Author: Barbara Gomes Paes

Disability and the lines that draw identity.

Many years ago, I read a book called “Far from the three” by Andrew Solomon (2012) . The book is the result of over 11 years of interviews with circa 300 very different families which kids fell… well, far from the tree: deafness, dwarfism, down syndrome, autism, prodigies, queerness, amongst others. These kids were part of a universe, a culture, identities, that was foreign to the families they were born into.

In the book, Solomon formulates this concept of there being two types of identities: vertical and horizontal. Vertical is the one for what can be passed down generationally, and one will likely share with parents: ethnicity, nationality, language, sometimes religion. And, observing the consequences of being part of a minority, in general, there is no attempt to “fix” those. Horizontal identities however are more often shared with a small community you “encountered” and can differ radically from you family or parents: being deaf, queer, autistic. The identity aspect for these needs to be learned from peers outside of the family. There is no pre-established scaffolding inherited. In here, some disabilities are presented as horizontal identities, and they can both be lived as illnesses, and/or claimed as identities.

The book is immense, and an one hour video is a lot, but I highly recommend the 12 first minutes. (Google, 2013)

Solomon’s frame of difficulties in horizontal identities perfectly aligns with the social model of disability (SMD) (UAL, 2020): the hardships are not intrinsic to the condition but manufactured by a world built for and by vertical-identity holders: A deaf child isn’t inherently excluded; they are excluded by a hearing world that didn’t design itself with them in mind. If the SMD proposes inclusion by design, changing the environment, systems and attitude’s, Solomon presents us with the difficult human dilemma of some changes: Parents, by meaning the best to their kids, can “fix” deafness with cochlear implants, but will they ever fit in either hearing or deaf identities? Fix the person to fit the world, or change the world to fit the person? And who can afford to go ‘against’ the world?

The central finding of the book is the same as the provocation that led to its existence: in our alterity, we meet by constructing meaning from our own stories. Despite being different people, with different overlapping social identities and circumstances, there were shared feelings, experiences and crossings amongst them, and that makes us, readers, empathize and identify with many situations. Solomon guides us through these families’ homes and lives from his perspective as a gay man, feeling loneliness, inadequacy and isolation. Yet isn’t that a common feeling to immigrants, or those who can’t fluently speak a language? Aren’t we all one accident away from becoming disabled, or luckily years away from needing accessibility adaptations?

This book came to mind to compliment what studies and theories alone rarely manage to grasp: the human aspect of the abstract. Terms and policies are important, but they only make sense with human characters to live them. The best way to build a more welcoming university, that holds space for horizontal identities as comfortably as vertical ones, is not just through better policy, but through the quiet hard work of building meaning and finding resonance in each other’s stories.

References

Andrew Solomon, Google (2013) Far from the Tree: Andrew Solomon | Talks at Google [Online video]. 4 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSV1i40cpcs (Accessed: 8 May 2026).

Inclusion London (no date) The social model of disability and the cultural model of deafness. Available at: https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/about-us/disability-in-london/social-model/the-social-model-of-disability-and-the-cultural-model-of-deafness/ (Accessed: 8 May 2026).

Solomon, A. (2012) Far from the tree: parents, children, and the search for identity. New York: Scribner.

UAL (2020) The Social Model of Disability at UAL. 12 March. Available at: https://youtu.be/mNdnjmcrzgw (Accessed: 8 May 2026).

Case Study 3: Assess and/or give feedback for learning

Contextual Background 

Most core users of the Grow Lab have no background in science or laboratory practices. This is not, an impairment for anyone to work in the lab, for we provide inductions, training and support continuously. However, the use of AI to complete planning forms, generate protocols or come up with project ideas, frequently undermines my ability to assess students’ actual understanding. This creates a level of distrust, for it can be a safety concern.

Evaluation

Technician assessment is typically informal and dynamic than traditional academic ones. Although we have a Grow Lab form that acts as scaffolding (Vygotsky 1978) for student organization prior to lab sessions, this can be completed using AI.

