Planning
I found it quite hard to settle on a micro-teaching idea. I considered three initial ideas;
1. A session focused on decoding advertising, by analysing visual language and semiotics. The main learning outcome aligned to the key principles of semiotics as discussed by Roland Barthes in The Rhetoric of the Image (1964). Also highlighting the subjective nature of the image: images contain signs that need to decoded by the viewer, that decoding is subject to prior knowledge, particularly cultural.
2. A session focused on the lifecycle analysis of an object. With the learning outcomes being life-cycle analysis, closed-loop design and wider sustainability considerations. Task would involve mapping a given object’s life cycle, including production, use and after-life.
3. A session to explore speculative thinking in which I could also demonstrate how the meaning imbued in objects by individuals and groups is not fixed, but is unstable and variable, over both space & time.
I selected the third option because I’m interested in teaching speculative thinking and design and also I read and was interested in Jules Prown’s, Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture, Theory & Method, in which he defines material culture as ‘the study through artifacts, of the beliefs, values, ideas, attitudes, and assumptions of a particular community or society, at a particular time’ (Prown 1982)
Key Learning Outcomes: A key learning outcome was to demonstrate through a group activity how the meaning we assign to an object is subjective and differs depending on both space (geographical location) and time (the place in time we encounter the object in its ‘life’). Another key learning outcome was to develop the skill of speculative thinking.
Secondary Learning Outcomes: Observation, communication, analytical thinking, cultural relativism, nostalgia fetishism, visual literacy skills.
Planning the Teaching Session (20 mins)
The object & why I chose it: The object is a 1977 Queen Elizabeth’s Silver Jubilee memorabilia mug, as seen below. This object could be said to have cultural and historical meaning and value, but this meaning isn’t fixed. The mug will be assigned different meaning and value depending on who views it, where and when.
For example, you might expect if someone who’s not British encountered it, it would hold a different meaning and value to someone who is British, perhaps less value (although not a given). However, it will also hold different meaning for British people, depending on where they live, how old they are and whether they are a royalist or a republican. I would expect a group of international and home students would demonstrate this (as our student cohorts at UAL are).
I was however a little concerned that the object would be viewed as ‘colonial’ and a celebration of empire. Which I did not want, given the important work we are all engaged in to decolonise the curriculum. However, my intention was actually to destabilise the value and meaning in this object and invite the students to recognise that meaning is very subjective, depending on cultural background, beliefs, political leaning, knowledge etc. The reality being that the object doesn’t have any innate meaning or value.
The structure of the micro-teach was informed by Jules Prown’s method which has three stages; describe, deduce and hypothesise (Prown 1982). I have highlighted them in the numbered prompts below. I facilitated the session by using the following questions and prompts;
1. Observe this object closely (3 mins) notice any emotional response you have, if any?
2. Share and discuss what do you deduce about the object from your observations? – about function, material, production, age etc. (4 mins)
3. Consider & discuss (hypothesise) what ‘value’ if any, you feel this object holds today, in 2022? cultural value, economic value, social value? (4 mins)
4. Now let’s time travel to 2060. Now, consider & discuss (hypothesise) what value you feel this object may hold in 2060? (4 mins)
5. Reflecting on your observations and discussions, consider how the value and ‘meaning’ of an object may differ across both space and time, but also among people situated in the same place & time (5 mins).
Feedback
The feedback I received from the group was that the activity felt very calm, almost meditative, paced for unhurried observation and reflection.
They remarked how they enjoyed the speculative ‘time travel’ part of the exercise, as it energised the activity and shifted how they thought about the object in an interesting way.
Dan talked about the nostalgia associated with the object, which was one of the ideas I wanted them to consider and recognise in how we assign meaning.
Angela and Hilly wondered and seemed to expect that I would have an emotional connection to the object, or a story to tell about it. However I deliberately tried to remain neutral about the value I personally placed on the object. I did this to mirror the objective nature of the true object. This did demonstrate that the meaning that is assigned to an object and projected onto others. i.e. assumptions about what objects mean to people.
Feedback from Linda was that I could have used more verbal rewards to encourage interaction and draw people in to conversations. Also that I could have stated at the start what the process would be, so that it was clear there was not going to a reveal moment.
Reflections on my feedback
I valued the feedback and agreed with it, for the most part, especially that I could have used more verbal rewards to encourage the group to discuss and contribute. I am aware that I deliberately do this in my teaching, but I didn’t do it so much in this exercise. Perhaps because I wasn’t so comfortable and felt a little unsure of my entire approach to the task, but also because I was attempting to remain neutral to that the group would create the meaning, without me giving them cues.
Early on in the feedback phase, I began to respond to Dan’s feedback when he mentioned nostalgia, but I was asked by the Tutor, Linda not to respond to feedback but just to listen to it.
As a result, I feel that I wasn’t given the opportunity to talk about my learning outcomes or respond to the feedback I was given. I understand that the micro-teaches had a timed schedule, but I felt that the others who went after me were given this opportunity and that timing wasn’t so tightly adhered to. Perhaps the timing was more rigid because I was the first of the day to deliver my micro-teach.
On reflection, I don’t think I fully grasped the scope of the exercise and I think I may have overcomplicated it. If I were to do it again I would have done a simpler micro-teach focusing on semiotics and ‘reading’ visual language, something I have done many times before.
Overall I wasn’t very happy with how it went. I don’t think that my planned learning outcomes were fully realised, perhaps in part. I feel that I should have focused on something more subject orientated, as the others did. In hindsight, I think both of my other ideas, would have worked better and I would have been able to communicate a clearer connection between the learning outcomes & the activity, something which I felt lacked in my teach.
Having said this, I quite enjoyed the other micro-teaches I took part in and I leaned from these and from the feedback given to me and to the others as the day progressed.
Silvia’s presentation was particularly interesting to me because I enjoyed how she set us a challenge to guess what the key was for. She used the session to demonstrate a process of research, which I thought was really effective, because she herself had researched the item for the micro-teach. It was very much as case of practicing what you teach. She introduced an element of mystery into the session, which I feel kept me and the others interested and involved. Gradually she revealed what her object, a key opened and discussed its meaning to her personally.
I had deliberately chosen not to give a personal perspective on my object, as the aim of the teach was to illustrate the subjective construction of personal meaning, however, I do think that bringing a personal dimension to her micro-teach, was really an important part of Silva’s practice. It felt open and honest and there was a warmth to the session which that personal dimension fostered. This did make me consider when and how I bring personal experience to my teaching and the effects of doing so. I know when I do, it creates an openness and authenticity which can I think be beneficial to students as they are more likely in turn to share some of their own personal experiences or thoughts. It can help create an atmosphere of open exchange, sharing experiences and opinions.
Although there’s obviously a line when it comes to sharing personal information and opinions with students. In the 90s my brother nearly got into big trouble in his teaching job in a sixth form college after ‘slagging off’ Margaret Thatcher in a lesson, when a student told their parents. I’m not of course comparing this incident to Silva’s teach, but this is where my reflection led to. A question to consider, how much sharing of personal opinion and experience is too much?
References:
Barthes, R. (1964) The Rhetoric of the Image. Éléments de sémiologie. (1964). Communications 4, Seuil, Paris.
Prown, J. D. (1982). Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method. Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), 1–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1180761