Joana Pereira PgCert

Embracing GenAI in art and design teaching

The rise of GenAI has significantly disrupted the creative industry and art and design higher education. As a dual professional, I have observed and experienced the implications of GenAI both in the industry and within the course where I teach. The panic is palpable in academia and has plunged educators into a period of uncertainty and rapid pedagogical change, where responses often oscillate between optimism and concern. There is also broader discourse in the creative sector about whether AI might turn aspects of creativity into a luxury good, privileging those with access and understanding of these tools whilst marginalising others (Alagiah, 2024). Ultimately, we cannot stop GenAI and automation in the creative fields, but we can reframe how we think, create, and operate in collaboration with AI.

Watching the recorded guest lecture and workshop with Chris Rowell (2026) has prompted me to critically reflect on my own position regarding the use of GenAI, more specifically in the studio-based practice where I teach. At the BA of Graphic Branding and Identity, we teach students to develop verbal and visual identities for organisations that are meaningful and unexpected, based on societal and audience-led contexts. GenAI can, and has been used to develop such brand identities by students, albeit with varying degrees of criticality and success.

As technology evolves, taste and discernment become increasingly central to creative value, as these are human capacities that cannot be fully delegated to machines (Goodspeed, 2024). Furthermore, recent studies suggest that GenAI can enhance creative processes by supporting ideation, iteration, and experimentation, particularly when students actively engage with prompt development and critical evaluation of outputs (Lee, 2025), yet this critical engagement is not currently embedded within the curriculum, which could contribute to the widening of the gap in terms of industry readiness.

In my view, it is our role as educators to guide students on where their input starts and stops and when to allow GenAI in. This shifts the focus from restricting AI use to developing “AI literacy,” where students critically assess outputs, understand limitations, and maintain authorship over their work, positioning them as active agents rather than passive users of technology.

I will most certainly use the Value Spark Cards (Rowell, 2026) to structure and inform our teaching in relation to GenAI, and to help navigate both staff and students through the perils and opportunities of using GenAI in their practice. Like the inevitability of self-driving cars, the use of GenAI is looming, and we must face its reckoning head-on to best support students on how to embrace AI in their practices, creatively, ethically and sustainably. In this sense, GenAI should be approached not simply as a tool, but as a potential creative collaborator that requires critical oversight.

In the words of David Lee, CCO of Squarespace, “Creativity might be the only job left in the future, full stop”. This aligns with industry forecasts, such as the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report (2020), which emphasises that creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving are projected to become the most in-demand human skills as automation and AI take over routine tasks (World Economic Forum, 2020).

AI is reshaping the role of design and creative practitioners to become more ideas-led and craft focused, taking away menial and repetitive tasks. Some might see this as a risk, however, I increasingly believe that GenAI can accelerate workflows and support rapid prototyping, allowing designers to focus more on higher-level creative decision-making and conceptual thinking.

Although my knowledge is still limited, I am beginning to actively experiment with and integrate GenAI within my teaching practice. For example, I have challenged students to design automated brand identities using AI tools, as well as introducing rapid prototyping through prompt writing, which has opened up new discussions around authorship, originality, and creative control. I believe the role of the designer is not in danger, but rather it has been reconfigured and, in some cases, “moved upstream” (Alagiah, 2024) – from maker to critical orchestrator of tools, processes, and meaning.

References

Alagiah, M. (2024) ‘Will AI turn human creativity into a luxury good?’, It’s Nice That, 31 July. Available at: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/pov-will-ai-turn-human-creativity-into-a-luxury-good-creative‑industry‑310724 [Accessed: 18 March 2026].

Art, Design & Artificial Intelligence: An educator’s toolkit (2024). Available at: https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/Art_Design_Artificial_Intelligence_An_Educator_s_Toolkit/30374065 [Accessed: 18 March 2026].

Goodspeed, E. (2024) ‘Taste, technology and the future of art’, It’s Nice That, 28 February. Available at: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/elizabeth-goodspeed-column-taste-technology-art‑280224  [Accessed: 18 March 2026].

Lee, C.-W. (2025) ‘Application of generative artificial intelligence in design education’, Engineering Proceedings, 98(1), p. 29. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4591/98/1/29 [Accessed: 18 March 2026].

Rowell, C. (2026) Introduction to Art, Design & Artificial Intelligence. Guest lecture delivered at University of the Arts London, 11 March.

World Economic Forum (2020) The Future of Jobs Report 2020. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020 [Accessed: 18 March 2026].

Assess and/or give feedback for learning

Contextual Background

Throughout my time working with different colleagues across the course team over several years, it became evident that approaches to assessment and written summative feedback varied inconsistently between tutors. This highlighted the need for a shared framework that could introduce greater rigour and consistency in marking, provide clearer guidance on the tone of feedback, and more effectively unpack the learning outcomes in relation to assessment outputs.

Evaluation

In an effort to improve alignment and reduce irregularities in assessing and giving feedback practices, I developed an assessment matrix that mapped unit learning outcomes against the required assessment outputs and the types of evidence students were expected to demonstrate within their submissions. The matrix aimed to make explicit where and how evidence for each learning outcome could be identified, supporting greater transparency and consistency in assessment and feedback. In addition, it provided guidance on tone of voice and included sentence starters to help standardise and contextualise written assessment feedback across the teaching team, whilst allowing for tutor-specific feedback too. Although the rigour of this matrix was certainly a step in the right direction, it highlighted the need to provide more structure in earlier stages of the unit – i.e. at unit briefing and mid-point/formative assessment – and more clarity in the leaning outcomes.

