Ellie's PG Cert Blog

Contextual Background: 

We have been having a conversations within my course team about the idea of the ‘Crit’. Should we be using this word? Does it accurately describe the sessions we are using it for? What is the student perception of this word?

We currently use if to describe the formative assessment points within each unit, but not the summative point.

As I teach Year 1 undergraduates, we have been encountering fear and apprehension around their first ‘Crit’. This is the formative assessment point, mid-way through their second unit and lands in the last week before winter break.

Evaluation:

UAL is committed to Critique as a valuable and established process for learning within creative subjects. (UAL, 2024)

Therefore, we should continue to use this word – what needs focus is how we accurately describe what these sessions are and how we mange the student perception of this.

On reflection, I have realised that we do not provide any resources to define what we mean by ‘Crit’. In the slides from class the week before their first crit (Appendix 1), we describe the structure of the session and tell the students what to bring, but we do not explicitly define its purpose. We do this in class verbally, but the lack of anything concrete for the students to refer to means they are more heavily relying on their own preconceptions.

Moving forwards: 

From talking to my colleagues and reflecting on my own education, I have realised that the way we define the ‘Crit’ differs between institutions, courses and even pathways on the same course. Therefore, it is important to define our expectations of each session.

‘Critique is a collaborative activity that takes quite a bit of time to learn — both in terms of how to give feedback, and how to accept feedback’ (Goldstien, 2026), therefore we must build this progression into our crits throughout the course of a 3-year undergraduate degree. In the context of a students’ first crit, they ‘need a more comfortable and ‘safe’ place to learn to discuss and relate to their work openly’ (Rowels, 2013).

One description that resonated with me is that ‘a good crit is actually a conversation’ (Rowels, 2013). This highlights the principal that a crit is based around discussion, but removes some of the tensions around giving judgement. It is a space to reflect on work and think about way to develop it further – ‘an opportunity to learn from the work and perspectives of others, to develop skills in reading and talking about artwork […] and in many ways help people prepare for life after art school’ (Rowels, 2013).

Actions:

1. Work with teaching team to create progressive definitions of ‘Crit’ for different Formative Assessment points throughout the course.
2. Add lighter, peer based ‘Reflective Crit’ to students first unit. I think the idea of ‘The Reflective Interview Crit’ (Appendix 2) will encourage peer feedback and give students an idea of what to expect later in the course.

References:

ROWEL, S (2013). Art Crits: 20 Questions – A Pocket Guide. London: Q-Art.

UAL (2024). Supporting inclusive and developmental crits: a guidance for staff at UAL. London: UAL and Arts Student Union.

GOLDSTEIN, M (2026). The Purpose of Critique. Available at: https://howtocrit.com/index.html. (Accessed on 18th March 2026).

Appendix 1 – D&R Crit Slides from Sample Room Week 4.

Appendix 2 – The Reflective Interview Crit.

[Further reading that informed my thought process but was not directly quoted in Case Study 3.]

UAL (2026). Compassionate Feedback: Ideas for Promoting reflection on compassionate approaches to feedback. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/381364/Compassionate-feedback-prompts_Final_November-2022-3.pdf. (Accessed on 18th March 2026).

UNKNOWN (2026). Creative Tutorials Booklet. Provided by Rachel Marsden, 2026.

Contextual Background:

We run a unit called Transformative Futures where the students need to respond to ‘critical debates in fashion’ (Appendix 1). As a team we have focussed the brief on sustainability and the impact of the fashion industry. We introduce the context of these issues as part of the Unit Briefing. During the briefing for the unit this year I have realised that not all staff feel as comfortable talking about these issues as I do.

Evaluation:

At the start of the briefing session, we show and talk through a series of 4-6 slides depicting the devastation that fast fashion has had on the climate and the people working in garment supply chains.  This is a topic I feel very passionately about and am therefore knowledgeable and able to speak on the subject.

