What: My session investigated the nature of objects and questioned whether object based learning should rely solely around pre-existing objects; their intersectional qualities of material, culture and science or whether there is (equally) value in the space and time we (participants) occupy and if that value could also be materialised as an object for learning.
How: I brought a Virtual Reality (VR) headset to the session. I gave each participant a unique seed word and asked them to reflect on what it means to them. One by one they painted a visual interpretation of their word in VR, adding to each other’s efforts and working collaboratively to create an object that embodies all of their words and interpretations. The participants leaned into their hand gestures and allowed their body movements to create the shape and form of the 3d (digital) object. This was followed by discussion and reflection.
Session Plan-
VR Activity – 15 min (2 minutes introduction + 1-2 minutes per participant)
Q/A and Reflection – 5 minutes
Why: I wanted to have a discussion around value and bias. Value pertains to the value of an object; its ephemeral and eternal qualities beyond its immediate materiality (Gurpinar, 2022). Bias here is used neutrally and refers to the subjective interpretation of the seed words through action. Does the object capture the biases of its makers and is that an inherent property that gives it further value?
Reflection: I received mostly positive comments for the session, which was validating as I feared having pushed the experimental nature of it too far. I believe keeping a simple core premise of making an object together is what engaged the participants and helped guide the discussion. The immediacy of our interactions and the way they were captured through the making of a (digital) object was what people enjoyed and I would like to introduce this further to students. There were some comments around considering the use of physical materials and this could be another great avenue to explore.
While participants were using the VR, I was live streaming what they were making so the others could watch, but some people felt this was an area I could make more interactive. I completely agree and I think this could be achieved with multiple headsets working concurrently in the same space. This wouldn’t have been possible in the time and technology constraints of the micro-teaching session, but definitely something to consider moving forward. People found my line of questioning interesting but hoped I could have managed the time better as one person spoke for too long and we didn’t have time to properly dive into the second question. I need to continue building on my facilitation skills, moving past the fear of being rude and allowing people to feel heard; while also ensuring the multiplicity of voices in the room.
Overall, the session was a wonderful opportunity to try something new and learn from the teaching practices of my colleagues. I enjoyed the subjective interpretations of the brief and the discussions that ensued. Sessions ranged from information design to historical antiquities to print media and spatial mapping. Opportunities like these allow me to appreciate the dialogue between my two roles as a teacher and a student, as well as allow them to inform each other (hopefully) for the better.
References:
Gurpinar, A., (2022). ‘Towards an object-oriented design ontology’ (from the DRS2022: Bilbao, Spain 25 June – 3 July 2022), DRS Conference Volumes. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.728
Avanzini, V. (2019) Sol LeWitt: Shaping the space between art and Architecture , XIBT Contemporary Art Magazine. Available at: https://www.xibtmagazine.com/2018/06/sol-lewitt-art-architecture/ (Accessed: 07 March 2024).