WORKSHOP 1: Screenprinting with Specialist Communication Design students (October 2025)
2 groups of 41 students (82 students total) over 2 days. Bringing the print equipment into the teaching studio to give 82 students an introduction to basic printmaking as a group rather than 1 to 1.
The benefit of an in-class activity is the same as demonstrations, in that it increases attention and students are able to see a phenomena unfold, but are also able to personally manipulate and practice using that phenomena in a first-hand environment’ (Forsyth, 2003).
By having the equipment in the specialist rooms we can introduce a large cohort into the basics of screenprinting and do both academic and technical teaching in one session. Technical staff would not have to induct and brief small groups multiple times, taking some strain off them. This enables 2 types of teaching in 1 session.
Why a workshop? This has to be a hands-on embedded print workshop because it is a fundamental part of Foundation – students need to experiment, test and try new things. “The Foundation Diploma is designed to prepare students for specialist undergraduate degrees in art and design subjects. It’s a year of exciting projects, new faces and experiences that will inform your future study, career and creative life.” (UAL FAD Course overview, 2025)
WORKSHOP 2: RISO with illustration pathway students (November 2025)
illustration pathway students in pairs (32 pairs)
By this stage, a temporary print workshop was available but at reduced capacity. For this workshop, the aim was to introduce students to Riso printing through an embedded workshop that allowed them to understand how Riso works, how they can access it and produce an outcome for their pathway project. The workshop was written in collaboration with technical where each pair received 20 prints that they later tiled onto areas of the building – showing the potential of the process.
Reflection after the workshops:
I need to try and gather information on whether they had any impact. I don’t think you can quantify if the workshops were “useful” in a measurable way without a more extensive research project (using a control group over a period of time), but I can use observation and interviews.
Interview 1: Print Technician WD (face to face interview)
Interview 2: My Colleague (Illustration tutor) NB (Via Email questions)
Interview 3: My Line Manager LA (Via Email questions)
Reflection after interviews:
This was my first time interviewing people and I have to admit it was harder than I thought. When interviewing staff after the workshops I thought I wanted to have very Structured interviews (Alvesson, 2012) but I quickly realised that a more relaxed and conversational approach was better. So the in-person interview (with print technician) became Semi-structured where the interviewee could more freely reflect on their ambitions for the future rather than just reflecting on what had happened. I wasn’t expecting that the interview would lead into a conversation about thinking about possible future projects.
Because of time constraints, I could only conduct email interviews with my colleagues – Communication media (Alvesson, 2012) and how this affected the replies I got. I couldn’t ask for follow ups after the email was sent and the conversational tone was lost and the responses became more professionalised. If I had more time, I would have preferred to do all interviews in person and semi structured.
Alvesson mentions the Neo-Positivist approach of “Being neutral and avoiding getting personal”, but this was a difficult thing to adhere to. Because the people I interviewed where “in the trenches” with me, so to speak, it is inevitable that things get personal. “The problem with this, as is being increasingly recognized, is that respondents may produce only superficial and cautious responses” (Alvesson, 2012) The email interviews where useful but a lot less insightful. Does it matter if the interview gets derailed and descends into a rant about management? maybe this is exactly where the interview would be most useful?
References:
Hackathorn, J. (2011) ‘Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques’, The Journal of Effective Teaching, pp. 45 – 60
Forsyth, D. R. (2003). The professor’s guide to teaching: Psychological principles and practices. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Alvesson, (2012) Views on Interviews: A Skeptical Review. Sage Research Methods
UAL (2026). UAL Foundation Diploma in Art and Design. [online] UAL. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/subjects/communication-and-graphic-design/pre-degree-courses/ual-foundation-diploma-in-art-and-design?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23272727930&gbraid=0AAAAApGAH_0UeRqffRUKErXQH8wBsKyn3&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxsSGhIOLkgMVN5NQBh2RZzYVEAAYASAAEgIhv_D_BwE [Accessed 14 Jan. 2026].