Moving forwards 

Feedback and feedforward: Reflecting on the assessment matrix and feedback from colleagues highlighted the value of focusing feedback forward, not just backwards. Wiliam (2011) points out that feedback is most useful when it helps students understand next steps and improve their work, rather than simply explaining a grade. Biggs (1999, 2007) also notes that learning works best when students are actively involved with the criteria, outcomes and expectations before completing a task. Incorporating this approach encourages a more proactive learning mindset, where students see feedback as an ongoing dialogue rather than a final judgment. By engaging with feedback early, students can identify gaps, refine techniques, and build confidence in their work progressively. Using these ideas, I now see feedback as part of a continuous cycle that links briefings, formative checkpoints, and summative assessment. This cycle fosters a sense of ownership over learning, helping students internalise standards and better anticipate the requirements of final submissions.

Peer review and formative feedback: To support learning ahead of summative assessment, I plan to build in more structured formative tasks and peer review sessions, especially through pin-up crits. Biggs (1999, 2007) stresses that students learn more effectively when they interact with criteria and outcomes throughout the process, not just at the end. By including regular formative checkpoints, students can practice judging their own work and planning improvements independently with more ease. In addition, structured peer review encourages collaborative learning, allowing students to articulate their understanding and evaluate alternative approaches critically, thereby deepening comprehension and analytical skills.

Blair (2007) and Blythman et al. (2007) note that studio crits can be useful for learning but sometimes feel inconsistent or intimidating if students are unprepared. Peer review provides students a valuable opportunity to practise giving and receiving feedback in a lower-stakes environment. Wiliam (2011) highlights that feedback works best when it is actionable, helping students know exactly how to improve. To support this, peer review should be structured with talking cards and prompts, ensuring all students can contribute confidently and meaningfully, promoting reflective and inclusive feedback practices.

Formative and peer review feedback opportunities have the potential to increase students’ confidence in crits and provide multiple opportunities to “feed forward” into their final projects. Ultimately, these strategies aim to develop independent learners who can assess their own progress critically, adjust their work, and approach feedback and assessment with resilience. It is of upmost importance to ensure peer feedback is constructive at all times, and connected to learning outcomes, which may require further guidance and support. When embedded consistently, these activities could help students understand assessment criteria, use feedback to guide improvements, and approach summative assessment with greater independence and confidence.

References:

Biggs, J., 1999. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (1), pp.57‑75.

Biggs, J. (2007) Constructive Alignment, in Biggs, J. & Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd edn. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, pp. 11–33.

Blair, B. (2007) Design Studio Crit: Move from Judgement to Dialogue. London: University College London, Institute of Education.

Blythman, M., Orr, S. and Blair, B., 2007. Critiquing the crit. Project report. Brighton: Higher Education Academy, Art, Design and Media Subject Centre.

Wiliam, D. (2011) Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

UAL (2024) Supporting Inclusive and Developmental Crits. London: University of the Arts London.

Danvers, J., 2010. Making marks: Assessment in arts education. Networks Magazine, Issue 10, Summer.

Orr, S. (2010) Assessment in Art & Design. London: Routledge.

Writing effective learning outcomes for art and design higher education

This reflection responds to Theories, Policies and Practices Workshop 2b, which focused on the purpose and language of learning outcomes. Drawing on my experience revising learning outcomes during course revalidation, I argue that prescriptive and hierarchical frameworks – particularly Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) – can constrain curriculum design in studio-based disciplines, limiting early engagement with practice and creating tensions between institutional policy, student expectations, and employability goals.

As Davies (2012) observes, the use of “measurable” verbs such as identify, explain, or analyse often generates more difficulties than it resolves. These terms are highly discipline-specific and can remain opaque for students who have not yet been immersed in the language and conventions of the industry. In the context of our course, their strict application offered limited guidance for staff designing curriculum or assessing project-based work, oversimplifying complex design practices into discrete cognitive levels and narrowing the scope of learning, particularly regarding assessment and employability.

The hierarchical structuring of learning outcomes across all three years further constrained curriculum pacing and project ambition. In Year 1, which I lead, outcomes focused almost exclusively on remembering and understanding, prioritising knowledge recall over engagement with design processes. While intended to scaffold learning, this underestimated students’ capacity for meaningful creative work early in the programme. Dare (2018) critiques this approach in art and design education, noting that traditional cognitive frameworks may inadequately support curiosity, critical thinking, imagination, and the creative risk-taking essential to studio-based practice.

Student feedback confirmed these limitations, highlighting dissatisfaction with the predominance of theory over design-led, hands-on activities. In response, I introduced additional opportunities for ideation, design, and development. Although these initially felt somewhat surface-level and late in the schedule, they improved alignment with student expectations and professional practice. However, these adjustments also revealed that learning outcomes themselves require upstream revision to better reflect iterative and practice-led creative processes.

To address this, I have explored the Design Council’s Double Diamond framework (Fallin, 2022) as a tool for curriculum and assessment design. By emphasising divergent and convergent thinking, iterative prototyping, and problem framing, the framework provides a transferable model for structuring outcomes that support both creativity and assessment coherence. It demonstrates potential for reframing learning outcomes in ways that encourage embodied, iterative learning while remaining measurable for evaluation purposes.

While these refinements have enhanced engagement, challenges remain in aligning intended outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment criteria. This experience underscores the need for greater flexibility in interpreting and applying learning outcome frameworks within studio-based disciplines. Effective outcomes should support iterative, creative, and embodied learning, enable students to produce portfolio-ready work, and maintain coherence with assessment, employability, and professional practice expectations.

