. In the abstract the text asks regarding feedback: ‘And what do they do with it, once tutors have handed it back?’ (Brookes, 2008) As my interactions with students are primarily on a one-to-one basis or in small groups, the feedback I give is instantaneous, and specifically related to the project they’re working on in that moment in time. For example, a student could want to laser cut something but not know anything about the process, after helping them prepare the files the initial outcome might be simplistic but with chance to change and develop it over time. ‘Emphasis could more usefully be on developing independent student learning skills.’ (Brookes, 2008) This is something I believe is critically important, especially in a technical sense where independent learning is paramount to developing skills over time. I often help a student get started with a process and let them develop it independently for a while before checking on their process and letting them know if they have any specific questions in the mean time just to ask. I believe the independent time in-between moments of direct support is where their true understanding of the software can develop as they can play and make mistakes without being observed.

On group tutorials: ‘anxiety and feedback can adversely affect the feedback process.’ (Brookes, 2008) My approach is a lot more personal and I imagine reduces the performative anxiety a student would feel speaking to a larger group, as students aren’t put on the spot and I approach feedback as more of an ongoing discussion with questions about their project and how the materiality of what they’re making influences the outcome. This paper stressed the need for more on-on-one tutorials, which essesntially I’m doing on a regular basis. I suppose a downfall of this is it’s not possible to see every student and a lot of students on the Foundation course I’ll never actually see. This brings up the question of student accessibility and how to balance/prioritise students time. I find a situation often arises whereby I’ll see the same group of students quite regularly, one’s who are particularly interested in the digital fabrication process and these get more personalised feedback than students who are perhaps not as confident to access the area.

Bibliography

Brookes, K (2008) Could do better?: students’ critique of written feedback. Art/Design/Media Subject Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol.

This case study from workshop 1 stood out to me as it directly related to my role as the Digital Fabrication Technician at CCW Foundation. It asks what do art and design technicians do? And follows four technicians across UAL who were asked to produce three images relating to their learning and teaching aspect of their technical role.

A few points stood out to me, a highlight being the fact that ‘the majority of technicians who took part in this survey were also active arts practitioners.’ (Sams, 2016) who find that research is critical to their roles at UAL but is severely undervalued. As a practicing artist myself I resonate with this. The research and development I spend improving and refining my own practice directly influences my role at UAL, however this is all done in my own time. I find my identity is as a practicing artist who works at UAL, rather than a Technician who is also a practicing artist. ‘Many technicians working in art and design HE choose the technical pathway as a means to support and develop their practice.’ (Smith et al, 2004) Although I wouldn’t say I chose my role at UAL for this specific reason I do find both my role and practice feed into each other, kind of like the shape of a Möbius strip, however I find as a practicing artist is a core part of my identity it’s something I would do in my free time regardless of my professional role, something I believe is under-appreciated and potentially even taken for granted.

Another highlight from this case-study is the uniqueness of a technicians role in a pedagogic sense. As technician B describes: ‘all student work is a one off creation.’ (Sams, 2016) I find a challenge of my role is the multi-faceted approach to developing projects. Although myself and my colleagues have developed tools to simplify processes, with each outcome being unique my role requires one on one conversations with students to help understand and develop their ideas and this creates a lot of unique problem solving challenges. Our approach is dependent on students ability, understanding of technology and processes, time constraints, material familiarity, etc. Because of this, research and development is key to continually developing my skills – especially in the realm of digital creation as things are constantly updating and changing at a rapid pace. Again, a lot of this research is done either outside of my role or during the development of a students projects, for example a student proposing an idea I don’t instinctively know how to solve.

This makes me think of the pedagogy of not-knowing, as Rebecca Fortnum puts in ‘Creative Accounting, Not Knowing in Talking and Making: ‘within education (at all levels) the prevailing culture requires one to be able to articulate, at the point of experience, what one ‘knows.’ (Fortnum, 2013) However I find it’s just as important to explain what you don’t know as it creates an interesting dialogue which removes the barrier between student and teacher and helps me stress the importance of learning how to learn. I believe in my role it’s important to show that not every problem is instinctively solvable but a solution can be found through independent research and working together. Perhaps the expertise of a technician working in an ever-changing digital environment is the expertise of not knowing.

Bibliography

Fortnum, R (2013) Not knowing in talking and making, Black Dog Publishing

Sams, C (2016) How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education? Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal

Smith, D.N., Adams, J., Mount, D., Reeve, N. and Wilkinson, D. (2004) Highly skilled technicians in higher education: a report to HEFCE. Leeds: Evidence Ltd.

For workshop 1 the case study I was given to read focused on four arts educators who shared their personal experiences to understand how the self influences their teaching practices. They explore the idea of self through artworks and personal stories connected to their cultural and historical backgrounds. As they give their personal experiences they gain a collective understanding from their shared experiences and differences. In essence what I gained from this essay is how personal insights can inform and improve your own teaching practice, and learning from others unique experiences is key to gaining knowledge and empathy.

When I saw the title of this essay I was struck by the academic language used and had to research what ‘a/r/togaphic métissage’ meant. My initial thoughts went to the accessibility of language and the boundaries that potentially creates for many students. As a Technician, academic articles aren’t something that I come across every day and I was immediately reminded of being a university student and the potential struggles I would have felt with certain essays I could have been asked to read. As a practicing artist I read essays with similar language but I suppose the difference is the subject matter. As these would be things I seek out, I wouldn’t find it challenging but others without a specific niche interest in the topic would. As I researched what certain terms in this article meant it forced me to re-read with gained knowledge which helped me focus and read with intent, rather that just skim over the words on the page – which highlighted to me how challenging language can also be of benefit to understanding.

The case study Arianna stuck out to me within this essay. She devised a project tilted ‘Inter-intra’ where she delved into the experiences of newly arrived immigrant communities in Montreal and created mixed media sculptures and recorded sound to highlight the challenges they faced. She mentions how she struggles with ‘keeping a balance between my vision and collaboration with the people who want to share their stories with me’ (Osler et al, 2019) which instantly made me think of the collaborative nature of teaching and how in my role it’s important to allow a student to express their vision in the way that bests suits them. I can give my opinion and advice on techniques and ideas but ultimately it’s their work I’m trying to help facilitate. This can be an interesting dynamic as I often find my self attracted to work similar to my own interests, which can be a benefit in terms of references and ideas I provide, but I believe it’s equally important to take a step back and let the students thoughts lead the discussion which opens new areas of ideas I wouldn’t have initially intended. As Arianana goes on to explain: ‘the notion of artist as ‘expert’ must be cast aside in order for the real magic to surface.’ (Osler et al, 2019) Although in essence I’m the ‘expert’ in this situation I believe it’s important to speak to students on equal footing, as if we’re both artists or practitioners having a discussion about how best to make their ideas comes to life.

Bibliography:

Osler, T., Guillard, I., Garcia-Fialdini, A. and Côté, S. (2019). An a/r/tographic métissage: Storying the self as pedagogic practice. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, Concordia University, Intellect Ltd

I’m James and I work at CCW Foundation in Camberwell as the Specialist Digital Fabrication Technician and I’m also a practicing artist who work revolves around painting, installation/video and performance works. I’m doing the PG Cert to gain a formal qualification in teaching and also expand my knowledge of pedagogy.