Purpose - To advance teaching skills through the exploration of a problem of idea in the classroom settings.

Stage 1 - Define the problem

Stage 2 - Reflect on current practices

Stage 3 - Conduct Trials and analyze findings

Stage 4 - Evaluate outcomes and propose changes.

Chosen theme: Student Engagement.

Possible approaches in relation to art & design education:

• Enhanced PBL integration

• Digital Literacy

• Creative Identity

Deliverables:

• 5000 words ( +/- 10%)

• Padlet

• Observations

• SOW and LP appendices

During the conference, I was surrounded by such a range of pedagogy inspiration. The theme of Gathering Pace was highly appropriate, as we as educators should gain momentum upon difficult topics such as Climate Emergency, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Artificial Intelligence and Evolving Student Experience - all of which were key points of discussion throughout the conference. Ensuring that we provide accurate awareness to our learners, in order for their self efficacy on these topics when they enter working industry.

In particular, a talk facilitated by my previous lecturers at Ulster University stood out. Graphic Design Lecturers, Jill Spratt and Liam McComish introduced the concept of applying Unconference Models within the art and design education setting. A method originally found within the I.T industry, the holistic method which allows the participants to dictate the discussion and practical content sparked my own interest.

Within creative education disciplines, we highly rely on PBL and holistic strategies to encourage our learners a range of personal and creative essential skills by simulating the industry environment in assignments. The implementation of Unconference Models enhances this approach further, by providing the participants/learners control of the activities and the educator as background facilitators. From Spratt and McComish presentation, the evidence is clear that this model is successful at Higher Education - but what about Further Education?

With clear references to Vygotsky's ZPD, the idea of "The sticky curriculum framework is designed to inspire student engagement and create a student-centered learning experience. It demands identity work, and participants in the studio become active agents in learning challenging notions of authority, expertise, and power."

See notes attached of quotes and reflections from talk

The cohort in focus are at the conclusive stages of their Level 3 education. In particular, they are undertaking a Professional Practice Module that is underlined by the following assessment criteria:

• B1.1 Inform ideas for progression into a creative career

• B1.2 Apply problem solving practice to develop a strategy for career progression

• B1.3 Create materials for career progression using technical practice

• B1.4 Demonstrate professional practice and behaviours in relation to career progression aspirations

• B1.5 Apply communication skills to support progression into a creative career

The opportunity to explore the implementation of Unconference Models in relation to professional practice and creative identity aligns well with the module. This would not only allow a great setting for my research, but also provide tangible practical and theory evidence for their own module outcomes.

To set the tone of the unconference model early in the cohort setting, I clearly outlined set dates of our sessions, to allow the cohort to plan ahead and decide amongst themselves of professional practice topics that they would like to explore. Key findings from the cohort:

• Virtual Technology

• Freelance Opportunities

• Artificial Intelligence impact on creativity.

The cohort then democratically voted, with a full majority deciding to explore AI Impact on Creativity. From sessions prior to this decision, students displayed a lot of distaste and concern in regard to AI and Creativity. This is a very complex topic as there is no set regulations, a "grey area".

To build upon the planning and resources for the sessions, I asked the students of what they would like to do each week, asking them to reflect on their own research processes that we apply to creative projects.

The following plan was outlined by the Class Rep - they suggested;

Week 1: Research Discussions – Introduced the unconference model and explored AI’s impact on creativity through peer-led discussions.

Week 2: Creating AI Regulation Rules – Focused on collaboratively developing ethical AI guidelines, fostering critical thinking and shared decision-making.

Week 3: Using AI Ethically with Our Rules – Applied the ethical frameworks in practical scenarios, demonstrating real-world application and ethical AI use.

Each session would begin and end with reflection, to assess their awareness and confidence. Based on the set agenda, I'm able to create supportive resources to aid the learners through the various unconference sessions.

This introductory session had a stronger focus on leadership from myself, the educator. This strategy seemed appropriate as many of the learner have identified neurodiversity. Due to the spontaneity and holistic structure found within unconference models, it did not seem appropriate to lead with this and to mitigate potential uncertainty amongst those learners.

It should be noted that the group are aware that the sessions are being observed and document as part of my action research, as well as evidence for their own module outcomes.

