Month: November 2021

“object-based learning is a mode of education which involves the active integration of objects into the learning environment […] objects can inspire, inform, engage and motivate learners at all stages of their education” (Chatterjee, 2015).

My position as an Archivist, working with archives and collections, means that inherently my teaching practice is object-based. 

Object-based learning (OBL) is seen as a valuable and significant pedagogical tool in HE – especially art and design education. Research around this places emphasis on the physicality of engaging with objects, using them “to inspire discussion, group work and lateral thinking – all essential key, transferable, skills in higher education” (Chatterjee 2010, p.179).

The benefits of OBL are seen as:

• providing a direct link with a topic or ‘the past’ and enhancing people’s interest in and understanding of a topic/subject
• encouraging learners to use all their senses – especially touch, sight and smell
• helping 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.
• generating group and class discussion
• promoting the value of archives/collections and encouraging learners to engage with these

(University College London, 2021)

• Nurturing an appreciation for cultural differences.
• Enhancing observation skills.
• Cultivating focused attention through slow looking.
• Fostering communication skills and teamwork.
• Promoting dialogue and collaboration among students.
• Encouraging creative problem-solving.
• Creating respect for different points of view.
• Building connections between the academic course and material culture.
• Increasing students’ self-awareness as learners.

(University of Miami, 2021)

Foundational to my research project, my enquiry accepts the benefits and value of OBL. Some further reading that substantiates and supports the practice of OBL can be found in my references – such as Chatterjee (2010, 2015), Willcocks (2015, 2017), Prown (1982) and Hardie (2015).

Beyond this, an idea that I have been drawn to in my reading is around whether the ‘objects’ in OBL are actually central to learning, or if these should be decentered in favour of focussing on the emotion and engagement of the students interacting with them. This approach challenges Western ideas of permanence, and questions the value of the object over an engagement with ideas and spiritual values, seeing that emotions also have a social and cultural history (Meecham 2016, p.79).

This led me to exploring the idea of social objects, where one “[looks] at an object not for its artistic or historical significance but for its ability to spark conversation […] Social objects are transactional, facilitating exchanges among those who encounter them” (Simon, 2010). In this “the artefact becomes a medium of exchange, a familiar point of contact that links the diversity of experiences and lives” (Crooke, 2016).

Meecham argues that “those charged with teaching within institutions committed to widening global participation recognise that there is more to do than merely re-present objects in museums in ways that tell other more inclusive stories” (2016 pp. 67-68). As my research question is concerned with using objects critically and inclusively, Meecham’s idea is especially pertinent and represents a key aim in my research of trying to uncover new ways of using objects.

References

Barton, G. and Willcocks, J. (2017) ‘Object-based self-enquiry: a multi-and trans-disciplinary pedagogy for transformational learning’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 2(3), pp.229–245. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/75 (accessed 16 November 2021).

Chatterjee, H. J. (2010). ‘Object-Based Learning in Higher Education: The pedagogical power of museums.’ University Museums and Collections Journal, 3: 179-181. Available at: https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/9349/chatterjee.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Chatterjee, H., Hannah, L., and Thomson, L. (2015) ‘An introduction to object-based learning and multisensory engagement’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.1-19.

Crooke, E (2016) ‘Artefacts as Agents for Change: Commemoration and Exchange via Material Culture’, Irish Political Studies 31(1), pp.86-100.

Daniels, R. et al (2014) Academic uses of archives, museum and special collections 2009-2013, University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/15227/ArchivesSpecialCollectionsReport_Interactive.pdf (accessed 18 December 2021).

Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Lelkes, J. (2019) ‘How inclusive is object-based learning?’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(1), (2019) pp. 76-82. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/110/215 (accessed 16 November 2021).

Meecham, P. (2015) ‘Talking about things: internationalisation of the curriculum through object-based learning’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.57–74.

Prown, J.D. (1982) ‘Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17 (1), pp. 1-19. Available at: https://blogs.ubc.ca/qualresearch/files/2010/09/Mind-in-Matter.pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).

Simon, N. (2010) The participatory museum.  Available at: http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/ (accessed 16 November 2021).

University College London (2021) Teaching & Object-Based Learning. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/schools/teaching-object-based-learning (accessed 16 November 2021).

University of Miami (2021) Object-Based Learning. Available at: https://academictechnologies.it.miami.edu/explore-technologies/technology-summaries/object-based-learning/index.html (accessed 16 November 2021).

Winston-Silk, J. (2019) ‘Deaccessioning and reimagining: a novel approach to object-based learning’ Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 4:1 pp.51-57. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/130 (accessed 16 November 2021).

