Contextual Background:  

As a member of technical staff, I am not included in formal assessments or marking. As a support technician, I very rarely teach lessons and therefore only have formal interactions with students in the form of supervised studio sessions or in informal technical tutorials and one-to-ones. This has meant that I have not viewed myself as a member of the teaching team who can or does give feedback. It is important for me to recognise that every time I am speaking to a student about their work, I am giving them a form of feedback, and I need to be able to do that in the most constructive way to give them the most benefit.  
 

Evaluation: 
As I do not view myself as a member of the teaching staff, I do not hold myself in the same regard when it comes to feedback and assessment. I view my interactions with the students more as “helping” rather than educating so do not place a large importance on my feedback and how I may communicate that. This is not accurate to how students will view me and may actually undermine the respect and boundaries that students have for me, my department, and their learning of specialist skills. 

Moving forwards:  

Self-regulated assessment: It is important to recognise that I will never be comfortable with giving feedback that feels absolute. When a student comes to me with a potential problem in their wig-making, I am not the only person in the department with that specialism who can help, and I will always encourage them to ask the other members of staff for advice as well. Without knowing, I have been encouraging my students to do more ‘self-examination’, prompting them to question what they really want out of themselves and their project so that they can communicate that to me, and I can give them the most beneficial guidance (Barrow, M., 2006). More purposefully promoting self-regulation and self-assessment will allow me to still position myself within my role correctly – I am not a part of their formal assessment or marking – whilst giving feedback that allows each student to further their projects and still feel open to other technical advice (Nicols, D.J., Macfarlane, D., 2006). Using question-based and student-lead feedback approaches can prompt internal feedback, leading to a potential for gained confidence in decision-making and better self-esteem as practitioners and students (Nicols, D.J., Macfarlane, D., 2006).  

Disciplinary Assessment: As Nicols and Macfarlane also posit (2006), I am aware that this is not a fool-proof method to employ, and that some students may need more support to get to a place where they can internally-generate their own assessment. Assuming that university age students who are learning technically advanced specialist skills will immediately have confidence can be dangerous. I have learned you should never assume a student’s self-confidence; in fact, often it feels they are looking to you to lay the foundation first. In these instances, perhaps the use of disciplinary assessment would be more helpful, whereby the feedback is a little bit stricter and more specific in the steps the student needs to take to improve (Barrows, M., 2006). Giving feedback is just as much a learning process for me as it is for students, and I hope this new knowledge helps my confidence in the future to give the students the best learning experience possible.  

Barrow, M. (2006) ‘Assessment and student transformation: linking character and intellect’, Studies in Higher Education, Volume 31 Number 3, pp. 357-372. 

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, Volume 31 Number 2, pp. 199-218. 

Contextual Background:  

During the final year of our BA Hair, Makeup, and Prosthetics for Performance course, our third-year students have to design, research, and realise multiple fully formed characters which include elements of all the skills they have learned on the course. This is a culmination of their entire degree and an opportunity for them to take risks and push themselves, which so often results in students wanting to use skills and techniques that they have never used or only used once before.  

Evaluation: 

As the student’s designs are highly specific and technically challenging, I often only work one to one with them during their final year. By their third year, I know most of the students quite well on an individual basis as I have helped them in their previous projects, but occasionally I will have a student who has not made something within my specialism before and therefore do I not know them or how they learn, but I have to teach them a technical specialist skill to a high enough level for them to hopefully get a good mark. This can result in a delay in us understanding each other and therefore a delay in their making process.  

Moving forwards: 

One to One tutorials: This is already my most commonly used method of teaching third-year students. Individual tutorials allow me to tailor my advice to the individual project and not potentially confuse the student with techniques or advice that would not work best for them. These tutorials are based around students bringing me a specific problem or need that I then give them instructions on how to solve. After learning more about feedback, I need to start allowing students to solve their own problems. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Questioning (1956) provides structure on how to ask questions that prompt a student to evaluate and analyse their problems without me having to outright tell them.  

