The Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra is quoted as saying that, “To be prepared is half the victory”, which would seem to be the perfect place to start this written justification for the choices I have made, and the decisions I have taken in preparing my scheme of work and lesson plans for this PIA assignment.
The unit I chose for this assignment was Unit 17, Typographic Skills, of the BETEC Higher National in Graphic Design. This course is predominantly aimed at school leavers, 16-19 years of age, and can be seen as a foundation for a degree in Graphic Design, although, students gaining this qualification should have the required knowledge to gain fulltime employment by the end of the course.
Pages 1 and 2 of the scheme of work
The principles and structure for the pro forma for the scheme of work had been extensively explored during our PIA lessons, and I’d road tested the lesson plan in my micro teaching assignment, so by the time I came to start to prepare a scheme of work and lesson plan for my chosen unit, I was happy that they would both work effectively. The only addition I made was to add an area for self-assessment and reflection at the end of the lesson plan. I had originally intended to create a separate pro former for this, but decided that on reflection, a separate piece of paperwork wasn’t necessary, and that the most logical place to reflect on the successes and failures of a particular lesson would be on the actual document used to deliver it. In this way, should the session be delivered again the previous reflections would be there to help improve the lesson second time around.
Differentiation was another area that we spent much time discussing in class, and the need to incorporate it into both our scheme of work and our lesson plans. Obviously when planning a scheme of work it is likely that you will not have met the students and so will have no specific information on your students individual profiles, however, when teaching any of the creative arts you can be almost certain that you will have to definitely differentiate for one form of learning disability – dyslexia.
In a recent study 1 in 4 students at the Royal Academy of Arts were found to have difficulty with reading and in their document, Challenges 2005 they state that this is, ‘a pattern repeated in the wider creative community.’ (rsa.ac.uk, 2005.). As I could be relatively certain that I would have some students on the course who, if not already statemented as suffering from dyslexia, would display some signs of the condition I identified that handouts should be available on coloured backgrounds and that coloured acetates would be available if requested. I have also noted that I would be personally checking to see if, in my opinion, any students are being hindered by difficulties with written language and asking if they would like to be referred to the colleges dyslexia unit for assessment. I would obviously explain that this would be no reflection on their overall intelligence, dyslexia’s links to creativity, and that once tested, we could identify any specific areas were additional help could be given.
Students wanting to go into the creative arts would tend, as the description suggests, have a creative, hands on, learning style. David Kolb and Roger Fry (1975) described these types of learners as ‘Divergers’, whose learning characteristics sit between the Concrete Experience and Reflective Observation poles of their learning cycle. They described ‘Diverger’ learners as, ‘Strong in imaginative ability, good at generating ideas and seeing things from different perspectives, interested in people and having broad cultural interests’ (infed.org, 2007)
The unit I chose was also, as most art and design curriculum are, very practically based, however, unlike many areas of graphic design, typography demands a firm grasp of terminology and rigid technique. This seemed to be a more challenging unit to base my scheme of work on, rather than some of the more practical and subjective units.
Because of the need to impart theoretical knowledge before any creative experimentation could take place, I based my scheme of work on the Collins-McNaught Learning Engagement model (July 2002) which:
Engages the student in the learning task (by) taking the student from passive tasks such as listening and note taking to the open-ended activity where the student is actively involved and has ownership of their responses. (Reece and Walker, 2006, p57)
I believe that this pedagogical to andragogical approach is the best way to ensure that the learners have the essential grasp of basic typographic knowledge to enable them to effectively produce the practical work required to successfully complete the assignments necessary to complete the unit.
This approach also assisted in the sequencing of the unit aims and objectives which where clearly stated in the unit guide, and where laid out in a historical order. This, again, fitted well with my chosen model, as most of the, ‘teacher dominated learning’ (Reece and Walker, 1992, p57), needed to teach the students about the historical roots and traditional theory of typography could be weighted in at the start of the unit.
Once these basics had been learned, the students would become more and more self-directed, which would be essential if they were to successfully complete the assignments. Knowles (1970) states that, ‘adults prefer to learn in a different way from that of children… adults prefer to be self-directing rather than being totally dependent on a teacher.’ (Reece and Walker, 1992, p58), and though at 16 it could be argued that the students are barely adults, it is important that, as young graphic designers, they start to learn how to rely on their own judgement and start to self critique their own work, as this is at the heart of what it takes to become an effective designer.
Now that I was happy with my learning model and the sequencing of my course, the actual scheme of work started to fit together quite quickly. I tried to, within my chosen learning model, include as much variety of teaching styles as possible within each lesson, including some practical, some individual and some group activities even in my early, predominantly teacher directed, sessions.
I have structured the unit in such a way that by week four the students will be in a position to be given the unit assignments, and I have scheduled individual tutorial time with each student, at this point, to individually assess their knowledge and address any individual learning issues.
