PgCert Jules Stuart

Contextual background (50 words)

As a technician I do not formally assess students work as part of their course – in fact very often we are left in the dark about their briefs and the LOs they have been set. This means that most feedback we give mostly revolves around praise for the work they have done, judged on them picking up a new skill or producing something we can see they have worked hard on. (71 words)

Evaluation (100 words)

I think the separation between technical and academic does make it quite hard for us to assess and provide feedback for students on their work – they may ask what we think but since we are unaware of what they are being assessed on our feedback may not be tying in with the Learning Objectives set by their tutor, and with the feedback they will get from their tutor. This could create confusion for the students as they struggle to understand which feedback to go off. (85 words)

Moving forwards (350 words)

It’s no easy feat, especially in the context of a workshop like mine which is open access to all courses, to be able to get the ideal amount of collaboration from all academics across all units with all technicians form all workshops. I do think however, that students would benefit if technicians had a greater understanding of their course requirements, and if academics could better understand the type of support and learning that technicians are able to provide.

For example, if a particular brief was marking students on the application of a skill, eg packaging design, we would be able to signpost students to different ways of going about the project and provide contextual information about the process that they can document for research. Instead, we may just meet a student who says they need an acrylic box, and without knowing the context we help them make that then send them on their way. Additionally, if academics were able to visit technical spaces to look at the facilities they may be able to write certain areas into their briefs – for instance if they were to see the speed at which students can make a prototype model on the Form 4 printers, they could set their students the objective of producing a physically printed component to encourage students to come down into the workshop.

This relates a lot to Brookes (2008) who pointed out the shift in attitude towards study, where students feel like they need to be spoonfed more by their tutors. Very often the opinion of the tutor is held in high regard and without the push from the academic side the student will not think outside the box and visit us of their own initiative.

It would greatly benefit all areas if technicians had a more thorough understand of what students are being marked on for their briefs, and if academics understood how the practically taught technical skills could benefit the students in meeting their assessment criteria. (329 words)

References:

Brooks, K. (2008) Students Critique of Feedback in AD. Bristol: University of the West of England.

Below is the information I supplied to Laura-Beth ahead of her reviewing the 3D printing online content. The reason we went for an online observation is due to Jan-March being the quietest time in the 3D workshop (and across a lot of technical spaces within the university) due to units and projects finishing across the BA and MA courses. This means that there are less students in, and less bookings, so therefore less time to observe any in person teaching.

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

The 3D workshop inductions are intended to provide information to students about the services we offer, and crucial health and safety, file setup, and material information. The purpose of the inductions being online means that students can complete their inductions at any time and from any device, reading and digesting the information at their own pace and without the need to book in-person workshops weeks in advance. The intention is to pass the onus of decision making and booking onto the students by providing them with the relevant information so they are able to plan their projects independently.

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

I have been a technician at LCC since 2020, and the inductions are relevant to all students from all year groups, both undergrad and post-grad. Some students you will end up becoming familiar with, some will do the inductions and only use the facilities once. Our inductions were previously housed on ORB, and this is our first academic year of using Moodle inductions so it’s been a learning curve for us and the students.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

We intend to provide all the information you might need about 3D printing, from file setup to understanding the types of printing we have available. This information needs to be both accessible enough to people who may have never 3D printed before, while providing all the information needed to understand 3D printing and to set up Cura or Preform files for it. After completing the inductions we would expect students to understand the difference between printing with the Ultimaker and the Formlabs printers, and be able to set up files for each following the file setup guide.

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

In an ideal world we will have provided enough information in an accessible enough way that even a student who has never 3D printed before will be able to select a printer, download their slicing software, and turn up to their booking with a correctly set up file. Of course, some may struggle and will prefer to come and set their file up with us and this is also completely fine!

