PgCert Jules Stuart

I was lucky enough to observe Laura-Beth Cowley do a crit with some of her second year MA Character Animation students.

Below is the information Laura-Beth supplied to me prior to the lesson observation:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

Each student will be pitching their idea for the final project for unit 3 for the MA in character animation. It will consist of 4 slide presentations given by the students followed by feedback, consideration and suggestion offered by the tutor and other student members of the group.

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

Since September 2024 as the stage leader for the second year. They will have been introduced to me in their first year through contextual studies lectures also.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

From student perspective: To gain further insight from tutor and peers into their film. From tutors position: to take notes and suggestions on students progress and current plan for final project.

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

They should take notes and digest the feedback and consider applying the changes or suggestions to their production moving forward. As well as ask questions about any other aspect of the project or modular they have.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Some students may be stressed or anxious about presenting. These students are offered to be seen last so they can speak one on one with the tutor if preferred.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

The entire year has been emailed by our line-manager about observations taking place. The observer and context of the review will be introduced to the students at the start of the session.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

How the tutor interacts with the students. How they offer feedback, any notes on how this could be improved upon. Particularly in encouraging others in class to engage with their colleagues’ work and offer ideas, feedback or suggestions.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Through this form, email and possibly debriefing conversation.

This was my feedback for Laura-Beth on the lesson:

I observed Laura-Beth on 30/01/2025 for about two hours conducting feedback sessions with second year MA Character Animation students who were presenting the planning and work they had been doing towards their final major projects. It was a small cohort of students, including one group of three who presented together and another student who presented solo.

The group went first, and Laura-Beth allowed them to make the decision on what order they wanted to show her the work they had done, this option was also given to the second student showing that Laura-Beth was encouraging them to take onus over their own presentation and to let them do the guiding, rather than dictating downwards what they should do.

Throughout the feedback she was giving, Laura-Beth proved that she knew the projects and had been paying attention to students’ past work, able to reference previous projects and contextualise their current proposal within their known skillset and portfolio. She had a rolodex of references and work of other animators that she was able to bring up on her laptop and phone to show the students, who all paid attention and noted down or took photos of the shorts she showed them. Whilst giving feedback and talking about examples Laura-Beth was not afraid to stand up, to make noise, to use gestures and in general physicality to explain what she was talking about, which would have been helpful especially given that some of the things (eg, characters dancing or funny noises) would have been hard to describe just verbally. It inserted a bit of humour and humanity into the sessions.

Laura-Beth additionally made sure that she fully understood the student’s projects – especially with the first group of students she made sure to rewatch their animatic and have them explain the plot, and their decisions about the characters actions. The second student had less of a concrete animatic in place, was yet to do the research that would launch the plot but had instead been able to complete some animated process tests. In this case Laura-Beth was able to advise her to start researching, provided some people to get in touch with to interview and talk about what was realistically possible for the film to convey in the time the student had – encouraging her to put her own voice into the project too.

If I had one thing to feed back on it would just be some of the references – many examples were shown to the first group which was great as they were able to take photos of these with their phones, but a couple of artists work was just made reference to verbally (eg M.C. Escher, and children’s book author Oliver Jeffers) and I wasn’t certain if the students knew their work or understood the references as they weren’t met with the same enthusiastic reception of some of the previously spoken about examples. Perhaps in the same way as the animations were shown on screen these references could have been bought up on screen to make sure the students understood. Additionally, while the second student sat through the first groups’ presentation and listened attentively, I noticed that while she presented most of the first group sat back and were on their phones. I know it can be hard to ask students to behave in a certain way and perhaps this is more a reflection on them but it would have been nice to see them engage a little bit more.

Overall I think Laura-Beth showed a clear passion for animation and for helping the students to plan their projects to be the best they could be. Her wealth of experience and knowledge proved incredibly useful in being able to advise them not only on their own projects but also the existing surrounding contexts within the field of animation. I think everything she discussed with the students during their presentation was useful advice, giving them the necessary stepping stones to move forwards with their projects and supporting their ideas to give them the confidence needed to believe in themselves as they embark on their FMP.

For Microteaching I presented last, meaning that I first got to sit through the lessons of everyone in my group. We contained a wide range of job roles from other technicians to behind the scenes software support and librarians, providing a range of lesson styles and subjects. Everyone was very supportive of each other and engaged in the activities, questions and providing feedback.

My lesson revolved around the use of 3D scanning as a method of archiving, and I started by introducing the context with which I 3D scan – as a bookable service for the students. This lesson differs to how I would usually interact with students around the subject; as a bookable service our role is just to facilitate the scan itself and the processing of the scan data into a model, rather than to advise students on the project or to contextualise scanning within the wider world.

The first half of my microteach focused on introducing some case studies where scanning is used as a method of archiving, I picked varied examples from around the world to make the lesson as interesting as possible. This lead to the activity, where I passed on the link to their archive and got participants to pick a 3d scan, interact with it on their computers and then feedback using some questions as prompts.

Most of the feedback was about how interesting the subject matter was – many participants expressed that from the title they didn’t expect 3D Scanning to have so many exciting real world uses. No one was afraid to express their opinion on the quality of the scans I provided via link to the activity, most saying that they felt it was not true to life – I’m glad that even though I had talked about scanning in a positive way throughout the taught section people were not afraid to be critical of the quality. I got told it was good how I clarified the different terms used for scanning at the start of the class, and interestingly was asked how I divulge this information to students – and had to explain that this is not actually a taught class, and we only get to discuss this with students if they express an interest. Since most of what we offer is a bookable service, our discussions with the students are very dependant on the student’s own willingness – some are very interested in the process and want to know more, some will visit for the minimum time needed to get what they need before heading back to their main classrooms / labs.

