CLAUDIA NUZZO

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice   

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: video recording of a one-to-one tutorial 

Size of student group: one-to-one tutorial 

Observer: Claudia Nuzzo 

Observee: Ellie Sweeney 

PART 1 (ELLIE) 
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review: 

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

The current BA3 Embroidery students are almost halfway through their Final Major Project. This unit runs through the Spring and Summer terms, the brief is very open, and the outcomes are negotiated by the students in relation to their chosen career paths/future aims but in keeping with an embroidery outcome. 

The focus of the embroidery workshop is for the students to self-direct the continuation of their project, in this full day class (9:30-4:30) they are encouraged to focus on sampling whilst they have priority of the workshop machinery. 

Within this session I see each student 1-1 for a 20 minute tutorial to check on the progress of the project.  

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

I have been the BA3 Embroidery workshop tutor since the start of the academic year, their current FMP project started in January 2025. They have one workshop a week every Tuesday and is an integral part of the course.  

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

On completion of this unit students will be able to demonstrate: 

LO1 The ability to consolidate, extend and apply subject knowledge and understanding (knowledge, enquiry) 

LO2 An advanced application of the methods and techniques learned, in order to consolidate your final major project proposal (enquiry, process, knowledge) 

LO3 Critical refinement, evaluation and achievement of a range of solutions to your proposal (knowledge, process, realisation) 

LO4 Management of the process of realisation in an objective, creative, professional and mature manner (realisation) 

LO5 The structuring, coordination and execution of a body of work, to a professional standard, which successfully achieves its own identified aims and objectives (communication, realisation) 

LO6 Evidence of engagement with proactivity, resilience and curiosity principles of the Creative Attributes Framework (enquiry). 

An element of all of these will be touched on through the process of discussing the students body of work in the 1-1 tutorial setting. 

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

Within the session I will look through all aspects of the student’s project, some weeks I dedicate a main focus so students don’t need to bring everything in each week currently I am mainly looking at samples however below is the required submission elements by the end of the unit. 

Students can submit additional aspects, in relation to their individual direction, but MUST submit content that covers all 5 mandatory components below 

1. Visual research and design development sketchbook(s): Your sketchbook must demonstrate the development of new ideas and areas of investigation, showcasing the journey and evolution of your project through research, design development, and the visual 5 communication of how you have used paperwork to support textile sampling proposals. Largescale primary research can be documented with photographs. For collaborative work, include appropriately referenced contributions from others, such as range plans or lineups.  

2. Presentation for Final Major Project; suitable for your chosen industry direction/career. Content can take various forms, and the format can be physical/bound and/or digital (where requested). Students will outline aims in their FMP brief.  

SUGGESTIONS – as a guide only:  

▫ Textiles portfolio 

▫ Fashion-focused presentation portfolio and/or look book of collaboration collection.  

▫ Self-promotional booklet and/or look book of textiles collection.  

▫ Trend led material or technical presentation book and/or textiles-led film.  

If collaborating, where appropriate, students can include referenced work of others. Collaboration aims should utilise the individual strengths of the collective team. 

3. Technical folder (relevant to your specialism and brief proposal/s): A collated technical investigation relevant to your proposed aims, containing communication and reflection of your technical aims. Aims to be discussed with tutor to showcase strengths. Depending on chosen direction, this can also include mock-ups of textiles for fashion details such as seam testing, finishing’s, mock-ups of garment details; relevant if you have chosen to collaborate.  

4. An industry toolkit in relation to career development; This ‘Industry Toolkit’ is simply ONE COLLATED file, including different pages (TOTAL 2000 words).  

Below SUGGESTIONS as a guide only, in addition to your Project Brief (up to 500 words), students can choose to include:  

▫ Evaluative Statement: a summarised reflection of project decisions in relation to personal career aims and strengths.  

▫ Tailored CVs (reflecting your Designer Identity and audience)  

▫ Tailored Cover Letters (tailored to the audience needs through research) ▫ Competition / MA applications (can include visuals)  

▫ Press Release and/or Artist Statement  

▫ Website/ Online Portfolio planning or development  

▫ Enterprise planning or aims (can include visuals)  

Your Industry Toolkit should reflect your aesthetic and design identity. 

5. A collection of fashion textile products in relation to negotiated outcomes, individual and/or collaborative: This is your Collaborative Realisation with garment/fashion course(s) and/or Material Sample Route Collection(s). The ‘collection’ may take a variety of forms depending on the nature of the final project proposal and its solution, taking into consideration the level of craft/ innovation considered within the range, and if you have chosen to collaborate as part of your collection. Collaborative work/ should reference the collaboration, partners and courses 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

Difficulties for the workshop tutorial can include getting round to see everyone as some tutorials overrun or are delayed if the students are busy on a piece of equipment. In the past I have tried a pre-determined time slot system, but this doesn’t work due to absence and late arrivals, so I organize in order of arrival.  