References

Bloom’s Taxonomy (n.d.) Bloom’s Taxonomy | Center for Teaching Innovation, Cornell University. Available at: https://teaching.cornell.edu/resource/blooms-taxonomy (Accessed: 28 February 2026) 

Dare, E. (2018) ‘Out of the humanist matrix: Learning taxonomies beyond Bloom’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(1), pp. 44–51. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/79 (Accessed: 28 February 2026)

Davies, A. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?’, Networks, Issue 18, July 2012. Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/networks/issue-18-july-2012/learning-outcomes-and-assessment-criteria-in-art-and-design.-whats-the-recurring-problem(Accessed: 28 February 2026)

Design Council (n.d.) Framework for Innovation. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/framework-for-innovation/ (Accessed: 28 February 2026)

Fallin, L. (2022) The Double Diamond: Fixing higher education challenges with human‑centered design. Available at: https://leefallin.co.uk/2022/08/the-double-diamond-fixing-higher-education-challenges-with-human-centered-design/ (Accessed: 28 February 2026)

Theories, Policies and Practices (2026/2027) Workshop 2b, 26/27 PgCert Academic Practice in Art, Design and Communication, online workshop, 18 February 2026, University of the Arts London.

Review of Teaching Practice  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Reapproval documentation
Size of student group: N/A
Reviewee: Eric Fanghanel Santibanez
Reviewer: Joana Pereira

Part One

Reviewee to complete in brief and send to reviewer prior to the review

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
This is the material we have created so far for the reapproval of the course.

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

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
N/A

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

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
We are particularly concerned with the move to one year and whether or not we are on the right track for that goal.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?
N/A

What would you particularly like feedback on?
Suggestions and potential points of failure 

How will feedback be exchanged?
Written or orally either should be fine

Part Two

Reviewer to note down observations, suggestions and questions.

The course aims are ver well articulated with clarity and vision, while the outcomes are accessible and free from overly academic language, making them easy for students to understand.

I would suggest enhancing the course outcomes related to process and communication. The process could be framed to encompass the full student journey, starting from the initial inquiry and development of the research question. While communication already includes visual aspects, it could continue to be emphasised as a key component of student work.

The overall structure of the course and units is very cohesive and strong. The pace of units 1 and 2 appears slower compared to units 3–5. Accelerating the early units could help students select their research question in a more timely manner. 

Incorporating the Double Diamond framework with divergent and convergent thinking may also support students in exploring broadly before committing, ultimately allowing more time for refined final outcomes.

Regarding project-based work, I recommend aligning the mini-projects with the various contexts outlined in the course aims. This approach would guide students towards their main research question. There may also be an opportunity to involve industry professionals in delivering mini-project briefs, providing early exposure to professional practice and helping students identify potential internship opportunities.

Finally, introducing more informal opportunities for collaboration earlier in the course would allow students to cross-pollinate ideas and practice teamwork in a lower-stakes setting before reaching unit 3.

Part Three

Reviewee to reflect on the reviewer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged. Reviewee should return this to the reviewer once complete.

Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. It is reassuring that the course aims are perceived as clear and accessible, particularly in avoiding unnecessarily academic language. That clarity is important given the diversity of backgrounds students bring to the programme.

1. Strengthening Process and Communication

I agree that the learning outcomes around process and communication can be more robust. I will revise the outcomes to frame process as the full arc of enquiry: from identifying and refining a research question, through experimentation and iteration, to testing and reflection. Communication will be expanded to foreground not only visual articulation but also critical positioning, documentation, and the ability to translate work across audiences (academic, industry, public). This will ensure both are visible threads running across all units rather than implied qualities.

2. Rebalancing the Pace of Early Units

The observation that Units 1 and 2 feel slower is helpful. I will review the sequencing to ensure students are encouraged to identify and articulate their research direction earlier, without sacrificing exploratory breadth. Introducing clearer interim decision points may help maintain momentum.

Embedding a more explicit Double Diamond structure (divergent exploration followed by convergent definition) could provide a shared framework for this pacing. This would support students in expanding their field of enquiry early on, before committing to a refined trajectory with sufficient time for development in later units.

3. Aligning Mini-Projects with Course Contexts

The suggestion to align mini-projects more explicitly with the thematic contexts outlined in the course aims is strong. I will explore how early briefs can act as structured probes into those contexts, helping students surface their interests and move towards a coherent research question. There is also real value in inviting industry practitioners to set or co-deliver selected mini-briefs. This would strengthen professional integration early in the year and potentially scaffold internship pathways.

4. Earlier Informal Collaboration

Introducing lower-stakes collaborative opportunities earlier in the course feels particularly important in a one-year format. I will consider embedding short, informal collaborative exercises in Units 1 and 2 to encourage cross-pollination of ideas and develop teamwork skills before the more formalised collaboration or internship pathways in Unit 3.

Note: I have not uploaded Eric’s materials in case he would like these to be confidential. You can visit his blog for details.

Carys Kennedy’s review of my teaching practice

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Brand culture seminar
Size of student group: 60 students
Reviewee: Joana Pereira
Reviewer: Carys Kennedy

Part One

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum? This session is part of a series of branding seminars, designed to contextualise branding in society, culture, competitive landscape and purpose. This series was delivered as part of the Major Project unit (Year 3), where students were asked to design two brand identities, each to respond and align to the United Nations Sustainable development Goals.

This session unpacks the meanings of culture signaling as individuals, ascribed and subscribed culture and finally how culture defines branding and vice versa. The session is punctuated by an initial exercise of assumptions and reality and ends with a group empathy mapping workshop, to help culture mapping brands and audiences.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity? I have worked with this cohort as a lecturer during Year 1 and Year 3.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? The session prepares students for the empathy mapping workshop, which is designed to encourage them to look beyond rigid brand audience demographics and produce a qualitative study of people subscribing to brands.  