Samples: There is an ever-growing collection of wig-making samples that I have made to help students ground their designs in the sensory of the materials they will be using. Before the production of these samples, I noticed that students with tactile learning desires were lost after having to produce 2D designs for their assessments. Introducing materiality and object-based learning gives students a starting point and gives them the base knowledge to understand the physical limitations of the processes they wish to employ (Orr, S., Shreeve, A., 2017). The samples grow every year as I encounter students who learn in different ways and need more specific, visual examples.  

Supervised Studio: During their first term of making, I share supervised studio sessions with other technicians. This operates as a ‘studio’ whereby there is “usually no central focus” and the students “create a social learning environment” (Orr, S., Shreeve, A., 2017). This allows me to encourage students to ask each other questions and problem solve together rather than come straight to me for problem solving. I have noticed that this can result in students feeling like they are not getting the help they should, and they are forced to turn to others. In future I plan to be more present in supervised sessions and use it as time to make samples, so that they can see me working and feel my presence in the classroom.  

Armstrong, P., 2010. Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, pp.1-3. 

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

Contextual Background:  

In the first term of the first year of the BA Hair, Makeup, and Prosthetics for Performance course, students are expected to produce a piece of knotted facial hair for their final character realisation. They are taught by an external practitioner how to make and style a moustache, but are allowed to design and make any type of postiche for their project. This has resulted in me having to one-to-one teach students how to cut and style their pieces as they do not receive my haircutting lessons until the end of their second year on the course. As these are new students who I have not taught, I am not always aware of the potential language barriers or accessibility needs required for us to understand each other.  

Evaluation: 

As this is the first year our first-year students had postiche-making in the curriculum, I was unprepared and unaware that the students would be left not knowing how to finish their pieces. I am not a part of the unit introduction so was unaware of what they needed to create for their final realisation. This resulted in students emailing me individually to ask how to finish their pieces and us scheduling one-to-ones for me to show them. Most of them did not possess the required basic hair knowledge to understand the technical language of hairdressing and so required for me to tailor my language and demonstration to them individually.  

Moving forwards: 

SharePoint page: In our department we use SharePoint pages to create mini “lessons” for students who need to learn or use a process that we don’t provide full lessons on. This is an excellent replacement for sign-up workshops which we also do not currently run. In this instance, a SharePoint page would be able to be sign-posted to students and would provide written text, detailed images, and captioned videos of different basic techniques. Ashcraft (2006) states that “language and content are inextricably bound” and that “providing comprehensible input” is paramount for students to learn through barriers. A webpage with fully accessible content in multiple formats would give students a variety of ways to digest the information.  

Proposed Supervised Studio sessions: As these are students who are new to the course and me, proposing to offer a supervised session, either compulsory or not, would fill a gap in between the lesson where students are learning the skill (moustache making) and their hand-in. This would be a student-lead session where I could ask students individually what they need help with. Ashcraft (2006) also mentions how educators must be able to use a range of questions such as “either/or or yes/no questions” to allow for the student to answer comfortably. In my opinion this is not only suitable to assist in language barriers, but also neurodiverse students who may need clearer communication prompts. 

There is only so much I can control concerning the unit structure and requirements, so creating as many diverse and accessible resources as I can will hopefully aid me in being able to instruct students and tailor myself to their needs in the future.  

Ashcraft, N., 2006. Overcoming language barriers in content-area instruction. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 3(1), pp.20-30. 

Armstrong, P., 2010. Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, pp.1-3. 

Background: 

I chose to base my microteaching on historical wig-making tools that we still use today. I am not a teaching technician and only have contact with students in 121s and supervised studios, so I did not have any lesson plans that I could have adapted, I need to create a whole new micro lesson. I don’t usually teach people who have no background knowledge either, so it was difficult to create something that would work more broadly than how I am used to interacting with students.  