Since our primary assessments happen through face-to-face interaction with students in the lab, we can get information from them directly, and assess AI influence. We attempt to do what Wiggins (1990) calls authentic assessment by observing their confidence, language, and experimental plans. We are assessing for their theoretical domain of the subject through their practice, but also, for tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966).

AI has limitations and does not take our specific context in consideration. When a proposed work is not compatible with the student’s comprehension of the topic, we suspect of AI use. The more a student masters issues related to their project, practical and theoretical, the more they will develop autonomy in the lab. Their independence signals the successful learning and the effectiveness of our approach.

Moving forwards

Our main strategy must be to be constantly aware, to question without intimidating, continuously ask for their sources, and assess their understanding, while allowing progressively more independence. If we suspect of AI use, we ask for an original non-AI source, go through the original finding versus the AI response, discussing its limitations and possible safety issues.

Moving forward, I will look into creating tools guiding students through good AI use for laboratory practices, giving examples of health and safety and intellectual property concerns and highlighting UAL guidelines on AI (UAL, Nd). I have been approaching the topic through staff development workshops on AI and academic integrity and contacting colleagues from other laboratory institutions (such as RCA) to discuss how they approach the subject. One common strategy is to have “checkpoint questions” during consultations and conversations like “walk me through your plan” and “what happens if this fails”. We currently do it intuitively during conversations but might be a good idea to present them more frequently as provocations for critical reflection – in the Grow Lab form, inductions or other tools.

We cannot provide the intensive support that we would like as technicians, which would allow on our part also, a better understanding of student’s comprehension, limitations, needs and a more tailored support to each. The solution, as suggested by Rowe and Potier (2026) in their AI workshop, is that students get more “time in the physical world”, or in this case, more time in the lab environment. If we cannot provide them with more time, we need to work on providing the best quality in the time they have.

References
Wiggins, G. (1990) ‘The case for authentic assessment’, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2(1), Article 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7275/ffb1-mm19

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

University of the Arts London (no date) AI and Arts Education. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/learning-and-teaching/digital-learning/ai-and-education (Accessed: 22 March 2026).

Rowe, C. and Potier, R. (2026) ‘Art, Design and Artificial Intelligence’ [Guest lecture]. PGCert in Academic Practice, University of the Arts London, 19 March.

Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (cited in Cleary, V., 2026).

Blog Post: Seeing my practice through different lenses.

Something interesting happened during this Unit of the PGCert: I had the opportunity to have three different types of Review of Teaching Practice (RTP), instead of the usual two.

As part of our TPP activities, we have RTP from a colleague and from a tutor. Since I am part of the online group, I submitted to be reviewed a resource students have access to that facilitates them to come work in the lab: the Grow Lab form (GLForm). However, while I worked on the RTP, for two weeks the Grow Lab had an anthropology PhD student observing our interactions with students. They sat through our dynamic with different students, courses, practices and challenges, and shared their observations and preliminary notes with us.

So, I ended up with three completely different types of feedback about my practice: an assychronous review from Elena, a synchronous online review by Carys, and observational from the PhD student. Same artifact (ish), no one had previous Grow Lab context or experience, three completely different lenses. And honestly, each one revealed something the others couldn’t.

Elena’s review happened entirely through written exchange. All the information she had come directly from me—my biases, views, and limitations in written communication. As I read through her side notes, I could see her thinking process unfold and identify what was lacking in my communication. This hinted me about how much I assume students already know. Elena’s confusion was student confusion. Because all she had was an asynchronous assessment of a written tool, her feedback was design/format focused.

Carys had the same asynchronous access to the form, plus a 45-minutes conversation online. Therefore ‘virtual’, but also a synchronous conversation. With the opportunity to paint a fuller picture, our chat was actually a scaffold for my reflections (Vygotsky, 1978). Her feedback focused on the priorities and purposes of the form.

The PhD observation was entirely different. They documented what people DO, not what they SAY they do. Or what I SAID they DO. She had access to my actions, students’ actions, and our interactions within the context. And not only once, but several iterations were observed, and my adaptability to each. In this case, the GLForm was only one element of the practice.

