Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed:
Size of student group: 18-15
Observer: Dr Federico Matos
Observee: Yui Yamamoto (Academic Support Tutor role)
Part One
What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?
Part of the Major Project for MA Performance Screen Year 2. Towards the final project, they prepare for the professional practice. As an academic support, I offer two workshops on practical writing: artist statement and funding application. This time is the second session: how to write funding application. Lecture happens morning and afternoon is practice.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
Although I know some of students through project of MA Performance Design Practice (I am working for MA PDP as a VP too), this is my second time to teach this group.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
Students will understand the insight of funding application and start composing the application.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
Writing the draft of artist statement and generating the materials.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Some people might not like the exercises I offer. Engagement due to the lack of previous contacts. Might be boring but this workshop is mandatory. Hopefully the attendees are motivated enough.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
I will explain this to students in the introduction.
What would you particularly like feedback on?
Practicality (if the workshop is useful or not), Clarity, engagement.
How will feedback be exchanged?
Through this reflection form or discussion.
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Yui, thanks for having me observe your session and for the detailed observation form.
I really enjoyed your session and how you engaged with students both in class and online. Hybrid sessions can be challenging but I think you managed this well. There is a very friendly and supportive environment, and students seemed to feel really comfortable in the session, working on their bids and learning with you and each other. You also seem to know the students, even if this the second session you have with (some of) them.
You established a nice, conversational, environment at the start before the class started and this was kept throughout the session. You asked at the start if students had managed to collect materials as per the task you had set them prior. Then you move to focus on what students must do for their pitch. This was clearly valuable for the students, and this was obvious by the engaged way they focused on the tasks in class. The focus on assessment is important. Possibly there are links here to future careers that could have been highlighted perhaps, and I wonder if that focus could have been made more explicit. This could have been discussed earlier or later in the session, as I only observed 1 hour of a longer session.
You go through the slides explaining the expectations of the funding application and you answer all the questions the students ask. You have a really friendly demeanour and come across as knowledgeable and experienced in the field, and it is clear that students appreciated and valued this. I think that some slides could be clearer with less information or bigger fonts, as I found some hard to read. I was at the back of the room so this could be a reason for this, while students were much closer to the slides. Still, I think this is something that you could consider in future sessions.
You explain really well the different considerations students need to have in mind, from writing to understanding jury process. You keep your attention towards your students. I think the class layout worked really well.
I wonder if in setting the task you could maybe suggest clearer ideas of how students can provide peer feedback and so they can have parameters for providing it. As a suggestion, you could maybe relate to the LOs for the unit, or along the lines of ‘what makes an application ‘successful’ – though the ‘text of proposal’ slide does provide a useful set of questions to consider. It was great that you provided an example of a funding library.
Before students set on their tasks you asked if they understand what they were expecting to do in a supportive and encouraging way. A student then asked you to read their draft. You provided clear feedback about clarity and motivations in a very friendly and supportive way.
As I completed the observation, I can see students are working individually and in pairs/small groups in a very engaged way.
I think this session worked really well and supported students in their work.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thank you for the encouraging comment.
In this particular class, engagement was really high. The students were eager to listen and complete the tasks. Since we had a previous session with them—though on a different topic—they were more relaxed about what we were about to do. Topics such as artist statements or funding applications are crucial to an artist’s career, so they were very proactive.
The feedback on clarifying learning outcomes (LOs) could be a good point. However, since these tasks are directly related to their future careers, it’s ultimately up to them. If they don’t engage with the workshop, they might miss out on opportunities—which I clarify in the morning lecture. The aim of this unit’s learning outcome is to prepare them for professional practice, so my focus wasn’t necessarily on emphasising the LOs themselves.
I acknowledge that one of my strengths is engagement. As an artist who also works in this field, I can share up-to-date information on certain topics. If there’s something I could improve, it would be taking more time to research the details and philosophies behind funding applications, as well as drawing from my own successful experiences. This could enhance the credibility of my teaching.
Additionally, because my workshop is very practical, some topics might feel vague—which is fair, as there are certain things I don’t fully know myself, given that I’m still in the early stages of my artistic career. For example, I’ve never won a large-scale grant before! Acknowledging my limitations, I structured the workshop accordingly, but I see room for improvement in certain areas.
One aspect that worked particularly well was reviewing mock or past funding applications individually as a final exercise. This allowed me to assess each participant’s writing skills and provide more useful, tailored suggestions and advice.