pgcertmussher

The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education. Kieran Mahon and Judy Willcocks.. (2023)

I chose this article owing to its focus on Colonialism to Climate Crisis during the 2020-21 pandemic. The sheer scale of running a collaborative project with 250 BA design students participating online is impressive. I was curious how the digital archive was used in relation to colonisation, as I work with an archive at West Dean College. The nuanced potentiality of the “objects” (18-19th C botanical drawings from the CSM Museum & Study Collection) is abstract in the sense the experiential nature of colonisation is disembodied through distancing, which is what made the power of this online study even more impressive. Distance and disconnection were used as a strength rather than a problem. I was fascinated by how considerations of ontological interconnectivity between land and being were established through a comparison between the Colonial desire to map (and exploit) the land (botanical drawings) and the origins of the botanical plant now under climate threat. The activity also shifts an understanding of the passive role botanical drawings play.

The article introduced me to Gillian Rose’s Visual Methodologies. I was curious about the 4 analytic questions focused on, 1) the site of production (who, where, how), 2) the site of the image (image contents and composition), 3) the site of circulation (where and how the image travelled), 4) site of audience (user and spectator encounters). While these had been used to structure research methods in the article they also seemed like questions to structure a crit on, which I was keen to experiment with during 2nd year studio presentations. This worked well however seemed a little prescriptive and adjustments were. made to incorporate how the student viewed their work as original and their imaginative thinking towards the desired outcome.

I found the final analysis in the article helpful, which advises when exploring learning tools online to define your content before exploring platforms for delivery.

References

Mahon. K and Willcocks. J (2023), The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education art, design & communication in higher education, Volume 22 Number 2

Rose, G. (2012), Visual Methodolgies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 3rd ed., London: Sage

Decolonising the library: a theoretical exploration, Crilly, J (2019)

I selected this reading as in my role as a Critical Studies Subject Tutor I work with object-based learning through an archive built from Colonised activity at the Edward James Foundation. I am also a white Australian and find the recent rise of awareness of decolonising the curriculum in the U.K. intriguing. Questioning colonial activities is embedded in my approach to teaching by de-centring traditional Global North concepts and references, which made me keen to discover innovative new learning strategies from the reading. When the article referred to Colonialisation as a “settler action” (Kennedy, 2016, p.2) I was concerned about the reductiveness until the authors introduced intellectual and cultural Colonialisation. I would argue aesthetic colonisation belongs to this discussion on the library owing to the aestheticisation of style, which students seem to misunderstand as “referencing”. I appreciated the authors being specific with terminology and describing ‘epistemic totality’ as a characteristic of Eurocentric knowledge. This could substitute the term “Universal” which is often used as a generalisation. The example of the 1768 Encyclopaedia Britannica may have had more depth if it had been aligned with Hume’s 1739 Treatise on Human Nature, which critiques objective and subjective reality because it results in Kant’s 1781 Critique of Pure Reason that posits man’s knowledge as central to understanding “worldly objects”. This intellectually reverses the 16th Century Copernican Revolution that understood man is not the centre of the universe and persists within contemporary academic problematics.

I understand the concept of epistemic ‘pluriversity’ as an attempt to acknowledge ‘the co-existence of different epistemic traditions and systems’ as a ‘horizontal strategy of openness to dialogue among different epistemic traditions’ (Mignolo, 2013b; Mbembe, 2016) however, the term attempts to “generalise” and “homogenise” that which persists as individual and multiple. It reminds me of a similar problem with the term “woman”, where the multiple is made “one”. The question to ask is why the ‘the co-existence of different epistemic traditions and systems’ needs a singular term and is this singularisation a colonising act in itself? I would argue that it is. I completely agree that the Dewey Decimal Classification System established in 1876, which is still used today inherently marginalises. The article did not seem to offer any solutions to this beyond focusing interventions on highlighting the biases of the system however, no examples were made explicit. The concluding point of the article was to decolonise reading lists and the library’s collaborative participation in this. I would expand on this to conclude library contents can also reflect student and tutor demand and as individuals we can all play an active role in decolonising how the creative arts are taught and understood by requesting books representing diverse epistemologies.

References
Crilly, J (2019) Decolonising the library: a theoretical exploration, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal. Vol 4 / Issue 1 (2019) pp.6-15

Kennedy, D. (2016) Decolonization: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mignolo, W.D. (2013a) ‘Yes we can: non-European thinkers and philosophers’, Al Jazeera, 19 February. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/20132672747320891.html (Accessed: 17 March 2024).

Mbembe, A.J. (2016) ‘Decolonizing the university: new directions’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1), pp.29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1474022215618513.

Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect, Mark Barrow

I have an MA in Aesthetics and was keen to read how Foucault could be used in relation to assessment as I use other philosopher’s concepts in my teaching practice (eg. Merleau-Ponty touched-touching exercise for the microteaching session). The concept of “confession” as central to Foucault’s ethical ideas was intriguing. Reading about how inciting confession through assessment can bring about student transformation, through self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-adjustment was fascinating. This seems a more holistic approach to assessments than what the assessment matrix suggests. I found this reading a helpful guide towards writing and giving feedback, in the way it focuses on “strengths” and “weakness”, which I generally do but name “strengths” and “improvements” as I have found students particularly sensitive to “weakness”. Understanding how these relate to “confession” by enabling the student to connect their “self” with their work at first seemed obvious in the context of contemporary art where students make personal projects however, “telos” presented the notion of the student opening up to a moral self. I would like to use this approach towards current assessments for 2nd-year Contemporary Craft and Art student presentations. Considering assessment in the context of allowing a student to detach oneself from [work], to present [work] to oneself and question their meanings, conditions and goals (Rabinow, 1997) shifts how assessments can even be presented in class so they are received not with dread and fear but with curiosity and ambition towards self-awareness.

When Mezirow understands assessment as encouraging two movements beyond subjection in the student, firstly, away from alienation towards agency and secondly, away from lack of authenticity towards being ‘true to oneself’ (Mezirow, 1995, p. 48) he inspires how assessment exists not to isolate but motivate students towards authenticity. Reading how assessments can be used as a teacher’s individualising tool to get to know the student resonated as I have been giving feedback on 1st-year students’ draft assessments and personalities are being revealed, some of which are very challenging. Reading Foucault’s understanding of the journey to ‘judge, punish, forgive, console, and reconcile’ (Foucault, 1990, p. 61) made sense, and on recognition of which stage the student is at, I can encourage them to relinquish methods that are not of the contemporary craft/art discipline.

I appreciated that the article was explicit about a certain way of being or “self” appropriate to a discipline, and assessments are channelled through this lens while encouraging students to explore their “telos” as a means to be different from the norm. The phrasing around encouraging a student to be “‘political’ but without a political programme to give new forms to relational activities” (Barrow, 2006 p. 368) is particularly helpful in approaching assessment feedback on students developing ethically challenging practices. I also intend to implement reiterating to students during feedback on assessments how the assessment can give them a structure, not to cling to, but to negotiate with which was a student quote from the reading (Barrow, 2006 p. 368).

References

Barrow, Mark (2006) Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect, Studies in Higher Education, 31: 3, 357 — 372

Mezirow, J. (1995) Transformation theory of adult learning, in: M. Welton (Ed.) In defence of the life- world: critical perspectives on adult learning (New York, State University of New York Press), 39–70

Writing Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in Art and Design. A. Davies

The learning outcomes and assessment reading for Workshops 3 & 4 are relevant to my current assessments for Parts 2 & 3 of the Foundation Painting Pathway, and dissertation deadlines for the BA ACC (BA Art & Contemporary Craft). As an Associate Lecturer and Subject Tutor, Allen Davies article Writing Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in Art and Design was more useful to me than the UAL Course Designer. Davies outlines the specific language that defines outcomes related to cognition, abilities, and skills, which is significantly valuable to my teaching. This is useful for creating class briefs, lesson plan learning outcomes and feedback for assessments. While I implement the approaches in my lessons and assessments, it is useful to focus specifically on how a student can evidence their imagination and creativity for example, thinking/behaving imaginatively, imaginative activity is purposeful, originality (based on individual, relative, historical), and objective value. As the article aptly highlights, “creativity” and “originality” are less tangible to test than skills and therefore more slippery to define. Davies defined originality as ‘Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value’. Original is related to either the individual’s practice, relative to peers, or historical. This situated the terms in a measurable realm to direct students towards. Likewise, I found the definition of “understanding” into areas that can be tangibly tested via “description”, “explanation”, or “analysis” clear terms for directing learning outcomes and assessing written or oral material. I was curious about Davies attention to the term “excellence” as elitist because I’ve observed some level of competition in the classroom is healthy for motivating student ambition and helpful in preparing students for the abstract nature of success in the arts. In some institutional assessment matrix (Sussex) I have noticed Excellence has been replaced with Outstanding and I am doubtful this changes any sense of elitism.

I intend to use the definitions related to originality and imagination in my general language during lessons and within learning outcomes to increase student awareness of how these are tangibly judged. I want to apply this while writing current feedback to improve students’ draft dissertations and am intrigued to see the response. I would also like to introduce the question of originality to students during group crits, to invite discussion on how originality can shift depending on artistic objectives.

References

Davies, A. (2000) Writing Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in Art and Design. ADC – LTSN Learning and Teaching Fund Project: University of the Arts London.

Course Designer: Crafting Learning Outcomes; Enhancing teaching, learning and careers education in partnership with staff and students. The Exchange: University of the Arts London. Available at https://tinyurl.com/2a474v9n (accessed 23 Feb 2024).