2. Reflective blog post ‘Object Based Learning’

I’m going to study the piece called: ‘Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching’

This essay resonates with me because of my industry experience working at national museums and galleries, like the Victoria and albert museum and the Natural History Museum where the exhibitions and design work are all based around curated objects.

Reflecting on the TPP unit I really enjoyed and engaged with the sessions that were visual, like the one on ‘Visualising reflective practice’ I found the collaborative learning in this pegagogic exercise particularly interesting because it allowed a really broad range of courses to share their practice using mind maps, drawing, tablea and to explain how their discipline is valued. We also discussed how knowledge is constructed in our individual fields. I, like the author of the Innovative pedagogies series, on DPS value networking, tours of studios and industry collaboration. This may be over a single star museum object, like Dippy the Dinosaur from NHM going on tour or being displeayed in the new Urban Nature Project Garden outside NHM (Natural History Musuem).

I found this paragraph to be contradictory to my museum experience:
‘Traditionally, design objects encased and showcased in museums have provided a key resource for Design undergraduates to learn about Design and its related history and contexts. In many instances objects may be seen but not touched. Likewise books, websites and digital databases present objects for study: rich resources, however, the physical handling of an item is denied.’

At NHM we always strived to include ‘touch objects’ whether replicas of the object in cases or real objects that are less of a risk of being broken like a meteorite or, more recently an actual sample specimen piece of the moon!

I found V&A and textiles less able to have the touch objects because textiles needed more conservation and to be under low light levels, like paintings in order to survive deterioration over time. Again replicals for visitors to try on or hold are often created for this purpose and I agree with the author, ‘Dr Kirsten Hardie, Associate Professor Arts University Bournemouth’ that ‘artefacts can surprise, intrigue and absorb learners; how learners’ wonder at, or pleasure in, an object. The ‘wow’ of an item can create rich, important and fun learning.’ And always strive to use this in my professional practice.

This essay has lead me to form an action plan for my DPS (Diploma in Professional Studies) students. Physical items like a physical, conceptual business card to share with industry can be way more memorable than a cold call or email. I’m going to take the strong examples of this to inspire my students across 3 areas, networking (business card – object 1) showcasing work (physical portfolio – object 2) and their reports (object 3) after their year in industry. 

A student recently produced a 3D printed orange, each segment being an individual  business card that the industry representative could take away. This innovative approach is one I celebrate and share with the next cohort to broaden their learning on this subject of industry networking. Peter Rodin made a chocolate CV and went on to win awards for developing typographic ornaments from fungi!

An innovative object based portfolio example was a box with vacuum formed inner,  3D printed ‘key’ to unlocking the personal of the student for her work placement and an intricately embossed and foiled box containing her Portfolio. 

The third strand of object inspired pedagogy in DPs is the written ‘report’ that can come in the form of a book or other object. A Student that travelled to Australia created for her SIP  a new surfwear period brand product called Kalu which is now going into production. 

In DPS, we are lucky, like (Hardie 2006) to be ‘Working with learners who are visually orientated and visual thinkers, and predominantly makers who ‘learn by doing’, So I also  ‘create experiential learning activities (Kolb 1984) to ensure active learning.’ 

The ‘power of wow’ concept that (Hardie 2006) discusses is akin to our WOW DPS website https://www.dpslcc.com where we feature students that have created wow objects. This parallel is a reassurance in our pedagogy that

‘using objects lies firmly in the belief that students’ hands-on engagement with objects can inform and inspire their thinking and design making; and that objects can energise learning and teaching. I agree with Schultz (2012) who states that “interaction with artefacts deepens students’ learning” (p. 185).’

This is a good segway into the world of museum learning, which is an area the DPS students are often interested in and particularly leads them to the ‘learning and interpretation teams,’ who can often commission design students to create objects, workshops or lessons themselves.

“interpretation is the process for constructing meaning. Interpretation is part of the process of understanding” (Hooper-Greenhill 1999, p. 50). This is an important learning experience for the DPS students as it shows where their study of graphic design can take them in an industry context for careers and employability.

A final exercise I’d like to carry out for the DPS students to help them to consider:

‘object identification form for each item: for example, what is its function, age and target audience? Who designed and manufactured it? Is it ergonomically designed? What does the object communicate and what values do you think it has? (E.g. financial, social, historical or cultural). This is standard practice in design studies. So, as Sudjic (2008) observed “[…] there is something to understand about objects beyond the obvious issues of function and purpose” (p. 49) this area of consideration is one that I develop in this activity, with a particular lens focused on the notion of aesthetics – taste.’

I think would like to try adapting this method in order to use an object to discuss personal ‘brand identity’ in order for the students to be industry facing, in a memorable, innovative and conceptual way that increases their chance of being employed. It helps them to consider how they position themselves in a fluctuating and volatile industry.

Object-based learning is a pedagogical approach used increasingly by many academics across HE, often by specialists in design history, design theory, contextual studies, or museum studies. A number of studies have focused on the use of objects in museums and OBL for example, Chatterjee and Hannan (2015); Chatterjee and Duhs (2010); Cook, Reynolds and Speight (2012); Reading (2008); Hooper-Greenhill (1999 and 2002); Hennigar Smith (1999); Jandl and Gold (2012); Chatterjee (2010 and 2013); Lambert (2013); Boddington, Boys and Speight (2013); Chatterjee (2008); Duhs (2010); and Prown in Clark and Brody (2009, pp. 224-5).

Bibliography

• Boddington, A., Boys, J. and Speight, C. (2013) Engaging students in objects: learning through collections in higher education. Farnham: Ashgate.
• Brooks, K. (2008) ‘Could do better?’: Students’ critique of written feedback. York: Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Art, Design and Media.
• Chatterjee, H. (2008) Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford: Berg.
• Chatterjee, H. and Duhs, R. (2010) ‘Object-based learning in higher education: The pedagogical power of museums’, University Museums and Collections Journal, 3, pp. 179–181.
• Chatterjee, H. and Hannan, L. (2015) Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. Farnham: Ashgate.
• Clark, H. and Brody, D. (eds.) (2009) Design Studies: A Reader. Oxford: Berg.
• Cook, S., Reynolds, R. and Speight, C. (2012) ‘Designing objects – object-based learning’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11(1), pp. 25–40.
• Duhs, R. (2010) ‘Learning from University Museums and Collections in Higher Education: University College London (UCL)’, University Museums and Collections Journal, 3, pp. 179–181.
• Hardie, K. (2006) Wow: The Power of Objects in Object-Based Learning and Teaching. Innovative Pedagogies Series. York: Higher Education Academy.
• Hennigar Smith, J. (1999) Handling the Past: A Practical Guide for Museum Educators. Edinburgh: Museums Galleries Scotland.
• Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1999) The Educational Role of the Museum. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
• Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2002) Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge.
• Jandl, S. and Gold, M. (eds.) (2012) A Handbook for Academic Museums: Beyond Exhibitions and Education. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.
• Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Lambert, C. (2013) ‘Reconsidering the museum experience: Object-based learning in the humanities’, Journal of Museum Education, 38(3), pp. 217–227.
• McRobbie, A. (2016) Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Ophir, E., Nass, C. and Wagner, A.D. (2009) ‘Cognitive control in media multitaskers’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), pp. 15583–15587.
• Reading, B. (2008) Object Lessons: Teaching with Material Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Schultz, J. (2012) ‘Interaction with artefacts deepens students’ learning’, Journal of Education through Museums, 8(1), pp. 183–192.
• Sudjic, D. (2008) The Language of Things. London: Penguin.