Once the assignments are set the teaching style would become far more andragogical in nature with increasing amounts of individual design time within the sessions, plus the assumption that the students are self motivated enough to continue to work on their assignments outside the structured lesson time, however, informal tutorial time is built in to the scheme of work from week seven until the end of the unit to enable students to discuss any issues they may have, and for me, as the teacher, to assess that the student is working effectively towards the unit assignments.
As this is not an exam based subject there would be no formal end of unit exam and the student would be expected to continue to work on there individual assignments, which would be collected and marked at a later date.
Lesson plan for week 1
The lesson plans I chose to produce were for weeks two and three, the most pedagogical phase of the unit. Lesson two would introduce students to not only character component identification and terminology but also type sizing systems. To practically re-enforce the two areas, there would be a design exercise that would allow for experimentation with type sizes and type layouts, plus a gap test on typeface components to round of the session.
Gap test for session 1
Session three would start with a directed presentation on typeface classification, followed by an expansion exercise to re-enforce the learning, plus introduce an element of differentiation into the session by getting the students to work in groups to research four additional typefaces for each of the basic type groups and present their finding to the group next session. The session would be concluded with a directed presentation on how designers used to specify type before digital setting was invented, and then an exercise to re-enforce the knowledge.
These 2 lessons should provide the formal foundations that will allow students to confidently move into the next, more subjective, phase of the unit, and the two formative evaluations, one in each session, should, as stated by Curzon (2006, p384), ‘inform the learner of his progress and the teacher of his success… designed to motivate, in which comments rather than marks will be relayed to students.’
I was sceptical about how effective such a structured and prescriptive document as a formal scheme of work and lesson plan could be when teaching a creative and personally subjective subject like graphic design, however, once I started on the assignment, I soon began to realise that, in some ways, the creative arts need an even more structured environment than more academic subjects, if effective learning is to be facilitated and chaos avoided. A quote from the Dalai Lama sums this up quite succinctly, “Learn the rules well so you know how to break them properly.”
The Helen Hamlyn Research Centre (2005).
Challenge 2005 – giving disabled people a voice in the design process. Online.Available:http://designage.rca.ac.uk/resources/publications/challenge/challenge2005.rtf
[30th May 2007]
Smith, M (2007). David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning. Online. Available: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm [30th May 2007]
Reece, I and Walker, S. (2006). Teaching, Training and Learning – a Practical Guide. 6th Ed. Sunderland: Business Edition Publishers
Curzon, L.B (2006) Teaching in Further Education: An Outline ofPrinciples and Practice. 6th Ed. London: Continuum.
Planning, Implementation and Assessment
The Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra is quoted as saying that, “To be prepared is half the victory”, which would seem to be the perfect place to start this written justification for the choices I have made, and the decisions I have taken in preparing my scheme of work and lesson plans for this PIA assignment.
The unit I chose for this assignment was Unit 17, Typographic Skills, of the BETEC Higher National in Graphic Design. This course is predominantly aimed at school leavers, 16-19 years of age, and can be seen as a foundation for a degree in Graphic Design, although, students gaining this qualification should have the required knowledge to gain fulltime employment by the end of the course.
Pages 1 and 2 of the scheme of work
The principles and structure for the pro forma for the scheme of work had been extensively explored during our PIA lessons, and I’d road tested the lesson plan in my micro teaching assignment, so by the time I came to start to prepare a scheme of work and lesson plan for my chosen unit, I was happy that they would both work effectively. The only addition I made was to add an area for self-assessment and reflection at the end of the lesson plan. I had originally intended to create a separate pro former for this, but decided that on reflection, a separate piece of paperwork wasn’t necessary, and that the most logical place to reflect on the successes and failures of a particular lesson would be on the actual document used to deliver it. In this way, should the session be delivered again the previous reflections would be there to help improve the lesson second time around.
Differentiation was another area that we spent much time discussing in class, and the need to incorporate it into both our scheme of work and our lesson plans. Obviously when planning a scheme of work it is likely that you will not have met the students and so will have no specific information on your students individual profiles, however, when teaching any of the creative arts you can be almost certain that you will have to definitely differentiate for one form of learning disability – dyslexia.
In a recent study 1 in 4 students at the Royal Academy of Arts were found to have difficulty with reading and in their document, Challenges 2005 they state that this is, ‘a pattern repeated in the wider creative community.’ (rsa.ac.uk, 2005.). As I could be relatively certain that I would have some students on the course who, if not already statemented as suffering from dyslexia, would display some signs of the condition I identified that handouts should be available on coloured backgrounds and that coloured acetates would be available if requested. I have also noted that I would be personally checking to see if, in my opinion, any students are being hindered by difficulties with written language and asking if they would like to be referred to the colleges dyslexia unit for assessment. I would obviously explain that this would be no reflection on their overall intelligence, dyslexia’s links to creativity, and that once tested, we could identify any specific areas were additional help could be given.