Initially my gut reaction was that I needed to make the other staff feel comfortable and ensure parity of experience for all students.  This got me thinking about the idea of the ‘Charismatic Lecturer’. After reading the chapter I have realised I identify with the character of ‘Max’ and his ‘lecturing style that demonstrates his passion and ideological stance’ (Macfarlane 2004). I find it difficult to sperate my own beliefs from my teaching – being my authentic self is what allows me to be a good tutor.

Whilst thinking about what I wanted to write here I came to the realisation – is this even the best way to introduce the unit?

Moving Forwards:

This topic can cause distress and high emotions, therefore it is important to handle it with care and sensitivity. Last year we decided to book-end the context slides with a trigger warning at the start to acknowledge the difficult nature of what they were about to see, and an activity at the end which gave students time to move around, discuss in small groups and ultimately propose hopefully change. Anecdotally, this did seem to help with engagement in the topic and a sense of ownership. However, I think we could go further. What we have done so far is more aligned with creating a ‘safe space’, and I am interested in how we can shift this towards a ‘brave space’.

Addressing these issues with context is important, staff have a ‘responsibility to foster a learning environment that supports participants in the challenging work of authentic engagement with regards to issues of identity, oppression, power and privilege’ (Aroa & Clemmens, 2021), all of which come up within our brief. Creating a ‘brave space’ will also allow staff to sit within this discomfort with the students.

I came across this idea of self-authorship – ‘the transformative experience of engaging in student-faculty partnership in and of itself constitutes a brave space where learners transition from dependence on authority to self-authorship’. (Baxter-Magolda, 2009, 2014)

This is something I want to explore further within the session activities – rather than starting with the context and then asking for their thoughts on change – start with a space where they can discuss their existing knowledge and experiences, follow this up with wider context and then ask for their forward-thinking ideas.

References:

Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer, pp.101-105.

ARAO, B and CLEMENS, K (2013).The Art of Effective Facilitation. Chapter 8: From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces – A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice. Stylus Publishing, pp.135-150.

BAXTER-MAGOLDA (2009, 2014). Within: ZUBAN, N, CLANCY, T.L and FERREIRA, C (2019). Authentic Learning within the Brave Space Created through Student-Faculty Partnerships. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, 3, pp. 103-110.

Appendix 1 – BA FDT WW Year 1 Transformative Futures Assessment Brief 25-26.

[Further reading that informed my thought process but was not directly quoted in Case Study 2.]

DRUMMOND, S.B (2018). Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education/Free Speech on Campus. The Christian Century, 135(10), pp. 38-39.

ROUNTREE, W (2025). The Classroom as a “Brave Space” in Jacqueline Woodson’s Harbor Me. Humanities, 14(5), pp. 97.

PALFREY, J (2017). Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education. MIT Press.

Contextual Background:

We have a very diverse cohort of students (Year 1 undergraduates) and therefore a wide range of different student needs; neurodiverse students, students with physical disability, students with mental health concerns, students who need to work to financially support themselves, and students with differing language levels. Often students cover several of these categories so there is a need to tailor the support we offer to each individual student.

Evaluation:

As all these needs can intersect, the role of tutor can become one of ‘triaging’ the students who have joined the course:

• On my course, all students are assigned a Personal Tutor – this is one of the core tutors they see each week so that a level of familiarity and trust can build up. ‘Personal Tutoring is broadly defined as activities where staff work in partnership with students to provide support, advice and guidance.’ (Barton, 2023)
• There is a mandatory, in person, tutorial within the first six weeks of the course. These are used to get to know the students and flag any needs/signpost students to support.
• All staff follow the same set of questions so that we know all bases are covered (Appendix 1). These questions include the chance for students to disclose any extra information regarding disabilities/learning differences, as well as for staff to signpost students towards things like Academic Support, registering for a GP and council tax exemption letters. The session ends by asking what they think their strengths are – this is useful in developing a level of trust that means you get to see a bit of the individual student’s personality.

Moving forwards:

triage

noun:

1. the preliminary assessment of patients or casualties in order to determine the urgency of their need for treatment and the nature of treatment required.