The main activity for this session was grouped discussion, a collaborative activity that the group are already familair with. Question prompts were provided on screen to support the learners. The groups were consistently engaged, demonstrating as examples of Vygotsky's ZPD and Meyer and Land's Threshold concepts. Groups A and C, all students had equal opportunities to speak. Group B needed assistance with time reminders to ensure everyone had equal participation in the discussions.

Varied comments from all perspectives, ranging from positive, negative and neutral stances. In particular, a student brought a great case study on music and AI and how it's had a positive impact. Perhaps smaller grouping for discussions in the future, to ensure equal participation.

To summarise the discussion, groups were tasked with a collaborative poster design featuring key words and phrases from their discussion. Relevant examples were provided on board, and relating to mindmaps and word-clouds that the group are already familiar with. Despite the guidance and examples provided, groups struggled to effectively complete this task without consistent input from myself, the facilitator. Notably, specific learner who have neurodiverse diagnoses sought additional support during the session, as they felt overwhelmed. Perhaps in future, groups could be assigned a set theme instead of generalised summaries.

1. Many students valued peer collaboration, open communication, and opportunities to explore topics of interest. This was noted as particularly impactful in enhancing group discussions, sharing diverse perspectives, and fostering critical thinking.

2. A significant number of participants highlighted that the unconference model contributed to their understanding and development of creative identity. Students appreciated opportunities to reflect on their own perspectives and consider the viewpoints of others.

3. Students indicated progress in confidence, critical thinking, and communication skills through activities such as leading discussions and creating collaborative outputs like mind maps and posters.

4. Leadership was mentioned as a new area of growth for some students, as they had to step up to guide their groups during moments of stagnation.

5. The model encouraged students to value other perspectives, particularly during the Gallery Walk and group discussions. For example, students shared how their views on AI and creativity broadened after hearing opposing perspectives.

6. The unconference format seemed to work well for discussion-based learning, allowing participants to explore nuanced topics like the ethical implications of AI.

Challenges Identified

1. A few students noted challenges with unequal participation within their groups. Some participants felt overshadowed by more dominant voices and suggested that time allocations for speaking be balanced to ensure equitable contributions.

2. While flexibility was appreciated, some students desired more structured guidance during specific activities, such as poster creation or group tasks. A clearer framework might have helped participants engage more deeply and confidently.

3. While the majority gained insight into their topic and creative identity, some participants mentioned that their understanding did not significantly deepen. This suggests that more targeted activities or preparatory materials could enhance engagement.

4. One student suggested incorporating more focus on academic data and research to ground discussions in verifiable information rather than internet-sourced opinions.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Implement structured roles (e.g., facilitator, recorder, timekeeper) within groups to ensure all voices are heard and participation is equitable.

2. Offer clearer instructions and examples for complex tasks, such as creating visual outputs like posters. Consider breaking larger tasks into smaller steps to avoid overwhelming participants.

3. Supplement discussions with curated academic resources to provide students with a stronger foundation for their arguments and ideas.

4. Dedicate more time for in-depth discussions or provide a wider variety of activities to maintain engagement.

Impact on Learning

• The unconference model was generally seen as a positive and effective learning tool. Students reported feeling more confident, collaborative, and better equipped to handle complex topics like AI's impact on creativity.

• The flexibility and learner-driven approach allowed for personalised learning experiences, while peer feedback helped deepen understanding.

• Overall, the model shows strong potential to enhance creative identity development, though refinements in structure and facilitation could further improve its effectiveness.

Note: This lesson was observed by the college.

Relying on the feedback previously provided by the cohort, additional resources were provided to spark interest in the group. For example, in terms of relevant research examples, a study on the recent 2024 Christmas Campaign by Coca-Cola and their controversial application of AI in advertising was a focus of discussion, with supportive academic quotes on the case study.

To further support the cohort, clear direction of how the practical outcomes should be presented, including metrics allowed the learners to create a successful outcomes will developing their collaborative and creative skills, as well as their identity.

During the session, there was rigorous engagement from all groups. Initial discussions on rules to be applied - Group A were very vocal, with higher level learners corrected foundational-level peers with correct information. Working harmoniously with listing rules. Group B struggled to engage with the discussion. Learners with specific interests in research assisted other peers for engagement.