Lesson Plan: 

The lesson was structured around three historical wig-making objects, with the general plan being to start with asking the students to draw or write down what they thought the singular image of each object was used for. They were given 30 seconds for each of three images. After the three intervals was an allocated 3-5 minutes of responses from the students. Following this was roughly 15 minutes of the history and background of each object. As I was unsure if I would have a full 15 minutes of information I also built in the possibility of a discussion at the end of the lesson. 

How it went: 

I do not feel that my microteach session went particularly well, mostly due to the fact that I have absolutely no experience with this form of teaching, with it being online and it being for absolute beginners. I only had two “students” due to unforeseen circumstances, so my timing was a little thrown off, but thankfully as I had built in an optional discussion at the end, I did manage to fill the 20 minutes of teaching time. The two participants were more than happy to engage with the sketching which helped my flow with connecting from the “guessing” portion to the learning portion.  

Feedback/Reflection: 

As I said previously, I did not feel too positive about my microteach session after I completed it. I don’t feel like that’s a bad thing though and I don’t regret it, I just have to acknowledge that it was very outside my comfort zone and was something I’d never done before. The feedback I received was mostly positive and largely centered around how enjoyable the participants found the subject matter. I’m glad I decided to focus on a topic that was still quite specific as I did feel pressure to generalise it and make it easier to digest as I know that 20 minutes can be a very short period to explain something advanced. I also received some very valid feedback from one participant that the beginning of my exercise wasn’t as inclusive as it should have been. I didn’t preface the lesson with an explanation of the structure, and I didn’t warn people that I would be asking them to draw or guess blindly. I can understand that this can be exclusionary to students who might need to know the structure beforehand and may be caused anxiety by not being told that they will be guessing. I can see now that asking people to guess and then share with others requires trust. I think I am so used to teaching students who I already know that I did not consider this to be necessary but will definitely include this in future lesson plans.  

During the discussion for our readings about assessments and feedback, I had a really lovely conversation with the rest of the people in my group that made me feel frustrated but also validated. I was sharing my thoughts on “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice” (Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006), and fed back to the group how my view of the paper was impacted by my job role as a technician (as stated in a previous blog post). I was the only technician in the group, so I was surprised at their surprise that in my department technicians are not a part of assessments and final marking. This led to a really interesting conversation about how we feel the university’s goals don’t always align with what they are advertising. I know that that is a hefty statement to make, but in my experience and those of others in the group, the final physical item(s) or the process of how items are made are usually not what’s marked at the end of a unit. The London College of Fashion is a technical college that has practical degrees, how is that appropriate? We are trying to teach our students how to make things and yet that is not at all what they are being marked on. If a course produces physical final items but the marking is based on a digital submission, how does that enforce to the students that the quality and the process of the making is just as important? I personally feel that one of the reasons why our students may not feel prepared for industry, as I so often hear from final years and returning alum, is that our assessments place importance on the wrong part of the process. Or maybe it’s that it’s just too much importance on that part, and that the importance needs to be equally spread. Either way, I do not hold the answers to this, and I certainly do not hold the power to change assessment or unit criteria, but it is something I feel strongly about and probably deserves more ruminating.  

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, Volume 31 Number 2, pp. 199-218. 

Discussing assessment and feedback has always been a bit of a grey area for me, as a technician who has nothing had nothing to do with grading or assessment, I have always felt that it had nothing to do with me or my department. Recently, technicians in my department have been invited into live assessments to be able to give technical feedback – we have little to no say in the final mark, but we can lend our specialist opinion to the unit leaders and markers. Due to this recent change, I have been slapped in the face with my complete lack of knowledge surrounding all of it. 