Willcocks, J. (2015) ‘The power of concrete experience: museum collections, touch and meaning making in art and design pedagogy’ in Chatterjee, H.J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.43–56

The research tool I prepared for peer review was a focus group plan (below).

In reading around this research method, I compiled a lot of information related to framing and facilitating the discussion to ensure participant comfort, openness and understanding. Therefore in my plan I made a note of the ideas I would want to cover in my introduction and closing. This included a few intentions I had not considered before, such as providing a way for participants to continue the conversation with me after the focus group if they wanted to (extending the invite and providing my email address).

Based on my reading, when writing my questions I wanted to keep these open and not have too many to get through so that I could allow fuller discussion of each. After some free-writing of questions, I saw that these naturally grouped into three areas. I refined them down and divided them into sections (or a topic guide).

Draft interview schedule (or topic guide)

Objects

• Do you consider objects to be neutral?

Your practice

• How do you use objects in your teaching? In context (of collection) or anonymously?
• How do you choose which objects to use?
• Do you consider the perspective of the archive/collection?

Student engagement

• What are your observations of how students engage with objects in your sessions?
• Have students ever challenged your use/choices of objects?

Having this topic guide will give me the flexibility to cover all three themes, but not necessarily require each questions to be asked specifically if the discussion moves on or if there are timing restrictions. As flexibility and facilitating open discussion is a key aspect of the focus group.

Peer feedback

Feedback I received on these questions from my tutor and peers included:

• “Q1 is quite a tough opener […] From what I understood of FGs, i thought you scaffolded towards trickier Qs […] So Q1 could be reworded: ‘Objects are not neutral: Discuss‘”
• “Does your student engagement section need to be a bit longer maybe? Like how do you introduce objects? Do you share your object choices with others?“
• “your questions are very open at the moment and few […] perhaps bring your group closer in by asking more detail?“

Further feedback included:

• Participants have been chosen because of expertise, but there is a need to consider my assumption that they will come to the focus group already having opinions on this topic.
• Be more explicit in questions about bias, participants may feel like they are being ‘set up’ if this isn’t openly presented.
• Add more questions – detail can can encourage discussion more than (current) neutral questions.
• State explicitly that I am interested in reviewing the practice of colleagues – e.g. build this into the introduction.

Based on this peer review, and further reading around this method, I have developed my focus group plan and interview questions (below).

The development of my interview schedule included: adding more questions; rewording existing questions to be clearer about their intention; adding more detail to questions; including follow up questions to encourage further discussion; reordering the themes so that the more challenging/complex ideas come later in the discussion.

Revised interview schedule (or topic guide)

Practice

• How do you choose which objects to use in a teaching session or for an event?
  • Do you ever discuss your object choices with others – colleagues, or students?

• How much does the object’s context (the wider the archive or collection it is from) affect your choice of the individual object?

• How do you introduce or present the objects to students when you use them?
  • What type of information (if any) do you provide them with?

• Do you think that your positionality, your background and experiences, affects the way you think about the collections?

• Would you say that you adopt any critical practices in your teaching?
  • Could you talk a bit about those?
  • Do you feel supported in your role, e.g. by the university, to adopt critical practices?

• Is there anything you would like to do in your practice, related to addressing bias, but have been unable to do?
  • What is the reason you are unable to do this? (e.g. time, resources etc.)

Students

• How do students engage with different types of objects in your sessions?

• Have you noticed if the way you introduce, or present, objects has affected the way students interact with them?

• Have students ever raised ideas about an object that changed your opinion of it?
  • Did this change in opinion result in you altering your practice in any way?

• Have students ever challenged or questioned your use, or choice, of an object?
  • Has a colleague or other member of staff done this?

• Have you ever used an object in a session, and afterwards wished you hadn’t selected that one?
  • Why? Can you elaborate.
  • Did you do anything differently the next time?

Objects

• My question assumes that UAL’s collections are structurally biased because they represent dominant cultural perspectives – what are your thoughts on this?
• ‘Objects are not neutral’ – discuss.

References

Breen, R. L., (2006) ‘A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research’ in Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30 (3) pp. 463-475. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03098260600927575 [Accessed 8 November 2021]

Citizens Advice (2015) How to run focus groups. Available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/Equalities/How%20to%20run%20focus%20groups%20guide.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2021]

Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Krueger, R. A., (2002) Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews. Available at: https://www.eiu.edu/ihec/Krueger-FocusGroupInterviews.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2021]

University of Reading (no date) Methods Guides: How to run a focus group. Available at: https://sites.reading.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2020/06/Focus-Groups-Guide-Final.pdf [Accessed 8 November 2021]