Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Lesson plan/Slides/Activity
Size of student group: 39
Observer: Karen Matthewman
Observee: Antonella Nonnis
Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.
Part One (Completed by Antonella)
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?
This content is presented during the Friday morning session of week 2 for the Enquiry in Design for User Experience unit. It is the first unit of the 2024/25 academic year for second-year students enrolled in the User Experience Design BA (Hons) course. The previous Wednesday, students received a brief requiring them to conduct non-participant observations of individuals at the ‘Who Am I’ exhibit at the Science Museum. They are tasked to document how people interact within the space and with each other, critically reflecting on their engagement and interactions in the exhibit’s physical and digital realms. They are to analyse both primary and secondary data, visualise and synthesise their findings, identify pain points where interactions with digital and physical spaces could be enhanced, propose design solutions, and document and curate the design processes.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
I have been working with this class since September 2024 as Y2 Lead – their main point of contact.
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
For students to grasp the implications of conducting ‘covert’ research involving people (including benefits and limitations), understanding research ethics, areas of ethical concerns, practicalities of doing ethical research, and ethical concerns for this unit.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
At the end of the slides, students did an outside class activity called ‘Point of view’
- Participants: Individual work
- Time: ~ 30 minutes (15 mins of writing) + in class discussion
As a class, we went to the Typo cafè and observed other people.
I asked students to use a notebook with 3 separate pages to free-write from at least three different perspectives about the space around them.
They were not allowed at any time in the writing to mention directly what perspective they are writing from and what their viewpoint is or to use any word given in the prompt. Instead, they had to use their five senses and try to imagine writing about the environment as if they were a different person.
Later, when we returned to class, I asked students to take one of the pages they thought was their strongest and hand it to me. I then mixed up all the pages and discussed what point of view they thought each was written from and why.
The aims of this activity are clearly explained to students before the activity starts, such as:
- Look at the same space and group of people, but adjust your viewpoint.
- Recognising your prejudices and assumptions is essential to being open to other people’s points of view.
Students can learn a great deal about how their life experiences influence their perception of others and what it might be like to experience things from others’ perspectives. However, they must also grapple with the concept that unbiased research is impossible. It is important to recognise one’s own biases.
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
Many students are unfamiliar with the key concepts expressed, and they find it challenging to consider ethical implications when designing UX. UX design is all about improving people’s experiences by getting to know them, their needs, strengths, knowledge, challenges, etc., and conveying experiences that are meaningful, fair, respectful, beneficial, and resonate with people instead of being exploitative, individualistic (based on design preferences), or universalistic (based on dominant norms).
Some students have low language proficiency and encounter difficulties during sessions. I strive to alleviate this through clear communication, although conveying tasks and concepts can sometimes be challenging.
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
N/A
What would you particularly like feedback on?
I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on maintaining students’ focus and supporting those with lower language abilities. I would also welcome any feedback on simplifying language (I recently thought of providing a glossary for the key terms used throughout the unit and perhaps translating them into the main languages spoken in class – any thought on this ? ), the content itself, how it is structured, and the exercises.
How will feedback be exchanged?
Verbally, via Teams, and written.
Part Two (to be completed by Karen)
This was such an interesting and wide-ranging discussion, Antonella, wasn’t it? We talked about this very unusual and at first sight very simple task given to students to aid their understanding of UX and spaces, but it also contained a lot of hidden complexity.
We talked about its similarity to the microteaching task, in that you inherited quite a ‘straight’ uncritical activity form your course but enhanced it through injecting into it a level of criticality, reflection and connection to literature and ethics which made the experience much more interesting, but probably also a little harder to fully digest for some students.
We talked about the fact that completing an ethics form and going through an ethical process had been removed from the BA student course, which might be a little troubling as there are real ethical dilemmas involved in such covert research as well as ethical approval being a really useful learning process for the students to go through.
We talked about the possibility of a more developmental ‘formative’ ethics process with maybe one A4 page with key aspects of ethics covered. This is what happens on the ARP unit of the PGCert so I suggested it would be good for you to look at the ARP ethical action plan template.
We also talked about the difference between the students that really understood and embraced the process and those who struggled more, especially with the vocabulary.
We discussed the possibility of a glossary being given in advance as there were quite a few key concepts that might be a little more complex.
I suggested providing not only a definition for the words in the glossary but also a sentence with the word in context so the students could see how it is used. We also agreed that it was not your role to provide translations and there is no guarantee they would be correct. Students could see the concepts used and translate as needed.
We acknowledged the need for more scaffolding of knowledge and difficult concepts at this level while also encouraging more agency in students. Supports like the glossary should help in this process.
It was an interesting and reflective conversation- one of many we have had along the way in the TPP unit. Please keep challenging yourself, your students, your learning and the institution.
Karen Matthewman
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Karen, I really appreciated our discussion! It was fascinating and wide-ranging, and it helped me reflect deeply on my teaching approach. The task I designed for students initially seemed quite simple, but as we explored it, it became clear that it carried layers of hidden complexity. Your insights have given me valuable perspectives on how to refine the session further, particularly in making the critical and ethical dimensions more accessible without overwhelming students.
Key Takeaways & Planned Actions
Our conversation reinforced the importance of explicitly addressing the ethical challenges involved in covert research and highlighted the significance of conducting ethical research in general. The lack of an ethics form for the BA course raises concerns, as students continue to face real ethical dilemmas in their research. I plan to introduce a formative ethics process, possibly using a simplified A4 ethics form to highlight key considerations. Referring to the ARP ethical action plan template will be a helpful starting point for this design. I initiated this process last year with a different course leader, where we collaborated on creating an ethical form to enable Y3 students to conduct research with people while adhering to ethical procedures; however, since this was not formalised through an ethics committee, the current course leader has discarded the idea. I can understand this decision, as I’m unclear why we don’t have a proper ethical procedure in place for BA courses at LCC. Many colleagues allow students to collaborate with individuals, including vulnerable populations, which makes me question why we pursue this without ethics. This greatly frustrates me at LCC as it undermines my core values, and I’m genuinely struggling with it. I will advocate for this, but I’m uncertain how much influence I can exert.
You highlighted how I had taken a ‘straight’ activity and deepened it by integrating critical reflection, ethical considerations, and connections to literature. While this makes the experience richer, it also makes it harder for some students to digest. To mitigate this, I will focus on providing clearer scaffolding throughout the process. This means breaking down complex ideas into more manageable segments and ensuring students have reference points to support their understanding.
One of the key issues we discussed was the variation in how students engaged with the process. Some embraced it fully, while others struggled, particularly with vocabulary. To support these students, I will introduce a glossary of key terms in advance. Based on your suggestion, I will not only provide definitions but also include example sentences demonstrating each term in context. I really liked this idea instead of providing a translation in different languages of key terms! This will help students grasp both meaning and application without relying on direct translations, which may not always be accurate and scaffold student’s agency.
Our discussion reaffirmed that while students need structured support, they also need to develop agency in their learning. The glossary and ethics scaffolding will serve as supports rather than replacements for their own critical engagement. By giving them the tools to navigate complex concepts independently, I hope to strike the right balance between guidance and self-directed learning.
This conversation has reinforced the importance of both clarity and critical engagement in my teaching. Moving forward, I am excited to implement the ethics scaffolding, refine the session’s structure, and provide better linguistic support for students. I appreciate your encouragement to keep questioning and improving, both for myself and for my students. Thank you for your thoughtful insights and for challenging me to push these ideas further!