I chose to read “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice” (Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006) for one of our workshops and I’m really glad I did as its description of feedback and assessment was a description of things I am already doing in my job role. Whilst not all of the seven principles listed by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) apply to me in my technical role, but there were two in particular that really stood out to me: 4. Encourage teacher and peer dialogue and 5. Encourage positive motivation and self-esteem. I often see students in more informal and casual ways – ad hoc 121s and supervised studio session are the most common. I did not classify what I was doing in those sessions as feedback purely as it was more informal, but I see now that it was. Almost every interaction I have with a student regarding something technical that I am helping them with is feedback and recognizing that will help with my eventual involvement in formal assessment and feedback sessions.  

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, Volume 31 Number 2, pp. 199-218. 

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Wig-making Samples 

Size of student group: up to 150 (entire course cohort) 

Observer: Cora James 

Observee: Kitty Eyes 

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action. 

Part One 
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review: 

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

This on-going collection of wig-making samples is currently being made by myself for all three year groups on BA (Hons) Hair, Makeup and Prosthetics for Performance. These samples are not included in any workshops but are used to assist students in casual one-to-ones and supervised studio sessions when students need assistance visualizing the making process of a wig, and what kind of construction their designs necessitate. Students are introduced to wig-making and basic hairdressing from their first year and are expected to produce hair pieces for most of their physical projects throughout their course.  

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

I have been working as a Support Technician and now Specialist Technician for this course for nearly 4 years. The current final year students are the first group I have seen through all 3 years of the course, so I have seen them all progress through their wig-making classes and am aware of all three years’ individual ability.   

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

The samples should be able to help the students have a better understanding of specialized knowledge pertaining to wig-making and hairdressing, thus assisting them in their designs, experimentation, and realizations for each units’ physical outcomes.  

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

The students are required to make and/or style a hair piece for every practical unit during their course.  

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

The presentation of the samples has not been finalized, leaving them in a file folder with small labels attached. Additionally, as they are very delicate, they cannot be left out in the classroom so are only accessible when I am working.  

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

No students will be present at the time of the observation as the samples are not currently used for any lessons.  

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

I would love to know if Cora has any opinion on the presentation of the samples – as a technical member of staff in a completely different specialism I am very interested to hear about if/how Cora’s team and department utilise samples and what the culture is around them. Are they only for lessons, are they kept in a specific area, are they accessible for students at any time or do they have access restrictions etc. 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

Cora and I will be meeting in person for our reviews, with feedback exchanged online or through email.  

Part Two 

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

It was a lovely and insightful peer review looking and talking through Kitty’s wig samples, and she did a fantastic job in explaining them to me (I have no experience so was encountering a completely new field), and how she uses said examples in 1:1 teaching. Kitty was very informed and easy going with her knowledge, explaining clearly and concisely what each different sample was and how the 3rd year students might engage with them, from net density, sporadic and single strand techniques and different types of human hair samples. Kitty showed some her own wigs (ones she had made as a student), the first wig she had ever made which she said she used to show students how she has progressed and help them understand what is expected of them and when. She was very direct in showing the errors, explaining what went wrong and had exact examples of how her technique had got better with practice on just one sample (I particularly loved this – thought it was so clever!) I had a ton of questions, that I imagine students wouldn’t have with the prior knowledge from their course, but Kitty was able to answer everything, and the samples only added to her explanation. It was interesting and it felt important to hold the samples physically so I’m glad we did the review in person. It made me think about the wider culture around hair and we had a lengthy discussion, mainly focused on the active effort her department was making to diversify their hair samples and references which was interesting. 

What I absolutely loved about the peer review was how Kitty showed her mistakes physically as a key part of the learning process, it helped me reflect on my own practice, I do this verbally a lot in my sessions, I find it helps students to relate and feel comfortably in the learning environment but I don’t currently use physical examples, I feel like that’s something I would love to do in the future, as I feel our students who are also practitioners making physical work could really benefit from seeing the trial and error process that comes with working in the darkroom so they aren’t too hard on themselves. 

I feel like the only thing that the samples would really benefit from is a proper storage system for them, and maybe multiples so students can hold on to copies or they can be left out (I am aware that these would likely be misused or lost). 

