Month: March 2021

Object-Based Learning (OBL) is a student-centred learning approach using objects within the classroom for visual thinking and visual literacy strategies. It encourages the student to create the focus of the enquiry, through asking questions and being inquisitive, creating deeper meaning. The most common place for OBL is in a museum setting, where an artefact from the archives or museum collection is brought out for participants to react to. OBL can create a space for intercultural dialogue to embrace intercultural diversity. As Chatterjee and Hannan note, ‘a core facet of object-based learning is its multisensory nature; the use of objects in teaching invokes a variety of senses and encourages a form of interactive or experiential learning which has been encapsulated in Kolb’s (1984) cycle of learning (Figure I.1).‘ (p.1, 2016)

According to UCL, the benefits of using real objects in learning include:

• providing a direct link with a topic or ‘the past’ and can enhance the interest in and understanding of a topic/subject.
• encourage learners to use all their senses – especially touch, sight and smell
• help to develop the important skill of drawing conclusions based on an examination of evidence, together with an understanding of the limitations and reliability of evidence
• ideal for generating group and class discussion
• promote the value of museums and encourage young people to visit museums and galleries with their families to further their learning.

Design & Delivery of the Microteaching Session

For this Microteaching session, the task was to deliver a 20 minute session on OBL and it was entirely up to me in terms of how to deliver this online session. I tried to mimic the museum setting in which OBL is often used by using an online archive which is available through the Shades of Noir website called Tell Us About It, and used an artefact to reflect on in the microteaching session. The session was designed to introduce the archive as a resource, and then to focus on a specific artefact within the archive to reflect upon. To ensure a student-centred approach, I gave the students some time to view a specific artefact (by Yasmeen Melius) and to contemplate the piece. I gave some prompting questions to consider which was also added to a Padlet board for the students to add their thoughts to: What is Yasmeen trying to say? What stood out to you? How can this artefact inform your teaching practice?

The discussion which took place was fruitful, and the 20 minutes shot by. I wanted to make sure there was enough time to consider the artefact and to reflect individually before coming together as a group, but on reflection I think I should have reduced the individual reflection time by a fraction to enable a longer discussion as a group. However, the feedback suggested that it was better to have that time to fully digest the piece. Perhaps the artefact touches on a heavy topic which can’t be digested too quickly.

Although I have begun my placement within LCC, I have yet to deliver a taught session which was led by me (although I have a session coming up on Wednesday which I’m very nervous about!) so this felt like a whole new experience. I felt like I was in safe hands with my peers, who gave me feedback to consider for when I do deliver my first session.

I hadn’t realised that there would be time for feedback embedded within the session, so when I was preparing the presentation I had put in a MentiMeter page so that my peers could submit anonymous feedback so I could learn from my micro-teaching experience.

The verbal feedback I received included the following:

• the session was well-paced and it was clear
• it was good to have the time to digest the piece
• it never felt rushed
• it’s great that it considers how it may inform our teaching practice
• it could be pitched for a Staff Development session
• very good to have a trigger warning, enabling students the option to opt out or leave if it’s something that triggers them
• great to have a set of resources out of UAL as well as within
• better to turn mic off during self-reflection as the sound was distracting.

Overall, it was nice to have a safe environment for me to explore my first online teaching experience. The feedback was positive which gives me some confidence for my next teaching session to take place on Wednesday with the BAUXD cohort. In future, I will remember to turn my microphone off when there is no need for me to speak, so that it prevents from distracting the students. I will also remember to keep a steady pace, and allow for time for reflection and for silent contemplation. Silence isn’t something to be scared of, and it never needs to be filled for the sake of it.

---

References

Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (2016) Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. Ashgate Publishing: New York.

Melius, Y. (n.d.) Reaching Out. Available from: http://www.shadesofnoir.org.uk/artefacts/tell-us-about-it/#yasmeen-melius [Accessed 17 March 2021]

Ross, F. (2021) Object Based Learning – Yasmeen Melius Padlet. Available from: https://padlet.com/f_a_ross/OBL [Accessed 17 March 2021]

Shades of Noir (n.d.) Tell Us About It. Available from: http://www.shadesofnoir.org.uk/artefacts/tell-us-about-it/ [Accessed 17 March 2021]

UCL (n.d.) Teaching & Object-Based Learning. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/schools/teaching-object-based-learning [Accessed 17 March 2021]

This week we were looking at the differing forms and values of feedback. First, there were two reading tasks, one in a form of video, the other a short case study.

The video was called Performing With an Invisible Audience by Hattie Walker and Helen King, published in June 2020 so very much after the move to online delivery due to the national lockdown. It covered methods on how to overcome the challenges of performing to an invisible audience and how to take advantage of the opportunities this situation of online teaching provides as well. It referenced Patsy Rodenburg and her Three Circles of Energy (2008) – where you aim for the second circle – when energy is focused and connected to specific points outside of yourself (audience is made of individual people). The encouragement was to let your personality in as it would engage the audience more as you exude your passion, and to look at the ‘black dot’ – the camera on your laptop or webcam, so that viewers can feel like you’re talking to them. I found this irritating to listen to. There was something about this video which made it feel like a performance in itself, completely fake and disingenuous. I didn’t feel like I was being drawn in to the session in any way.

