Kay Stables mentions in her paper ‘Heads on…Hands on…Hearts on’ (2000, p.6), “providing the collection and focusing the discussion onto technological concerns of materials, production and user needs, enabled children as young as five to engage in critical and evaluative thinking and to take this forward in their own designing’’. When talking about object handling in learning and teaching, Stables points out here that a handling collection stimulated ideas and analytical thinking in the minds of young children. Promoting this thinking is essential to the design and technology curriculum as it begins with initiating aspects of materials/source and sustainability, leading onto questions like, Why the objects were made? Who were they designed for? What was the need to create them? Where did they come from and where will go to? Object based learning starts to create an initial sense of curiosity and as Ken Robinson, 2016 explains his YouTube video ‘’What is creativity?’’, he highlights the importance of creativity in schools, where he breaks down the process into: Imagination: bringing a concept back into our minds through interoperating stimulus; Creativity: putting that ‘imagination’ to work and working towards an outcome; Innovation: Putting those ideas into practice through igniting every pupils creative potential (Robinson, 2016). ‘’Claxton, Lucas and Webster (2010:9), writing about embodied cognition within education wrote that ‘Handling materials and literally ‘’getting to grips’’ with problems allows us to see things and inform our understanding in ways that simply looking and thinking do not.’ ‘’ They suggest: Learning to be more practical which involves higher levels of thinking skills that learners would benefit from. The notion of active/object-based learning stimulating the minds of young children is also highlighted through authors Owen-Jackson, Claxton, Lucas and Webster (2013, p.71), where they mention the importance of such a pedagogy in relation to children’s evaluative and cognitive development. So, are we as educationists limiting our pupils’ rational thinking when we teach and expect the processing of information through a visual and passive means only? With such wide-ranging learning practices, should our classrooms not be involved in more learning that makes room for hands on experience and critical reflective thinking? Including those in a more inclusive learning environment where all our senses can be utilised for a richer learning experience?
When considering learning styles and methods of teaching, popular forms of active/object based learning methods are used as a pedagogy in the school environment. To name a few, there are demonstrations, group work, watching video-clips, the use of text-books and hands-on games/activities. These active/object based learning methods exist to cater all pupils and abilities in the classroom and to allow different learners to feel included. ‘’Any time one teaches from direct experience, students are able to approach the subject in the way that best suits them; the kinaesthetic-tactile students are able to handle and manipulate real objects or to move around as part of a stimulation.’’ And similarly, “Real objects are concrete, and some students need the concrete to learn.’’ Grant (1983, p.155 and p.173) emphasises in these two points, that through kinaesthetic learning and real objects, pupils can acquire information from their own body movement. Their muscles, tendons and joints create data that enables this learning experience to further grow and for them to make sense of the stimulus. This is extremely relevant in a design and technology classroom as this is where imagination grows generated from data collected through the body and executed into innovative designs.
This supports John Dewey’s theory (1983) of experimental learning and understanding through such methods of teaching, allowing a holistic view of pupil learning experiences, as well as taking into consideration assessment for learning when reflecting on successes and failures. Grant (1983, p.145) states, ‘’The learner is like a television set which can receive information on several channels. Usually, one channel comes in more clearly and more strongly than the others and the learner may come to rely on that channel as the primary means of learning and expression.’’ Object based learning provides this direct experience that enables the application as well as the acknowledgment of experimental learning styles for both the pupil and the teachers benefit.
On the other hand, Christodoulou (2014, p.101) states, ‘’..the most effective way of remembering something is to think about it.’’ To learn a concept, one must think about it to learn and to then apply it. She goes onto state that pupils should be taught they have the ability to solve real world problems but individually, avoiding teaching them that they can already solve those problems themselves, Christodoulou (2014, p.104). This type of learning method offers fewer avenues for differently skilled pupils to walk through and learn. Teachers as well as pupils need to be able to identify varied pupil learning styles to support and recognise pupil development and assessment also. When limited aspects of these are experienced, there leaves less confidence in the pupil-teacher relationship. This passive and theoretical type of learning promotes pupil disengagement, where pupils can only depend on fewer senses for them to be able to participate in lessons.