Part Three 

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged: 

I’m really glad that we had the opportunity to meet up in person as my peer review last year was online, and resulted in my opinion that I do not feel like the samples can be shown in an in-depth enough way through a laptop camera. Being able to physically hand the samples to Cora also gave the review a physicality that helped the conversation flow naturally and that enforced my confidence in the samples themselves. It was wonderful to see someone interact with them, as normally students are quite scared of them, but Cora clearly felt confident in my own confidence to hand them straight to her and she jumped right in and made sure to pick up everything I had brought. I’m glad that Cora also enjoyed the tactile aspect and understood my intention behind them – to not only show students different techniques, but to also familiarize them with touching delicate objects that you know someone has spent hours making by hand, and to show them what skill growth and progression looks like.  

It has been incredibly helpful to hear from another technical member of staff that they like and agree with me showing “bad examples” and my own mistakes to students. I am the only member of my department who has specific “bad examples”, so I do often question whether I should be using them or not and if they send the right message. Ultimately, I do always show them as I have yet to find another way to show students the realistic nature of learning a new skill and the learning curves that come with that. I’m thankful for Cora’s feedback that she agrees that this is useful and worthwhile for students. I do think that they need to be displayed or organised in a better way as sometimes it’s not clear that what I’m showing is a mistake – I think I will probably lean into my current “bad example” naming and give them their own box or labels to make it even more clear and also to reinforce the light-heartedness I have around showing them.  

I agree with Cora that the biggest downside of my samples is their lack of proper storage and how that can impact their availability to students. I have thought a lot about how these samples can be displayed or more accessible and still draw blanks as I don’t want to expose the samples to the realities if being damaged or lost – but maybe that is a risk that has to be taken. I have recently started to ask students themselves for ideas or how they would like to interact with the samples, and I hope that this will give me some insight or inspiration so that these samples can be as useful as possible to students.  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Colour Darkroom induction session

Size of student group: 7/8 students

Observer: Kitty Eyes

Observee: Cora James

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One

Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

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

This is a Colour Darkroom induction for BA Photography first years, who have signed up for this session – it is an extracurricular activity that allows them to gain access to the facilities to boost their practice and use independently.

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

These students have been with us since September 2024, and I may have taught them various inductions, colour processing, camera skills, B&W darkroom and studio, I may have seen them lots or not really met them properly.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

– To fully understand and apply the Health and Safety compliance expected within the department and how it relates specifically to their use in the colour darkroom.

– To have a full understanding of what a colour enlarger is, after an extensive demonstration by technical staff.

– To understand what a colour negative is and use them to make a test strip using a colour enlarger.

– To examine their own test strips and adjust both colour balance and exposure time, with advice and guidance from technician.

– Make a contact sheet & a final print in the colour darkroom.

– To be able to use an easel efficiently to create borders on their prints.

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

Students will make their own contact sheets and a final print of an image they select from their contact sheets. They will be able to cut and expose test strips, load their exposed paper into the machine, understand exposure times and an introduction to colour theory & colour balancing and make their own adjustments as well as set up their easels to create an even border for their singular image.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Lateness can be a potential difficulty as I do have to start promptly and there is lots of key information at the start of the session that is vital for students to know. They are working in low light, and the students will be expected to work in some areas (their own booth and the loading room) in pitch black. I must do demonstrations in the light for things that are done in the dark, which requires being with a smallish group of 7 in close proximity and trusting eachother in the communal spaces. There is a lunch break to refuel and opportunities for students to individually have comfort breaks and use the daylight communal area if they are struggling with the darkness.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will email them prior to the workshop to let them know that I will be being observed. I will also introduce Kitty at the start.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

I’m up for any and all feedback – would love your insight from one technician to another!

How will feedback be exchanged?

Email is fine!

