When we were asked to lead the microteaching session, I felt quite anxious, and that anxiety stayed with me throughout. I also questioned the purpose and nature of object-based learning (OBL), particularly in an online setting. However, the readings I did beforehand, such as K. Hardie’s work on the Innovative Pedagogies series, helped to clarify these uncertainties. However, it was only after participating in and delivering the session that I truly understood the value of OBL. I now recognise that objects provide meaningful context for learning, whether it’s exploring abstract ideas, learning new techniques, critiquing design, or encouraging personal reflection.
For my microteaching session, I aimed to compare hand and machine embroidery, focusing on the goldwork technique. I chose this subject to introduce my colleagues to a relatively unknown technique and provide a comparison that would broaden their understanding. I also wanted to encourage my students to adopt a more critical approach to their embroidery. I was keen to see if examining embroidered objects more closely would encourage a more analytical and reflective mindset. I presented a slideshow that covered a brief historical overview, followed by an exploration of materials used, and also included some images of digital embroidery to encourage colleagues to reflect on the materiality of the medium and the potential themes we would be discussing.
For the interactive exercise, I asked colleagues to examine two images of goldwork—one created by hand and the other by machine—for one minute. Afterwards, I used Teams whiteboard to have them add pre-planned annotations to the relevant sections (see image below). We then discussed how to distinguish between the two embroidery types, as well as the limitations and benefits of each approach.
The response from my colleagues was positive, which was a pleasant surprise considering how nervous I was. I had feared that my anxiety might have affected my engagement, but they all enjoyed learning something new and particularly appreciated the historical context. The presentation was visually engaging, and thye said that I became more animated when discussing the technical aspects.
Reflecting on the session, I would focus more on the technical details of goldwork and provide a deeper explanation of how it is created. One colleague suggested it would have been helpful to see physical materials used in goldwork. At one point, I held up some foam which used in the technique when using machine embroidery, and looking back, incorporating more props and physical objects to discuss the technique and imagery would have been beneficial, especially in a physical setting. This reinforces the importance of visual learning through objects—more tangible elements would have enhanced the experience.
Another area for improvement would be to give more specific instructions on what I wanted my colleagues to observe in the images for the 1 minute allocated. Without clear direction, there was some confusion about what to focus on. I should have asked them to consider the regularity of stitches, investigate materiality, or assess whether one image conveyed more emotion than the other, for example. In hindsight, the lack of direction hindered the learning process.
Lastly, I would consider adding a summary at the end of the session. My focus was on completing the task, and I didn’t fully think about concluding the session. A summary would have helped colleagues reflect on what they had learned and take away key insights, providing a more fulfilling ending.
The microteaching session was challenging, especially overcoming my nerves, but it was incredibly valuable to receive feedback from my peers. It reinforced the importance of visual OBL, and I feel more confident incorporating this approach into my future teaching.
Hardie, K. (2015). Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Higher Education Acedamy