Critical Review of Object-Based Learning

OBL is a student-centred, experiential learning approach that ‘involves the active integration of objects into the learning environment’ (Chatterjee, Hannan and Thomson, 2015, p.1).

In practice, Object Based Learning (OBL) allows students to physically engage with objects that serve as a primary medium for learning for new ideas, realisations, creative work or professional/personal development (FUMA, 2020).

I consider OBL to be a valuable approach to learning because of its experientiality and ability to facilitate active learning amongst students. Particularly for those in art and design disciplines where visual language and interpretation underpins creative practice, OBL activities creates a ‘learn by doing’ environment which enhances thinking in understanding and response to design (Hardie, 2008). It is this type of interaction with material artefacts which develops students learning and could make OBL more relevant and meaningful, especially when intersected with inclusive pedagogy (Schultz, 2012; Lelkes, 2019).

Figure 1: ‘Objects in teaching and learning’ (FUMA, 2020) image identifies ways in which OBL can inspire creative thought.

As a teaching professional, I consider inclusive pedagogy as the groundwork for my practice, so understanding how this could work with OBL to create an enhanced learning environment is a real incentive to put it into practice more frequently (where necessary in the curriculum), particularly given that research has shown that when used across multi-disciplinary environments, OBL was more effective than a lecture or talk in facilitating learning (UCL, 2020).

Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1999) observe “after the individual’s curiosity is aroused, the exhibit must engage sustained interest in order for learning to take place” (p. 153) thus the element of intrigue generated by an exhibit adds to the object’s appeal and encourages students’ investigation and critical analysis of design

Given this statement from Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson, its suggests to me that making OBL as inclusive as possible is a opportunity to make it even more successful, as in order to capture and sustain engagement, the objects would need to be of some relevance to them either personally, socially, professionally or academically.

I personally haven’t yet implemented an in-person OBL activity (due to COVID-19 restrictions). However, I have implemented a successful OBL activity online (see ‘Microteaching Task blog’ for further context). I believe part of the success of this task was the way in which it was designed to encourage a structured discussion which was important to achieve LO’s.

Online delivery of OBL does have its opportunities, for example the ability to include large-scale cohorts to the session – something that is logistically difficult in practice in a museum or archive space when archives and objects can be explored.

One of the limitations however, to my OBL activity was the absence of the physical presence of the object in students’ hands, which automatically limits the level of interaction and sensory engagement with the object. Hardie (2015) identifies ‘hands-on engagement’ and the ability for ‘live objects’ to be ‘interrogated 360° as a key factor for meaningful and memorable interactions with objects; the absence of this physicality is explicit when OBL is delivered virtually.

This would lead me to query whether engagement in virtual OBL activities may not be as effective as in-person OBL, as you instantly lose the physicality of the object. Given that online teaching delivery of core curriculum in HE institutions is relatively new, I think further exploration is needed to understand whether OBL can be as effective and engaging when delivered in a virtual space vs. a physical space and what adaptations to the practice should be made to ensure it remains effective for learning.

I would be keen to explore the UAL library archives and inclusive archives at UAL such at the Tell Us About It archives (UAL, 2020; Shades of Noir, 2020) to better understand ways to incorporate archives and objects into my teaching practice in-person and online in a more effective way. However, I do have some reservations which is possible the result of having less experience with OBL, creating a barrier to uptake.

Joe Cain touches on such barriers, identifying that alternative pedagogic methodology is required when implementing OBL, as it nurses a different style of teaching from lecture style teaching delivery for example. Therefore, OBL isn’t just about objects, its about teaching too and this can cause barriers to implementation. (Cain, 2010).

Cain also talks about the logistical concerns of practicing OBL such as the setting, timing and access for example, but one way to overcoming this could be meticulous planning (something I think is crucial for successful teaching delivery – see Case Study A1 Designing and Planning for Learning) which might help diminish any anxieties of it not ‘running smoothly’. There are resources and tools available to help overcome these barriers to OBL, such as the use of Mirador which allows for the magnification of objects. This would allow flexibility in settings timing and access for OBL sessions, but also give students to opportunity to explore objects close-up, almost as if they had physical access.

Further exploration of OBL highlights opportunities for learning that I hadn’t previously considered. Barton (2017) discusses the emergence of ‘object-based self-enquiry’ (he discusses this in relation to museum objects, however I believe this can be transferred across any OBL context).

Object-based self-enquiry uses OBL for engaging in learning and self-awareness/perception, as students become more aware of their own learning process and the values, assumptions and habits of mind; it is the exploration and evaluation of meta-cognitive function which helps facilitate transformative learning (Barton, 2017). He identifies that self-response is important for the development of study skills, capacities and competences and over time, students will begin to understand how cognitive patterns and capabilities correspond with skilful academic responses.

Skills-focused approaches, developing a range of student literacies such as academic writing and critical thinking, developing visual perception and material sensibilities can be enhanced through an emphasis on metacognition or self-awareness. (Barton, 2017)

This leads me to want to enquire about the possibilities of inclusive object-based self-enquiry pedagogy, where the convergence of multiple proven pedagogic practices will help students to further engage with creative practice and academic study.

To conclude, OBL provides a wealth of opportunity for relevant and meaningful engagement and active learning. It has intersectional avenues and the possibility of mergence with other pedagogic approaches such as inclusive pedagogy or critical pedagogy to create an engaging learning environment. In addition, OBL can be used to facilitate self-enquiry and meta-cognitive self-analysis which can facilitate transformative learning. There are, however, limitations to OBL for example the transference of its benefits in virtual spaces (vs. real spaces), logistical concerns and pedagogic conflicts, however there are resources available to help mitigate these. I think further exploration and enquiry about virtual OBL vs. in-person OBL is required, particularly given the current context of mostly online-delivery for core teaching in HE, where virtual OBL does not allow for physical contact with an artefact.

References

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *