Category: Theories, Policies, Practices

Posted on

Micro-teaching Activity

Object Reading

Timed Session Plan

  • Overview, Background, and Instructions: 5 minutes
  • Individual Reflection on Object Using Prompts: 5 minutes
  • Facilitated Group Reflection: 10 minutes

Session Overview

This activity focused on reading objects and reflecting on experiences with them.

The exercise was based on Jules Prown’s object-based learning methodology (Prown, 1982) which views objects as raw data for studying material culture. Prown’s structured approach consists of three stages: description, deduction, and hypothesis, providing a framework for systematically analysing objects. This activity aims to build on Prown’s methods by incorporating human-centred design approaches to simultaneously develop qualitative understanding of people’s experiences with designed products.

Key Decisions

The original iteration of this activity was developed without knowledge of Prown’s method. It aimed to examine products, their features, and our relationships with them, but lacked a clear theoretical underpinning. It explored both qualitative and quantitative aspects of objects to foster a human-centred critique of human-object interactions.

After learning about Prown’s methodology, I realised that my original approach shared surprising overlaps with his structured process. His theory provided a clear framework to support and refine my activity. I adapted Prown’s three-stage approach, modifying his questions to include human-centred design perspectives, encouraging participants to reflect on use, experience, and emotional connection.

The key aims of this revised activity were to:

  • Introduce object reading methods.
  • Help students critically analyse objects from social, cultural, and technological perspectives.
  • Expand existing methods by integrating human-centred design approaches.

Session Recap

Participants chose an object—either their own or one provided—and used a worksheet (Figure 1) containing background information, instructions, and prompts. The object was placed at the centre of the worksheet, and participants reflected individually before engaging in a facilitated discussion.

This was my first time running the exercise, and I quickly realised the difficulty of facilitating a discussion around multiple artefacts simultaneously, especially within the limited time frame. While I followed the session plan, I now see how adjustments could improve collaboration and discussion.

Outcomes

Figure 1: Microteaching Activity Worksheet
Figure 2: Objects brought for the activity. Participants could use their own items. Only one participant chose to use the plant mister.

Reflections

I feel more comfortable introducing an activity with a short presentation, as it helps me pace and mentally organise content delivery. Initially, I avoided slides due to time constraints, but after seeing other microteaching activities effectively use slides, I believe a brief theoretical introduction using slides could have provided better context before participants engaged with the worksheet. However, some participants appreciated the slide-free, hands-on format, so this alternative approach was still valuable to test.

Facilitating the discussion proved challenging. Participants reflected on the object-reading stages in different orders. For example, some began with Description and others with Deduction. Additionally, many answered the questions one-by-one sequentially, rather than reflecting on  prompts. This was due to unclear instructions at the start.

The most useful participant feedback was the suggestion that the group would have liked to analyse a single object together. I agree, and this adjustment would help me facilitate structured discussion and group co-reflection, ensuring everyone progresses through the object analysis stages together. Instead, I found myself uncertain about how and when to guide the conversation, as participants were at different points in their analysis and reflection.

Focusing on one shared object first would not only improve facilitation but also encourage more dynamic discussions, as diverse interpretations could spark richer dialogue. While participants, at the end of a long day, appreciated the slower and reflective pace of the session, I was inspired by the energy and creativity of other microteaching activities. I aspire to design learning experiences that are both fun and thought-provoking.

In conclusion, the activity successfully prompted valuable reflections and discussions. However, in a longer session, I would begin with a group reading of one object, before transitioning to individual object analysis. This structured progression would support collective learning while fostering independent critical thinking.

References

Prown, J.D. (1982) ‘Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), pp. 1–19.

Posted on

Blog 1

Don’t try to be smarter than your design… Reflection on teaching practices for creative practitioners

Reflections on “Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017)

“Teaching practices for creative practitioners” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017), immediately resonated with my reflections on pedagogy after more than three years of teaching. Reading it felt like when you suspect your phone is listening because an ad or YouTube recommendation appears just after a conversation—reading this paper had that same uncanny relevance.

