Developing an object-based learning micro teaching session
Context
I approached planning this micro teaching session in relation to a year two unit I’m running.
In this unit[1] students work on a speculative brief. They individually produce a collection of analogue or digital objects and collaboratively develop a section of a magazine. The brief asks students to consider comfort as a singular design criterion. With this in mind, I’m engaging participants materially and physically to playfully stimulate the ideation process.
Image of spoons to be used in an object-based learning session
Development
Preparing this micro-teach I refer to a lecture and teaching resources on object-based learning (OBL) produced by Georgina Orgill and Judy Wilcocks[2] which provide a practical and theoretical base. I am interested in Sara Ahmed’s notion of Queer Phenomenology[3], and her embrace of orientation in considering how relations and emotions are produced between subjects and their environments.
On the occasions when I’ve experienced OBL previously, I’ve brought groups of students to the special collection at Central Saint Martins for standalone sessions run by Wilcox. The micro-teach is an opportunity to rehearse and receive feedback on these methods before applying them myself in the studio.
I see potential for OBL as an inclusive and generative method to bring to my pedagogic practice. It proposes practices which decentre emphasis from the tutor and foster dialogical, non-hierarchical relationships between participants, providing a counter-hegemonic, playful space.
Teaching in a multicultural, multi-social, multi-language classroom, and with a range of access needs, practices that engage the senses can have positive effects on widening access, underpinning a sense of haptic engagement, as well as reinforcing community building practices, discussed in my Case Study 1, to provide discursive opportunities where participants become accustomed to expressing their observations.
From watching Orgill and Wilcox’s lecture which draws on the Prown[4] method of analysis, I see the benefit of very structured sessions[5], correlating with the development of my pedagogic practice for inclusivity[6] (Lelkes, 2019, p. 78):
- Communicating session plans clearly
- Including varied and accessible teaching materials
- Setting aside time for community building activities
- Including a range of methods and materials
Practice
Running a workshop with students, I would ask them to bring something related to their project, for this workshop however, I chose objects myself, relating their selection to a list of terms and materials I compiled for a timeline workshop[7].
I started to enjoy putting together the workshop a lot more once I began to experiment materially, engaging my artist-self, pulling out household items which I thought could provoke material connections in the participants’ hands, and selecting publications of various styles and formats. I landed on bringing the focus to contrasting texture and use, providing a selection of metal cutlery and rubbery fitness objects. I enjoyed the sensations they evoke, and the ways they allude to bodily activities or parts.
Coming from a critical art practice, I’m interested in the reflexive practices that can be developed from intimately exploring objects or images. The reciprocalbenefits between image analysis and haptic, materially oriented making practices are evident[8]. I want to work with these methods for students to engage with their emotional responses in approaching objects, to build self-awareness relating to their values.
I’m curious to see how students respond when I integrate this practice into the studio, and I’m considering how to factor in visits to collections[9] which might provide other opportunities for OBL encounters.
References
Ahmed, S. (2006) Queer Phenomenology. Durham, NC, Duke University Press
Lelkes, J. (2019) ‘How inclusive is object-based learning?’ Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal. Vol 4. Issue 1. pp. 76-82
Orgill, G. and Wilcox, J. (2024) ‘How to… use objects to support learning and teaching’ [Lecture], Object Based Learning, University of the Arts London. January.
Prown, J.D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), pp.1–19. https://doi.org/10.1086/496065.
Rose, G. (2016) Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. 4th edn. Los Angeles, California: SAGE.
Central Saint Martins Museum & Study Collection : Some activities and resources Available at: https://arts.ac.libguides.com/c.php?g=686452&p=4906489
[1] This unit, Art Direction, is discussed in detail in my Case Study 2
[2] A lecture at UAL by Georgina Orgill and Judy Wilcox recorded in January 2024 introduces the context and methods emerging from the development of Object Based Learning from museums to special collections, to studio in arts higher education. There are resources, including the worksheets discussed in this lecture, for running OBL workshops hosted on the Central Saint Martins’ Library Services website.
[3] Ahmed states: “The attribution of feeling toward an object (I feel afraid because you are fearsome) moves the subject away from the object, creating distance through the registering of proximity as a threat. Emotions involve such affective forms of (re)orientation.” (Ahmed, 2006, p.2)
[4] The Prown method involves a three-part analysis: description, deduction and analysis (Prown, 1982)
[5] The resources available via Central Saint Martins’ library include learning materials such as worksheets to explore objects from positions of visual analysis, through emotional readings, and in relation to topics such as climate change. They are clearly and concisely laid out and support the tightly structured workshop timings suggested in alignment with the Prown method.
[6] As discussed in my Case Study 1 and Blog Post 1. Furthermore, in researching OBL I found an essay by Jenny Lelkes which draws attention to the characteristics of OBL that draw it towards inclusive pedagogy: “One of its strengths is its social constructivist approach, which encourages students to attach their own meaning and construct their own knowledge by engaging with an object (Willcocks, 2015; Vygotsky, 1978). This enables students to draw upon their own knowledge and experiences, which hooks (1994) argues is essential for liberatory education.” (Lelkes, 2019, p. 78)
[7] Discussed in my Blog Post 1.
[8] The combination of Rose (2016) and Prown’s (1982) analytical methods with tactile material culture exercises, exploring objects by hand, directly viscerally the division sometimes perceived by students between theory and practice, analysis and practice, reflection and practice.
[9] The Museum of the Home, The Soane Collection, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the Design Museum all come to mind as productive for the context of this unit.