Microteaching – Object-Based Learning
Object-based learning (OBL) encourages deeper engagement with spatial concepts by facilitating direct interaction and sensory exploration, which can enhance critical thinking and creative interpretation (Chatterjee and Hannan, 2015). In my microteaching session, I aimed to challenge spatial assumptions through an OBL format while stimulating the imagination via sensory experience. My intentions and process are outlined in the timed session plan, which I largely adhered to, aside from allowing additional time to develop an alphabet of physical behaviour through drawing.
Timed session plan
Tutor to hand everyone their mini object and guide the following actions:
- Close your eyes and explore the object in your hands (3 minutes)
- Keep eyes closed and begin to think about who this character is in your hands, do they have a name, what do they do, what is their story (3 minutes)
- Open your eyes, meet your character and reflect on what you can see and feel (3 minutes)
- Develop a story of your character’s life: (4 minutes)
- Who are they, what do they do, where are they from/going
- Think spatially: work, hobbies, if they live alone or with others, where they live
- Draw out an alphabet of physical behaviour to describe how your character occupies space, and consider a range of activities based on the above (4 minutes)
- Together, draw your characters interacting on the blank paper, using your alphabet of physical behaviour (3 minutes)
Feedback and Reflections
During my 20‐minute microteaching session on OBL, I was struck by the engagement and reflective responses from my peers. As everyone returned to their seats, I observed thoughtful facial expressions, measured body movements, and moments of silence. I wondered whether these signs indicated genuine contemplation or some confusion about the session’s purpose. Several peers noted that the exercise challenged their traditional view of space, prompting them to see architecture not merely as a static container but as a dynamic site for human activity. This response affirmed one of my key teaching objectives: to encourage a more interactive and fluid perception of spatial design.
One piece of feedback that resonated concerned the final task—envisioning a space without walls on a blank piece of paper. One peer found this particularly challenging, prompting me to reconsider the clarity and scaffolding of my instructions. While the task was intended to stretch imaginative boundaries, it might have benefited from a more structured approach. Hardie (2015) notes that OBL supports critical and analytical thinking by requiring students to interpret objects’ form and function, suggesting that a balance between guided exploration and open-ended inquiry could enhance learning outcomes.
I also valued the discussion on inclusivity in design. Several participants remarked that the exercise encouraged them to consider the diversity of bodies moving through space—a reminder of our responsibility to design environments that accommodate varied experiences. This feedback reaffirmed my objective of encouraging reflection beyond one’s personal experience of movement, ensuring a more inclusive understanding of spatial interaction.
Introducing a physical object into my teaching was a departure from my usual primary reliance on imagination. The tactile engagement provided a richer, more nuanced understanding, yet it also highlighted the challenge of balancing session pace. Despite careful timing, some participants needed more time, especially during narrative development. In retrospect, narrowing the learning objectives could facilitate deeper exploration of the tasks’ context and allow for discussion, aligning with Hardie’s (2015) assertion that interpreting an object’s role in each context fosters more profound analytical engagement.
Notably, the exercise pushed participants beyond conventional thinking. One peer, who initially viewed space statically, had to grapple with the concept of movement when transitioning from a closed‐eye exploration to a visual one. Such moments were inspiring, underscoring OBL’s potential to unlock fresh perspectives and challenge assumptions. However, I did not check whether everyone was comfortable with reducing reliance on one sense—a point raised in feedback that underscores the need for ensuring accessibility and safety in the learning environment.
During feedback discussions, it became clear that participants desired more time to develop and share their character narratives. While they appreciated the session’s structure concerning the objectives, many felt that extended group or pair discussions would have enriched their imaginative exploration and allowed them to articulate how their narratives evolved. Reflecting on this, my key takeaway is to narrow the session’s objectives and deliberately allocate more time for collaborative storytelling. This approach would not only enhance individual reflections, but also foster a richer collective dialogue about movement and space, encouraging participants to engage physically when describing movement and, therefore, challenge their spatial assumptions, as the objective of the project sets out.
References
Chatterjee, H. and Hannan, L. (2015) Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education. Farnham: Ashgate.
Hardie, K. (2015). Using Object-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Research-Based Perspective. Higher Education Academy.