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)? The main output is an empathy map, to help students understand their audiences more deeply.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? The intention is to mitigate students from defining audiences by generation (Z, Millennials, etc.), which can be quite reductive and lead to generic brand identities. It’s about understanding aspiration, social ‘tribes’ and tastes to help predict audience and brand behaviour.

How will students be informed of the observation/review? This session has been previously delivered and I will be sharing the slides, materials and session plan.

What would you particularly like feedback on? General feedback on the content, the style (which I tried to make quite informal) and how designing thinking was used to help defined brands rather than using traditional market research. 

How will feedback be exchanged? We have arranged for an online discussion.

Part Two

Thanks Joana for sharing the session plan and slide deck, which were developed for the Year 3 Major Project Unit. You asked for general feedback on the content, style, and how designing thinking was used to help defined brands rather than traditional market research. 

We talked about the formality and structure of your session. You explained that you try to keep your sessions ‘informal’ but ‘meaty’, with thoughtful content, and lots of punctuation activities. You contrasted this to a more traditional 90-minute lecture model, with less interaction. We talked about how content can be robust and accessible at the same time, and that active learning techniques can support student learning. My impression is ver much that your approach is likely to be effective, and I asked you what tools you have to know if the approach is working. You explained that you already get ‘snap feedback’ from students, which is providing an evidence base that this is working.

Prompt question: Could you consider using Brookfields Four Lenses (Brookfield, 1995) to evaluate and reflect on your approach? And what literature might you draw upon to evidence the need for engaging, active learning approaches?

You also talked about the importance of your design practice in your teaching. You explained that your industry experience informs who you are as a lecturer. As such, you ensure that your lectures reflect developments in industry and seek to foster a ‘studio’ vibe where all perspectives are valued. 

For me, this connected with a few key concepts in the wider literature: 

• How being a dual-professional or practitioner-teacher informs your practice (see Beaton, 2022; WonkHE, 2018)
  
• The role of constructive alignment (see Biggs, 2003) and how your lectures are designed to align with the intended learning outcomes.
  
• In Chapter 8, Orr and Shreeve (2017) write about studio culture, live briefs, and other ‘signature pedagogies’ which seem to relate to your practice and aims.
  

Prompt question: Do any of these concepts resonate with you? How does this inform your practice.

You asked for feedback about how designing thinking was used to help defined brands rather than using traditional market research. When we spoke, I sought clarification about this as I am not a subject specialist. You explained your decision to move away from quantitative, market research approaches to tapping into culture, emotion, and qualitative approaches. My impression is that this is highly appropriate given your industry knowledge, and also likely to be more relatable, playful, and interesting for students. With this in mind, it seems like a win-win – students learn about key concepts like empathy mapping and subcultures, moving away from designing solely for themselves – and this is approached with humour (the “London Fields” example) and care (cautioning against stereotyping).

We also spoke briefly about diversifying the brands you refer to, drawing upon international/non-Western materials, and considering decolonial approaches. This is something you’re very aware of and working towards in other units – and we also acknowledged the challenge of Western/Global North dominance. 

Prompt question: You commented that some educators take the view that students choose to study in the UK, and so should expect a ‘Western’ education. What are your thoughts on this?

I hope these notes are helpful, and give you an opportunity to reflect on the resources you shared with me. I have included some prompt questions (in bold) for you to reflect on. You don’t have to answer all the questions – just respond in Part 3 to what feels of interest following our discussion (up to 500 words).

Part Three

During our teaching practice review discussion, Carys introduced me to the concept of dual professionals, which strongly resonated with me and prompted me to reflect more critically on my academic identity. I recognise myself as a dual professional, bringing industry experience directly into the studio. This has become a defining aspect of my teaching approach.

Beaton (2021) argues that practitioners entering higher education often experience tensions between their established professional identities and emerging roles as educators. Whilst I have not experienced significant emotional challenges in my transition to academia, I recognise that such tensions are not unfamiliar to me; they are embedded within professional practice itself, particularly within the creative industries. This awareness has allowed me to reframe these tensions more productively, using my industry experience to inform teaching in a way that is purpose- and practice-driven, rather than purely academic.

However, reflecting on Beaton’s (2021) argument, I find myself questioning whether the emphasis should be placed solely on dual professionals adapting to academic culture. Instead, I would argue that the increasing focus on graduate employability within higher education highlights the need for a mindset shift in the opposite direction. Rather than positioning practitioner-teachers as needing to assimilate into traditional academic norms, there is a growing need for institutions to more fully embrace practice-informed approaches that respond to the realities of the contemporary employment landscape.

Having joined the course staff team post-pandemic, I became acutely aware of students’ lack of industry preparedness. This prompted me to restructure aspects of the curriculum with the intention to better prepare students for professional practice. Similarly, in my role as co-host of the Ladies, Wine & Design London chapter, where I bring together design agencies and practitioners for professional development and networking, I frequently hear industry leaders express concerns about graduates’ readiness for practice. These conversations have reinforced my commitment to aligning teaching with professional expectations, ensuring that students are equipped with the skills, confidence, and understanding required for industry.

The GuildHE (2018) report on practice-informed learning also supports this approach, highlighting that dual professionals can enhance the authenticity of learning by embedding real-world contexts into teaching, enabling students to develop both disciplinary knowledge and industry-relevant skills.

In addition to this, the positionality of my design practice has also shaped my academic approach. I primarily collaborate with organisations that facilitate social change and further culture, informing a teaching philosophy that foregrounds purpose, sustainability, and critical engagement with industry norms.

