17.01.25
Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 1:1 tutorials/feedback on design progress
Size of student group: 4 interactions with successive students were observed
Observer: Eden Chahal
Observee: Fernanda Palmieri
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
Complete Part 1 of the Observation Record and send it to your observer in advance.
This summarises the following:
Status and history of the learning group
- Vertical Design Studio – BA Architecture (Stage 2 and 3 students)
- Study Area 2024-25: Stratford Town Centre.
- External partners: Grow Studios, Creative Land Trust and Newham council.
- Course started in October with site visits and student presentations on their first impressions of the site (personal take)
- Then we meet the ‘partners’ in a learning forum, promoted discussions and exchanges (existing conditions/problems and conflicting desires for the area)
- Students then worked in groups to develop their research and a collective sensibility to the area and local communities.
- They used ‘situated actions’ as a tool of engagement and investigation, still working in groups, they devised urban strategies for the site.
- Each student then proposed a meanwhile intervention as a response to the group work and personal take/interest.
- The meanwhile project informed the design brief for the final project.
- Content of the session and its context within the curriculum
- At the moment they know:
WHAT they are designing – individual building brief
WHY they are designing it – research and strategy
FOR WHOM – communities they engaged with or identified + Grow Studios
WHERE the project site is – plans, sections, elevations of the existing project site + good analysis talking about the conditions observed, opportunities and constraints.
Content of the session:
Students are now working on their design development: HOW the architecture will respond/translate all the knowledge acquired.
This is the first session after Christmas break and session 1 of 2 before the summative submission on Thu 30/01 –
They are submitting their design portfolio (thesis) + reflective journal, which have to communicate fully communicate all their work (research, process and ideas/intents) because there is no opportunity to present work at this stage.
Aims and objectives of the learning session
Feedback on the development of the individual design proposals.
Feedback on the portfolio – project narrative and graphical communication for submission.
Anticipated outcomes of the learning session
Clarity on: next design steps, and what to prioritize.
Any potential difficulties or areas of concern
Students were supposed to work independently before and after the Christmas break to push the development of their design project and be able to communicate key design intentions by this point. If students didn’t produce work independently they will be falling behind by now and a ‘catching up plan’ will have to be devised during the tutorials on Friday.
How the students will be informed of the observation
We have issued a tutorial list, the students attending the time slots under observation (afternoon) will be informed and consulted in the morning, prior to the event.
Any particular aspects that you wish to receive feedback on
Clarity in the verbal feedback, regarding design and regarding the portfolio which must communicate their responses in relation to the Learning Outcomes.
Preferred time/place/medium for feedback
I am happy to receive written and/or verbal feedback.
Part Two
I joined Fernanda for her 1:1 tutorial at CSM, observing her work with four students over 1 hour and 45 minutes as they discussed their individual projects.
From the first interaction I observed, I noticed an ability to leave space for the students to express themselves. Even when students struggled to articulate their ideas—often messy at this stage of the process—Fernanda refrained from rephrasing or interrupting. Instead, she subtly allowed them the space and time to explore and articulate their thoughts. This approach is something I will reflect on and adapt in my teaching.
Throughout the tutorials, I noticed a pattern in the way she led the feedback:
- Uninterrupted time to present their work, without interjection (a comfortable 10 to 15 minutes).
- Fernanda then took control of the discussion, delivering focused feedback that didn’t call for immediate dialogue. She began by highlighting the strengths of the project before suggesting multiple directions rather than prescribing a single solution. This always included sketching, acting as a demonstration of the design process, which she commented aloud: for instance, saying, “Here, if I draw a courtyard, I can check the plan to see if I could add openings. Once I have this sketch, I’d explore how it looks in section.” This method seems effective, putting the students in the position of the designer, I imagine it can ease apprehension about starting to draw – as they have already seen it in practice in a very concrete manner. Fernanda also used our direct environment as a tool of engagement and pedagogy, with 2 of the 4 students, she referred to the teaching space to give them an idea about volumetry. This is a spontaneous, directly actionable learning methodology for the students. For one, it was about visually measuring the room and comparing it to the space they were working on in their project. I can imagine this becoming part of the student’s independent study time – trying to absorb volumetrics, comparing them, to better understand and compose with spaces.
- The sketching phase allowed to open a discussion, opening to a more interactive phase.
- Each tutorial was concluded with clear suggestions for moving forward, covering references to explore, project directions, and the tools or resources students might use to represent their ideas. For one student, this approach uncovered a challenge with focusing on drawing, leading to a suggestion to alternate between mediums like model-making, drawing, and referencing. I imagine this to foresee a moment of panic and offer a lead on facing it during times of independent study.
