Here, I reflect on the set reading by Judy Willcocks and Kieran Mahon (2023), which examined the potential of using object-based teaching approaches online. I know Willcocks because I take MA students to the CSM collections for object handling sessions. I am aware of material cultures research from my PhD (Prown, 1982; Miller, 1997). I also teach object analysis as a research method, supported by Moodle toolkits and texts such as The Dress Detective (Mida and Kim, 2015).
It was interesting to learn from the article how this session used an object to discuss the sensitive and complex topic of colonialism and its legacies, with a large group over two days. The interactive map on Padlet had some potential in my own teaching and was a feature I didn’t know about. However, some of my students recently expressed frustration with Padlet when used in conjunction with in-person teaching and it has been abandoned on a course I teach on.
I was impressed by the work the authors put in to organising such an event online for so many students. This was also a downside they acknowledged, highlighting the higher level of preparation needed for online activities. They made use of multiple available online tools. However, from my experience, this can become confusing and overwhelming for students as well as staff.
Karen Harris (2022) notes the pressures of in-person teaching for introverted learners, positing that online spaces offer a sense of control and reduce anxiety. Lee Leewis and Stacey Leigh Ross (2022) discuss the potential of Miro boards to create online spaces for continued learning outside designated teaching, allowing students to take ownership of discussion. They note that this is ‘like having a physical studio’ (Leewis and Leigh Ross, 2022, p. 77), implicitly understanding that online spaces can replicate aspects of real-life experience but not substitute it. This differs from Harris (2022) who advocates for the radical potential of online.
The appropriateness of online teaching and learning may depend to a large degree on what is being taught, for how long, on what courses and to what end. I personally find breakout rooms difficult to manage and have had sessions where student with cameras off are actually likely absent, so other students are left in digital rooms on their own. This is not the kind of silence I think Harris (2022) wants to embrace, while her focus on introverted learners is a reminder of the diverse needs in any cohort.
Willocks and Mahon (2023) used an analytical process proposed by Gillian Rose. This is a cornerstone of my teaching of visual analysis (Rose, 2016). While positioned as object-based learning, Willocks and Mahon (2023) used the object as a visual source. This differs from my experience of object-based learning and material cultures research, which stresses materiality and sensory experience.
Having returned to classrooms after the pandemic, in the type of teaching I engage with, I would not instigate taking such exercises online and integrating so many tools and exercises. Rather, online talks and materials could supplement in-person object handling sessions, group discussion and presentations. The advantages the authors found refer to the use of historical artefacts in understanding the topic, but this would be the same or increased for in-person learning. I am however, inspired by the use of a Padlet map, opportunities for creative group responses and the centring a difficult subject on a single object as a prompt.
Bibliography
Harris, K. (2022) ‘Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom’, UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1) pp. 101-104.
Leewis, L. and Leigh Ross, S. (2022) Home sweet home: achieving belonging and engagement in online learning spaces’, UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1), pp. 71-81.
Mida, I and Kim, A. (2015) The dress detective: a practical guide to object-based research in fashion. London: Bloomsbury.
Miller, D. (1997) Material cultures: why some things matter. London: UCL Press.
Prown, J. D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, Spring 17(1), pp. 1-19.
Rose, G. (2016) Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. 4th edn. London: Sage.
Willcocks, J. and Mahon, K. (2023) ‘The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 187-207.
UAL Research Methods Toolkit: Material Culture and Object Analysis: https://ual-moodle-sitedata.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/f7/78/f778c5f52bcec4187ae885daa25fff8d001bb5b4?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22MaterialCultureObjectAnalysis%20ToolKit.pdf%22&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA2PCH3OG65JHUZNKL%2F20250218%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20250218T100613Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21587&X-Amz-Signature=cacd45ec205258d284a083f6cf9ae2e2d4217d86747cea19820254321b5cd2e9