Category: Uncategorised

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.