Each review method had blind spots. Written feedback reveals design flaws but misses relational aspects. Spoken dialogue clarifies intentions but virtualizes a practice rather than observe it. Observation captures unconscious behaviours but can’t access my internal reasoning. All these methods in some level, show some gap between my intentions and the reality. Having external eyes makes visible aspects I do unconsciously (how I adapt language, how I assume readiness from text or in person). It also revealed my intentions by exposing a big frustration: e.g: students using AI, avoiding reflection, defeating the purpose of the form as a scaffold for students to develop critical thinking and autonomy.

Each review brought different praise but also discomfort. Elena’s made me realize how much I assume. Carys’s made me rethink what my purposes are. The observation made me confront gaps between what I think I do and what I actually do. Which makes me wonder: If I had received only one type of review, I would have missed crucial insights? How to use the focus of each method to highlight the desired outcome when designing new tools or communicating with students?

For now I just know that multiple lenses over my practice have revealed a more accurate, colourful picture than I could have painted alone.

AI Use

Drafts were edited for length using Claude (Anthropic, 2026). My initial text was pasted to it, with the following prompt:

“I want you to help me reduce this text to maximum 550 words. For that follow these rules:
1. I want you to help me reduce the word count without altering any meaning, or writting style. Keep it as close to original as possible
2. correct any typos, grammar or spelling mistakes.
3. Propose changes to the text by: highlighting in bold what is your new proposed version so i can check if i agree with the new parts. strikethrough parts i should delete. put any grammar, typo or spelling corrections in between **.

References

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reviews of Teaching Practice 

Resource reviewed: The Grow Lab Form

020226_GrowLabForm_BPDownload

Review of a Peer’s Practice

Reviewee: Elena Hernández-Martín

Final_BP_Review of teaching practice form – ElenaHM_PeerReviewed_CommentedDownload

Review of my Practice: The Grow Lab Form

Reviewer (peer): Elena Hernández-Martín

I decided to add the Word form instead of the pdf, to make the comments made in the document available for reading.

Final_Review of teaching practice form – BarbaraP_EHM_Commented_BPDownload

Reviewer (tutor): Carys Kennedy

Final_Review of teaching practice form – Barbara x CarysDownload

Case Study 2: Plan for and support student learning through appropriate approaches and environments

A science laboratory is an unusual space in an arts institution. However, the Grow Lab falls under the same UAL’s Health and Safety Policy requirements as any other workshop (UAL, 2023). As a technician, I must commit to doing all possible to protect the safety, health and wellbeing of students, staff, contractors and visitors.

The pedagogical challenge is: providing appropriate health and safety training for the individualized nature of projects students develop here. For example, a student wanting to work with a new chemical reagent, like sodium periodate, that we have no previous experience with.

Like any workshop, there are standard methods, equipment and rules that are easy to establish and enforce: no eating or drinking in the lab, mandatory PPE use, and compliance with the traffic light system for equipment and machinery (UAL, nd).

CLEAPSS (an advisory training provider for practical work in science) notes that safe laboratory practice requires “vigilance…which must be maintained” (CLEAPSS, 2008), and this vigilance becomes complex when the unique nature of student’s projects is incompatible with the increasing cohort numbers and amount of dedicated time each student has with technicians.

As technician I must assess proposed activities for their viability and safety, research unfamiliar procedures, if the student’s skill set is compatible with the proposed activity, determine what level of independent work is safe for each student, and offer the training they require in language appropriate to their background. As Hofstein and Kind (2008) said: In practical work, it is important to avoid excess information and overload of students to ensure a simple and safe way towards learning.

Despite standardization being insufficient to cover all project safety needs, we try to optimize time, support student independence and guarantee safety by:

  • Students undergo basic H&S induction at their first term, and are reminded through signs and constant communication.
  • Students have their methods checked frequently by technicians for safety and viability, with unsuitable elements substituted, reduced, or forbidden
  • A series of resources is available: guides, lists, protocols and external references, working as FAQs that reduce variables for common methods
  • Specific methods that impose higher risk have individual training and supervision. Some procedures are done exclusively by the technician and explained to the student.