Reflecting more broadly, I find that I have managed to carve a niche where I combine design thinking and graphic design principles that bring about meaningful verbal and visual identities in branding. Though Beaton (2021) argues that dual professionals lack academic training, I do believe that a growth mindset can bridge the gap between academic- and industry-centric staff, and create opportunities for more productive exchange between both communities.

References

Beaton, F. (2021) How do I know who I am? Academic professional development, peer support, and identity for practitioners who teach. International Journal for Academic Development, 27(3), pp. 234–248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1910953 [Accessed on 18 March 2026]

GuildHE (2018) Practice-informed learning: The rise of the dual professional. London: GuildHE. Available at: https://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/UG_documents/Practice-Informed_Learning-_Final_Nov_18.pdf [Accessed: 18 March 2026].

Materials provided for Carys to review:

• Session plan

• Session slides

Eric Fanghanel’s review of my teaching practice

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Brand Packaging Design Sprint
Size of student group: 60 students
Reviewee: Joana Pereira
Reviewer: Eric Fanghanel

Part One

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum? This session was developed in response to student feedback requesting more ideation and development. The new revalidated course handbook reshaped the course to be more theory- and marketing-based. However, students did not respond well to this approach (nor I, as this was a design course after all). With this in mind, I developed a series of design sprints to meet students’ expectations, bring them up to speed on ideation, concept development, design principles and prototyping. This change of direction later helped leadership understand the importance of design, ideation and making, with later units reshaped to accommodate this approach.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity? I have worked with this cohort as a lecturer and Year Lead during Year 1.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? The session was designed to introduce students to brand packaging ideation, concept development, and low- and mid-fidelity prototyping. The intention was to take students out of their comfort zone, and away from the screen, experiment with sketching, cutting and folding before translating their concept using design software. More importantly, this framework helps students avoid being too precious and applying too much pressure on one design without looking and thinking laterally. They are encouraged to explore and develop multiple concepts and keep trying new approaches.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)? Packaging sketching, low and mid fidelity prototypes. Students were asked to produce a high-fidelity prototype in their self-study time.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? The unit was designed to respond to the course handbook, allowing little time for design, ideation and experimentation. These sprints were shoehorned to respond to students’ needs and expectations. Ideally this would have been two sessions.

How will students be informed of the observation/review? This session has been previously delivered and I will be sharing the slides, materials and session plan.

What would you particularly like feedback on? General feedback on the content, the style and pace. I would like some feedback on using this rapid approach to help students experiment and avoid overthinking.

How will feedback be exchanged?
We have arranged for an online discussion.

Part Two

Reviewer to note down observations, suggestions and questions.

“Packaging can be theater, it can create a story.” – Steve Jobs

Observations

There’s a very clear and coherent path from theory into embodied practice. The Gather → Sketch → Low Fidelity → Mid Fidelity structure mirrors professional design workflows beautifully. It feels purposeful rather than arbitrary, and students can see how one stage feeds the next.

The slides support this progression well. The practical constraints (box measurements, shelf context, certifications, competitors, etc.) are particularly strong. They prevent superficial aesthetic wandering and instead situate design decisions in real-world parameters. The constraints feel productive rather than restrictive.

The insistence on low-fidelity prototyping before moving into Illustrator is excellent. It directly tackles the common tendency toward premature digital refinement. Framing the session as a sprint also works very well — the idea of “failing faster and better” is a powerful ethos and feels pedagogically sound. It creates permission to experiment rather than polish too early.

Overall, the session design feels grounded, industry-aware, and thoughtfully structured.

Questions / Suggestions

1. Pacing

Given the intensity of a 4-hour sprint, I wonder whether extending the low-fidelity / refined low-fidelity phase could be beneficial, and leaving high-fidelity rendering explicitly as homework (which you’re already partly doing).

There’s an argument that staying longer in iteration mode may deepen learning, whereas high-fidelity output might risk shifting the focus toward finish rather than thinking. On the other hand, seeing something resolved can be motivating. It may be worth clarifying which learning outcome the high-fidelity stage is really serving.

2. Make the value of speed explicit

You’re clearly using time pressure intentionally to disrupt overthinking. It might help to state explicitly why speed matters — that constraints generate decisions, that tempo prevents perfectionism, and that professional practice often operates under similar conditions. Framing constraints as generative rather than punitive could strengthen the rationale.

3. Micro-crits during the sprint

There could be scope for very short peer feedback moments embedded into the process. For example:

• 20–30 min sketch
• 5 min paired critique
• Refine and continue

This might help students recalibrate before committing to the next fidelity level and increase critical dialogue without slowing momentum.

4. Printed templates

Providing an optional flat packaging template could support students who struggle with construction or dexterity. It would narrow friction for those who get stuck on mechanics rather than concept, without removing challenge for others.

5. Packaging as theatre

It could be interesting to frame packaging explicitly as performance. The “unboxing” moment — particularly in the era of social media — is dramaturgical. How does the object enter the world? How is it revealed? What is the emotional arc of opening it?

Bringing in unboxing videos (good and bad examples) might sharpen awareness of narrative, tactility, and user experience.

Overall

This is a strong, clearly structured session that bridges theory and practice effectively. The constraints are well-judged, the sprint framing is pedagogically sharp, and the emphasis on low-fidelity experimentation is particularly powerful.

Part Three

My discussion with Eric, alongside his written feedback, was extremely valuable and provided a thoughtful opportunity to reflect on both the strengths of the session and areas for refinement. I was particularly encouraged by his recognition of the clear progression from theory into embodied practice through the Gather → Sketch → Low Fidelity → Mid Fidelity structure, which intentionally mirrors professional design workflows and makes the rationale behind each stage legible to students.