Teachers have a responsibility to engage pupils with ranging abilities as best as possible and active/object based learning is a route that assists the success of this, ‘’The tactile system involves receptors in the skin. When you run your fingers over a surface, your tactile system gives you information on texture, shape, and temperature.’’ Grant (1983, p.151) mentions the ‘tactile’ system introduces tangible abilities in retaining information. She explains the relevance of this sensory learning method in relation to how the rest of our body assists in acquiring different bits of information at one time. From a young age, children use their senses to establish characteristics and properties of an object, ‘’They handle a new object, look at it from all sides, listen to any sound it makes, smell it, and often put it in their mouths both to taste it and to explore it with their tongues.’’ Grant’s (1983, p.144) point here supports object based learning and stresses that this type of learning has been innate in pupils from their early years. Continuing the use of such learning and teaching in the design and technology classroom benefits pupils and supports their instinctive behaviour, as well as expanding their cognitive development.
It is crucial for structure to be present in the process of analysing objects and collaborative discussions in active/object based learning. This is seen in pivotable research from Jean Piaget’s four stages of development:
The Sensorimotor stage: where the learning takes place through touch and feel; The Pre-operational stage: where the ability to arrange objects logically starts to develops; The Concrete Operational stage: where the ability to think logically about objects and events starts to become structured and The Formal Operational Stage: where abstract thinking and verbal reasoning starts to develop. Bates (2016, p.48-49).
Piaget’s theory explains people learn differently in relation to their stage of cognitive development and argued that learning takes place through touch and feel and the rational arranging of objects, leading onto thinking about those objects in a more structured way for advanced verbal reasoning. When applying these theories in classroom settings, we can implement stimuli that will encourage the development of ideas through structured, guided thinking for pupils to consider and have learning and outcomes take place, tying in with the national curriculum. ‘’Investigation and discussion of the objects provide practise in oral language and stimulate questions and interests which may be used in future activities’’ Grant (1983, p.174) mentions here that concrete tangible example objects that pupils can relate to, expands pupil knowledge building a bigger picture for them through allowing critical discussion and investigation to take place, in addition to specific language and questions explored during initial handling of objects.
Museum visits/learning is another type of active/object based learning that provides a learning experience through all the senses as well as generating a direct link to the past (Fig. 1) from the object source. This learning creates stimulation in young minds about a concept, supporting the development of collaborative discussions as well as the promotion of further learning of museum visits. A recent workshop visit held at the V&A museum provided this rich learning experience through having a well thought out activity (Fig. 2), with instructions and a selection of objects (Fig. 3). This effective object based learning allowed the exploration of topics such as aesthetics, social impact and mechanisms which inspired individual responses and outcomes (Fig. 4), [which is not limited to adding more topics going forward, in or outside the classroom].
Although, Christodoulou (2014, p.101) states,
Consider the English lesson on Romeo and Juliet, which involves making puppets. This involves pupils spending time thinking about the mechanics of puppet-making. That is not to say that colouring in or the mechanics of puppet-making are unimportant. The problem is that the lesson was an English lesson that was supposed to be about Romeo and Juliet. If the aim of the lesson was to teach pupils how to make a puppet, it would have been a good lesson.
She states that active/object based learning fail in their objectives, that those activities take up time, are not cost-effective and leave pupils off topic for a substantial amount of time in the lesson, Christodoulou (2014, p.101). However, her reasons fail to acknowledge lessons require structure for learning to take place, as Watkins (2008, p.45) states, ‘’Active learning aims to promote: active engagement – with materials and resources, with ideas, and perhaps with other people’’. Organised lessons and demonstrations, structured through independent and practical activities, with relevant materials alongside group discussions, promotes desired learning amongst pupils, reiterating the provoking of critical thinking, imagination and creativity in the classroom. This view is supported through the works of education reformer John Dewey, (1938) who explained educator responsibilities include sourcing existing problems (within pupil capacity) for them to experience and to provoke learner curiosity. This enables future pupil participation in finding out more information in the creation of new concepts and creating a basis for future experiences and problems, (Bates, 2016). This theory supports design and technology lesson curriculum and object based learning as a ‘problem solving’ approach is encouraged to activate a sense of curiosity when objects are presented and when practical learning, such as group research projects are implemented.