Following this, the groups produced digital posters listing 5 ethical guidelines with metrics. Surprisingly, Group B, an introverted learner nominated themselves to lead the group on the practical activity. The learner in particular is very invested in research, and was able to guide the group well.

To conclude, an inclusive and open crit was facilitated, with groups advising if rules were relevant and if adjustments were needed. Overall, I felt that this session was an improvement from the previous - there was little dependencies from myself to aid their task management or reiterate guidelines. However, better planning of groups could have avoided challenges with initial group discussions. The cohort is still hesitant with how to use AI ethically, and I hope that the conclusive session to the research will address this.

Week 3 - Using AI ethically using our rules.

This conclusive session shifted full control to the learners. My role as facilitator was to provide a supportive presentation based on their guidelines and recommendations. As well as providing materials and time reminders.

The final session, and outlined by the learners, was to apply their own ethical guidelines into a practical outcome. The learners explored production concepts for film, tv or games design. The roles and list of AI tools were also identified by the group too.

After recapping the task, it was over to the groups to collaborate and produce. Other than time reminders, I mainly observed and engaged with the team members to understand their processes to the concept pitch. Groups effectively identified roles and supported each other. Resulting in well executed animated concepts for film or gaming without educator input. Regulations were adhered to and rationalised throughout.

At the conclusion of the session, many participants will not use AI, however, found Viz Com in particular very beneficial as it doesn't remove the creative skills while still maintaining authorship and protection of creative output. Speeds up creative pipeline with render testing for 3D outcomes.

1. Most students valued peer-led group discussions and collaborative activities such as designing ethical guidelines posters and presenting ideas.

2. Participants found these activities helpful for developing teamwork and fostering creative collaboration. For example, one participant highlighted how being a team leader allowed them to ensure team satisfaction and involvement.

3. Discussions around ethical considerations for AI (e.g., copyright infringement, artist autonomy, and ethical AI use) were widely appreciated.

4. Students noted how the unconference format encouraged them to explore real-world implications, such as AI’s role in non-essential pre-production tasks and how to integrate AI into creative processes without replacing human contributions.

5. Communication skills and critical thinking were rated highly (average ratings: 4/5 and 3.8/5, respectively). One student noted that the experience helped them think critically about group decisions and resolve misconceptions collaboratively.

6. Leadership development was particularly impactful for some, as they mentioned gaining confidence in guiding discussions and presenting outcomes.

7. Several students mentioned that the unconference format reinforced the importance of maintaining their creative identity while adapting to technological advancements. For example, a participant shared how the session helped them frame AI as a tool to inform decisions rather than replace creativity.

Challenges Identified

1. A few students noted difficulties in ensuring equal contributions during group discussions. For instance, one participant highlighted that group members required more time to formulate ideas and contribute meaningfully.

2. Some participants expressed confusion about how to translate discussion points into the required outputs, such as the ethical guidelines poster. One student mentioned struggling to convert brainstorming ideas into actionable rules.

3. Students who rated their experience as “Average” often mentioned minimal engagement with the ethical aspects of AI. This indicates that the sessions could benefit from more structured facilitation to engage less confident learners.

4. Despite discussions on ethical AI use, a few participants remained hesitant about integrating AI into their creative processes, suggesting a need for more examples of positive applications.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Encourage structured group roles (e.g., facilitator, timekeeper) to ensure all voices are heard during discussions.

2. Provide additional time for brainstorming and allow quieter students more opportunities to share ideas.

3. Offer templates or clear examples for outputs like posters to reduce confusion and help students focus on their discussions rather than mechanics.

4. Simplify instructions for activities to ensure all learners can follow them easily.

5. Use real-world case studies (both best-case and worst-case scenarios) to illustrate ethical AI use. One student mentioned that a “best-case scenario case study” could complement the existing discussions.

6. Facilitate deeper discussions on AI ethical guidelines to engage students who may lack confidence in such abstract topics. For example, provide guiding questions to stimulate contributions.

