During my microteach session, I wanted to introduce a process which my peers may not necessarily be familiar with; oil paint making. Rather than using a tutor-led teaching approach through ‘usual’ lecture-style techniques, I chose to implement a facilitator-foreword approach, aiming to understand the process through analysing a glass-muller used for grinding paints (Fig. 1). Doing this let me implement theories and methodologies I had been learning over the course of the past weeks. Specifically, space for silence in the classroom (Harris, 2022), object-based learning (Tohidi, 2026) and student-led learning (Gibbs, 2015).
I chose to use one of the frameworks introduced to us by Dayhna Tohidi (2026) in our OBL guest lecture: Prown’s Forensic Analysis (1982). Prown’s methodology is “based on the proposition that artefacts are primary data for the study of material culture, and, therefore, they can be used actively as evidence rather than passively as illustration.” (1982, p.1) My goal was to speak as little as possible, but simultaneously facilitate a ‘safe’ space for students to discuss their thoughts without fear of being called out for being ‘wrong’. I teach oil paint making within my programme, but do not look critically at the objects that we use to teach the process. In removing the immediate and obvious purpose of the object (and hoping no one in the group would know what it was) my main goal was to pique curiosity & conversation in this session (see student notes in Appendix D). The ‘forensic’ aspect of looking at an object and having students dissect, deduce and hypothesise about its materiality, function, context & meaning interested me as a way to incite student self-sufficiency. Through pushing students to deeply examine a singular object, we might engage and encourage them to use their critical and analytical thinking hats (Fig. 2). Once they have done this process, a dual feeling of both contribution and understanding may be achieved.
After exploring each specific area of Prown’s Framework, (1982) mostly without interrupting or over-promoting, (other than the basic prompts in my presentation (see Appendix A,) I used reactive teaching to decide when to move the group along. I was fortunate (or perhaps attentive) enough to stick close to the timing I had planned for each slide (see timings in Appendix B). However, I did run out of time at the end, after opening up the conversation for a collective choice to be made on whether to learn the true function of the object (see session plan in Appendix B). Although all students agreed on wanting to know the purpose & context, I am aware that this could’ve been more difficult to handle, with possible differing answers.
Feedback & Reflections:
Below is a compilation of feedback from my peers, as well as personal reflections & responses.
- Students were especially interested by the choice of object. I see this as a sort of ‘unicorn’ of OBL… Would it be difficult to find another object so vague and conversation inducing as the glass muller?
- My choice of ‘minimal-intervention’ style was noted, allowing room for student-generated ideas. I did not try to fill any awkward silences, which we as educators often overcompensate to do. I was still attentively listening and ‘sense-checking’ on when to move the group along to the next part of the activity.
- Use of digital slides was praised for being a simple prompt for participants to remember discussion points, without me verbally repeating myself over & over.
- The silence in the context of students (rather than a microteach to teacher peers) may end up in lack of participation/ engagement. How would I tackle this? Perhaps I can include further structured prompts for disengaged students. Rather than overcrowding the slides, adding these as verbal prompts so they are not as heavily relied on.
- Conversation direction may skew to ‘groupthink’ (Fisher, 2022), where students are easily swayed & converge on a singular idea. In this case the item being a paperweight. Should I direct any ‘wrong’ answers or allow them to be fleshed out?
- Managing differing desires in outcome e.g. whether they would like to know the function of the object or not might require me to split the group so those who do not want to know leave with the prompts in my session plan & those who would like to know stay to see the final slides. My concern is this may cause divides and group discourse, in turn reducing the social aspect of learning. (Gibbs, 2015)
- To clarify my learning outcomes or goals to ensure students are clear. It was noted they can be intangible outcomes such as fostering conversation, relationship building, icebreaking etc. Using skills I developed in Workshop 2 (Kennedy & Aloysius, 2026) I used the ‘Learning Outcomes Framework’ (see Appendix C) to rewrite such LOs, drawing from the ‘Action Verbs and Domains of Learning’ Table (Fig. C1):
Alternative Learning Outcomes: (see previous LOs in Appendix C)
- To discuss the purpose and context of the artefact we are looking at today. (Comprehension)
- To compare hypothesises pertaining to the artefact with the group. (Analysis)
Finally, how might I integrate this session into my current teaching practice?
Rather than using this as a standalone session, it could be a practical icebreaker to begin a session, aiming to encourage more active participation during the process contextualisation and hands-on making. By adjusting the learning outcome(s) of this specific part of the session, I can make the end-goal & unit alignment clearer for students who may struggle with understanding the purpose of a workshop. Additionally, moving away from technical workshops being exclusively about building hard ‘making’ skills, but for discussion and critical-thinking skills whilst also building relationships across the class. Ultimately, fostering a cohesive & well-socialised group is referenced by both Bamber & Jones (2015), and Gibbs (2015) to increase overall student gains and enable inclusive learning.
Appendixes:
(Appendix A)
Session Powerpoint Deck:
(Appendix B)
Timed Session Plan:
(Appendix C)
Learning Outcomes:
Previous ‘Learning Outcomes’: (see Slide 2 in Appendix A)
This Workshop will Enable You –
- To understand the purpose of the artefact we are looking at today.
- To contextualise the artefact we are looking at today.
Learning Outcome Framework:
- Unambiguous action verb
- Object of the verb
- Context or Condition (Kennedy & Aloysius, 2026)
(Appendix D)
Student notes during session:
References:
Bamber, V. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘Challenging students: Enabling inclusive learning’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 152–166.
Fisher, C. (2022) Group-think AKA the group-thinking trap: What it means and how to avoid it, UCL News. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/opinion-group-think-aka-group-thinking-trap-what-it-means-and-how-avoid-it [Accessed: 18 February 2026].
Gibbs, G. (2015) ‘Maximising student learning gain’, in S. Marshall, H. Fry, and S. Ketteridge (eds.) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp. 193–207
Harris, K. (2022)‘Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5 (1), pp. 101–104.
Kennedy, C. and Aloysius, L. (2026) ‘Theories, Policies and Practice: Workshop 2’, PgCert in Academic Practice. London.
Prown, J.D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: An introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), pp. 1–19.
Tohidi, D. (2026) ‘Introduction to Object-based Learning’, Academic Practice Guest Lecture Series. Online: 21 January 2026.