My microteaching session
I based my object-centred microteaching session on a paper OS map. I wanted my students to reflect on the experience of using maps in both analogue and digital formats, and how each can offer different pros and cons to the end user. I also wanted to look into semiotics, through exploring the use of symbols on an OS map, their clarity, history, and current relevance, and also what symbols might be missing, in the students view.
I started off by offering a very brief history of OS (Ordnance Survey) maps, and asking the students whether they were familiar with these types of maps. There was a nice mixture of students in the room, some who had never seen or handled an OS map before, and others who were very familiar with them.
I then tasked each student with selecting a 2 x 2 square of the map. On a separate piece of paper, with coloured felt pens, I asked them to draw in isolation every graphical element on the map that they could see (e.g. roads of different colours, the outlines of buildings, any symbols, any other route line markers, or any other visual components at all, like contour lines, water, forest etc). I had originally planned to expand on this section by asking students to use these symbolic elements to create an abstract composition — this would have served as a fun, boundary pushing creative activity, taking familiar elements and making them into something new and unfamiliar — but I decided it was too off topic, and there was not enough time.
After this, I offered some brief space for reflection on how difficult or easy it was for them to understand the meaning of all the different elements on the map.
Then, I encouraged them collectively to identify any blue symbols they could see on the map, while I drew them quickly on a shared piece of paper. I had concealed the key, so the meaning of these symbols would remain obscured.
Once we felt we had comprehensively discovered all the symbols on the map, I facilitated a discussion — what do we think these symbols mean? Do they all have obvious meanings? Are there any symbols we would hope or expect to see which are missing from the map?
This took us to the end of the session — given more time, I would have asked the students to each design their own symbol which they felt represented a concept they felt was missing from the map.
My own reflections, and feedback from others
20 minutes certainly goes by fast! There were sections of the activity I would have liked to extend, and additional sections I had ideas for that I did not have time to deliver. I think I managed to carry off the exercise successfully without anything feeling too rushed (having had a teaching experience earlier in the week where things were very rushed, I was mindful of this!)
After the session I spoke with my colleague Ravin Raori (who teaches on BA Graphic Media Design, where I have also previously taught). He reflected that this session would have been a great fit for that course — and could quite easily have been extended and expanded to fill an hour, or even two. This kind of discussion of symbols and semiotics, as well as user experiences rooted in a tangible real world object would offer a rich space for exploration with a wide range of students, particularly those on our courses — Graphic Media Design and User Experience Design. (One other piece of feedback noted that it would have been nice to have time to design their own symbols, which was exactly what I would have done given more time, so I am glad that the exercise felt like it had quite a natural, logical progression on to further tasks).
I worry that the first section of the activity was not quite clear enough in terms of my instructions, as one or two members of the group initially misunderstood it. It may have been clearer if I had an accompanying slide, plus maybe an example or two, to show what I wanted. Some participants also noted that they felt that the purpose of the opening section was a little unclear, whereas the rest was much more obvious, which I would agree with. I could certainly work on slightly altering the opening activity, and offering more explanation of my own about what we were doing and why.
A couple of people also asked whether the ‘learning outcomes’ could have been made more explicit. Again, this is something I try and focus on in my sessions as a summary towards the end. One person highlighted that the slight mystery/ambiguity/’what’s coming next’ of the first activity was fun, and I agree. What I should have done was to leave more time at the end to reflect back what we might take away from the session, and indeed, I do try and do this during my longer class-based teaching, but it is certainly useful to be reminded of its importance. Generally, I like a class to go something like:
“Why are we doing this? It’s fun though…”
“Ohhh, I see, so we’re doing this next, that makes sense”
“Aha, now I understand why we did all of that, and what I have learned!”
I think that this framework keeps intrigue and engagement levels high. One of the other participants led into their microteaching session with a detailed explanation of what we were going to get out of it and what their aims and goals were, and for me that sort of took all the fun out of it.
One person fed back that the ‘end could have been longer’ (the discussion) and that they might have liked space for ‘more student voice’. I agree that there was not enough time for as much discussion as I would have liked. I am also mindful that I can be ‘a bit of a talker’, and need to make sure I make space for student voices. It was interesting to observe the sessions of my peers — one of whom in particular I did not feel included enough of their voice as tutor (I was left wanting more input, more context, more opinion from ‘the expert’) and another of whom included too much of their voice as tutor (not enough space for us to debate and input). I like to hope I struck a balance, but it’s highly possible I also strayed too far into the ‘too much of my voice’ realm!
One of my favourite pieces of feedback was the specific comment that they enjoyed the ‘gamification’ of the process of collaboratively searching for symbols on the map. Doing this part of the activity collectively (individuals collectively searching for and shouting out new symbols) had a treasure hunt like feel, and bought a little bit of energy to the room, of what was otherwise, as one participant described it ‘A relaxing time looking at a map’ (a piece of feedback I also liked). Trying to come up with these kinds of game-like, collaborative, action moments is an exciting part of developing sessions that maintain engagement throughout, with an ebb and flow of group and solo work, high and low energy activities, discussion, listening, and ‘doing’.
Other microteaching sessions
It was also a real pleasure to experience my fellow participants own microteaching sessions, and I learned a lot from all of them. There were some valuable reminders of the care that is required when dealing with sensitive areas. One session opened up the potential for challenging political conversations, but this was offered with sufficient framework and guard rails as for me to feel that most students would find it a safe and creative space to air their views. Another session asked students to disclose their thoughts and experiences of family from early childhood, in a way which I felt could be challenging for some students with more difficult family relationships. It also forced students to unexpectedly share what might have been quite a personal piece of work — an example of where ‘surprise’ and unexpected plot twists within a session could go awry. It is vital to always be mindful of where any topic could stray into sensitive areas, and allow space for students to explore these things in ways which are safe and guided, and have clear opt-outs.
One participant made use of VR technology in their session, and I very much appreciated their careful handling of this — making clear at the start that students were not obligated to partake, and being extremely explicit about whether it was okay to, for example, touch their heads, to adjust the headset. This kind of courtesy and respect should of course be a standard, but the care with which it was applied here, and the lack of assumption about what would be permitted was very well handled, I thought.