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

The inductions were created by two of us – a colleague who thought it more important to include as much complex information as possible in order to give a real world professional simulation, and myself who thought it better to have simple and minimal information online so as to not make the process seem intimidating – the result is sort of half-way between the two. I’d be interested to hear whether you think the inductions appear too complex or if they contain just the right amount of information!

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students will not be impacted by staff undertaking the Moodle inductions.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

If the information is too complex, if you think it could be condensed, if you think there is anything related to 3D printing that it misses out on!

How will feedback be exchanged?

As Laura-Beth will be observing online, feedback will be provided via this form and via email between the two of us.

Below is Laura-Beth’s feedback:

The induction guides to both the Ultimaker FDM 3D Printer and Formlabs SLA 3D Printers were well written and offered what I feel is the correct level of information, at a reasonable level of complexity for a beginner in the subject. The instruction on time, cost and likelihood of failed prints for the Ultimaker is very good and is really vital information. In the summary quiz you also mentioned if people don’t have laptops they can use computers in the workshop – this is great as it is considerate of students economic situation as some students don’t have personal high spec computers/laptops.

Regarding the Formlab printing it may be worth mentioning the minimal size thickness for formlab prints and the fragile nature of resin materials if they are too small or thin. For the Ultimaker it may be worth mentioning in the section on materials that there are other PLA materials such as mixed colours and wood filament but this may depend on what your department is happy to accommodate. As you have stated that you only use Ultimaker filaments, this may not be needed/possible. It may be worth giving them information for both printers about the use of external bureau and how set-up and energy consumption may also be a consideration on cost, as well as the expense of more complex materials. I also wonder for both printers if payment should be made in the hour time slot, to avoid people not paying/collecting prints, however this may be university policy and/or not a concern.

It was great to see how many opportunities and options students had for additional support should they need it, although I understand the hope is they will be able to do everything independently, maturity and confidence of students differs and you have clearly considered this which is really good to see. The how to use Cura and PreForm guides were also very

clear and comprehensive.(Not a big deal but just to mention I think there may be a minor error in the preform print guide. On page 5 you mention “0.1mm layer thickness gives a very high resolution print. 0.5mm prints in finer layers” I think it should say 0.050 as shown in the picture.)

The level of autonomy these guides give is excellent and puts the skills into the hands of the students whilst making them realize the realities and limitations of 3D printing which can sometimes be misunderstood. Signposting to other resources for building was well placed, and highlighting the skill and need for understanding slicing software is really important and was well documented and explained. I think Jules and her colleague have succeeded in creating an engaging, informative and clear resource for their students to learn and engage with this technology.

Below is my response to Laura-Beth’s feedback:

I’m thrilled with how positive Laura-Beth has been about our online inductions – it helps that she comes from a background of specialist 3D printing knowledge but also good to see her commenting on the accessibility of our online documents, and how we signpost students to where to get extra help when needed. We always want to make sure students feel like they are included and welcome in the workshop – even though it is often much easier when people have their own laptop we have never wanted this to be a barrier which is why we have a spare in the workshop.

We do have existing plans to update some of the information with some of the points Laura-Beth has raised, including talking about the fragility of thin resin prints. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of Moodle and the scrom packages uploaded from Articulate, we’ll have to make these changes over summer after the academic year is over otherwise we face forcing every student to have to do the induction again! For the PLA filament we do actually only use Ultimaker branded PLA – it’s the only brand that doesn’t void our warranty on the printers, and PLA is the most inert of all 3D printing materials. As we (the technicians) have to remain in the workshop all day we tend to avoid printing with ABS, Nylon etc – anything that releases smelly fumes really! We’ve not had much of an issue with students not collecting their prints – although the main reason we don’t take payment before the print has been completed is because we only charge for the successfully completed prints. If a printer fails overnight due to something outside of the student’s control we’ll usually shoulder that cost.

I’m very grateful Laura-Beth spotted that mistake on the file setup guide for Preform – this is indeed a typo and something that all three people who proof read the document have missed! This guide is unrelated to the scrom package induction so is actually a change we’re able to implement now.

