Reflecting on our first guest lecture on object-based learning, I was left intrigued on the concept. I had not heard of OBL prior to the session, but as a technical member of staff, my teaching methods almost always include objects per-say… However, the nature of that object almost always functions as a vessel for understanding how to practically make something. What was new for me, was the opportunity to look at OBL from a museum & archive perspective as illustrated by Dayna Tohidi (2026). The process made space to something that is somewhat of a privilege in my (and likely my colleagues) day-to-day teaching: Time.
It felt rather luxurious spending a prolonged period dissecting an object using Gillian Rose’s Critical Visual Analysis (2016). This method allowed us to really focus on what we could discern from the image ourselves, rather than be immediately spoon-fed information on the object itself and rushed into a learning outcome. Through this process, we were forced to actively engage with the image/object, stretching our imagination & investigative skills as a team, rather than attempting to take in information the traditional lecturer-listener style. (Gibbs 2015)
Using Rose’s Critical Visual Analysis (2016), we focussed on analysing the following points in Fig. 1 (Tohidi 2026)
- Production – Found most conversation stemmed from guessing how the boots were made.
- Image – This talking point often crossed over with production, comparison of the two images of the same object was most prevalent.
- Circulation – This point felt most difficult to discuss, with the least to say on the matter.
- Audience – Felt the shortest to discuss with not much delving into creative options.
Fig. 1 (Screenshot of slide outlining object to discuss)
Since there was a wide range of participants in my group, all from different backgrounds & with differing experiences, there was, proportionally, a wide range of understanding & hypotheses. For instance, one extrapolation referenced by a colleague was that of medieval fayres, whilst most others were influenced by the idea of the American-West. This was immediately interesting since hearing different perspectives from my peers was both enlightening & eye opening. As outlined by Tohidi (2026), one of the benefits found in OBL is: “Introducing students to new ideas and new ways of working & thinking.”
The whole process really made me wonder how I might implement this into my own teaching. As aforementioned, I indeed regularly use objects during teaching. However, to create an environment where there is no rush to move on to the next talking point, or to ensure a visceral outcome is completed would be the challenge.
Instead, to apply OBL in my teaching may not be about trying to align any of the frameworks into my workshops… But perhaps to actively make the time & space in these sessions to break the ice, warm students up, or create social connections before beginning the ‘core’ lesson plan? Thus, aiming to encourage deeper learning for the whole session (and future sessions) through collaborative conversations. After all, Gibbs (2015) notes that “social and collaborative learning leads to much better learning gains”. Additionally, Bamber & Jones’ (2015) references to collaborative learning support this idea:
- Students who are actively involved with peers […] – especially in learning activities – are more likely to learn, persist, and graduate. (Tinto, 2004: 8)
- Peers substantially influence how students spend their time and the meaning they make of their experiences […](Hu & Kuh 2002:570)
Going forward, I should like to experiment with OBL, delving into Prose’s Forensic Analysis to foster a co-operative peer-led learning environment. The first step:
Find the perfect object to test out my theory!
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.
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.
Hu, Sand Kuh, GD (2002) ‘Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics’, Research in Higher Education, 43: 5.
Rose, G. (2016) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. 4th edn. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Tinto, V (2004) Student Retention and Graduation: Facing the Truth, Living with the Consequences. Occasional Paper 1. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.
Tohidi, D. (2026) ‘Introduction to Object-based Learning’, Academic Practice Guest Lecture Series. Online: 21 January 2026.