Impact on Learning

1. Participants reported improvements in critical thinking (4/5) and confidence in sharing ideas (3.9/5).

2. Leadership skills varied, with some students excelling in guiding groups, while others felt they required more support in this area.

3. Students gained awareness of key ethical considerations, such as copyright infringement and the need for balanced AI use in creative projects. Several participants expressed intentions to apply these ethical frameworks in future projects.

4. The unconference model successfully helped students reflect on their creative identity, with one participant stating, “The session reinforced the need for passionate artists to stand against unethical AI practices.”

1. Participants appreciated the group discussions and collaborative efforts in producing pitches for a creative concept.

2. Peer-to-peer engagement helped in brainstorming ideas and refining creative concepts. Groups that used AI tools like ChatGPT and Vizcom reported improved visualisations and storytelling.

3. Many students highlighted the enhancement of critical thinking and collaborative skills through activities like ethical framework development and concept refinement.

4. Leadership roles were mentioned positively, with participants feeling empowered to take charge and guide discussions.

5. The integration of AI tools provided opportunities to reflect on how technology can enhance or hinder creativity. One student shared that AI “significantly sped up the drawing process,” improving efficiency.

6. Reflecting on group work and peer feedback allowed students to explore new approaches and challenge preconceived ideas about creativity and ethics.

7. While AI tools were sometimes challenging to use, participants valued their ability to generate ideas and visualise concepts. For example, Vizcom was particularly noted as effective in creating 3D representations of sketches.

Challenges Identified

1. While most groups reported equal participation, a few students noted that some members were unsure of their roles or contributed less to the overall effort. One participant suggested that “making sure everyone gets their hands on something” would improve collaboration.

2. Instructions for tasks were generally clear, but some participants found initial steps, such as getting started with AI tools, challenging. This was particularly evident in feedback from students with less experience using AI in creative contexts.

3. 3. Some students expressed dissatisfaction with the outcomes generated by AI tools, noting that results were often bland or required significant intervention. For instance, one participant remarked, “AI image generation was a bit of a letdown.”

4. While some enjoyed the spontaneity of creating concepts from random prompts, others struggled to structure these ideas into a coherent pitch. This highlights a need for more scaffolding during open-ended activities.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Provide more guidance on how to manage group dynamics and encourage quieter members to contribute actively.

2. Offer tutorials or examples to help students use AI tools more effectively. This would address concerns about AI limitations and ease frustration for those less familiar with the technology.

3. Break tasks into smaller, manageable steps to help participants navigate from brainstorming to execution more smoothly.

4. Provide templates or outlines to assist with pitch development and ethical framework creation.

5. While random prompts were appreciated, consider integrating additional scaffolding to help students translate spontaneous ideas into actionable outputs.

Impact on Learning

1. The sessions encouraged participants to think critically about their creative identity and how AI can complement their artistic processes.

2. Discussions on ethical AI use helped students recognise the importance of balancing technology with creative integrity. For instance, one participant reflected that they would “maintain AI use strictly for time-consuming/less creative areas.”

3. Peer feedback and collaborative presentations improved communication and critical analysis skills. Participants reported feeling more prepared to navigate real-world creative challenges.

This approach aligns perfectly with my interest in unconference models for creative education. I can see how these principles—particularly the emphasis on collaboration and adaptability—could foster creative confidence and strengthen student identity. The examples provided inspire me to think about how similar strategies could enhance engagement in my own teaching, especially with neurodiverse and creative cohorts.

The guide’s emphasis on characteristics like transformation, and identity formation aligns with my interest in how learning experiences can deeply reshape students’ understanding and self-identity. The integrative nature of threshold concepts provides a platform for examining how students grasp and eventually master complex ideas, reflecting the iterative, participant-focus of unconference models.

I found his emphasis on mastery experiences particularly relevant, as they build resilience and encourage persistence through challenges—qualities I aim to cultivate in my learners. His insights on the role of social persuasion and emotional states also highlight strategies for creating supportive and empowering educational environments.

This resource aligns closely with my action research goals by offering a framework to explore how students’ self-efficacy beliefs can shape their creative identity and engagement. Its focus on adaptive behaviour and resilience provides a solid foundation for designing interventions that inspire confidence and foster transformative learning experiences.