Students wanting to go into the creative arts would tend, as the description suggests, have a creative, hands on, learning style. David Kolb and Roger Fry (1975) described these types of learners as ‘Divergers’, whose learning characteristics sit between the Concrete Experience and Reflective Observation poles of their learning cycle. They described ‘Diverger’ learners as, ‘Strong in imaginative ability, good at generating ideas and seeing things from different perspectives, interested in people and having broad cultural interests’ (infed.org, 2007)
The unit I chose was also, as most art and design curriculum are, very practically based, however, unlike many areas of graphic design, typography demands a firm grasp of terminology and rigid technique. This seemed to be a more challenging unit to base my scheme of work on, rather than some of the more practical and subjective units.
Because of the need to impart theoretical knowledge before any creative experimentation could take place, I based my scheme of work on the Collins-McNaught Learning Engagement model (July 2002) which:
Engages the student in the learning task (by) taking the student from passive tasks such as listening and note taking to the open-ended activity where the student is actively involved and has ownership of their responses. (Reece and Walker, 2006, p57)
I believe that this pedagogical to andragogical approach is the best way to ensure that the learners have the essential grasp of basic typographic knowledge to enable them to effectively produce the practical work required to successfully complete the assignments necessary to complete the unit.
This approach also assisted in the sequencing of the unit aims and objectives which where clearly stated in the unit guide, and where laid out in a historical order. This, again, fitted well with my chosen model, as most of the, ‘teacher dominated learning’ (Reece and Walker, 1992, p57), needed to teach the students about the historical roots and traditional theory of typography could be weighted in at the start of the unit.
Once these basics had been learned, the students would become more and more self-directed, which would be essential if they were to successfully complete the assignments. Knowles (1970) states that, ‘adults prefer to learn in a different way from that of children… adults prefer to be self-directing rather than being totally dependent on a teacher.’ (Reece and Walker, 1992, p58), and though at 16 it could be argued that the students are barely adults, it is important that, as young graphic designers, they start to learn how to rely on their own judgement and start to self critique their own work, as this is at the heart of what it takes to become an effective designer.
Now that I was happy with my learning model and the sequencing of my course, the actual scheme of work started to fit together quite quickly. I tried to, within my chosen learning model, include as much variety of teaching styles as possible within each lesson, including some practical, some individual and some group activities even in my early, predominantly teacher directed, sessions.
I have structured the unit in such a way that by week four the students will be in a position to be given the unit assignments, and I have scheduled individual tutorial time with each student, at this point, to individually assess their knowledge and address any individual learning issues.
Once the assignments are set the teaching style would become far more andragogical in nature with increasing amounts of individual design time within the sessions, plus the assumption that the students are self motivated enough to continue to work on their assignments outside the structured lesson time, however, informal tutorial time is built in to the scheme of work from week seven until the end of the unit to enable students to discuss any issues they may have, and for me, as the teacher, to assess that the student is working effectively towards the unit assignments.
As this is not an exam based subject there would be no formal end of unit exam and the student would be expected to continue to work on there individual assignments, which would be collected and marked at a later date.
Lesson plan for week 1
The lesson plans I chose to produce were for weeks two and three, the most pedagogical phase of the unit. Lesson two would introduce students to not only character component identification and terminology but also type sizing systems. To practically re-enforce the two areas, there would be a design exercise that would allow for experimentation with type sizes and type layouts, plus a gap test on typeface components to round of the session.
Gap test for session 1
Session three would start with a directed presentation on typeface classification, followed by an expansion exercise to re-enforce the learning, plus introduce an element of differentiation into the session by getting the students to work in groups to research four additional typefaces for each of the basic type groups and present their finding to the group next session. The session would be concluded with a directed presentation on how designers used to specify type before digital setting was invented, and then an exercise to re-enforce the knowledge.
These 2 lessons should provide the formal foundations that will allow students to confidently move into the next, more subjective, phase of the unit, and the two formative evaluations, one in each session, should, as stated by Curzon (2006, p384), ‘inform the learner of his progress and the teacher of his success… designed to motivate, in which comments rather than marks will be relayed to students.’
I was sceptical about how effective such a structured and prescriptive document as a formal scheme of work and lesson plan could be when teaching a creative and personally subjective subject like graphic design, however, once I started on the assignment, I soon began to realise that, in some ways, the creative arts need an even more structured environment than more academic subjects, if effective learning is to be facilitated and chaos avoided. A quote from the Dalai Lama sums this up quite succinctly, “Learn the rules well so you know how to break them properly.”
The Helen Hamlyn Research Centre (2005).
Challenge 2005 – giving disabled people a voice in the design process. Online.Available:http://designage.rca.ac.uk/resources/publications/challenge/challenge2005.rtf
[30th May 2007]
Smith, M (2007). David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning. Online. Available: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm [30th May 2007]
Reece, I and Walker, S. (2006). Teaching, Training and Learning – a Practical Guide. 6th Ed. Sunderland: Business Edition Publishers
Curzon, L.B (2006) Teaching in Further Education: An Outline ofPrinciples and Practice. 6th Ed. London: Continuum.