Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice         

 Up date and save 05/01/2025

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Live At CSM-technical /production meeting with students and 1:1 risk assessments and project/design consultations with students (Platform Theatre room M005 and Technical Office room N007)

Size of student group: From 1 to 25 students

Observer: George Barker

Observee : Michael Ste. Croix

Date: 27/02/2024 Time 11am.

 

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?

This is final set up and staging of ‘Live At CSM’ in the Platform Theatre. This is a technical class where I will be engaging with theatre students, academic/tutors, practitioners, and technical staff. We will be reviewing theatre staging, induction in the safe usage of the theatre lighting and sound equipment and best health & safety practice in the space.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

This is a mixed group of students from across all three stages of the year Stage 1,2 and 3. I have worked with these students on group/course projects, 1:1 project tutorial, was workshop/construction instructor, delivering workshop inductions and health & safety advice, as Technical Coordinator/facilitator of theatre resources and supporting/delivering Performance Programme course curricular.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

To have basic knowledge in the safe usage of the theatre lighting and sound equipment. To have instruction on Health & safety in using the space. To answer student questions, discuss student projects or staging of set designs in space.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

The students will be using theatre staging lighting & sound equipment and exploring performative ideas and design compositions in the theatre space.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

There should be no potential difficulties.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

I will introduce you to the students and explain the reason why you are here observing my workshop induction.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

I would like feedback on the whole of my workshop induction class, from how I engage and speak to students.

How will feedback be exchanged?

I would like spoken feedback at the end of the session so that I can make immediate notes. If feedback is detailed, more than happy to have written exchange.

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

I first observed Michael in a 121 tutorial with a students around the staging of an aerial performance. They were rigging some standing bars for an upcoming performance, working together through the H&S requirements to perform the piece safely.

Michael was guiding the student through the risks associated with the performance, taking care to work methodically through the set-up process, photographing its height and adjustments so it could be later recreated. As they went through the proposed performance, Michael continually scaffolded questions about the rig to the student: asking where the rig would best be staged, what height it should be adjusted to, if the student was confident in its set up so on and so forth. As the height was adjusted to the height suggested by the student, it became visibly more precarious. As a safe and sensible solution, they together discussed adapting the performance so that the rig would no longer shake during the performance.

Michael clearly has established an effective relationship with the students and was able to speak with authority while directing members of the group in and out of the conversation as was required. The atmosphere in the room was relaxed, with students clearly feeling comfortable that the solution for the rig required careful thinking through. Many students were busy with other work – I wondered if this was perhaps a result of previous instructions to get along with other tasks.

Michael’s relaxed, assured tone of voice is visibly well suited to this work. If he was too instructive or directive, then I could envision scenarios where students may become frustrated with the slower pace that is required to set up properly and safely for a performance. Instead, Michael clearly involves students in the whole decision-making process, teaching through practice, demonstration and staged and concise communication.

I then observed a 121 with another student who had booked time with Michael to review some H&S concerns they had about an upcoming show. Michael was careful before starting, to make sure he had a pen & paper to hand.

The student had previously held a performance at CSM where there was some staged tapdancing, involving flint on the shoes which during the performance caused sparks to fly. For their final major project, they were seeking to take this idea further, looking to build a scaffold structure in the studio theatre for a performance (5 performers) centring around building sites. H&S issues include working at height, off a scaffold structure, and angle grinding during the performance. They didn’t have all ideas set for the performance yet – they want to see what’s possible first in terms of H&S of the performance before moving forward.

Michael first listened to the student, and then asked for further inspirational images about what they envisage for the set-up of the performance itself. They advised that angle grinding would likely not be possible in the context of the performance within the college. He then flagged performing at height as a potential issue, asking what the performers would be doing within the rig and how proximate the audience would be to the performers. They also talked about some no-goes in the space: fire, haze, smoke.

In this 121, Michael assured the student that she was taking the right approach in flagging issues related to the performance. He was honest about the risk assessment process, talking the student through questions around insurance, liability, set-up and reminded the student that they need evidence from the performers that they can do the work that is required. They talked through some next steps: arranging a time next week to look first through materials.

My questions having observed both sessions are:

• What happens in scenarios where students may become frustrated with the restrictions of working in the space?
• Do students ever try to circumnavigate Michael and approach other staff with the same questions to get their desired result?

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Dear George,

Thank you for observing my ‘Live At CSM-technical /production meeting with students and 1:1 risk assessments and project/design consultations with students (Platform Theatre room M005 and Technical Office room N007’

I will take on board your advice as this has been very helpful in reviewing my teaching style and to improve future 121 and group student tutorials / workshops. This has been a great opportunity for me to have this type of feedback.

It is good for me to know that the way I speak to students and how I support them through being attentive to their design ideas which can be complex in its realisation, staging and performance. That line of communication is clear and understood.

I happy to hear that I have an ‘effective relationship’ and I create a ‘comfortable’ and ‘relaxed’ atmosphere so instruction and advice can be given to students.

With reference to:

“– I wondered if this was perhaps a result of previous instructions to get along with other tasks”. I have worked with this group of students over several months which has led to this final production week-where deeper engagement and teaching is required to finalise final technical rehearsals, dress rehearsals and final live shows.

With reference to questions:

• What happens in scenarios where students may become frustrated with the restrictions of working in the space?

The students journey through conceptualising their designs to final design presentation, throughout this period the student will be attending production meetings (this is part of the course curricular). During these meetings the students design will be interrogated-this is will be an exchange of feasibilities in staging the design. Elements to be reviewed are materials, theatre staging/equipment etc. Any possible frustrations that the student may encounter can be discussed openly and a design compromised will be met with the resources that are available.   

• Do students ever try to circumnavigate Michael and approach other staff with the same questions to get their desired result?

Yes, students at times will navigate through other means, usually through other technicians or through their tutors.

Fortunately for me as ‘Technical Coordinator, Performance Technical and Teaching Resources’- As one of my duties, I must enforce a high standard of Health and Safety regulations and safe usage of all the theatre stages and resources that I manage. The highest priority that I must maintain that all users are safe and Risk Assessments Method Statements ‘RAMS’ are adhered.

No student work will be staged until I am fully convinced that the design is safe and that the students, performer technician/staff are not in danger.

Until I sign off the RAMs and happy with the design and performative work, no performance can commence.