In the example of the sodium periodate, I:

  • Reached out to an external chemist advisor (CLEAPSS) for protocol and risk evaluation
  • Studied the protocol and consulted colleagues before final decisions.
  • Explained the conditions, concerns, and procedures to the student.
  • Isolated the work area.

The experiment was performed with excessive care, but guaranteed minimal risk, and achieved a positive result.

Good laboratory safety balances structure with flexibility. It is fundamental to say yes to students’ interests, curiosities and aims. However, the most valuable trait to have is recognizing when I don’t know something and working together with them within my means to find solutions while ensuring everyone’s safety.

We are currently limited by time and number of core users to have more personalizd time with each student. Hopefully, by creating extra video inductions for less common processes, we can free up technicians time to more one on one problem-solving, and to be able to say yes to new, more challenging cases.

Highlights of a Health and Safety induction for the Grow Lab

References 

CLEAPSS (2008) Health and safety in the school laboratory and the new science teacher. Uxbridge: CLEAPSS.

Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. (2004) ‘The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century’, Science Education, 88(1), pp. 28–54.

University of the Arts London (2023) Safety, Health and Wellbeing Policy Statement 2023/24. London: UAL.

University of the Arts London (n.d.) Studio and workshop safety. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/students/health-and-safety-for-students/information-and-resources/studio-and-workshop-safety (Accessed: 17 March 2026).

Blog post: Bauhaus, technical teaching and PGCert.

I recently fell into a rabbit hole about modernism, architecture and then Bauhaus. It eventyally got me into a reflection about my work, being a technician, everything we have been exploring during the TPP and my expectations of the PGCert. It seemed natural to turn this into a blog post.

At some point, I read something about the dual-teaching model, where the “Formmasters” (teaching from theory) and the “Craftmaster” (teaching from making, equivalent to the technician) were held in equal pedagogical relevance. Seeking more references, got to the theoretical, historical, and philosophical framework for the Bauhaus “learning by doing” model (Bauhaus-Archiv / Museum für Gestaltung, 2025; CCCB Lab, 2019; Johnson and Oates, 2025).

A black rectangular sign with white text AI-generated content may be incorrect.
Walter Gropius, Scheme for the structure of teaching at the Bauhaus, in “Staatliches Bauhaus Weimar 1919–1923“, Weimar 1923, special edition, p. 10
(Gropius, 1923)

The Bauhaus’ acknowledgement of craft-teaching, and the importance of the Craftsmaster role in education deeply connected with my personal experience and frustration about the lack of acknowledgement of the technical roles in student’s learning. And I am not alone. As discussed by Clare Sams (2016) – a reading from Workshop 1A – technicians in HE view themselves not only as supporting staff, but as educators, artists and expert practitioners, yet do not feel supported or valued in their roles. It is discussed that technicians perceive their role also as teaching-based, through specialized knowledge of how to make.

Another UAL colleague, Verity Cleary (2024) framed it not as “learning by doing” but as “thinking through making”. In her literature review, she identified significant gaps in research about technician teaching in HE, especially compared to the academic teaching. One explanation offered is that “critical thinking and critical self-reflection” are traditionally seen exclusively as a cognitive, mental, and theoretical processes. However, Bauhaus proposed, Verity researched, and most technicians will tell you, the making process has an intimate relationship with critical and reflective thinking.

Wragg argues: “in some cases, what students can learn from technical staff can be of greater value than what they might learn from academics, especially in terms of real world applicability and graduate employability” (Wragg et al., 2023, cited in Cleary, 2024). Swedish Sloyd have technical teaching “about and through making” (Lindström, 2012). Then, in the words of Paulo Freire (from Dr Alex Standen’s guest lecture):

Slide from Dr Alex Standen “Learning from your teaching: Frameworks for reflective practice”

To put it into my own words: there is no product without making, and no making without critical reflection. In the Grow Lab I see it in the progression from conceptualizing a project with a desired outcome, to researching methods, adapting them to the lab’s context, executing, dealing with unforeseen circumstances, optimizing, and finalizing. Each decision offers opportunities for reflection and learning, for each decision will impact the outcome directly. A bacteria culture shaken or still will result in two completely different patterns of growth. Light, temperature, time, – everything impacts results. From an HE standpoint, workshop-based teaching creates developmental opportunities for not only crafting skills, but also cognitive, professional and personal (life) skills.

