.

1. Combined Learning Artefact
Teaching

2. Practical – Conducting Demonstration
Critical Incident Description – Inadequate Instruction
A drawing demonstration was conducted to introduce students to the techniques of line drawing; hatching,
cross-hatching and stippling. There was a clear emphasis on the technical aspects (skills) of creating a line
drawing – in relation tone. However, the concepts of light and tone were not addressed throughout the
demonstration. I did not explain the impact that light has on an object, and how this creates tonal variation.
This was core to explaining to the students why they would use hatching and stippling. There was no
consideration of the key components that needed to be learned, such as; knowledge and concepts (as well as
skills). Therefore the actual demonstrating of observational drawing line drawing was inaccurate.

3. ‘Upon reflection, it is clear the drawing demonstration was not sufficient in outlining concepts of light and tone…it’s clear that
students are unable to effectively implement the different drawing techniques.’ (Extract from Placement Visit Response,
27/01/2017)
On reviewing the clip, the predominant feeling evoked is that of frustration. In the subsequent lesson, it was apparent
that students knew the various drawing techniques, but lacked the understanding of implementing them (see above
drawing). This caused lengthy delays in the drawing stages of the project, as this problem had to be solved before
continuing to the printmaking stage. I am frustrated as I feel this problem could have been avoided if I had successfully
addressed the issue in the demonstration.

4. ‘From looking at the worksheets, it is clear that
students cannot implement the techniques
covered in last week’s lesson.’
(Extract from Lesson Evaluation, 18/01/2017)
Although I had firstly carried out the
demonstration before the lesson, by myself, it
was clear that I had not really considered what
students needed to learn, and how they would
learn it throughout the demonstration. It was
evident that I had not thought about knowledge
or concepts. As a result, I did not fully support
students’ learning of all the aspects of drawing.
Student A: ‘Mine doesn’t look 3D like Mr. Power’s’
Student B: ‘I’d like to be able to use light tones effectively’
Student C: ‘I dunno when to use the different techniques’
(Student Answers provided in questionnaire)

5. Critical Incident Analysis
Aspects of Teaching – Not Setting a Direction Aspects of Learning – Inhibiting Discovery

6. Aspects of Teaching –
Incomplete Learning Outcomes
Aspects of Learning –
Unable to Comprehend Key Concepts

7. Theoretical Perspective – Inquiry in Art -Setting A Direction
This critical incident had several implications for the teaching aspect of setting a
direction for learners. Although Armstrong’s Inquiry in Art Method is generally used as
a model for effective questioning within the learning environment, it will be discussed
as a ‘hierarchy of thinking behaviours that are common to most persons producing art’
(Armstrong, pg. 37, 1986). The first stage of the model is to ‘set a direction’ for
students. In an educational context, teachers create situations that cause curiosity and
interest for students. In this instance, the drawing demonstration was to provide
students with a concrete example of good practice to adapt to their own work. This was
to lead into the development of concepts related to the problem of creating a line
drawing of a mechanical construction. Setting a direction through demonstration, in
this way, should have facilitated a logical progression toward students’ personal art
production.
However, in the planning and practising of the demonstration, the most appropriate
knowledge and concepts needed by students, to reach the culminating idea of the
lesson, were not considered. An over-emphasis on the technical skills of line drawing
meant that students were not given information that they could use to discover or
formulate critical concepts of tone and light.
The incident had several implications for students’ discovery and learning. In viewing a
demonstration, students are ‘seeking potential useful information, revealing and
gathering facts, or experimenting’ (Armstrong, pg. 47, 1986). As important information
about critical concepts were not fully considered (and not addressed in the
demonstration), a clear direction of inquiry was not set out for students’ attention. As a
result, the foundations to support higher-order thinking could not be established.
Therefore, students’ learning needs were not met, and the demonstration simply
became an imitation exercise for the technical aspects of creating a line drawing.

8. Personal Beliefs
I can now identify significant aspects of both teaching and learning, from reflecting on this incident. It is
clear that simply practicing and rehearsing the demonstration before a lesson is not sufficient in
guaranteeing its effectiveness. Although it does assist with the preparation and delivery of a
demonstration, it does not ensure that all aspects of learning are addressed.
Thinking of the demonstration in relation to the knowledge, skills and concepts that students needed to
learn is essential. The practice of creating a line drawing needs to be broken down, in order to create a
more concrete and holistic learning experience. I found this difficult for such a task such as line drawing;
where, in my own practice, the activity comes so naturally, without much thought of the process.
‘Today’s lesson was very frustrating…students’
work hasn’t progressed as quickly as I
thought…they don’t seem to understand line
drawing’
(Extract from Reflective Journal, 11/01/2017)

9. Evaluation
• In future, It is imperative to think of demonstrations in relation to my defined learning
outcomes (what and how students will learn). I will need to think of the demonstration in
terms of all aspects of learning; knowledge, skills and concepts.
• If I were to give the same demonstration, I would ensure that the process would be
broken down into a series of well- defined stages, that need to be learned. A practical
ability that I am familiar with is difficult to teach in a sequential, developmental way.
• I would also make adjustments to my strategies immediately after the demonstration;
have they learned what I have taught them? Do they understand the how, the what and
the why of line drawing? To assess this, I would repeat the demonstration, but ask my
students to ‘talk me through it’. Without this feedback step, the student activity which
followed the demonstration was completed to a low standard, and it was evident students
did not understand the task.
• In future it may also be necessary to repeat the demonstration a number of times, until I
am certain that students understand the content, and possess the ability to apply critical
concepts to their own work

