Key decisions
I decided to design a playful, experimental microteach I am calling ‘The Costume Hat Game’. Part of this choice came from a desire to build on a similar activity that I had recently used in my teaching around the semiotics of costume – however this time, I would be using objects as stimuli in place of images. Materiality and embodied knowledge are core elements of costume practice, so the incorporation of OBL into this activity seems appropriate (Orr and Shreeve, 2017).
I chose four sensorial, colourful, performative objects which seemed ambiguous, but had some aesthetic connection to one another. These qualities were more important than the history of the objects themselves (about which I knew very little) because the aim was to provoke immediate, emotional, physical, extra-rational responses through interaction with these objects (Orgill and Willcocks, 2024). In-keeping with the hat based theme, all of these objects had some association with the head, or hair – both rich areas of costume semiotically.
Dynamic play (Vilhaur, 2010) and “the absurd and the carnivalesque” (Hall et al, 2012) are part of my toolkit as a creative practitioner, and developing identity as an educator, so the framework of a game felt suited for this experimental teaching space.
Aims and objectives for learners
– To notice and engage with personal extra-rational responses to objects.
– To notice and engage with the extra-rational responses of others to objects.
– To critically reflect on the differences between these responses, and on the semiotics of performative objects.
Time plan
1. Object engagement (/observing engagement) in 30 second intervals (approx. 5 mins)
2. Written responses (approx. 3 mins)
3. Guessing game playing in 1 minute intervals (approx. 5 mins)
4. Reflective discussion (approx. 7 mins)
What happened
The session ran roughly to the time. The group engaged with the objects slightly tentatively, but in some surprising and delightful ways. Some participants seemed more energised by the game playing than others. Reflections included comments on the ways in which the game made one think about others’ interpretation of objects, the perplexity and joy of the objects presented, and on the words that came up multiple times.
Feedback and reflections
Stephen reflected on the way in which the withholding of information about what the session would entail in totality made him feel uneasy. Although this was a deliberate choice, I wondered if more transparency would have enabled more present, enthusiastic engagement with the game.
Julia reflected on how the competitive element of the word based game made her feel uneasy, English being her second language. As a largely visual, physical, tactile practitioner who works with many students who are similarly inclined, or like Julia, speak English as a second language, I would like to develop my pedagogic toolkit to rely less on verbal communication.
This approach was beautifully exemplified in Tommy’s microteaching activity, which used the deliberate exclusion of physical senses alongside drawing, to explore objects and communicate.
(458 words)
References
Hall, C., Jones K., Sefton Green, J. and Thomson, P. (2012) The Signature Pedagogies Project: Final Report. Available at: www.creativetallis.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/2287089/signature_pedagogies_report_final_version_11.3.12.pdf (Accessed: 10th March 2024).
Orgill, G. and Willcocks, J. (2024) ‘How to…use objects to support learning and teaching’ [online seminar]. Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice: Theories, Policies and Practices. University of the Arts London. 24th January 2024.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2017) ‘Teaching practices for creative practitioners’. In Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (eds.) Art and design pedagogy in higher education: knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Milton: Taylor and Francis Group.
Vilhauer, M. (2010) Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other. Washington D.C.: Lexington Books.