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

The induction was structured as a full day, the morning centering around H&S and the introduction of the process, with the afternoon focused on the students creating their own work. Cora splits the process up into small chunks which she demonstrates and then asks the students to replicate themselves before moving on to the best step. This pacing allows for her to check that each student has correctly completed the step and allows her to individually correct or give tips to students, effectively mimicking 1:1 time during a lesson with multiple students. As this is a more advanced technique, Cora kept reminding the students of their black & white darkroom inductions and drawing similarities between the two, prompting them to recall their previous knowledge and build upon it, teaching it as a continuance of a known skill rather than a completely new process. I really like when skills are taught as “buildable” as it makes the learning seem less daunting to students and further solidifies what they’ve already been taught – I’ve

found in the past that knowledge doesn’t stick around in a student’s brain for as long as we hope it does, so I really liked that she kept drawing them back to that original induction.

I was interested to see if such a small group of students would have adverse effects on the lesson, but I actually think it’s one of the best parts. Yes, there were problems with student lateness, but catching them up did not seem to hamper Cora or the lesson timing.

Cora clearly has a positive and healthy relationship with her students, knowing most of them in the class by name and cultivating a very comfortable, safe, and fun atmosphere for learning. More than once I heard a student say to a peer “is it stupid if I ask if….” and then be encouraged by others to ask Cora, which shows a lovely respect and comfortability that the students know they can ask her anything and they won’t receive any adverse reaction or judgement.

I was also struck by Cora’s use of language – as I often am when watching technical staff teach – a very carefully balanced use of technical terms and plain language with a direct and well-paced pattern of speech that was incredibly easy to understand. Even I, with a severely limited knowledge of photography, understood her directions and the specialist processes of the induction.

I really enjoyed watching Cora teach, her comfortability, ease, and specialist knowledge was wonderful to watch, and as a technician that is new to teaching structured lessons I’m very grateful to have been welcomed into her space!

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Thank you Kitty for your kind words and reflections – I thought what you said about my step-by-step process essentially mimicking 1:1 time was really interesting, I haven’t thought about it like that before – I knew I needed that part of the workshop to be relatively fast, but that students will be at drastically different ability levels and experience so felt like breaking it down was the only way! In an ideal world you would just learn this 1:1 but there is something nice about the collective experience of being all together for the first time in the darkroom. You also reflected on my constant referring to the B&W darkroom knowledge they already have, we find it important that our students have this knowledge that we can build upon, otherwise learning colour can be a bit of a baptism of fire, and like you said it is hopefully less daunting! I am also always surprised by how much students don’t remember initially after a workshop, and then I remind myself that when I taught myself to knit a few years ago I watched the same youtube videos repeatedly, and still (3 years in) need to remind myself what certain abbreviations mean in knitting patterns and watch tutorials again. Lateness is a massive problem, especially in technical workshops where the time constraints are tight, I find myself able to catch people up, but I think that also depends on their eagerness of the whole group and the person who is late. I love when students feel comfortable enough to ask

questions, this cohort are BA first years, so they are already quite a connected cohort, but a lot of them are fresh from A Levels or college and around 18/19 so feel quite different to teaching master’s students.

I have worked hard on my use of language; I think as a technician we must use a lot of ‘technical’ jargon which many find inaccessible, so I wanted to work out how to properly explain the technical terms, particularly for international students as English is not their first language, and found this was best done with a mix of plain language – very basic slow explaining, this massively improved once I had a child and came back from maternity leave, motherhood in general slowed me down, so I find that reflected in my teaching.

I hope to continue to create comfortable environments for my students, aiming for them to feel free of judgement as that is the best way to feel when learning and honing a new s

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Wig-making samples

Size of student group: n/a

Observer: Carys Kennedy

Observee: Kitty Eyes

 

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

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

This on-going collection of wig-making samples is currently being made by myself for all three year groups on BA (Hons) Hair, Makeup and Prosthetics for Performance. These samples are not included in any workshops but are used to assist students in casual one-to-ones and supervised studio sessions when students need assistance visualizing the making process of a wig, and what kind of construction their designs necessitate. Students are introduced to wig-making and basic hairdressing from their first year and are expected to produce hair pieces for most of their physical projects throughout their course.