Yet at this point in my PGCert, I was left wanting more. More references, examples, and other job families’ perspectives. Although not surprised, I cannot help but feel disappointed that the course echoed such an academic-centered perspective, with other job families’ perspectives so rarely promoted, provoked or proposed. This perpetuates the invisibility of equally valid forms of teaching, especially technical teaching, with its own pedagogy, body of knowledge and legitimate place in HE.

And although the “next steps” are not clear to me yet, I believe there is something in:

  • Documenting my pedagogical practice more intentionally
  • Advocating for change – such as more diverse job families case studies at the PGCert
  • Continuing my research – where else, besides Bauhaus, technical teaching is acknowledged and how?

Compilation of readings and references – not enough words to mention it all.

AI Use

AI (Claude) was used in this text to help reduce the number of words initially written. The prompt used was:
“I want you to help me reduce this text for max 550 words. For that please follow these rules:
1. I want you to help me reduce the word count without altering any meaning, or writting style. Keep it as close to original as possible
2. correct any typos, grammar or spelling mistakes.
3. Propose changes to the text by: highlighting in bold what is your new proposed version so i can check if i agree with the new parts. strikethrough parts i should delete. put any grammar, typo or spelling corrections in between **.

References

Bauhaus-Archiv / Museum für Gestaltung (2025) Preliminary course, workshops and Bauhaus diploma: What made training at the Bauhaus so special? Available at: https://www.bauhaus.de/en/discover/article/preliminary-course-workshops-and-bauhaus-diploma/ (Accessed: 15 March 2026).

CCCB Lab (2019) Lessons from the Bauhaus for the 21st century. Available at: https://www.cccb.org/en/w/articles/lessons-from-the-bauhaus-for-the-21st-century (Accessed: 15 March 2026).

Cleary, V. (2024) ‘Thinking through making: What kinds of learning take place when HE students engage with creative arts technicians?’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, online first. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00087_1

Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Translated by P. Clarke. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gropius, W. (1923) ‘The theory and organization of the Bauhaus’, published in: German History Intersections. Available at: https://germanhistory-intersections.org/en/knowledge-and-education/ghis:document-203 (Accessed: 15 March 2026).

Johnson, M. and Oates, T. (2025) ‘The Bauhaus as education model: Enduring design and powerful knowledge’, International Journal of Art & Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12598

Lindström, L. (2012) ‘Aesthetic learning about, in, with and through the arts: A curriculum study’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(2), pp. 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2012.01737.x

Sams, C. (2016) ‘How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education?’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 1(2), pp. 62–69.

Standen, A. (2025) Learning from your teaching: Frameworks for reflective practice. Guest lecture. UAL, TPP PGCert. 11 February 2026.

Case Study 1: Knowing and responding to your students’ diverse needs. 

Background

The Grow Lab is a science laboratory, used exclusively by students from three master’s courses and PhD programmes. These students come from diverse professional backgrounds, usually with little or no experience scientific methods and laboratory work. The primary challenge is to support these students in conducting independent laboratory work safely and confidently.

Evaluation

We try to follow a problem-based style of instruction (Domin, 1999) where students apply their knowledge to design experiments and procedures. This means that, to work in the lab they must propose an idea, research literature, suggest a method or feasible in the space, execute, draw conclusions and refine it for the final project.

Our main strategy to address these challenges is the “scientific consultation” – a bookable 20-minutes one-to-one session between students and technicians to discuss their needs, questions and elaborate plans and protocols.

We provide a series of online resources (equipment, material, organisms lists, guides protocols) to support their planning and lab sessions. Additionally, we created a step-by-step form covering essential elements of a lab experiment, organized by sessions.

When students come to a lab session, we will teach and demonstrate procedures, supervise their work and discuss situations that arise. My personal approach is to always ground scientific explanations in something familiar such as their senses, personal interest or professional background, a form of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966).

Student’s feedback consistently praises and highlights the consultation model. However, we have limited weekly slots. Student’s most common complaint/request is for more consultations available per week.