A few of things I liked about the video was how it told you to be kind to yourself, and not to aim for perfection. To be yourself, and to let your personality show through your passion. Lessons being recorded makes it feel like anything you say or do can be permanently recorded and referenced in years to come, making it a bit of a daunting task. What if you stumble, or make a fool of yourself? What if you freeze half-way through a lecture? As much as we need to show the act of care to our students, we need to show ourselves some love and kindness by not aiming for perfection. None of us are perfect. It’s fine to embrace the mistakes.

Next, the short case study excerpt is from Bruce Macfarlane’s 2004 book Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice (Routledge), in which a fictional lecturer, ‘Stephanie’, receives feedback on her teaching in the form of student evaluation forms and a peer observation. 

Which aspects of Stephanie’s teaching practice appear to be the most fertile for development? 

The feedback suggests that her teaching practice is ‘too theoretical’, so she could perhaps apply the theoretical knowledge to ‘real-life practices’ or deliver interactive workshops where the students apply the theoretical learning to practice. Maybe Stephanie could consider having different formats of the readings, such as video links, podcasts, etc instead of purely academic-heavy theoretical writing. 

It also sounds like the students would benefit from having the resources in advance and online, as it would cater for different learning needs. For example, as somebody with dyslexia, I appreciate having the slides in advance so I can annotate as I go along rather than have them separate to my notes. It also sounds like she could do some assessment workshops to go over the assessment criteria and to really break down the assessment requirements. Perhaps having a Q&A session, or an online Q&A space for students to raise any questions regarding their upcoming assessment. 

What could Stephanie do to move past her defensive response? 

She could consider the benefit towards the students rather than thinking about her own priorities. It sounds like her teaching is stuck in a static, rather outdated method, and she would benefit from speaking to her junior colleague who has some innovative ideas. She could start a discussion group with her students to see what they would prefer, to include them in the decision making of what goes forward, to develop on their feedback to make her sessions more engaging for her students. 

Are there any interesting questions or problems that this case study raises for you?

Why is the focus for Stephanie her research, which is more individualistic, rather than on the delivery of a module to students? It sounds like she only teaches to enable her research, and should consider being more student-centred rather than ‘teacher-centred’. Why can Stephanie not be a ‘critical friend’ to her peer, and vice versa? Surely the peer observation is meant to be beneficial for feedback rather than holding back critical feedback for improvements. Stephanie clearly didn’t explain why peer observations / evaluations are useful to the students if the feedback was ‘why should we do it when lecturers get paid to do it’. 

Further questions raised in a group discussion included the following:

• How can we ensure better structure and systems for feedback as part of transparent pedagogy?
• Has Stephanie lost some objectivity due to her feeling towards her students, and competing workloads and demands?
• Why is it important to mention that Stephanie was a member of the Church of England?
• How can we constructively use the feedback that has been given to inform our teaching practice, even if we have strong convictions about the feedback?
• How can we present complex material without alienating students?
• How or should teaching excellence be held in equivalence with professional research outputs?
• Who gets to embody the institution, and do institutional demands mitigate against open reflection?

Finally, I will examine the difference between feedback and feed forward. (Open Awards, 2018)

Feedback: providing information to students about where they are in relation to their learning goals. I tallows students to evaluate progress, identify gaps or misconceptions and take remedial action. It is important that all feedback is: constructive, honest, specific and supportive.

Summative feedback and final grades can be considered as opportune moments for feedback. It’s useful to reflect on how an individual has achieved according to the marking criteria. Timely, specific and constructive feedback will enable the students to improve their work for future assessments or in general.

Feed forward: looking ahead to subsequent assignments and offers constructive guidance on how to do better. Some common problems include: timeliness, regularity, approaches to feedback and missed opportunities, passive learners and trouble understanding feedback, and finally a lack of overview.

Examples of feed forward includes formative feedback, tutorials, crit sessions, self-reflection. Feed forward can provide constructive guidance on how to improve or progress the work. It can develop a stunts confidence, expand their research interests or give some reassurance that they’re on the right track.

Finally, it’s important to remember that feedback can be generated by tutors, peers, mentors, supervisors, or by the individual as a result of self-assessment. It should be a cyclical and iterative process, not a linear one.

---

References

Academic Practice Directorate (2020) Performing with an invisible audience. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl5a_eU_H0o&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 03 March 2021]

Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The Ethics of Higher Education Practice. Routeledge: Abingdon.

Open Awards (2018) Feedback and Feed Forward. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHAXibq2H-Y&ab_channel=OpenAwards [Accessed 03 March 2021]

Rodenberg, P. (2008) The Second Circle: How to Use Positive Energy for Success in Every Situation. Penguin Group: London.