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

I have been working as a Support Technician for this course for nearly 4 years. The current final year students were first years when I started, so I have seen them all progress through their wig-making classes and am aware of all three year’s individual ability. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

The samples should be able to help the students have a better understanding of specialized knowledge pertaining to wig-making and hairdressing, thus assisting them in their designs, experimentation, and realizations for each units’ physical outcomes.

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

The students are required to make and/or style a hair piece for every practical unit during their course.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

The presentation of the samples has not been finalized, leaving them in a file folder with small labels attached. Additionally, as they are very delicate, they cannot be left out in the classroom so are only accessible when I am working.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

No students will be present at the time of the observation as the samples are not currently used for any lessons.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

I would love to know if Carys has any opinion on the presentation of the samples – I know that they come from an academic background and do not necessarily use physical samples in their teaching, so I’m interested to have a fresh pair of eyes and ears that are coming from a completely different teaching perspective.  

How will feedback be exchanged?

Carys and I will be meeting online, I have taken photos of the samples to hopefully depict better detail. A powerpoint presentation has been made specifically for these reviews.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Thank you, Kitty, for talking me through your wig-making samples.

You explained that students are expected to submit hair, make-up and prosthetic as part of their assessment. They currently hand in pictures and videos, although you are hoping that they will begin to hand in physical items again soon.

To support student learning, you are producing a range of different samples, using 40, 30, 30 and 15 denier lace. The samples include a variety of densities and knotting. Each sample you showed me was clearly marked with the denier of the lace, the density, and the knot type. On the images you showed me, you had included a pin which gave a clear sense of scale. You also showed examples of different lace seams. You also have taken steps to make the samples ‘user friendly’, such as using hair and lace colours that would be most visible.

You explained that the samples may use hardier materials than standard wigs use. This is so that they can be shared with students, who can handle the samples; standard wigs may be too fragile. Each sample also says how long it takes; the first sample you showed took 4 hours. You explained that a full wig can take an experienced professional 150 hours. By showing students how long it takes, it supports them to make decisions about their project. You explained that you are trying to encourage students to do more hair-styling, or to make hair-pieces and wefts; these are faster and cheaper.

You shared your favourite sample, which you produced when you were a student. You described it as a ‘bad example’; you said you like to show this to students because the right side is more even than the left, so students can see where you ‘figured it out’. You said that you like to share ‘bad examples’ so students know that they won’t get things right on the first try. We talked about this for a while, and I asked how students respond to you sharing your own work. You said that students respond well to this, and explained that you did this same course yourself as a student. You said that you keep an example of your first wig, and the original front, and also share this with students. I imagine that students respond really well to this honesty, and to your technical/professional expertise, and agree that there is a lot to learn from these ‘bad examples’

You explained that students can be embarrassed about what they are making; they can be fragile, and are learning difficult skills. You noted that the large windows at East Bank exacerbate this, as student work can be observed. This is another reason why I think your willingness to share your own examples and practice is likely to be valuable to students.

You explained that that sharing and storing the samples is a complex issue. They are fragile, and valuable, so are shared with students under observation; however, at least one sample has gone missing. You also noted that hair is potential fire hazard, so there are health & safety implications with their storage. However, they are also designed to be tactile resources. You said that this is something you’d like to think about more.

I noted that I felt that I had gained a lot by looking at the samples on-screen, so was wondering if there is a way that images of the samples can be shared with students in addition to the samples themselves. You said that you are hoping to add the samples to a Sharepoint page as a digital resource; however, you noted that students don’t always use the digital resources that are available so you are worried that they might not get utilised. I asked whether a printed resource, like a Look Book, could be developed, perhaps with QR codes linking to the Sharepoint resources.