Moving forwards

Reflecting on our practice, there are three basic strategies I would like to implement:

  • Foundational laboratory sessions
    • New mandatory inductions for all first-years covering basic laboratory
    practices
  • Practical introduction of the physical space and rules
    • Dependant on alignment with courses, very demanding of technicians
    • Has been agreed but not implemented yet
  • Consultation days arranged with courses
    • We don’t have the capacity to do more consultations (12/week).
    • Close the lab for a couple days in the beginning of the term, an create days fully dedicated to consultations – no lab work, 20 consultations in a day
    • We would support more students in the beginning of a project or brief, avoiding bottlenecks and delays of activities awaiting for an available bookable slot
    • Weekly slots still available for follow ups and new ideas.
    • First test with one course was very successful, being praised and receiving positive feedback by students
    • Intend to expand to other courses
  • AI Integration in science consultation
    • Students increasingly use AI for research and protocol development, leading to inaccurate and sometimes dangerous information and proposals
    • Rather than discourage, would like to incorporate AI prompting during consultations
    • Critically evaluate suggestions together
    • Create/ reffer a guide for good AI use for laboratory practices with good vs bad prompting examples
    • Enforce UAL guidelines for AI (UAL, nd)
      • Link best AIs to be used, and other resources

This reflection clarifies the importance of extending my role beyond answering questions to developing scientific independence. As elaborated by Cleary (2024), the regular conversations between student and technician have a fundamental role in development of critical reflection and thinking. Future practice will emphasize structured support focused in autonomy in the science for the creative exploration.

References 

Domin, D.S. (1999) ‘A review of laboratory instruction styles’, Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), pp. 543–547.

Cleary, V. (2026). Thinking through making: What kinds of learning take place when HE students engage with creative arts technicians? Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 25(1), pp. 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00087_1

Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (cited in Cleary, V., 2026).

University of the Arts London (no date) AI and Arts Education. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/learning-and-teaching/digital-learning/ai-and-education (Accessed: 22 March 2026).

Blog post: On Microteaching – a reflection on real and codified objects

My microteaching session was developed around the platform iNaturalist, but that was not my object. After introducing my practice in the Grow Lab and the platform itself, I invited participants to each choose a location that held a strong nature-related memory and navigate there virtually. This was based on the emotional reading of an object framework presented by Dayna Tohidi in her lecture.* I offered some prompts for reflection and then invited people to share their perceptions and findings. The session was well received and I got generous feedback on it.

The whole experience was quite interesting to me. I found myself reflecting deeply about the concept of objects in the context of digital teaching and learning—what counts as a real object versus a representation, and how I could propose a real location digitally as an object for learning.

Object-based learning reminded me of a concept I had learned a while ago: codification, from the pedagogue Paulo Freire (1974). In OBL, artifacts are facilitators of students’ learning, critical thinking, observation, and analytical skills through sensorial contact with an object. This holds similarities with Freire’s methods, in which a representation of an object—like a photo of a brick—becomes a codification of a real situation, also promoting learning, observation, reflection, and empowerment of the learner.

The concepts have their differences, but both use material items to prompt critical thinking and position the learner as an active subject in the construction of knowledge. Both also consider the learner’s experience with the object as central. I consider that my digital approach sits interestingly between both frameworks—offering a virtual experience of a real, emotionally significant place.

These reflections made me think about which other objects—palpable or not, real or represented—could be featured in activities in the lab. I’m particularly interested in exploring the different perceptions that arise from direct examination of an object versus representations of invisible phenomena. For example, how can the visibility of invisible organisms be explored? Maybe observing the biodiversity in supposedly sterile environments by observing what grows when materials become contaminated with unwanted organisms. Is the petri dish the object, or the invisible organisms, or the concept of contamination itself?

Object-based learning is a fantastic tool to teach about nature and the world. Everyone experiences nature and natural phenomena, makes observations, and forms deductions about why and how things are. Observation is therefore the basis for science. Then we take it into a lab with equipment like microscopes, and can expand our direct observation to materials and beings that are invisible to the human eye. And it makes me think about the means for the observation, and how this also could be meaningful in the construction of meaning by the observers. I don’t have many conclusions, just some hypothesis and plans for some… experiments.

