Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Introduction to Mobile Journalism
Size of student group: 7-15
Observer: Carys Kennedy
Observee: Samuel Adigun
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
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?
Introduction to Mobile Journalism
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
2 years as specialist technician
What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?
To understand the capacities and best practices for shooting factual contents using only a mobile device.
What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?
To shoot on a later date, a ‘VT’ to be later used in a live studio session
Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?
How will students be informed of the observation/review?
What would you particularly like feedback on?
How will feedback be exchanged?
Part Two
Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:
Thank you, Sam, for talking me through your workshop Introduction to Mobile Journalism. You let me know that you deliver this to groups of 7-15 students, and usually have around 45 minutes to deliver this.
You have designed the session knowing that some students may be initially resistant to mobile journalism, and wondering why they aren’t using a ‘proper’ camera. As such, you start with an image of a journalist filming the Mayor of London with a phone, and start a discussion about this. You said that you are “selling the acceptability” of phone journalism, so sharing the picture you took of a Sky News reporter using their phone is a powerful starter.
You share a short video that you filmed, with students, letting them know it made it to national news. You ask them to watch and identify the phone shots and the camera shots. Students most commonly notice differences in contrast and colour, but that is not a result of the camera. You let them know that short film was almost entirely show using a phone; you sad “I see them drawn in – they start to ask questions [about the kit]”.
You introduce the ‘tools of the trade’, and how to use them effectively. This incorporates hands-on/actively learning elements, when you show them the microphone, gimble and tripod. You provide tips (e.g. that stability distinguishes a professional shot from an amateur shot), and refer back to images used on previous slides to exemplify this.
You talked about the slide where you show them different perspectives and framing, and linked this to the broader curriculum. You acknowledge that you don’t always know what they have been taught by academic colleagues, and don’t want to contradict this learning. You manage this by asking students what they already know, what they have already learned, and what they can you them about – in this case – perspectives and framing. You said “They take the lead, and I try to regulate this”.
You ask students to share which phones they have; you commented that in many sessions, all students have iPhones. As such, the settings you demonstrate are iPhones. You acknowledge that for International students, their phones are likely set to NTSC, so you take this as an opportunity to tell them the difference between NTSC and PAL. You talked me through other camera settings, lighting tups and audio esentials which you share with students. Finally, you introduce the students to the Rule of Five shots, revisiting the ‘hot air balloon video’ and asking them to identify these shots.
You anticipated a question I had about sharing slides; you said that you share the slides, so students have them to refer back to. This is positive inclusive practice: it allows students to listen without worrying about taking notes, and gives them something to refer back to.
In our discussion, we talked more about your experience of teaching students when you are not part of the academic team. You acknowledged that not always knowing what students have been taught in different parts of the role can be a barrier; you manage this by taking a student-led approach, inviting them to share what they have learned. You noted that these are parallels with the distinction between technical and editorial roles, which you are experienced in managing; you also shared that this was a factor which prompted you to undertake your MA in Journalism.
I asked what other barriers you encounter in this workshop, and you reiterated that students can be resistant to mobile journalism. You noted, though, that “every session, I seem them shift ground’. I asked how students respond to your professional experience, as I imagine that this really supports with their interest and engagement; you agreed that seeing your practice is an important part of getting their buy-in for mobile journalism. I noted that you structure the session really well in this respect, saving the technical elements for later, once students are already more excited by the potentials of mobile journalism. You also build in time at the start of the session to explore the value and benefits; by exploring the ‘why’, students are more likely to be interested in developing this area of their practice.
I noted that 45 minutes is a short amount of time for such great content, and that it could potentially be a longer session. You explained that the time is limited, but sometimes the academic team support the session running longer. You also explained that you try to get a sense of the students’ priorities and what they want to learn, then foreground those elements in the session. This sounds like really great and responsive practice.
When I asked if there was anything else you wanted to discuss, you articulated the barriers of having a diverse group of students, who often come from a range of language backgrounds; you are concerned about whether they can always hear and understand. You felt that, with more time in the session, this would be less of an issue, as you could check-in with students more. You noted that you ensure you speak slowly, and are receptive to students taking recordings or using translation tools. I think the clarity of your slides, and the fact that these are shared with students, is also really valuable. We talked briefly about other strategies you could use to open-up student questions (e.g. think-pair-share, post-it notes, Padlet). You made the connection between the reading Embracing the Silence and your practice, and are keen to think more about this area of your practice.
Part Three
Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:
Thanks Carys. Your observation is quite constructive, educative also encouraging.
You have taken your time to give a thorough account of every bit of the session. This makes me feel more confident that my teaching is coherent and coming across to students well.
It has many times crossed my mind to ask myself if the learning outcome of the workshop was achieved since getting a feedback from students could at times be a big task. Your feedback has corrected this impression and I have seen my teaching and its impact from another perspective.
I however look forward to future engagement where you can also tell me what didn’t work well and your suggestion on what I can do better.
All points taken and well appreciated.
Thank you.