I was also curious about different types of hair, and how students are introduced to this. You explained that different types of hair have different properties: for example, afro/multi-textured hair is brittle, so European and Asian hair is more commonly used. You explained that Indian hair works best for training heads, as it can withstand the required acid wash. You shared that students had asked about working with different types of hair. You said that students hair also asked about hair derived from animals (e.g. horse, yak and mohair). You said that consideration is being given to the suppliers of animal hair, as corporations are not always able to confirm hair has been acquired ethically.

You expressed a desire for students to be able to develop wigs and hairpieces that can be used for multiple projects. You gave the example of a student who produced a centre-parted hairpiece, and that you recommended using a cross-knot so it can be parted in different ways in future. You told me that it very rare for wigs to be used for only one project, as they are so expensive and time-consuming to make. I asked if sustainability is also a factor, and you agreed that it was. Your aspiration is to develop an even wider range of samples for students to learn from.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Thank you Carys, for this wonderful and in-depth feedback! It was very interesting to hear from someone who does not come from a technical background and so could give a completely new perspective on the samples.

I really appreciated how inquisitive Carys was about the samples – it’s not very often that I get to show these to people who have absolutely no base knowledge of wig making. Carys also mentioned that I used very accessible language, which I’m quite proud of hearing. I think as a technician I often have to try and explain very intricate processes to students regardless of language barriers or learning differences, so it was very affirming to hear that someone who had no knowledge basis for this subject matter found my language to be accessible and easy to understand.

Carys also brought up the diversity of the samples and questioned why there was no diversity in the hair texture of the samples, making very valid points about how students are introduced to hair texture in wig-making. There are most definitely plans for there to be diverse hair samples, but sadly we are currently restricted to very little budget and time for these samples. The samples are never really included in lessons as lecturers and senior technicians often have lesson-specific samples to show. Instead of focusing on the diversity of the samples, we have instead focused on the diversity of the lesson material. Upon reflection, I think that we should most definitely have samples that match up to their lessons (and beyond) and that it should be more of a priority to include diversity not only with curl types, but also with animal hairs.

The feedback that I was most interested in was regarding how to display the samples, and if Carys could give me any advice or opinion. Carys brought up the idea of making a “lookbook” for the samples which I think is fantastic. I have already been considering making a digital record of the samples, most likely on Sharepoint, but I have never been satisfied with the idea of them not being “physical” in some sense. The idea of creating a picture lookbook with possible QR codes that link to the Sharepoint is excellent and allows both students and staff to have access to a physical mode of the samples without me having to be there and without me having to leave the samples out in the open, risking damage or theft. The best of both worlds. Thank you Carys!

For our second workshop, we were allowed to choose from a list of texts, and so I chose the one entitled “How do art and design technicians conceive of their tole in higher education?” (Sams, C., 2016) as I am currently working as a technician in higher education. In this job role, I have always found that I am truly unsure of how I am defined, and I have always had a feeling that the university doesn’t have any more of an idea than I do. Across my college, LCF, the technical role wears so many hats that even in the same departments, two people with the same job title can be doing two different jobs.  

This case study was done across all of UAL, so technicians of different grades and specialisms all took part. It was unsurprising to see that when you strip away specialism from the technical job role, you get the same consistency in perception of what is left. Sams (2016) concluded that “three key themes emerged when comparing the responses from this study, establishing notions of supporting, helping, and teaching as fundamental to the technician roles.” I would agree that supporting, helping, and teaching are all tenets of technical roles, but I am disappointed that within those final three themes there is little to no mention of technical expertise or artistry. Sams (2016) writes responses from select technicians describing not feeling valued by academics or administrators for their technical artistic knowledge but fails to include that in their conclusion. I feel that this is exactly why higher education fails to pinpoint what a technician actually is – to be able to support, help, and teach, you must first acknowledge the requirement of the breadth of knowledge and expertise of a specific craft needed to accomplish those three tasks. You cannot have one without the other.  

Sams, C. (2016) ‘How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education?’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 62-69.