In addition, active/object based learning is a stimulus in influencing design thinking, practice and making in the classroom. This is highlighted in the (Piaget, 1976) constructivism learning theory where people actively construct new skills and knowledge individually, through merging what they already know beside their own experiences (Martinez, 2016). Similar to the constructionism learning theory presented by Seymour Papert, 1986, which actually placed the constructivist theory into action and thus provided structure to the active/object based learning environment. ‘’Learning is often socially constructed. Talking and working with others is one of the best ways to cement new knowledge.’’ (Martinez, 2016). To put into action and to allow successful collaborative discussions to take place, it’s important to note what roles both teacher and pupil have and how much time both take up. When it is clear that there are multiple roles pupils are able to identify with, active/object based learning can bring to light various routes for pupil involvement. As educators, we aim to prepare pupils for the ‘real working world’ outside of educational buildings. We aim to inspire all pupils especially in the design and technology environment through inclusive learning, therefore acknowledging all pupils and their abilities is something we want to be successful in achieving. Piaget’s view’s encourages this approach as he states students’ diverse abilities are recognised and achieved in different environments. To construct meanings of learning and teaching, interdisciplinary learning should take place in schools for more widely skilled children (Piaget, 1976). As 21st century educationalists, we are aware of such diverse professions in our society that all involve various required skills therefore, implementing different approaches such as active/object based learning, e.g. collaborative research/presentations within the classroom, further pupil engagement is formed as pupils will take on roles within their groups. This type of multidisciplinary collaboration has been seen in recent decades through Biomimicry research industry, which has brought biologists and designers to work together to form more sustainable materials and designs for a more economical and sustainable environment. This highlights that aspects of design and technology are seen in all subjects and professions, therefore applying design thinking in all classroom subjects and practice through active/object based learning can have huge impact on future professions and inventions, beginning as soon as secondary school.
On the other hand, Partridge’s (10/07/1969) ‘Letters to the Editor’ (cited in Peel, R. (2014) states,
In July 1969, a letter sent to The Times … encouraged by schools advisers and inspectors and by education of officers, all trying to be ‘with it’, are imposing the adoption of so-called ‘progressive’ (I call them call them ‘digressive’) methods upon unwilling members of their staffs… there is not enough actual teaching and far too much messing about in many primary schools today, and at tremendous and wasteful expense.
Peel suggests here that progressive, active/object based learning is ‘digressive’ and that schools are just messing about wasting money. However, as educators, we are aware of the diverse skills applied to multi-disciplines/professions outside of the school environment and can use this knowledge to our advantage, implementing learning that actively involves pupils in the learning of a concept. This allows them to take on information via multidisciplinary roles within their groups for example, ‘project leader’ and managers covering ‘designer’, ‘resource’, ‘risk’ and ‘quality’ to name some. Knowing they will have to share it to the rest of the group/class, pupils will create an understanding in order to teach others, developing increased conceptual thinking and learning. ‘’Those who learn in order to teach show more intrinsic motivation, and demonstrate higher conceptual learning.’’ Watkins (2008, p.47) here supports the above view, which slightly shifts the ‘teaching’ dynamic from the ‘doing and teaching’ of the teacher, to the ‘doing and learning via teaching’ of the pupils.
It’s important to note that active/object based learning has specific time set out for the reflection and application of the learning experienced. It is true that the learning and teaching taking place through active/object based learning needs to be made sense of to make sure the learning is being retained. Watkins (2007, p.70) states, ‘’Indeed, classroom life can sometimes feel like ‘Do, Do, Do’ – and when you’ve finished that, do some more! We need to examine how the doing leads to learning.’’ Leading on from having structured lessons, it is essential for pupils to have reflection time on what was being asked from them, exploring the reasons behind it. This allows pupils to be able to transfer ideas on paper and to even have an increased ability in verbally explaining the doing aspects of the lesson, creating multi-skilled pupils.