One of the most pressing issues Eric raised was the pacing and duration of the session. Ideally, this workshop would be delivered across two four-hour sessions, allowing additional time for extended iteration and the inclusion of a high-fidelity stage within timetabled teaching. In its current format, high-fidelity development is briefed as self-directed study, which aligns with Eric’s suggestion to prioritise iterative thinking over finish during contact time. This session was designed in direct response to student feedback and my own instinct to counterbalance an increasingly dense, theory-led curriculum introduced through recent course revalidation. The emphasis on hands-on idea generation was therefore deliberate, intended to re-centre learning around making, testing, and decision-making.

While acknowledging the intensity of a four-hour sprint, I am keen to retain the fast pace spirit of the session. As discussed with Eric, time pressure is used intentionally to mitigate perfectionism and overthinking, encouraging students to “fail faster and better.” Following his suggestion, I will make the pedagogical value of speed and constraint more explicit within the slides, framing tempo as a generative condition reflective of professional practice rather than a punitive limitation.

Eric’s suggestion to foreground packaging as theatre was particularly resonant. I plan to incorporate Steve Jobs’ quote – “Packaging can be theater, it can create a story” – alongside Apple’s packaging as a case study, given their leadership in experiential and inclusive packaging design. This will help students consider emotional arc, tactility, and narrative in the unboxing moment, and how theatre and anticipation can be designed into even simple structures.

I will also adopt Eric’s recommendation to introduce optional starter templates. Some students struggle with dexterity or spatial thinking and can become overly focused on mechanics rather than concept, occasionally misinterpreting the brief as paper engineering rather than brand packaging. Providing templates will reduce unnecessary friction while still allowing more confident students to explore bespoke structures.

Finally, while the session is primarily student-led with tutors offering group tutorials during the session, I will integrate short peer feedback moments between sprint stages, as suggested. Brief, peer-led micro-crits after sketching and early prototyping stages will allow students to recalibrate their ideas before progressing, increasing critical dialogue without disrupting momentum.

Overall, Eric’s feedback was extremely positive and constructively framed. His suggestions align closely with my intentions for the session, and I greatly appreciated his insights. I will iterate the session accordingly to strengthen clarity, inclusivity, and pedagogical impact.

Materials provided for Eric to review:

Session plan

Session slides

Peer Review Document

Microteaching sessions – a reflection of my peers’ sessions and Object-Based Learning session with Dayna Tohidi

I realised that I had been using object-based learning (OBL) intuitively in my teaching practice. Observing Dayna Tohidi’s recorded session and seeing my peers apply OBL during microteaching deepened my understanding of the approach and increased my confidence in using it more intentionally in future teaching.

Previously, I designed an OBL session called the Brand Table, where students brought examples of brand packaging and collaboratively grouped them according to brand terminology. While the session was interactive and engaging, I later recognised that it did not fully exploit the potential of OBL. Following a more formal introduction to the approach, I plan to revisit this and other sessions, incorporating best-practice principles to enhance engagement, discussion, emotional reading and peer learning.

Similar to Tohidi, I am particularly interested in creating learning experiences that are inclusive of neurodivergent students. Being neurodivergent myself, I am mindful of designing sessions that accommodate diverse learning styles and non-traditional pathways into higher education. OBL supports this inclusivity by offering multiple ways for students to contribute, including visual observation, personal memory, and contextual speculation.

One of the aspects I had previously overlooked is the emotional reading of objects. Tohidi highlighted that objects connected to lived experience can promote deeper, more candid discussion, with prior knowledge serving as a valuable learning resource. This approach fosters a safe environment for contributions, even when knowledge is incomplete, and encourages peer learning, reflective feedback, and the co-construction of understanding rather than passive transmission of information.

In a Year 1 curriculum crowded with prescribed content that often encourages passive consumption, active and experiential pedagogic practices such as OBL provide a valuable disruption. They represent the first step towards reshaping the curriculum to be more dialogic and participatory. I also aim to reposition the course team’s teaching practices to prioritise discussion, guide reflection, and create space for multiple voices, rather than focusing solely on delivering predetermined conclusions. Bamber and Jones also advocate for learning environments where students are active participants, not just passive recipients by inviting learners to interpret, discuss, and co‑construct meaning.

I was also struck by the additional, often less visible, benefits of OBL, including the development of transferable skills such as teamwork, communication, analytical thinking, careful observation, and visual interpretation. In formal education, measurable or technical competencies are often emphasised, while these softer yet essential skills are marginalised. OBL offers a framework for foregrounding and legitimising their development within the curriculum (Tohidi, 2025, guest lecture).

During the microteaching session, my peers fully embraced OBL through the use of mystery objects, digital artefacts, and found ephemera, prompting storytelling and interpretation. Participating in this session inspired several enhancements for my own OBL practice, such as developing audience personas from found objects, integrating digital artefacts as learning tools, and adopting a more visceral, emotionally engaged approach to object reading. Embedding these strategies in future sessions has the potential to normalise uncertainty, partial knowledge, and exploratory thinking as productive and valued aspects of learning.

References

Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging students: enabling inclusive learning’, in Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. 4th edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 152–168. 

Tohidi, D. (2025) Object-based learning and collaborative pedagogy. Guest lecture, PGCert Academic Practice, University of the Arts London, 28 January.

Microteaching session (2026) University of the Arts London, 4 February 2026.

Plan for and support student learning through appropriate approaches and environments

Contextual Background 

In my BA (Hons) Graphic Branding and Identity teaching, students frequently ask how to create visually engaging and unexpected logos and visual identities. Reviewing the course, I realised we do not explicitly support students’ learning, nor provide tools for idea generation or concept development approaches during our taught and self-directed studio sessions.

