I read chapter three of Rosenburg’s, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, in preparation for observing a peer. In this chapter they distinguish between observation and evaluation. They refer to this as NVC, short for Non-Violent Communication.

They state that “NVC is a process language that discourages static generalizations; instead, evaluations are to be based on observations specific to time and context” (Rosenberg, 2005, p. 26).  This means to remove your personal opinions and feelings from the process of observing and base it only on what is taking place within that specific time and context. In a teaching observation context this would mean observing solely what is happening in the classroom e.g. there are 10 students present; half of the students achieved the learning outcomes set at the start of the class.

As Rosenburg writes “For most of us, it is difficult to make observations of people and their behaviour that are free of judgment, criticism, or other forms of analysis” (2005, p. 28). This seems rather obvious but in practice this means making a conscious effort to only observe the time and context.

There is also a focus on the language used, the example given by Rosenburg is “Hank Smith has not scored a goal in 20 games” versus “Hank Smith is a poor soccer player” (Rosenberg, 2005, p. 32). The first statement is based on statistical facts, they do not show any opinion whereas the second is a statement made based on judgement and opinion. If the second statement was given as feedback it would not be constructive and would likely be hurtful to the observee.

References

Rosenberg, M.B. (2005) Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. CA: Puddledancer Press, pp. 25–35.

In chapter 6, Teaching practises for creative practitioners, Orr and Shreeve look at signature pedagogies encountered in teaching creative arts subjects. Such as the crit, the studio, the brief, the live project, developmental work, research, dialogue exchange and materiality. They also describe how these distinctive pedagogies are used in teaching and learning.

I would like to focus in this instance on the space/studio as a pedagogy, in this case a studio or workshop were technical and creative processes take place. As Orr and Shreeve (2017, 90) state “A space may not seem like pedagogy, but in its widest sense the studio helps structure what can and does take place when students learn, and it has been a central part of organised learning in visual arts for more than a century”. Part of the space being a pedagogy they explain is how students “create a social learning environment” (Orr and Shreeve,2017,90) in which open discussion takes place, and the tutor can observe and assess work being produced and offer within that space tutorials.

They also discuss the how object-based learning within the space is a key element of teaching a creative subject within a workshop, although they refer to it as by another term, artefact. I found this tied in well with my previous reflective blog post on object-based learning. They go on to say that “Ideally the studio is an active, busy and social place where learning is visible” and there is “discussion through active participation” (Orr and Shreeve,2017,90). Which is my experience of teaching within this environment, as well as teachers and students learning new techniques, ideas and concepts from each other and through experimentation and problem solving.

They also state that the studio “is the central part of how learning in visual arts takes place” and that “the space echoes those found in professional working environments” (Orr & Shreeve ,2017,90). Statements that I agree with whole heartedly.

 As a full-time teaching technician, I am always in the workshop either teaching core skills sessions or supporting students with their work. I had never come across the concept of the studio itself as a pedagogy and I found this so incredibly interesting! I found that they described how learning takes place in the workshop studio environment to be true to my experience of teaching in this environment.

I also really enjoyed the cross over between both articles I read, regarding object-based learning, something so key to teaching making but that I also didn’t have much knowledge of in terms of terminology and research. This reframes how I consider the workshop a space, its purpose and provides a further context to the space. I am still reflecting on both space a pedagogy and on object-based learning being a central part of teaching a creative subject an look forward to reading more about it.

References

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) Chapter 6: ‘Teaching practices for Creative Practitioners’, Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Taylor & Francis Group, Milton, pp. 89–104. doi:10.4324/9781315415130-6. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central [accessed 5 January 2024].

This case study by Willcocks and Mahon draws on data collected from students who participated in online workshops aimed to foster a “critical awareness of the connections between colonialism and the climate crisis” (2023, p.188) by examining 18th- and 19th-century botanical drawings from the CSM Collection. They analysed “153 end-of-unit feedback forms and 25 reflective journals, which detailed students’ learning experiences” (Willcocks and Mahon, 2023, p.188).

As someone who taught online during lockdown and continues to use digital teaching tools, I was interested in understanding the effectiveness of this process. I wanted to know which digital tools were employed, how the sessions were delivered, the challenges and benefits encountered, and, as Willcocks and Mahon put it, “whether experiential pedagogies can be successfully translated for delivery online” (2023, p.188).

The students were asked to research climate and social issues in the geographical location of the plants in the paintings. To build upon their critical thinking, further questions were asked such as who painted them, what motived them and who was the consumer for the work. Questions that led the students to dig deeper into the meaning of these botanical paintings and the current impact of their historical context.

TED talks, podcasts and academic articles were shared with the students, as well as talks, group discussions and activities on Teams. Padlet was used for uploading information and creating an interactive map that all students could add to. It was noted that information was made more accessible for all, including neurodiverse students. Although they did not go into detail as to what exactly, which would have been interesting to know.

Forty-nine “students described gaining new perspectives on colonialism or making links between colonial and neo-colonial practices” (Willcocks & Mahon, 2023, p.198). Thirteen, described feeling confused throughout” or “a sense of ‘disconnection’”(Willcocks & Mahon, 2023, p.198). A smaller number of students mentioned other issues such as “the importance of face-to face contact – of body language or lip reading – to effective communication” (Willcocks & Mahon, 2023, p.198). Feedback that is not uncommon when teaching online, so I wasn’t surprised of these findings.

Wilcocks and Mahon, concluded that “online object-based learning activities allows students to challenge and potentially reframe their thinking for more diverse understandings, approaches and actions” (2023, p.200). The project seems to have been largely effective in its goal of getting a group of students to reflect on how colonialism has affected the environment through object-based learning. 

Although I did not get a better insight on digital tools for online teaching as intended, I did learn of object-based learning, first explored in a museum context by Scott G. Paris who coined it as a distinct academic discipline in his book, Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums. I was aware of this as a practise, but not what it was called or of the research behind it. Which I intend on researching more and am thinking of ways to implement it in my teaching practice in future, as a way of exploring topics that are challenging to teach such as sustainability.

References

Willcocks, J. and Mahon, K. (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, 22(2), pp. 187–207. doi:10.1386/adch_00074_1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00074_1 [5th January 2024].