When I first joined the BA Product and Industrial Design course, I wanted to integrate opportunities to mirror professional practice and better prepare students pragmatically. My friends and I felt in some regard that our MA design course could have helped us develop mental frameworks and fundamental skills found ubiquitously in different design environments. I still believe this, but my perspective has become more nuanced. The ability to plan, think critically, and work collaboratively should be prioritised, but how do we help students make better decisions in their design work? The paper defines professionalism as “the ability to make the transition from higher education into practice… to evaluate their own work and behaviour in the context of a workplace environment and the demands of industry.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). Seeing this articulated in research reassures me about my contributions to the course and how I assess student learning.

Crits exercise critical thinking. We use crits on the course, but they are often muddled with tutorials, lacking structure. Crits should push students to defend their decisions critically—a skill that is only fully realised at summative assessments or interim concept pitches. These deadlines often trigger a last-minute rush in decision-making, but much of the process leading up to them is full of uncertainty and hesitation. In professional practice, decisiveness is crucial—you must make creative leaps and test assumptions rather than endlessly deliberate.

Despite crits being valuable, we do not do enough of them—not necessarily by choice, but due to logistical constraints. With over 100 students, parity becomes difficult, and elements like crits often get sacrificed.

Another gap is in how students reflect on development work… Many collect vast amounts of research, arranging it neatly across Miro boards or slides, yet active reflection and synthesis are often missing. Students conflate documentation with analysis, believing that compiling research demonstrates critical engagement. In reality, they delay synthesis, waiting for clarity before moving forward—this hesitation paralyses decision-making rather than helping it.

Dialogue is another challenge. Space limitations hinder informal discussions, preventing small moments of discourse that could spark new insights. Staff workloads and administrative demands further reduce opportunities to facilitate dialogue. How do we create time and resources to foster meaningful, spontaneous exchanges?

Material exploration and physical making is also in decline. Many students leave making until the final stages rather than integrating it into early decision-making. This reminds me of George Saunders’ reflection on writing:

“Every true novelist listens for that supra-personal wisdom, which explains why great novels are always a little more intelligent than their authors… The writer opens himself up to this ‘supra-personal wisdom’ by technical means. That’s what ‘craft’ is: a way to open ourselves up to the supra-personal wisdom within us.” (Saunders, 2016)

Scaling this down to design, there is wisdom in the act of making itself. My advice to students would be: “Don’t try to be smarter than your design.”

The concept of signature pedagogies acknowledges the tacit soft skills essential for professional life. This shift in my understanding has been significant—embedding these skills in teaching is as vital as technical proficiency. Teaching strategies suggest incorporating active practice into pedagogy, or developing practice within an academic framework where students are positioned on “the periphery of the community of practice” (Orr, 2017). In theory, this is ideal, but in practice, time constraints and mismatched course structures make it difficult. However, when possible, bringing vulnerability and transparency into pedagogy can be incredibly valuable for student learning.

Engaging in personal practice outside academia is another challenge—time, financial barriers, and even visa regulations create obstacles. Yet, the tension between education and professional practice is something I’ve wrestled with for years. Should we try to recreate the experience of practice within education? Or is that the wrong question? The paper articulates this tension well.

What I’ve settled on, for now, is that teaching should not attempt to simulate real-life practice but rather re-contextualise it. Decision-making, understanding design processes, applying methodologies, and articulating them across different challenges—this is the crux of what we should teach. The creative freedom of academia allows for knowledge creation unconstrained by industry pressures, and this should be valued rather than seen as a limitation.

Higher education is not just about curriculum-based learning; it is also about helping students discover their best, most confident, empathetic, and engaged selves. The paper reassures me that preparing students for the real world “is not solely the province of the tutor structuring learning activities.” (Orr & Shreeve, 2017). This recognition reminds me that our role as educators extends beyond skills training—it is about fostering ways of thinking, questioning, and engaging with the world.

References

Orr, S, & Shreeve, A (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum, Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [1 January 2024].

Saunders, G. (2016). A swim in a pond in the rain: in which four Russians give a master class on writing, reading, and life. London: Bloomsbury.