Another difficulty is if a student has been absent for a few weeks when they come in they are usually behind and therefore their tutorial can take longer or cover different objectives to what the session intends. Usually if a student who has had poor attendance is in, I prioritize seeing them first.  

Difficulties that arise within the tutorials can differ from student to student sometimes students can be very quiet and not input which makes reviewing their thought process to the design elements hard to review, additionally some students whose first language isn’t English tend to get confused more easily and the sessions take longer as I need to repeat or go slower with the information/explaining. These students tend to record the session to re listen to afterwards.  

Reoccurring issues are students tend to get a lot of feedback each week (they have 4 different tutors) this can either create conflating design opinions, I have noticed students sometimes wait for the next tutorial to run other tutors’ suggestions past me before going ahead with making and/or rely on tutor advice and find it hard to formulate and test ideas independently.  

An area of concern is student agency within the tutorial, I would like for the students in 3^rd year to initiate what they would like to discuss or get out of the tutorial so that it doesn’t become repetitive in its format and reduce the likelihood of unhelpful feedback. However, with quiet students and with what they have perceived to be the standard format for tutorials from their 1^st and 2^nd year it has been hard to get them to develop in these areas.  

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

My peer observation is happening in a reflection format online not in person as I decided that having someone sit in on 1-1 tutorials can be off putting for the students and create a level of pressure or confusion as they may feel like they are being assessed or unwilling to talk about their personal projects Infront of someone new. 

Therefore, I have asked my partner to meet online for me to talk through my last workshop tutorial session and to reflect on opportunities where changes could be made. 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

I would like feedback on how to reduce tutorials becoming repetitive for the same student week to week even if they haven’t progressed their work. What is a good way to encourage them to react to the feedback rather than procrastinate. How to get them to take charge of their 1-1 tutorial and guide it more rather than relying on the tutor take charge and deliver masses of feedback on many aspects within the 20-minutes. 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

There will be a chance for verbal exchange as we are meeting online to discuss my session as well as the observer filling in Part Two of the observation process.  

PART 2 (CLAUDIA) 

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

I observed Ellie conducting a one-to-one tutorial with a BA Fashion Embroidery student. Ellie used a very empathetic approach, which allowed her to establish clear and straightforward communication with the student. She effectively guided the student to think critically about how to improve her work. Her language was simple and clear, making it particularly suitable for non-native English speakers or students with neurodivergences or disabilities. 

As requested by Ellie, I will offer some advice on the questions we discussed during our conversation, focusing on areas that may need further improvement. 

• How can Ellie encourage students to take the lead in conversations rather than relying on her to ask questions? 

• How can she avoid one-to-one weekly tutorials becoming repetitive when students are not making progress? 

• What is a good way to encourage students to act on feedback and avoid procrastination? 

My suggestion is to incorporate a coaching approach in tutorials, which I believe could help address all three aspects. We often assume we know what students want or need, and our role is simply to answer their questions. It can be challenging when they present problems we cannot solve, especially in personal tutorials. But what if we focused on helping them find their own solutions instead? 

Personal tutorials can be more productive if we allow space for students to think. Coaching pioneer Sir John Whitmore developed the GROW model in the 1980s, which could be useful in this context: 

• G – GOAL: What do you want? 

• R – REALITY: Where are you now? 

• O – OPTIONS: What could you do? 

• W – WILL: What will you do? 

Applying this model in tutorials could help shift the focus from what we think students need to what they believe they need. This approach may also help students avoid procrastination, as they will feel a greater sense of ownership over their planning and ideas. 

PART 3 (ELLIE) 

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged: 

I’d like to thank Claudia for her time reviewing my session and supporting documents and providing me with feedback on how to effectively develop the tutorial experience for the students.  

Claudias suggestion of implementing the coaching method is a very good approach and something I already carry out broadly across the unit, but what Claudia has helped me to think about is if I could use the ‘GROW’ model within the weekly tutorials so that students come more prepared and with agency over the work they are talking through and the areas that want feedback on. The unit demands a lot from the students and although I do breakdown within the Scheme of Work what each workshop tutorial will focus on, I do find students don’t always read this and rely on me to help navigate the tutorial discussion. By getting the students to fill out a weekly or bi-weekly tutorial planning document that focus’ on the ‘Goals and Reality’ sections of the ‘GROW’ method we can work in the tutorial to figure out the ‘Options and Will’ so they leave with clear action points, these will be different each week due to the nature of that week’s tutorial discussion topic.  

Overall, I can see this working well with 3^rd years, especially with trying to get them to take agency and lead the tutorials but may need adjusting to help 1^st and 2^nd years. Another thing I have been thinking about with tutorials is possibly giving the students space to implement feedback by making some of the workshop’s tutorials a sign up. This could work every 3^rd week so that it doesn’t become the norm to see every student every week and allows them longer than a week to work on certain feedback points before getting further feedback which can sometimes overwhelmed the students.  

I am looking forward to talking some of these ideas back to my wider team to discuss.