Microteaching

My microteaching started with boundaries and limitations – as I was unable to attend the microteaching session in person, I was going to have to do it online through Teams. I started by making notes on my phone about my thinking. My first notes were questions, ‘Can an app be used in object based learning? How would you have felt if I had used an app as my object for this session?’.

I found the microteaching session to be the most inspiring, interactive, fun and insightful session on this module.

My dissertation for my masters in Social and Visual Anthropology was centred around an app created for refugees in Germany (you can see the abstract below). Through my dissertation I explored all the social imaginaries and culture imbued within technology, and thought perhaps “the app” could be an interesting “object” for my microteaching session which would work well with my remote online nature. I began to think of the logistics, of how everyone would need to download the app prior to the microteaching session. The object based learning lecture and workshop had been so inspiring and I connected with it on many levels. I decided to read more about object based learning to develop my thinking and initial ideas The importance of object-based learning is clear.

I came across this quote by Dr Kirsten Hardie in their article ‘The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching’, which had a huge impact on me, especially as I was reading the article with my app in mind for the microteaching session. Hardie emphasised that ‘design objects can provide unique and effective learning experiences when placed physically in the hands of learners in the context of the university studio that is away from the confines of the traditional museum.’ (Hardie, 2015). It was then I realised I could not give everyone an app, as they had to touch and feel something that was ‘physically’ placed in their hands, as ‘haptic learning’ and ‘learning through the use of touch’ was fundamental to object-based learning (Winston-Silk, 2019). I still wanted narrative and social imaginaries to be at the centre of the object I chose and drawing upon my anthropology background I began to think of personhood and people as objects, as well as the ideas around the gift, exchange and reciprocity – I wanted to choose an object that could showcase my background and strengths, as well as enabling me to do something fun for me and engaging for the lecturer/learners. There was definitely a pressure, similar to show and tell.

I returned back to the reading and the brief, still no object chosen. It was February 3^rd, one week from the microteaching session and I knew that if I wanted to post an object to the university to be ‘placed physically in the hands of learners’, I was going to have to make a decision soon and post it in the coming days. The archive and the archiving process seemed central to object-based learning and the lecture we had on the subject. Hannah Grout in their article which explores the communication of cultural biases within archives demystifies the processes that go into archiving whereby ‘institutions signify what a society has deemed ‘worthy’ of preserving, with an emphasis on the objects as proving substantiations of a person, place or event’ (Grout, 2019). This is problematic as ‘who’ deems what ‘worthy’ then impacts the archive collections, therefore something presented as an ‘institution’ is fallible. In this example and context would then the everyday, the ephemeral, the vernacular, the disposable, the transitory, and the obsolescent be a form of revolution against the biased institutional archives?  

It was then, whilst reading in the Truro Waterstones, that I realised “why post an object at all?” and why not post the most common, unassuming and ordinary yet incredibly complex object – I was in Cornwall after all. I decided to post a postcard, but a typical postcard was not enough, for some reason I still did not believe it qualified as an “object”, it was more communication. I read an article about ‘Ludic Practice’ within object-based learning, which was defined as ‘the use of games, or play, adapted specifically for the university teaching collection environment, to be used in any aspect of teaching collection practice e.g. teaching, exhibition, lecture or online’ and the article further went on to state ‘games and play in ludic practice must be object-led and involve spontaneous or undirected involvement from participants’ (Campbell, 2019). The descriptions of play within object-based learning chimed with me and the aims/learning outcomes I wanted to focus on during my microteaching session. I chose the puzzle postcard as the object to base my 20-minute learning activity around.  

The session design and object were all informed by the contemporary object-based learning reading I was doing at the time and I drew upon my background in film and anthropology. The aims/learning outcomes/skills I wanted to focus on during the session were as follows: Observational skills, Visual literacy (meaning making), Art & Design awareness, Communication & Confidence, Inspiration. I started with these aims/learning outcomes in mind and then thought about how the exercises and design of my microteaching session could provoke and develop them. Specific objects, their production/mass production, their history and cultural contexts can specifically support and enhance certain parts of student learning including practical skills, research skills, confidence and knowledge of their discipline (Hardie, 2015). I wanted to start the session in an accessible and open way, treating the student as a practitioner and building a community through critical and reflective discussion with the other students (Steinberg and Down, 2020). This is why I started with an open set of questions where the students individually spent 3 minutes writing down their initial reactions to the object, framed by my questions. The parcel hand been left unopened, so the students opened the package which I had addressed by hand, to discover the complete and untouched puzzle postcard within. I had intended for them to reflect and react to the puzzle postcard itself, however they reacted to the whole experience of receiving a parcel and opening it. They all immediately broke apart the puzzle postcard and began collaboratively putting it back together throughout the rest of the session. The questions I gave them were focused on meaning making, memory and storytelling which I hoped would lead us into an understanding that people imbue the objects they touch, and no object is neutral. After they had playfully observed the object and developed their visual literacy by reflecting upon it, I asked them to share their responses with the group, which would develop their communication and confidence skills. This part of the session went on much longer than I had anticipated and it meant that I did not have time for my final exercise as I ran out of time. However their initial reflections to the object, framed by my questions, were incredibly insightful, personal and creative, and the lecturer-learners-student-practitioners were incredibly engaged and positive. Therefore I was happy to spend longer on this part of the session as it seemed beneficial to all and meant that everyone could have time to speak and reflect fully, I guided the discussions and asked people to expand further on what they were saying. Could these responses have been evoked through simply a digital image? Or was it the haptic and ludic elements of the puzzle within the postcard that provoked them?

