Observation of teaching, 14/11/2017: Prof: NM

Session: Semiotics.

Session description from tutor:
The session is an introduction to Semiotics and Dramaturgy for the Theatre Practice first years, in two groups. Each session is planned to be around 75 minutes long.

Tutor's considerations in planning for the session/tutorial. Please include any considerations regarding health and safety (Quote tutor):
The session is based on a PowerPoint - and I aim to follow basic guidance on this, including using sans serif fonts and an off-white background. The majority of the slides cover a single point, unless they are re-capping material.

I have run the core of this session several times for a variety of different audiences. I will need to be aware of the mood in the room and work to keep as many of the students engaged as possible in subjects they may feel "have nothing to do with my practice".

My overall aim is to enable those students to think differently about the subjects and their own practice.

Areas of focus for the peer observer (from tutor): How well do you think I succeeded in achieving this overall aim?

NOTES FROM OBSERVATION:

Semiotics: the study of language as an idea, how the brain engages with language. Limitations of understanding, based on community, culture. Signing vs signage. Communication is a two-way process, you are not finished communicating until the other person understands the message as you intended it to be understood.

(From Powerpoint)
Sign - Signifier - Object
clouds - rain likely - Actual Rain
"Fire!"  - the sight and sound of fire - Actual fire
caballo  - horse - an actual horse

other examples:
spray painted chair - throne - an actual gold throne

Response to space, time and students:
To start off with the students are all writing and listening. What is the course breakdown of the student group? How many are actively relating these concepts to their practice and interests?
The text is clear and easy to read.
At the 1/2 hour mark NM opens the floor for 3-4 minutes of questions and to segue into part 2. Scheduled breather, I think. Smart.
Students pause, breathe, look around when the slides change. 
One hour mark. We've dwindled to a stop. Energy levels are low. Lists of definitions and blocks of text on the slide projector. At least four students are asleep, doodling is evident and several are looking around or out the window. Still fifteen minutes to go.


Responses to teaching:
Style of engagement: traditional lecture with AV assist. Would it be appropriate or helpful for the students to actively participate in this class in some way? 75 minutes of sitting quietly--that's a long time for theatre kids.
Use of rhetorical questions: is that advisable for this content? Or could more directed questions with an implied or range of correct answers might be helpful to promote relevance. The students are unsure if they are invited to participate or respond. Some tried to express active interest by 'm-hmm'-ing in response to prompts about chair uses (tapping, punching, pretending it's a car) but no one volunteered an idea, nor did they have time to come up with something. Was this simply in the interests of time?
Students want to take themselves and their jobs seriously. When you refer to their entire career as "playing pretend" you're likely to lose them. Your explanations are right on but they took your points as infantalising.

Question:
How can we make this more obviously relevant to students such as scenic constructors, costume makers and even prop makers who often aren't the semiotic decision-makers, but are implementing other people's decisions? Does this study cause them to feel dis-empowered or marginalised contrasted with designers?