Example slides from presentation where I shared some approaches to logo design and encouraged students to ideate by breaking down a large problem into smaller more doable chunks.

Evaluation

Although the course handbook had limited scope, it provided an opportunity to introduce idea-generation practices. I planned and delivered lateral-thinking warm-up exercises, design sprints, and masterclasses on logo creation and concept development. These hands-on activities created an active studio environment that supported experimentation and applied learning. The approach helped reduce perfectionism and reframed failure as part of the creative process. Student feedback was mixed: some valued being pushed beyond their comfort zones and requested more sprints, while others felt rushed or put on the spot. Overall, students reported gaining practical tools and frameworks that supported idea generation and helped them develop confidence within a structured yet exploratory learning environment.

Moving Forward  

Student-centred creative development: I have adopted a student-centred approach that recognises differences in pace, confidence, and learning styles while supporting growth within a creative and safe learning environment. My approach balances structure with autonomy by adapting idea-generation sessions to be more self-led while also offering drop-in tutorials for students who felt stuck or required reassurance.

To further nurture creative confidence, I introduced open-ended creative play through warm-up exercises and lateral-thinking activities embedded within project-based work. These approaches were designed as low-risk, exploratory environments that encourage experimentation and risk-taking, leading to more distinctive outcomes in students’ visual identity projects.

This emphasis on experimentation was reinforced through a guest lecture series with design teams from North Studio and the V&A, who openly shared their creative processes, including moments of uncertainty, failure, and iteration. By foregrounding creative vulnerability alongside professional practice, students were encouraged to see experimentation and setbacks as integral to creative development rather than obstacles to success. Inviting external practitioners also broadened the learning environment beyond the studio and supported students’ understanding of professional contexts and creative resilience.

Practice-led and experimental learning: A practice-led, learning-by-doing approach has been central to the development of the teaching strategy across the year. In planning teaching activities, I prioritised experiential and studio-based methods aligned with disciplinary practice. Student feedback consistently indicated stronger engagement with hands-on activities than with theory- or discussion-based sessions. In response, I adapted the curriculum to prioritise experiential learning, relocating theoretical content to an online environment through pre-recorded materials. This allowed more studio time for interactive activities, peer discussion, and deeper engagement with concepts (Coyne, Lee & Petrova, 2017), enabling both physical and digital environments to support active learning.

Emphasising making and doing also created space for experimentation and productive failure, recognised as an integral part of art and design pedagogy in higher education. Encouraging experimentation enabled faster iteration and helped students move beyond creative fixations towards more considered solutions (Sawyer, 2019). As a result, I plan to continue prioritising dedicated studio time for experimentation within an already demanding curriculum.

Alongside experimentation, technical competence is essential for realising ideas. To address widening technical skills gaps in post-Covid cohorts, I introduced a technical skills ‘amnesty’, inviting specialist staff to deliver targeted workshops alongside curated LinkedIn Learning resources. This created a more inclusive environment where students could develop technical skills at their own pace and ensure technical barriers did not limit creative exploration.

Examples of warmup exercises.

Guest lecture sessions with V&A and North Studio design teams.

References

Coyne, R.D., Lee, J. & Petrova, D. 2017, ‘Re‑visiting the flipped classroom in a design context’, Journal of Learning Design, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–13. Available at: https://www.jld.edu.au/article/download/281/281‑765‑1‑PB.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2026].

McAlhone, B. and Stuart, D. (1996) A Smile in the Mind: Witty Thinking in Graphic Design. London: Phaidon Press. 

Nielsen, D. and Granholm, K. (2016) Creative Thinker’s Exercise Book. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. ISBN 978‑90‑6369‑438‑8. 

Sawyer, R.K. (2019) The role of failure in learning how to create in art and design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, p.100527. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.002. 

Post-human branding

I designed a microteaching session around a topic I am passionate about: the ethical tension I experience in my teaching practice between human-centered design and environmental responsibility when producing visual and verbal brand identities. My goal is to address this challenge directly, inspire participants, and encourage course to adopt this approach.

The two key learning objectives were:

• Understand the need for a post-human design approach.
• Understand how to ideate branding and co-design with nature and planetary empathy.

Session plan.

During the planning of the session, I encountered some challenges. The session needed to be accessible and engaging for a diverse, non-specialist audience, which required adapting both content and technology—using PowerPoint instead of typical design tools—to ensure participation and minimize technical issues.

The most important aspect of this session was to make it as collaborative as possible – design is a collaborative effort after all. 

Session structure:

1. Welcome, intros and cleaning brand (2 mins)
2. Setting the scene (5 mins)
3. Collaborative moodboard workshop (8 mins)
4. Creative share (5 mins)

Session delivery

The session began with a warm-up where participants wrote their names and favourite cleaning brand. I  then introduced the concept of post-human branding, emphasising the need for planetary empathy and interspecies design thinking for sustainable design. Best-practice brand examples were shared. Participants were tasked with a design challenge: to create a ‘disappearing brand’ with minimal environmental impact, producing collaborative visual moodboards exploring names, copy, packaging, colours, and typography. The session concluded with participants sharing and discussing their ideas and decisions.

Technical issues, including a Mentimeter pop-up and lack of timer visibility, disrupted the PowerPoint session and forced me to rush through key context-setting slides.

Presentation slides. Link to the full PowerPoint presentation.

Collaborative moodboard.

Peer feedback

The peer feedback was very valuable, particularly highlighting the challenge of delivering dense content in a short session. Ideally, the session would span 3–4 hours, allowing participants to create a collaborative moodboard and design visual outcomes to share in a pin-up crit.

