Engaging in the microteaching session, particularly through object-based learning (OBL), was a mix of challenge and excitement. I wasn’t familiar with OBL at first, so I started by reviewing the recorded lecture, which helped me grasp the key pedagogical concepts behind it. A significant insight from this preparatory stage was how objects spark curiosity and deepen cognitive engagement, offering an alternative to the usual text-based learning approach (Chatterjee & Hannan, 2015).
As a participant, my first experience with OBL was unexpectedly eye-opening. By intentionally limiting one of my senses while interacting with an object, I quickly realised how our perception is constructed and how meaning can shift based on the sensory channels we engage. It reinforced the idea of embodied cognition—learning that’s grounded in physical interaction with objects, which can boost understanding and retention (Pye, 2007). This exercise highlighted how imagination and inference can intensify, underlining the fact that learning isn’t just about transferring information but also about sparking deeper intellectual and emotional involvement.
Taking part in five different microteaching sessions drove home the importance of having a clear learning objective and using objects to convey it. A wide range of objects—from tools and artefacts to wearable garments and even imaginary items—were used as learning catalysts. They helped us explore big-picture themes like climate action, collaboration, and perception. The discussions revealed how OBL not only facilitates factual learning but also encourages interpretive thinking, allowing students to make connections between abstract ideas and real-world experiences (Hooper-Greenhill, 1999)
One of the most striking things about microteaching and OBL was the flexibility, especially within the limits of a 20-minute session. Despite the short time frame, the engagement and depth of conversation were impressive. This made me reconsider how I might integrate processes into my own teaching. While I may have dismissed previously, due to time constraints, I now see that even a brief general microteaching or OBL exercise can have a lasting impact. This aligns with research showing that active learning methods like OBL increase student engagement and knowledge retention (DeWitt et al., 2016).
Reflecting on the experience, I now see OBL as a dynamic approach that promotes critical thinking, participatory learning, and deeper engagement through multisensory interaction. I’m excited to explore ways to incorporate this method into my teaching, particularly in situations where engagement and interaction are essential. The microteaching session has broadened my understanding of how objects can create inclusive and impactful learning experiences, reinforcing the value of experiential and inquiry-based pedagogies in higher education.
References:
Chatterjee, H. & Hannan, L. (2015). Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. Routledge.
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2016). Science education and student engagement: An analysis of policy and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1999). The Educational Role of the Museum. Routledge.
Pye, E. (2007). The Power of Touch: Handling Objects in Museum and Heritage Contexts. Routledge.