I’m glad also that Laura-Beth raised that we were trying to give the students autonomy with the guides – this is what’s at the core of how we work in technical services; passing on practical skills to students which they’re able take with them to the professional world after graduation.

Case Study 2: Planning and teaching for effective learning

Contextual Background (c.50 words): 

Within 3D printing we face the challenge of using a lot of technical industry specific terms and vocab, which can be a challenge to students without prior 3D printing and modelling experience, and also for those for whom English is not a first language who may know the words but not the translation. (53 words)

Evaluation (c.100 words):

Currently, student’s first point of interaction with 3D printing terms is often via our online inductions on Moodle. The inductions serve as a starting point for printing, but still use some technical terms that would be unfamiliar to students who have never modelled before. While most students can follow the inductions and instructions, they are clearly not 100% effective as some will still come in confused for their booking. I think the inductions serve their purpose to pass on info regarding how we operate as a workshop, but they currently leave the onus on the student to research what they don’t understand or know regarding 3D modelling. (107 words)

Moving forwards (c.350 words) 

I think in addition to inductions focused on booking printers, there should be an additional online introduction on the basics of 3D printing and modelling. This could contain a glossary of terms, with visual examples to explain terms like polygon, open mesh, closed mesh, sealed model, shell, overhang, mesh density, support structure, and many more. This would not need to be mandatory in order to book, but would act as an informal intro which might be more approachable than going straight in to the induction.

I believe having the illustrated glossary of terms in poster format hung up in the 3D print workshop would also help, as we’d be able to point to visual examples of the terms we’re using. This would provide a concrete reference for the students to understand the term in relation to their own work and whatever problem we may be trying to serve.

We could additionally distribute these glossary posters to other spaces around the university, such as the digital space, where students also go to get help with their 3D models. This would ensure parity with terms used across departments, and also hopefully allow students to better explain their projects to technicians there, and technicians to understand the specific requirements of models for 3D printing.

So far, the implementation of the mandatory online inductions have mostly worked and mostly enabled students to come to us with their file prepared. This is a higher success rate than our previous inductions on ORB, which were just paragraphs that people could skip if they wanted. I believe that the students who fall through the gaps of making it through an induction without fully understanding would be helped by having the shorter online glossary introduction too as this would help them to understand parts of the induction they may not comprehend. The final few students who are still struggling when they come to us for the booking will be helped via the printed out glossary of terms, as we can use this to communicate the fixes they may need to do on their models, and explain what we require in order for a print to work. (358 words)

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.

This was Laura Beth’s response to my feedback:

Jules’ feedback was thorough and insightful, it was useful to see my teaching through another’s eyes. It was encouraging to read that my comprehension of the subject and enthusiasm for my students’ work was highlighted and seen as a positive in the student experience. I will certainly take on the fact that some of my broader references may not have been known and make sure to check in on students on such references in future. I agree that the other students in class could have engaged more and as my focus was drawn to the students’ work being discussed, I missed the opportunity to bring them more pointedly into the conversation. Regarding the use of phones in class, with international students you have to be careful, as often they are using translation apps so they can better understand what is being said, and to point this out or suggest they should not be doing so, could be seen as being unaware and/or insensitive to the needs of the individual students. However I appreciate the point raised by Jules. I appreciate the observer’s ideas, thoughts and time taken in reviewing my work and look forward to observing and offering any feedback I can for her teaching/materials

Additional thoughts:

It’s so interesting that Laura Beth mentioned the international student’s use of translation apps – this isn’t something we see in the workshop often (in cases where we can’t explain things to each other we’ll often resort to drawing with the students to get their ideas across!) so I hadn’t considered that in a context with a lot more spoken language that this might be what the phones were being used for.

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)

I found the below feedback on my lesson on Pheobe’s blog which really cheered me up – thanks Phoebe! Hope your alligator is doing well 🙂

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.