10. Academic – Reviewing work with students
Critical Incident Description – Unspecific Questioning
A review of students’ close-up line drawings was conducted in an attempt to redefine mark-making , to assist
a more accurate and refined translation to drypoint printmaking. A sample of students’ work was projected
on the whiteboard, and questioning was used to assist students to critique and evaluate their work, and make
decisions about what they needed to work on during the lesson. However, questioning throughout the review
was not specific enough in relation to the defined learning outcomes. As these drawings were in progression,
specific questions were needed to highlight specific developments in the work that required attention. As a
result, the various areas of concern were not effectively addressed in the review.
‘Anything else…?’
‘Anyone have any other points?’
‘Any other ideas?...No?’
‘Guys at the back?’
(Extract of Questioning from Transcript of Review,
01/03/2017)

11. ‘The work shows that another review
will be needed next week. The same
problems are recurring in the work’
(Extract from Post-Lesson Evaluation,
01/03/2017)
On reviewing the incident, feelings of discontent and exasperation are evoked. The use of inaccurate or unspecific
questions led to long periods of silence and low levels of student participation throughout the review. Students
were unsure of what was being asked of them, and I was unsure of what exactly I wanted them to learn. It is clear
that learning was not achieved. The review was conducted a week later, with more specified questioning.
However, this placed even more pressure on an already severely delayed scheme of work. This had implications for
the completion of the body of work later in the project.

12. Me: ‘So does everyone know what they
have to do?’
Student: ‘Not really, sir’
Me: ‘Why not?’
Student: ‘I don’t know…’
(Extract of Transcript from Review Footage,
01/03/2017)
From my perspective, the review was an ineffective method
of getting students to be critical of their work. Although I
had identified key areas of development in the work, my
questioning was not successful in prompting students to
identify these aspects and address them in their work. I was
exhausted and frustrated at the end of the lesson when
students openly admitted that the review was not helpful.
From the students’ perspective, it is easy to see
why they had difficulty in reviewing their work. As I
was not specific with my questioning, it was
difficult for them to identify lower standards of
work, and ultimately make decisions as to what
they needed to improve throughout the lesson.

13. Critical Incident Analysis
Aspects of Learning – Low Forms of ThinkingAspects of Teaching – Poor Quality Questioning

14. Aspects of Teaching –
Narrow Range of Questioning Strategies
Aspects of Learning –
Passive Learning

15. Theoretical Perspective – Poor Quality Questioning
Questioning skills are central to the repertoire of effective teaching (Kerry, 2002; Walsh and
Settes, 2005; Wragg and Brown, 2001). Research looking at teachers’ use of questioning has
identified numerous reasons for questioning as a viable teaching strategy. Questioning
throughout the review was intended to encourage students to critique their work, and help
them to make decisions about how to develop their line drawings into a design for
printmaking. However, questions were not specific to these learning outcomes, and as a
result, were not achieved. Referencing Bloom’s Taxonomy of Levels of Thinking (Bloom, 1956),
questions should have been of a higher order (as students needed to employ analysis,
synthesis and evaluation). However, the poor quality of questioning meant that students
could only engage with lower-order levels of thinking; the quality of questioning did not meet
its intended function.
According to Jerome Freiberg (2000), ‘poorly constructed higher-level questions may confuse
students and result in the teacher spending additional time explaining’ (pg. 6). This would
suggest that poorly constructed questions inhibit the learning experience of students.
Students could only engage in lower-order thinking processes (recall, comprehension), as
higher-order questions were not specific to the task of analysing and evaluating. This was a
critical aspect of the review, as students needed to solve problems that had developed in the
work.
There were several implications for student learning, which stemmed from this critical
incident. At the end of the review, students were simply told what they had to know; that
they had to create a print design using a single tone line. They were not encouraged to
understand it, or, solve the problem themselves. Consequently, they did not have their
assumptions and prior knowledge challenged/ corrected. Students did not remember the
content of the review the following week.Bloom’s Taxonomy

16. Personal Beliefs
From this critical incident, there are several aspects of both teaching and learning that I can now identify.
Although they were of a higher-order (How? Why? What would happen if?), unspecific questioning was a
significant aspect of my ineffective teaching. When constructing questions, it is imperative that they are specific
to the learning outcomes of the lesson. As well as keeping the discussion/ review focused, specific questioning
helps students to identify areas to develop in their work. Unspecific, lower order questions promote passive
learning through recall and comprehension. While specific, higher order questions are significantly more
intellectually demanding and stimulating. Therefore, as the facilitator of the review, it is important to ensure that
my questioning meets its intended function.
‘
‘Student A’s’ Work Before Review ‘Student A’s’ Work After Review

17. Evaluation
If I were to conduct the review again, I would;
• Construct questions (both higher and lower order) specifically in relation
to the defined objectives of the review – in terms of what and how
students will learn
• Use questions to make progressively greater cognitive demands, through
sequences of Bloom’s Taxonomy – allowing students to solve problems
and make decisions that are relevant to their practice
• Ensure questions were of an adequate quality – clear, concise and short
verbal questions to avoid confusion and keep students focused on a
particular task