Tag: OBL

Microteaching Reflection

‘Interaction with artefacts deepens students’ learning.’ (Schultz 2012, p.185)

I designed my object-based learning session as a synchronous online activity, delivered on the BB Collaborate platform. Due to the mode of delivery, my ‘objects’ were in fact images of the objects, rather than the objects themselves. I’ve discussed my thoughts around the limitations of this in more detail my ‘Critical Review of Object Based Learning’ blog.

My learning objectives and session plan for the session were:

  • To stimulate discussion (Communication)
  • Encourage exploration of design (Design awareness)
  • To inspire critical & creative thought (Inspiration)
  • To identify cross-cultural connections
Microteaching Session Schedule
  1. I started the session in a conversational tone to set the mood and to introduce myself and the session.
  • I then went on to explain the learning objectives of the task to inform students of what is expected from this session.
Learning Outcomes for OBL Microteach
  • Following this, I set the activity brief for the session, explaining what the task was about and how to do it in order to engage students. The prompt questions for response were displayed for students to see.
Activity Brief for OBL Microteach
  • I then went on to display the two objects on the screen, side by side. There was no description or context given to the objects, so as not to limit students thinking and ideas about the objects from the start, however I tried to choose a culturally diverse selection of objects; object A originated in the UK, while object B originated in the Caribbean.
Image of Objects chosen for OBL Microteach
  • Following the end of the activity, I allowed students time to briefly explain their answers which allowed me to hear their thoughts, ideas and perceptions which I found very interesting. The task was then finished.

Feedback

The outcome of the session was the receipt of extremely positive feedback via Padlet and the verbal feedback recorded during the session itself was also very positive, thus confirming the success of the activity.

OBL Microteach Feedback

Successes

Upon personal reflection, I think part of the success of my microteaching session, was understanding the context in which it was being delivered. I was well aware of the time restrictions, with it being an 8-minute task, I knew I had to plan meticulously, by the minute, to ensure that it could be executed in full. This meant that the structure and the activity was designed with the time-frame in mind and I was careful not to over over-optimistic with what could be achieved in such a short timeframe. The three core aspects of the session which I facilitated was: learning objectives, the activity itself and the activity de-brief/discussion, all of which I was able to execute effectively.

The success of the delivery was reaffirmed given the feedback from students including ‘this was a really well planned and paced activity’. Producing session plans is something I will always continue do for all my teaching delivery, as I find structured planning is a key driver in it’s success.

Other positive feedback included:

  • Delivered active feedback to students for encouragement
  • Clear communication
  • Well balanced delivery – facilitated rather than dominated it
  • Clear, visual, non-complicated powerpoint

I also believe that the session was successful as I was able to link the activity closely with the LO’s, so the session was well structured and remained relevant throughout. Clarifying the LO’s at the start of the session was beneficial for students to understand the nature of the activity and it’s relevance – this is something I will continue to do as part of the foundations of my teaching practice.

Challenges and areas for improvement

I found the time limits of the activity fairly restricting in terms of the breadth of teaching which could be delivered. For example, had this activity been longer in duration, I would have adapted the activity to include more objects, longer time for group discussion and broadened the scope of prompt questions e.g. to enquire about other aspects of the objects aside from functionality (e.g. material choice)

In hindsight, I would have ended this activity more strongly with a follow-up activity, summary or resource to review to ensure that students remain engaged and the session was more ‘well-rounded’.

As a spectator during the activity during the session, I observed and heard comments and reflections that make me feel satisfied that the LO’s were met at the end of this activity. However, given the time restraints, I was unable to check this in full. One way to check for learning and engagement in my teaching practice in future would be to make use of platforms such as ‘Mentimeter’ with brief tasks such as live polls or Q&A’s. This would allow me to better measure whether the LO’s have been met.

Additional student feedback which I have reflected on is the need for some variety in my object selection. This is something I will consider in future OBL tasks to keep it varied, engaging and relevant to different contexts and cultures. I also considered choosing objects that students may have found in their home-surroundings, although the task would have to be adapted to accommodate for the ‘variations’ of the objects that might be found across different households (e.g. a spoon in one household may be different from another)

Another suggestive piece of feedback was to make more use of ways to make the session more inclusive. Inclusive practice is something that grounds my work as a teaching professional and so I will always continue to explore ways to enhance inclusivity in my sessions. One way to do this for example would have been a broader selection of culturally diverse objects to enrich the learning experience and encourage dynamic and interesting discussions

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