July 4. Expert meeting at the GUM /
On July 4, Ghent University Museum welcomed a group of experts to inspire us with their work in the field of Object-Based Teaching, as well as providing us with their thoughts and feedback about our project goals.
The morning /
The morning was dedicated to sharing sessions. The expert presentations underscored the wide diversity and innovative drive in our field. Coming from very different backgrounds, the attendees seemed to find inspiration and common ground in each teaching practice that was presented.
// Knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied //
Dominique VERSCHELDE (GUM), a member of our project team, kicked off with a hands-on workshop on his teaching practice. Besides putting his on-site and digital methods of show, tell, and inquiry on display, he also proved the outcomes that Thomas KADOR (UCL) would present to us in his presentation. That is: teaching space matters and teaching with objects has a positive effect on the student's well-being.
Each presentation also prompted thoughts and feedback from our expert group. We invited all attendees to, at any time during the session, write them down on post-its and stick them on a board. The strategy proved to be extremely effective and productive in gathering the quintessential points for further discussion.
Maria NIKLAUS (University of Stuttgart) recounted her experience with 3D modeling and digitization, and also touched upon how oral history plays a role in contextualizing objects. Vanessa VAN 'T HOOGT (University of Groningen) illustrated how her research and teaching with objects focuses on the involvement of all the senses when 'meeting' an object. Further, Van 't Hoogt also encourages students to reflect on the social and emotional experiences that makers have and had when making objects. Not through thinking, but by having students reconstruct and make objects and ingredients (e.g. pigments) themselves, as well as the ingredients that are needed to make them, such as pigments. Roland WITTJE (Indian Institute of Technology, Madras) advocates the hands-on experience of understanding objects."For example, he asks students to pick objects apart, seeing and learning from what is inside. Wittje brings to the table a difficult question: if we have collections, why not touch them?
Michael MARKERT (Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena) invites his students to, within one demarcated collection, select their own object (for example, one item of glassware in a glass collection). By doing so, the students are not only focusing on one object but also have to reflect on the spatial context in which their object is stored and where it lives. René VAN BEEK (Allard Pierson Museum) uses archeological collections in teaching. He illustrated how knowledge changes the way people experience objects. The example he gave was that he asked students to handle a sculpture, before revealing that the object is fake. Van Beek also elaborated on the value of re-enactment (for example, pouring wine in a Greek drinking vessel), which - at the same time - again raises the dilemma that Wittje brought up: what can and can't you do with genuine collection items?
The practice of Polly LOHMANN (University of Heidelberg) highlights the importance of 'slow looking' and using new technologies to enhance our understanding of an object. Indeed, using digital technologies in slow looking and - Van Beek brought this up as well - enables us to zoom in, to see beyond the surface, and to see all sides, thus seeing things that we would normally not be able to see with our bare eyes. Her presentation also emphasised the importance of being flexible. Different student populations and different object groups ask for different approaches.
Before our lunch break, Ana RUIZ (University of Bristol) directed us to didactical models where the teacher becomes a facilitator and interlocutor. In other words, students can uncover knowledge about objects that are as yet undetermined. Indeed, what is our role as a teacher, how does it come together with the role of a curator, and how close can we get to the collections and the objects, in both the literal and figurative sense? And, how are the answers to these questions different for the on-site, hybrid, and digital settings? We went off to lunch with these and many more thoughts and questions in our minds … and - luckily for us - on post-its attached to the board.
The afternoon was dedicated to informing the expert group about the Erasmus+ project and to exchanging thoughts in a 'World Cafe'. The World Cafe consists of a set of standing tables, each with its own theme and moderators. The experts rotate and share their views at each table, while the moderators are tasked to bring the results of the discussions together on paper. Outcomes were diverse, and the takeaways will inspire the next steps in our project.
The afternoon /
The afternoon was dedicated to informing the expert group about the Erasmus+ project and to exchanging thoughts in a 'World Cafe'. The World Cafe consists of a set of standing tables, each with its own theme to discuss and moderators. The experts rotate and share their views at each table, while the moderators are tasked to bring the results of the discussions together on paper. Outcomes were diverse, and the takeaways will inspire the next steps in our project.
// Walking among three people,
I find my teacher among them //
Confucius
Things that were brought to the tables, regardless of theme: we need a sustainable and expandable online infrastructure to share good practices. Also, we reached a consensus on the fact that we need to acknowledge that with Object-Based Teaching, 'one size fits all' is the exception, not the rule. Therefore, moving forward in this project, we should stay away from prescriptive frameworks and focus on being a trustworthy hub for the exchange of knowledge.
Another aspect that kept returning to the table was the need to pay attention to all the actors involved in object-based teaching. Currently, the weight of our knowledge in this field is on the teacher's narrative. Very little is known about the student's side. Moreover, in many cases, object-based teaching involves other actors, most crucially the people involved in the curation, education, storing, and overseeing of the collections. The consensus amongst our attendees is that the whole process should be represented in the to-be-built hub, all actors included.
Further, all attendees agreed that teaching with objects can come with big investments of resources; in time, staffing, as well as in capital. That should not stop the field from continuing to advance into new methods and tooling. On the contrary, it should encourage us to make adequate assessments about the when, how, and why of teaching with objects; when it is good enough to do things online and low tech, and when we need the full breadth of on-site staff and facilities.
Many other points were brought forward during the World Cafe, which our project team mapped and discussed to enter the next phase of our project in a way that connects to realistic goals and concerns. Let us end with one that also brings us back to the morning program: all attendees believe that object-based teaching is something that deepens our understanding of objects and their makers; we also believe, without exception, that object-based teaching is fun, and that fun is an important and legitimate argument to encourage other colleagues to introduce this to their work as well - if not for the joy of teaching, then most certainly for the well-being and sense of fulfilment of students.