Through talking to students in person about my PgCert during downtime in workshops and design class, natural conversations occurred where students shared ideas about what they wanted on the course to help build community. Themes that came up were:
Buddy Systems
It is a common process to pair 1st and 3rd year students together on creative degrees where 1st years learn from and help final year students with their FMP, therefore providing insight into what lies ahead for first year students but also can create a support network with peers where it’s safe to ask question.
This format has come with issues in the past and is something our course used to do, problems that occurred before were abuse of power from older students, used more as free labour than a genuine knowledge/skill sharing exchange, and general clashes in personalities and confrontations.
If we were to run this again on our course changes I would implement are.
-Non mandatory buddy system, only students who want to be buddied up sign up, less of a compulsory matching process.
-Meet and greet pre matching, students who have signed up attend a session where they meet each other, this may create more natural partnerships.
-A timeframe that their partnership lasts for, this would help create more boundaries so students are not used for labour tasks all year and if students want to stay buddied for longer, they can, this creates a more mutual consensual partnership.
I do think this is a great idea to help build more of a connection between year groups and build friendship and network circles. I also think it is reminiscent of mentorship schemes and collaborations which are common practice within creative industries/workplaces and therefore could help them build confidence early in communicating and working with others.
Studio Atmosphere
students also spoke about the supervised workshop sessions; these are scheduled times when all year groups can book into the same open access studio. In theory, these offer a valuable opportunity for students to share space and develop informal community and see other year groups working. However, students noted that these sessions are currently “Not a vibe’’. Generally, these sessions have lower attendance as they are not mandatory, and I have noticed it tends to be the more proactive/confident students that attend. This is sometimes down to part time work engagements and extra travel access, but I am hoping if we can make these sessions more appealing in a community sense that it will also aid their academic work just by proxy of being in and making and therefore advancing skills and their projects.
Several students said they wished that students were more “chatty” in supervised studio, not necessarily louder or more crowded, but more “vibey”.
This connects to wider research on informal and peer-led learning environments.
Weintraub (2012) notes that student interactions in non-structured studio environments, even simple things like observing each other’s processes or chatting while working, can reinforce a feeling of collective purpose and belonging. These moments can affect how students perceive their place within a creative community.
The Workshop Space
The final theme that came up that was similar to supervised studio is the design and aesthetic of the workshop rooms. This is something we have tried to tackle before however the new LCF building has a no poster policy on certain walls as to not create damage. Personally, I find this maddening in an arts university, but we have found when we have tried to put even key unit information up, they are usually taken down during the cleaning process.
Students expressed wanting to make the workshop more their own, the university doesn’t have space for each student to have a desk space which is common practice in other arts universities, nor do they have locker space for their belongings meaning they are carrying in and taking away large amounts of work, often transported in suitcases, every session, over time this makes students reluctant to bring in work or even risk leaving it in communal spaces overnight.
Simple ideas were to use the wall space for sticking up posters and key pages from sketchbooks or/and having a pinboard (I did ask about this and unfortunately no free-standing boards even picture frame size were allowed for health and safety reasons.)
According to Lindström (2011), the design of studio spaces in art education plays a key role in fostering collaboration and mutual learning.
Rethinking how the workshop space and supervised session function, even by introducing small gestures like welcome boards, shared playlists, or peer hosts could shift them from passive time slots into meaningful community touchpoints.
Moving Forward
With this feedback in mind, my next step is to incorporate a whiteboard into the workshop space for students to use and to continue discussing the idea of buddy systems and individualising the space with my course team.
References:
I used my informal notes and reflection of what the students said to support this blog post.
Lindström, L. (2011) Creativity in Art Education: Studio Work Revisited. Studies in Art Education.
O’Connor, P. (2018) Informal Learning in the Creative Arts. International Journal of Art & Design Education.
Weintraub, L. (2012) Teaching Art in the Neoliberal Realm: Realism versus Relativism. London: Intellect Books.