I made notes on their reflections and will expand on them in the order they were given. Avis shared their reflections about a family holiday in Cornwall, in an expensive cottage which they stayed in for her daughter’s birthday. It was their first holiday after pandemic and “all the death”. Rachel mentioned she was ill as child and spent a lot of time in hospital doing jigsaws all day, so she did not have a positive connection to the object. The object made Joey think of sentimental images and Cornish identity. She was left questioning what is personal and what is generic? She paid attention to the disregarded parts of the object which made her think of recycling and she noticed my hand writing on the envelope; my identity on the object. Together Joey and Sergio thought of the idea of sending it back. Which provoked a discussion about sending and receiving. Joey finally reflected upon the unpredictability of it all as I had sent something blank and unopened (whereas I could have chosen to write the postcard). The group became aware they would imbue it with new meaning if they sent it back to me. Ade was focusing on the parts and the whole, the puzzle pieces versus the whole puzzle, he was thinking of ideas around the “sum of our parts”, community, perfection and the movement of objects through time.

After we had discussed their reflections openly, we dived deeper into the cultural, communication and storytelling connections to postcards; exploring the work of Martin Parr and Tacita Dean. I also touched on ideas of the gift which drew upon philosophy and anthropology. My intention was to broaden their thinking and inspire them with my research and connections that I had used the postcard to have conversations about. The final exercise was aiming to provoke their thinking even further, to get them to use their personal reflections and insights, together with their new learnings and inspirations to generate new thinking in the form of their own postcard images selected from their phone camera albums. One of my final slides included a bibliography of references and sources, which many of the students photographed.

The overall feedback from the lecturer/learners about my microteaching session was incredibly positive, with everyone agreeing it was “lectoral yet engaging”, “fun and informative”. There were two questions and improvements I was given after the session – “Will the students share their reflections and how? You need to give them a heads up”, as this had not been clear at the start when I asked the students to initially reflect “individually”, they were not aware they were going to share their reflections with the group. And finally “How can they do this (the sharing) online or in person?”. Sergio was the last to speak and had been generally supportive and encouraging yet quiet throughout the discussion, giving space for the others to go first. Sergio kindly said that I had been seeing obstacles as opportunities for creativity, and referenced Lars Von Trier, ‘The Five Obstructions’ (2003). He explained the reference in which Von Trier remakes a film using boundaries and obstructions; overcoming limitations and seeing creative opportunity.

Reference list

Campbell, S. (2019). Ludic practice: the Case for Student Play in University Museums. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(1).

Cash, I. (2011). Snail Mail My Email. [online] Ivan Cash. Available at: http://www.ivan.cash/snail-mail-my-email.

Comaroff, J.L. and Comaroff, J. (2009). Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dean, T. (2018). Tacita Dean: Landscape, Portrait, Still Life. Royal Academy of Arts.

Grout, H. (2019). Archiving critically: Exploring the Communication of Cultural Biases. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(1).

Hardie, K. (2015). Innovative Pedagogies Series: Wow: the Power of Objects in Object-based Learning and Teaching. Higher Education Academy.

Isbister, K. (2017). How Games Move Us : Emotion by Design. Cambridge, Ma: Mit Press.

Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge ; Malden, Ma: Polity.

Parr, M. (1999). Boring Postcards. London: Phaidon Press.

Steinberg, S.R. and Down, B. (2020). The SAGE Handbook of Critical Pedagogies Volume 2. Los Angeles Sage Reference.

Warren, F. (2008). PostSecret : Extraordinary Confessions from Ordinary Lives. London Orion House.

Winston-Silk, J. (2019). Deaccessioning and reimagining: a Novel Approach to object-based Learning. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(1).

Appendix & Notes

MA Social and Visual Anthropology Dissertation –  

‘Integration and Digital Practices: An Ethnographic Study of Young Refugees in Berlin’ :

Abstract –

In January 2016 the “Ankommen” (Arrival) application was released by BAMF (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees) to help refugees “integrate quickly” into society and since then it has had over 250,000 downloads. Germany had 425,035 asylum applications between January and November 2015, with 57,816 in November alone. It has since been recorded that in Germany there were approximately 112 digital projects (apps, websites, digital services) created to “help” refugees, with half of these produced in Berlin, engendering the “digital refugee scene”. During my fieldwork I experienced a general awareness of the “Ankommen” app by all my interlocutors; NGOs, volunteers, startups and refugees alike, however this contrasted against a stark absence of use. My original intention was to study how people used the app and why, and instead this dissertation has become about the non-use, drawing upon Sally Wyatt’s (2003) call for the recognition of the importance of the “non-user”. I trace the German national and social imaginations of “integration” present in the “integration app” which have a fraught relationship with recent history and national memory. I explore the context which nurtured the creation of the Ankommen app; arguing the atmosphere of techno-optimism in Berlin, rooted in the prolific startups, has crept from the commercial and corporate realms into the political and humanitarian, positioning the refugee as user and consumer. In order for this to take place I argue there has been a mutual and simultaneous process of homogenisation and incorporation of the identity of the refugee.

Microteaching files :

Microteaching link to google slide presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12uqYx71tSfRzgj0oTJTHOmp0YnuuRZi2KpUXUxyHbWI/edit?usp=sharing