Some feedback noted that the slides were text-heavy. I aimed for clarity, especially for an international cohort that often translates slide content on their phones, which made the slides more content-rich than usual.

There were also suggestions to provide clearer structure or frameworks for creating the moodboard, as well as to streamline decisions on product category and name, which took longer than expected.

Reflections

This microteaching session was incredibly valuable. It was an opportunity to see other peers deliver different content, at different paces, in different ways, which helped spark some new ideas. 

Al’s story telling session, made me think of audience personas and empathy, as well as how to use storytelling to help set the scene and contextualise projects. Shaheer’s session was brilliantly light whilst also teaching the fundamentals in an engaging and digestible way. Anna’s session inspired me to bring the handmade element to a digital space. 

I am certain this experience will inspire future teaching sessions. It also taught me to pack less into a session and leave more room for silence, rumination and knowledge retention. It also made check my bias and not assume the skillset in the room.

Link to the full PowerPoint presentation

Knowing and responding to your students’ diverse needs.

Contextual Background 

I teach Intro to Graphic Branding and Identity where we explore the cultural relevance of branding within Zeitgeist to an increasingly international cohort. Using western-focused and often old case studies to support teaching points can prop up cultural, academic and linguistic barriers, which can be challenging for our international students, who are predominantly from mainland China. 

Evaluation

For this particular session I focused on Meme culture in an effort to be more culturally relevant and capture the Zeitgeist effectively in a participatory manner – an image is worth a thousand words. Qualitative research on international students in UK higher education suggests that memes operate as boundary objects, fostering belonging while still demanding shared cultural understanding between groups (Zhang, Zhao & Merritt, 2025).

I curated a selection of global, diverse memes to illustrate their brief history, intentions and effectiveness. When demonstrating memes as weapons of communication, I shared the rice bunny meme – a coded message for the #Metoo movement in China, exposing sexual harassment on social media, avoiding censorship. It was an eureka moment in the studio – students responded and engaged very well, recognised and related with this meme. For the first time international students were the ones to contextualise this meme to home students who were not familiar with it. This experience sparked discussion, engagement and helped students overcome language and cultural barriers.

Moving forwards 

Participatory content: Drawing on the inherently participatory nature of memes, I have taken a more critical and reflective approach to my teaching practice, learning materials, and content design in order to foster greater inclusivity, participation, and knowledge retention. Memes have been intentionally incorporated into teaching materials not simply as humorous elements, but as cultural artefacts that support processes of cultural adaptation, identity formation, and shared meaning-making (Zhang, Zhao & Merritt, 2025).

Meme-making has also been formalised as a structured learning activity, enabling students to actively translate concepts into culturally resonant visual–verbal forms. This approach has evidently enhanced student engagement and encouraged reflective discussion during sessions. As digital culture artefacts, memes can operate as effective pedagogical tools that extend beyond humour, supporting comprehension, memory, and participation among diverse learners (Tidy et al., 2024).

Inclusive language: How can we also make language more inclusive and participatory? Studies in academic language pedagogy show that simply simplifying content is not suffice for inclusion – students also need explicit support to access and use the specialised language of the discipline, including professional terminology and jargon (Schleppegrell & O’Hallaron, 2011). We must therefore encourage students to use industry vernacular and jargon more confidently. In addition to supporting students’ use of industry-specific terminology, I consciously address English-specific expressions and idioms used during teaching sessions. Drawing on my experience as a speaker of English as a second language, I recognise that such expressions can be opaque yet are integral to how meaning, tone, and nuance are conveyed in professional contexts. Rather than removing or over-simplifying this language, my approach is to make it explicit: unpacking meanings, contexts, and connotations so that students are empowered to develop their own linguistic competence (Dafouz & Smit, 2022).

This approach is particularly important within the course, where students are required to produce both visual and verbal identities. The latter demands a sensitivity to tone of voice in writing, as language functions not only as a vehicle for clarity but also as a carrier of character, attitude, and intent. While being universally understood is essential, preserving the texture and flavour of language is equally important in enabling students to communicate with confidence and authenticity within creative and professional settings. 

References

Dafouz, E. and Smit, U. (2022) ‘Towards multilingualism in English-medium higher education: a student perspective’, Journal of English-Medium Instruction, 1(1), pp. 29–47. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358036917_Towards_multilingualism_in_English-medium_higher_education_A_student_perspective ([Accessed 18 February 2026].

Mukherjee, A. & Mukherjee, S., 2025. LOL in the Classroom: Internet Memes as Multimodal Tools for Language Teaching. Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 10(3), pp.834–845. Available at: https://jcasc.com/index.php/jcasc/article/view/2507 [Accessed 14 February 2026].

Schleppegrell, M.J. and O’Hallaron, C.L. (2011) ‘Teaching academic language in L2 secondary settings’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, pp. 3–18. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/7029C531DABBB960E2C352E46FA6575C/S0267190511000067a.pdf [Accessed: 14 February 2026].

Tidy, H., Bolton-King, R. S., Croxton, R., et al. (2024). Enhancing the student learning experience through memes. Science & Justice, 64(3), 280-288.

Teaching reading comprehension and vocabulary using memes (2025) Frontiers in Education. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1467522/full [Accessed: 18 February 2026] 

Zhang, Y., Zhao, S. & Merritt, K. (2025) ‘“Meme‑ing” across cultures: Understanding how non‑EU international students in the UK use internet memes for cultural adaptation and identity’, Behavioral Sciences (Basel), 15(5), p. 693. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12109331/ [Accessed: 14 February 2026]