This first workshop contained a discussion of different teaching case studies, and short readings from UAL’s Spark journal. The Spark pieces in particular I really enjoyed — there was something really satisfying about reading research on one’s immediate environment.
The specific reading I chose to focus on was Clare Sams’ article on technicians’ conceptions of their role (Sams, 2016), which used a combination of qualitative and quantitative method to provide a technicians’ account of their jobs. While many of the points discussed I found related to my own role, I found that the ending classification of technicians’ roles undercut these points somewhat. The classification (between supporter/helper/’quasi-teacher’) gave a picture of the role as subordinate to the development of students academically — this felt like a missed opportunity, given the emphasis in the rest of the article on the importance of specialised technical resources, particularly in programmes that combine technical and academic development.
I also read a couple of the supplementary readings. I found the (Gibbs, 2014) piece on learning gains particularly insightful. Having studied and worked as both a lecturer and technician in quite a broad range of UK and US institutions and departments, many of the conclusions synthesised in the paper reflect my own experiences.
One concept I was particularly interested in was the contrast between formative vs summative assessment as applied to the tutorial system at Oxford (Gibbs, 2014). I experienced a similar system as an undergraduate engineering student, where very large class sizes with complex technical material were complemented effectively by a regular small-group tutorials, which required a great deal of self directed work.
It’s interesting to compare this to the current status of the CCI, where class sizes have also increased markedly since I joined as staff (the maximum class size can run to 90 students). Both academic and technical staff provide opportunities for one-on-one (or two, three) tutorial support outside of classes, but these are not typically formalised or regularised. One difference I have noticed (compared to a few years ago) is how much less prepared students tend to be for one-on-one tutorials, and how much less underprepared students get from them as a result. I wonder about the use of ‘flipped classroom’ (Tucker, 2012) tactics — e.g. pointing students to relevant wiki pages or exercises before they attend tutorials — to encourage students to make the most of tutorials as a time for problem solving.
I’ve also observed the negative effects described by Gibbs of not paying part time staff to attend training or meet other staff members — both in my past experiences as adjunct faculty, and in present observations of technical teaching in the CCI. Students on courses relying on hourly paid staff to deliver core technical elements encounter a range of difficulties, including lack of knowledge of departmental resources, assignments that fit poorly with the rest of the curriculum, and occasionally severe safety issues, when departmental health and safety policy has not been known to or enforced by teaching staff.
In an attempt to address some of the latter issues, myself and my colleague Mayra have applied for funding to pay hourly paid staff to attend a Technical Teaching Working Group we are planning to run in the department. The aim of this is to improve student outcomes by sharing materials, while also supporting staff.
References
Gibbs, G., 2014. Maximising student learning gain. In A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 215-230). Routledge.
Sams, C., 2016. How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education?. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 1(2), pp.62-69.
Tucker, B., 2012. The flipped classroom. Education next, 12(1), pp.82-83.