References

Freire, P. (1974) Pedagogia do oprimido. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.

*Dayna mentioned that the Forensic framework is only applicable in an in-person environment. During the presentation, however, even understanding it correctly, I said it all backwards—as if the emotional reading was not suitable online, only in person. I got even more nervous when I realized, and just hoped no one noticed. That is why I am admitting it here in the footnote.

Microteaching: iNaturalist

Upon reflection, I can see many times I have taught (and learned) with an unconscious, or maybe unintentional, framework of object-based learning. However, I must admit I had never learned specifically about it until the PGCert.

It took me a while to build confidence in using a digital tool for object-based learning when a lab is full of fun, weird objects. I’m still trying to challenge myself to work more with digital learning. I chose iNaturalist because I was a previous user of the platform and frequently recommend it to students, so I knew my enthusiasm about the topic would be authentic and the expected learning outcomes clear.

The idea was to introduce the app, propose an activity in which participants would explore an area, and then share their observations. I decided to use PowerPoint slides as presentation support instead of sharing my screen using the platform. Initially, I thought about splitting the group in two and inviting them to explore different areas: the greenest and least green boroughs of London (Richmond and Redbridge, respectively). However, after a quick rehearsal, I considered it too ambitious given the time constraints and opted for a simpler approach, outlined below:

TIMED LESSON STRUCTURE

Introduction: iNaturalist and Grow Lab (3 min) I started with a link and QR codes for people to access the app via phone or desktop. Then I briefly introduced the Grow Lab and why knowing “what things are” matters in our lab context.

iNaturalist presentation (5 min) I presented and explained the platform: how it works, some information about open data and accessibility, and shared some of my favourite stories and a video recording showing the app’s usability. By sharing the stories, I wanted to give insights regarding the importance of biodiversity information in our lives, and how simple findings can be relevant if information is trustworthy.

Exercise: Virtual field trip (5 minutes) Participants were invited to visit a location with a strong memory related to the environment and explore the area through the app. I also offered a few reflection prompts—these were my attempt to structure discussion later without over-directing the experience.

Sharing and reflections (7 minutes) For the final segment, participants were invited to reflect on their observations and the experience. I decided to share my own story about foxes around my area before asking others to do the same.

Feedback After the session, our colleagues offered feedback within the previously agreed structure: something to celebrate, to suggest, and a question. Here are some of my takeaways:

  • The app interested many of my colleagues, being called inspiring and a valuable tool for engagement and learning through observation.
  • Good strategy to be in nature without leaving the house or screens—which was linked to accessibility opportunities and solutions.
  • Suggestions on how to better organize the slides, links, and presentation order for clarity and efficiency.
  • Questions and suggestions on how the session could be adapted for in-person delivery, focusing on the hybrid virtual/real space the app exists in.
  • Provocations about what challenges might arise with low participation or if someone couldn’t access the platform, and how to keep it engaging.
The links were a common point that could be improved.

Overall, I feel participants responded well to the session, and I’m genuinely happy to share something I’m enthusiastic about.

While writing this post, I realized that during this activity I was constantly negotiating between my confidence in the content and motivation, and uncertainty about how to deliver it. I continue trying to explore virtual learning approaches, but definitely overthink possible constraints and challenges. An interesting example: I prepared a slide full of QR codes that would be great for an in-person session but quite redundant online—yet in my head there were many “what ifs” and “just in cases”.

After watching my colleagues’ presentations, I reflected on strategies I could adopt to improve my session. For example, having smaller connected exercises throughout the presentation instead of one big activity at the end is a good strategy to overcome time management issues and ensure there’s time for at least one activity. Having feedback and watching the colleagues presentations helped me a lot in reflecting about my own delivery, approaches to ‘an object’ and session possibilities.

I’m glad that we are developing an even wider set of tools for teaching. Moving forward, I want to trust my planning more and focus on real constraints rather than speculative problems. This microteach showed me that simplicity and authenticity can be just as effective as complexity—sometimes even more.