In the context of higher education, the patients become ‘students’ and treatment becomes ‘support’, therefore I offer this new definition:

The preliminary assessment of students in order to determine the urgency of their need for support and the nature of the support required.

I have been using this definition casually for several years, but when researching the idea of ‘triaging’ students, I came across the term used officially at another higher education institution. At UCL there is a tool called ‘STaRT’ (Student Triage and Referral Tool) this is described as a ‘one-stop shop for getting information on various issues that students may face and listing the right support for them.’ (UCL, 2026)

The key point here is the ‘various issues’ students face and the fact that this tool is designed so that a ‘staff member can select [the] most appropriate options and make their way through the tool without needing any prior knowledge about various support services UCL provides.’ (UCL, 2026)

This contrasts dramatically with how student support is offered in my role as a Personal Tutor. At UAL, it seems as though the system relies heavily on staff members knowledge of the different support services. As a team we have tried to mitigate this through developing the list of questions from the initial tutorials I mentioned earlier. However, this only helps with the second part my definition – the nature of the support.

The big gap I am finding is in the ‘urgency of their need for support’. Additions we did this year that have improved things:

• Direct referral to Disability Advisor – meant ISA turn around was much quicker. Also broke down barrier for neurodiverse students who find forms difficult and don’t respond to emails in a timely manner.

Things to do for next year:

• Meeting with Academic Support to set up direct referrals in a similar way to working with Disability.
• Direct referrals to Student Health – this is something we did for one student and would be good to make staff aware this is an option.
• Language mentors – we have weekly language sessions, however following the same idea of targeted referrals for Disability and Academic Support, we are working on the possibility of 1:1 language mentors.

Referneces:

BARTON, D (2023). An Investigation Into Personal Tutoring: Staff Perceptions, Open University (United Kingdom).

UCL (2026). Student Triage and Referral Tool (Staff Access Only). Available at: https://report-support.ucl.ac.uk/support/student-triage-and-referral-tool-staff-access-only. (Accessed 9th March 2026).

Appendix 1 – BA FDT WW Yr1 Pastoral Tutorial Questions 25-26.

[Further reading that informed my thought process but was not directly quoted in Case Study 1.]

Lochtie, D, McIntosh, E, Stork, A and Walker, B (2018). Effective Personal Tutoring in higher education. St Albans: Critical Publishing.

WOLBRING, G and NASIR, L (2024). Intersectionality of Disabled People through a Disability Studies, Ability-Based Studies, and Intersectional Pedagogy. Lens: A Survey and a Scoping Review. Societies, 14(9), pp. 176.

CRENSHAW, K (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersctionality, Identiy Politics, and Violence against Women of Colour. Stanford Law Review Vol. 43, No. 6. Journal Article (pp1241-1299).

GILL, V.S (2021). Intersectional Pedagogy: Doing Space and Soul Work in the Community, Classroom, and Curriculum, University of Pennsylvania.

UAL (2026). Item 04.1_a_Education Strategy – draft.pdf. Available at: https://artslondon.sharepoint.com/sites/CanvasContent/Documents/Committees/Academic%20Board/2025-26/02_12%20March%202026/Item%2004.1_a_Education%20Strategy%20-%20draft.pdf. (Accessed 11th March 2026).

UAL (2026). Student Support Canvas Page. Available at: https://canvas.arts.ac.uk/sites/explore/sitepage/238201/student-support#Wellbeingforstudents. (Accessed 8th March 2026).

POPO-WILLIAMS, S (2025). UAL Introduction to Student Services – Working together to support students. Available at:https://canvas.arts.ac.uk/documents/sppreview/8e4858bd-8115-4fe2-9762-b3cea1c739ee. (Accessed 8th March 2026).

Enshang Shang reviewing me deliver a Sample Room session to Year 1 BA FDT Womenswear students.

Reviewing Enshang Shang deliver a lecture to MA Global Fashion Marketing students.