08.02.2023 Microteaching

Object Based Learning Workshop

Attending: Lindsay (Course Leader), Sarah Harkins, Sakiko Kohasi. Marion Lagedamont, Emilie Loiseleur, Matthew Needham.

I was quite anxious about this particular workshop. I hadn’t appreciated that the workshop would be with a small group of peers from my PGCert cohort. The pressure felt real! When I discovered that Lindsay structured it for 5 of us – I was SO RELIEVED. I don’t mind talking in front of a large group & my student group is over 50, but I felt anxious about this. I suppose it’s that feeling of being judged, or not knowing enough to be interesting. However, the people involved in this workshop were articulate and engaged with their feedback – which was constructive and thought-provoking.

I prepared for this session by discussing the workshop with one of my ASD (Architecture and Spatial Design) teaching partners Ursula Dimitriou and by reflecting on a project, Heterotopia (worlds within worlds). The ASD students had worked in collaboration with the CSM Museum & Study Collection¹. The project objective was to design a public engagement space for the CSM Museum; investigating and reinventing this institution within the University. There was a pre-selected range of objects from the archives to trigger a speculative design exploration through experimentation with form, material and narrative to activate social engagement and design a space where the public can interact with the chosen object(s). Referencing Gillian Roses’s ‘Visual Methodology’², she suggests a four-staged approach to analyzing artworks and images; describing four stages as four sites; the site of production, the site of the image, the site of circulation and the site of audience. Students were asked to cross-reference further aspects of analysis: Technological, Compositionality and Social; to help them develop an approach to their Heterotopia socially interactive program.

For this session I decided to use the object of a toilet; a socially interactive object, vessel for the most basic of human functions and is a fundamental architectural consideration in most architectural projects. I would position this exercise as a collaborative discussion to stimulate further research, informing a design proposal.

I introduced the toilet and the notion of ‘public convenience’ and asked the participants to work in pairs, investigating and interrogating the object and, I asked them to consider the following themes: historical, political, social, cultural, behavioral, economic, and environmental. The outcome would be a mind-map. I then asked them to discuss and consider/ apply the themes what the object could become? It was quite fast-paced (20mins) and I feel it initiated some interesting discussions and I got some good critical feedback within the Developmental & Affirmation feedback sheet; “how do you include students who feel uncomfortable to talk about that object”. This comment would impact designing/planning and teaching/support aspects of teaching that I seek to include in future planning, ensuring that discussions about potentially sensitive issues are inclusive for students ‘with diverse educational backgrounds and achievements’ (Grace and Gravestock, 2009)³

All the presentations instigated insightful discussion. Some I was more engaged with others – Matthew’s workshop looking at t-shirts, made me consider sustainability and disposable fashion more consciously. Emilie’s was really complex and challenging, asking us to consider objects less laterally. We arranged objects according to age, size, use, emotional value. Marion’s presentation asked us to consider ‘Desire Lines and Affordances’ and she asked us to be ‘design detectives and identify flawed designed objects. I didn’t fully engage with this activity but it did provoke me to do more research on affordances after the session⁴. Sakiko’s presentation extended from a studio project. Asking us to question human scale in our space using architectural scale models of people – place it, photograph it, title it and discuss our outcome. I felt it got us excited, moving around the room – what could we use? How could we represent human scale in this dull, small room? Lindsay’s outcome was incredible, she managed to capture her scale model, all of us and herself in her panoramic photograph. I enjoyed this most because it was intrinsic to the subject I teach. To give the exercise a deeper context, Sakiko referenced the work of Abigail Goldman⁵, a Journalist and investigator with the Public Defenders Office (Bellingham, WA) who makes ‘Dieoramas’ reflecting her attraction to the macabre, capturing gruesome murder scenes in miniature (diorama)⁶.