Arrival was concerned with engaging teacher-practitioners in exploring initial ideas about their experience of being a teacher-practitioner, through creative activity [namely making a 'book']. The session was activity focused, with some pairs, small group and individual work. Initially participants engaged with the exhibitions and worked in groups to explore their responses, through this experience, to the teacher-practitioner. The idea of the book reader, or audience was used to start to think about how different groups may view the teacher-practitioner, or need to be further informed. Particularly the aim of the book making was to view the book not just as a creative expression or interpretation but also as a ‘how to’ manual.
Review of the workshop including processes, outputs and outcomeThe session was most successful in terms of supporting exchange and opportunities for creative activity, with quite a strong influence on stimulation [the exhibition and a collection of illustrative images/slide-show]. The participants were energetic and feedback shows they enjoyed the workshop - creating some interesting and thoughtful ‘books’. Many of the exchanges and conversations within small groups were not documented - although groups feedback.
The range of activities and timing were well measured although it would be possible to run this workshop without the exhibition visit, although it is difficult to measure how important the exhibition may have been to stimulating reflection on ‘the teacher-practitioner’ and creative ideas. The time gained however may have been more productive in enabling more time for greater depth on some of the issues.
Lead Facilitator evaluation:
The timing of the exercises seemed about right and there was a good balance between group and individual, short and longer exercises. Building the gallery visit into the workshop appeared superfluous, few, if any participants appeared to link what they had seen in the gallery to the exercise(s).
The outcomes seemed generalised. While the participant did raise a number of issues these were very generalised and there is a lack of critical examination of these.
Suggested improvements or adjustments to the technique/approach adopted in the workshop:
A great improvement would be in terms of getting greater clarity in what individual ‘book authors’ wanted to express to their ‘reader’. At the end of the book making session the books were passed to another colleagues who was then asked to say something about the book to the group. The benefit of this is sharing and interpretation. The downside is that the meaning within the book may not be accurately presented, in favour of description tending to focus on the book rather than message about the ‘teacher-practitioner’. The ‘how to’ or manual concept [as a definitive 'three things this book says to your audience' may have become lost through concentration on the creative product. It is important to hear the maker's intention. Participants were asked to label their books with their three messages which the researcher hoped would address this, but these three things needed to be more rigourous statements. This represents the challenge of balancing experience for workshop participants with producing research material/data and the role of researcher interpretation. It is important in this workshop that participants revisit their books through the web-site and add their 'translation'.
Lead Facilitator evaluation:
Although it is unlikely to occur again I would omit the gallery visit from the programme. In this instance participants could have been made aware of the exhibition and its relevance to the workshop and invited to visit this before the workshop. This would have left more time for a critical discussion on the outputs.
It was impressive that all participants produced a book but there is a lack of commentary on these by the participants. Whilst they can be invited to do this on-line we could have used more time (left by omitting) the gallery visit) for discussion. To continue the theme this might have been in the form of a book review. This review might have examined the book's relevance and utility to the intended audience. In particular, one might reshape the process to focus on a user manual for students and/or a new teacher practitioner (ie leave out HE/industry decision makers) to focus the activity on teaching and learning/teaching and practice.
Greater emphasis might have been place on the relationship between form and content. A few of the books were interesting objects but lacked content and some of the content was aspirational/inspirational but lacked critical edge. The idea of manual still feels right but more balance or emphasis needs to be given to the relationships between the instructional/didactic parts of a manual and its critical or discursive elements. 'Book chapters' might be suggested such as technical/technique; knowing and playing; working and thinking and so on. It might be worth considering having the book made by pairs of participants and stressing more critical/reflective aspects. Working in pairs might support a more enquiry-led process.
It would be worth considering some tools to enable the recording of the decision-making processes undertaken during the brief development for the book and the design/making of the book. Perhaps some form of mind-map technique, diagram or log of decisions? This would assist the participants in reflecting on the process and outcomes and assist the facilitator/project manager in the review of the outcomes.
Comments on the effectiveness of the workshop in engaging teacher-practitioners with exploring the issues:
The workshop was very effective in terms of engaging participants with the broad themes and exploring these creatively, but less successful in drawing out these issues to great depth. It also appeared that participants tended to focus on the positive aspects of creative practice and teaching. Facilitators and perhaps the project leader, have a key role in drawing out these issues or delving further in. This is dependent on issues such material produced, group dynamics and time but indicates that the facilitator may need a more directive role or the activities need to be less open ended in some instances.
Lead Facilitator evaluation:
As a 'first time' event this workshop seemed to go well and it is worth considering re-running it as part of this project (10x10) or adapting it for other workshops/purposes. All the teacher-practitioners clearly engaged with the process and these processes did support a debate. However the debates did not develop and remained rather descriptive and speculative about the books rather than revealing views on teacher practitioner relationships.
Participant feedback:
13 creative practitioners participated in Arrival [3 participants made no additional comments].
Feedback was positive, although comments on the techniques tended to focus on enjoyment, play and creativity rather than as effective means to reflect on the teaching-practice relationship.
Comments on the technique used in this workshop and its effectiveness as a staff development approach:
“Inclusive, rigorous, good conversations, responsive”
“It highlighted making and doing as a form of thinking”
“Techniques good but felt more depth could be obtained by doing less, or having a whole day” “I enjoyed this afternoon simply as an opportunity to be creative in a scissors and glue sort of way. I’m not sure that I have benefited particularly from the activities but then these things always come to me later”
“It was nurturing to spend time in creative reflection with peers”
“Play as a tool for creativity is effective”
“Excellent, really enjoyed the interaction”
“I like the way that small groups were created in advance, allowed the group to mix”
“The invitation to play using scissors, paper, craft stuff was great fun”
Arrival Workshop Evaluation: Project Leader: Antonia Clews and Lead Facilitator: David Clews