Reflecting on my microteach I am very glad that I was able to present the information in an informative way that was interesting to everyone attending. I do have confidence in my knowledge around the services I offer / operate in the workshop, and am glad that my passion was able to create something of value to others. It would be interesting to think about the role of a technician and technical services in general and how this contextual knowledge may be passed on to students more, as there are many technicians with specialist knowledge who are able to teach but are not called upon to do so by their roles.

(540 words)

Contextual Background (50 words)

The 3D Workshop is open access; we are not course aligned and can be used by students from any course, year, or technical ability. Courses will brief students differently – some emphasize experimentation through process and some are only interested in final outcome, which affects students expectations of the space. (49 words)

Evaluation (100 words)

Our main need from students for them to access the space is to ensure they have completed their inductions, where we pass on crucial health and safety information, fire safety information, and outline what processes we have in the workshop. To get around the bottlenecks of fully booked inductions limiting access to the space, all our inductions have been moved to Moodle. This allows students to work through the information at their own time and pace, and translate what they might not understand, however some will still rapidly click through so it is hard to make sure that all information sticks. (101 words)

Moving forwards (350 words)

Our inductions are possibly too lengthy – students must first pass a health and safety induction, then additional inductions for each service, eg laser cutting, 3d printing, etc. It’s a balancing act between not wanting to overwhelm with information, vs giving them the max amount of info possible so they can plan their project.

I do think that there is the opportunity to simplify the inductions down – condensing information to just key points, as most students do need to talk through their questions when they come to the workshop anyway. For instance, instead of having 3 separate inductions for the 3 separate types of 3d printing, there could be one induction that gives an overview on the types of 3d printing, and then the detailed information about each printer type can be housed on ‘learn more’ pages.

However, despite the somewhat overwhelming amount of information and inductions students have to complete, we have received mostly positive feedback about it. These new Moodle inductions are interactive and full of visual examples, compared to our old inductions on ORB which were mostly text based. The changeover has been a bit confusing in terms of communication, with many students still being told by their tutors to complete the inductions on ORB which no longer exist. I think better communication between academic and technical could improve this going forward – this is beyond me as one technician but I think it should have been communicated better to academic staff so that they are able to pass on the correct information.

Finally, due to the confusion created by some workshops having in person inductions, we do still get a number of students asking for in person inductions. In my area – 3D printing – this would mostly consist of showing examples of 3d printed projects, and walking students through file setup. This is what we do during their booked timeslots, however if the nerves of turning up to a booking having never done something before is putting people off then I believe we could run a few trial in-person 3D printing inductions and see how successful they are. (350 words)

Workshop 1a and 1b served as an introduction to the PG Cert unit – it was great to meet all the other participants and see such a wide breadth of participants from across job families and colleges. Despite being the online group, we were able to interact in activities in Teams breakout groups and on Miro, which was eye opening to me having a full time in-person job, with little experience of hybrid learning.

Our initial activities included creating a timeline of [primarily UK] education history and adding in additional important dates. We discussed and defined social justice and what this could mean and look like within a higher education setting. Most agreed this could be addressed by diversity within staff, decolonising the curriculum and providing equal opportunities to students, such as hardship funds.

I was given a chapter from ‘Signature Pedagogies in Art and Design’ (Orr & Shreeve, 2017) to read prior. The reading establishes a number of methods and techniques that teaching might occur in, but of most interest to me was the thinking on the ‘studio’ as a space for learning. They highlight the important of in person spaces for students to discuss, experience peer to peer learning and how ideally it is an ‘active, busy place’ (ibid). Orr and Shreeve also speak a lot of the ‘stickiness’ of teaching within higher education, specifically within the arts. One way this manifests in studios is the increasing lack of permanent studio space, leading to students becoming ‘migrants across campus’ (ibid).

This relates to my role as a technician, where our workshop acts as a studio for most of these students. Through this we end up having high contact hours, and teach them necessary technical skills but also help with individual support (Sams, 2016). We also offer pastoral and medical care when needs arise. Sams notes that while most technical staff feel appreciated by students, they can often feel undervalued by the wider university and discontented with the lack of support for personal practice and career progression – the lack of progression indeed being one of the reasons behind me starting my PG Cert to widen my other job options.

Berger (2009) puts forth that some objects or artefacts can only be understood ‘through the knowledge… created by their use’ – which I believe links to the physical technical skills we teach in our in-person roles.

Going forward in the PG Cert I am interested in exploring how our roles as technicians can be thought of more as being as equally valuable in terms of teaching as the academic content taught to students on their courses.

(435 words)

Orr and Shreeve (2017) ‘6 Teaching practices for creative practitioners’, in Signature Pedagogies in Art and Design.

Sams, C. (2016) ‘How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in  higher education?’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journa, 1(2).

Berger, A.A. (2009) ‘What objects mean: an introduction to material culture’. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. 

Hi – I’m Jules Stuart and I’m a specialist technician in the 3D workshop at London College of Communication. I mostly work across 3D Printing, 3D Scanning and CNC Routing and I am currently overseeing ceramics too.

From the PgCert I hope to gain knowledge in teaching that I can apply to my work as a technician in how I interact with students, and in the content we produce for students to learn from, even though this may differ to the style of teaching more commonly used by academics and lecturers at the uni.