Even though the structure seemed to repeat itself, it was also tailored to each student.
For example, one student seemed anxious, it was hard to tell if they were managing to fully focus on the discussion —nodding but not fully participating—Fernanda invited them to draw over a sketch. After taking a moment to compose themself, the student engaged with the drawing task. This easy step appeared to help them focus back on the discussion. In this specific case, I wondered if asking them to take notes or alternatively providing them with a written list of steps/tasks to complete, even remaining general, for their time of independent study might have been helpful, especially if a learning difficulty is at play.
This observation left me curious whether this structure was a deliberate teaching strategy or one that Fernanda refined through experience. It’s a method I’m inspired to incorporate into my own teaching, particularly the calm and subtle way in which she guided discussions.
Challenges
I observed three possible challenges, which are not directly linked to the teaching but that could impact its delivery.
- Tutorials took place in an open, shared space with multiple groups working at the same table, as well as other tutorials happening nearby. The resulting noise was distracting, and I imagine students—especially those with neurodivergent needs—could be affected. I lost focus more than once, particularly when discussions around where louder or more heated.
- Students use a mix of hand drawings, printed plans, and on-screen work. Printed materials seemed to facilitate the most engaging discussions, allowing for live demonstrations and greater interactivity, including work in progress drawings. In contrast, on-screen work, such as unfinished InDesign presentations, was harder to engage with and less conducive to spontaneous feedback. While alternatives like larger screen presentations could help, they might demand polished work, which can be intimidating and incompatible with work-in-progress feedback.
- With the one-on-one format, I noticed that students all left immediately after their sessions. Most were working before their feedback but left right after. A studio environment where they would be able to kick start what was just discussed or at least plan their work accordingly could be a lead to ensure the discussion doesn’t fade and is effectively activated.
Discussion in small group of tutorials might allow students to observe more design demonstrations and develop critical thinking by seeing their peers receive feedback. However, I recognize that presenting in front of others may trigger anxiety for some students.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
It’s very interesting that Eden commented on my approach to actively create a space for the students to express their ideas.This is indeed something I learned and refined through experience. I remember having the urge to fill that space when I started teaching afraid that students would feel my silence uncomfortable or judgemental (1:1 tutorial is a form of informal assessment).
As a tutor, seating across the student for a 1:1 tutorial is the time I must be fully at the moment with them, engaging with their ideas, looking for their rationality and interests which are not always translated into drawings or words. In one studio day as such, I might see 10 to 12 different students individually and in those 10/15 minutes I must adjust to the new student and situation, change the language I will use, pick the references I will bring and find the right way to conduct the conversation. I suppose this is one of the ways I practice reflective teaching.
For the students, the 1:1 tutorial are an opportunity to talk about the work, formulate questions and identify struggles, which is probably the most important part of this interaction in terms of learning (metacognitive connections). That is why it is fundamentally important that the students perceive my curiosity and feel confident to take ownership of that space I am offering to them.
Actions:
- Open and shared studio spaces are challenging environments to teach. There were indeed moments when students asked to sit in a separate room for a more focused or private conversation, but I don’t normally offer that option to my students straight away. Maybe, for the 1:1 tutorial, I could ask them before we start and give the option of seating in a separate room. It would be interesting to know how they feel about it. However, space availability is a big issue at CSM and this might not be possible.
- Yes, it’s very limiting when students bring all the work on the screen. Printed material facilitates the conversation and makes possible to think in a non-linear way – opposed to going from one slide or drawing to the other on the screen. However, there is a clear recommendation/guideline coming from the school that says we cannot demand that students print their work every session. My approach is to constantly talk about how important it is to look at multiple drawings and resources at the same time when designing, explain that design is not a linear process and that having lots of drawings on the table and moving between scales, aspects and media is a key part of design development. to encourage them to bring print outs, sketches and physical models.
- Yes, submission time is tricky, you must see students individually (1:1) and focus on their individual submissions, and students tend to leave immediately after their tutorial sessions to get on with the work. The problem is that, on block 2 (after summative submissions), that pattern tends to remain, and it becomes very difficult to get back to the buzzing studio environment we had in term 1 when students were working in groups. Discussions in small groups are a good tactic, and I run the tutorials in small groups just after the submissions which was quite effective. Still, students left as a groups after the tutorials. I might try to implement a couple of ‘touch base points’ with the whole group during the studio day (quick group briefings conversations) and ask the students what they want to see/get out of these moments in terms of – resources, presentations, conversations. The moments we have to look at and study architecture together are always very precious and I learned that students really appreciate that.