Today’s group session was focusing on individual micro teaching sessions we had to prepare in advance. Each member of the group had the opportunity to teach a brief, 20 minutes workshop or class surrounding an object or item we had to bring along. Some peers decided to work off a concept or idea, rather than presenting through an item.
As for my micro teaching session: I decide to experiment by taking a more pragmatic approach. In an attempt to teach tutees the technical concept of Manual Exposure in photography, my lecture made use of direct communication and a frontal teaching method by using the whiteboard. The biggest challenge was to work around the preconceived concept of hierarchy when teaching. By standing in front of tutees and lecturing in front of a white board, a sense of authority and expertise is subliminally being communicated. Setup, placement and orientation of tutees in relation to tutor implies directionality in both, presenting and communication. The focal point shifts away from the collective to the individual, effectively creating a center stage for the presenter. Furthermore, the abstract nature and complexities of digital technology risk the danger of disassociating and disengage a student body.
In order to counter act, both the perception of hierarchical teaching as well as the abstract nature of digital photography, I decided to actively allow and interweave humour, mistakes, malfunctioning and gamification throughout the session. Early on in my session I admitted to a mistake I’ve made when handing out my personal camera to the tutees. As I was trying to have tutees manually manipulate ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed in order to achieve a correct manual exposure, the camera was set on full automatic. This mistake was not planed or intended to take place, but organically provided an opportunity to introduce and legitimising the concept of making mistakes as well as lacking expertise. Within seconds, my role temporarily transformed from being a tutor with expertise to being a partaker and tutee myself, still making mistakes. This single incident broke open the barrier and boundaries of admitting that we all at times simply do not know. Furthermore, it also levelled the playing field, effectively recalibrating the presentation into a conversation, setting all tutees as well as myself back to square one. I personally viewed this event and occurrence as the inciting incident and outset for the journey into our session.
As mentioned above, I’ve decided to bring my personal photography camera along, representing not only an item but also allowing tutees to physically touch and interact. Both, Aperture and Shutter Speed are physically allocated and visible on the camera body / lens. However, altering the ISO required more in depth knowledge and understanding of the camera’s internal Menu. As time was limited and students kept passing along the camera after trying to take a photo using manual exposure, the focus of achieving the objective (taking a correctly exposed photograph) quickly shifted back to the presentation in exchange. However, as tutees were able to touch and feel the camera, the abstracted and presented content presented on the white board began to manifest. Handing the camera from one tutee to the next after potentially “failed” attempts of taking a photo, introduced an element of gamification. Furthermore, by sharing not only the device but some of the despair when interacting with the device, a sense of unity and joint effort was palpable in the room.
Eleni opened the sessions and brought us along a journey into the world of meta-cognition. By using a camera device or phone, we were asked to explore the space within the frame through several exercises. Eleni was bringing awareness to our subconscious in relation to meta-physical spaces and their cognition. What one person perceives as a subliminal, claustrophobic and synthetic space to navigate, another person perceives as liberating in reference, framing and constraint. Together with Kat, we explored several options to push, pull and stretch out the frame, challenging a confined space. We also tried to control the frame, space and its content by occupying as much of the frame’s space as physically feasible.
Peju introduced us into the world of hand knitting and textiles. She opened the class by remaining silent, as well as splitting the group in half. By handing out visual instructions printed out on paper, she enabled Group 1 to follow instructions whilst she remained mute. Knitting along in silence but partaking in the activity, Peju demonstrated effectively how a group of tutees will take on the responsibility of self learning and teaching through active collaboration amongst peers. By not verbally assisting students in the classroom but non-verbally accompanying them along their learning journey, a heightened sense of self awareness through active learning and participation organically spread throughout our group. Much in contrast to Group 2, who was verbally assisted and shown brief demonstrations of individual instructions. Tutees’ focus shifted away from self-responsibility and active learning, relegating their efforts to Peru as the tutor. An odd symbiosis and repetitiv cycle was noticeable between individual tutees and the tutor. In exchange for information through direct interaction, tutees began to work in isolation and direct contact with the tutor, rather than collaborating with their peers.
Kyinat was introducing the concept and idea of a single item or place representing our current state, persona and our history. Her micro teaching session was focusing on embracing our past by thinking of a single instance (physical or conceptual) representing our whole. Object, places and stories quickly began to reveal deeply personal insights tutees were comfortable sharing. As a group, tutees and tutors all at once, we felt comfortable and trusting with one another to indulge in this exercise. However, there might be further implications when exposing younger students to such a task and content. As students nowadays are often struggling with mental health, this exercise could potentially backfire and open a can of worms. Parameters would have to be set in place in order to guide a younger student body more closely, managing both anxiety and expectation.
Michiko took the micro teaching opportunity into a different direction, both conceptional as well as geographically. By introducing us to the concept of Tsukumogami, Michiko asked us to picture (and draw) an item set in 200 year’s time. What would the item look like? Would it still be “alive”? Where would the item be? What would its environment look like? Tsukumogami is the concept and idea of objects taking revenge on humans by not being able to disintegrate/naturally fade away/pass away/dissolve. As humans are fabricating and manufacturing all sorts of object in conjunction with a materialistic system and society, objects are not being consulted or asked if they’d like to exist. Assuming that any object manufactured has a life of its own (spiritually as well as physically), its lifespan will potentially exceed ours. As humans, we are biodegradable by nature and will organically disintegrate. However, most objects that are being manufactured these days are not biodegradable. Oil based plastics have a life up to 250 years once produced. Imagining that a majority of objects will exist on our planet well beyond ourselves, the idea of these objects trying to take revenge on us is not far fetched. As Michiko explained: Audible sounds and noises at night are an uncomfortable reminder of these objects having a life of their own, eluding to the great damage we have done (and still do) to this planet. A nightly parade of these objects serves as a stark reminder that their presence and deterrable soul will be haunting all of us alreayd now but certainly into the future.