On the other hand, Christodoulou, (2014, p.102) suggests, ‘’If you waste class time on tangential and distracting activities, then pupils will end up rote learning – and probably rote mislearning – the important knowledge and skills that they should have been taught meaningfully.’’ Her statement disapproves activities enabling digression of the task at hand, going onto mention how this learning becomes repetitive promoting incorrect learning. However, to have an understanding of the relationship between the learning and doing, the reflective/evaluative part of the lesson allows for pupil feedback to come to light and to be guided in the desired direction for the required learning to take place. Watkins (2008, p.45) explains, ‘’And how little classroom time is allocated to the reflection which is so necessary to convert the doing into learning.’’ For future lessons to have the correct impact in the classroom, sufficient time needs to be set aside for the learning to be processed and for lesson aims to be effectively led further whilst carrying out the design activities.
Planning and teaching specific (PARPA) lessons with active/object based learning as the main type of pedagogy in a design and technology class created an inclusive learning environment for pupils, during the week of 10/12/18. With an existing schools scheme of work based on creating individual board-games and characters, the implementation of a couple of lessons encouraging the benefit of object based learning was carried out. The objects presented to two Year 7 classes were chosen to encourage team work, discussion and risk taking, developed to take further into real life concerns under the following design brief: ‘’Create a Counter-Character Design for the Visually impaired/Blind Persons’’. The objects (Fig. 5) were: A transparent acrylic Sand-Timer, an ‘Iron’, ‘Shoe’, ‘Dog’ and ‘’Marge’’-The Simpsons’ monopoly Pewter characters, a HIPS ‘’PACMAN’’ and Car shaped counter, an acrylic ‘Pawn’ and ‘Dice’ counter/characters. In accompanying the national curriculum for design and technology, it is essential we create inclusive design for the world we live in, therefore the above objects were chosen to explore the enhancement of our tactile skills and understanding the problems visually impaired/the blind experience. Secondary aspects explored in the lesson considered the exploration of materials also, expanding pupil knowledge in this area as well.
Whilst carrying out the PARPA lessons through Piaget’s constructivism theory of object based learning, the year 7’s were able to have direct experience being ‘visually-impaired’, either through a blindfold or a ‘unidentified’ boxed object. This was an advantage of being able to carry out the PARPA lessons with two different Year 7 classes as I was able to trial the introducing of the objects through these alternative techniques. However, it did come to light that when the objects were bought out either way, pupils were very excited and started getting noisy and very quickly. The aspect of providing pupil roles under either a ‘blindfolded researcher’ or an ‘investigator’ was advantageous, as pupils really took to the identities knowing they will need to discuss and identify themselves as ‘experts’ to communicate findings back to the class, (a form of assessing pupil learning). This type of activity for pupils to handle objects prompted enthusiasm, enhancement of tactile skills and critical thinking about inclusive design through collaborative discussion in the classroom. It is key for pupils to have structure and not get fixated on the objects themselves, hence a worksheet/specific tasks were provided in both lessons to avoid them drifting off-task. However, it was found out that the instructions/literacy level covered in the lessons was very academically challenging and needed to be clearer and simplified as they were only Year 7’s. Through clarifying different learning objectives (taking into consideration differentiated tasks and abilities) at the start of the lesson, mini plenaries, an end of lesson plenary and pupil evaluations, assessment for learning was achieved and pupil learning identified. This highlights the importance of reflection and as Watkins (2007, p.70) mentions making sure the doing is converted into learning.
Through the PARPA lesson stimulus and handling of existing counter/character objects, materials exploration was executed within the lesson, creating another avenue of learning and application of literacy/subject specific terminology in a design and technology classroom. The pupil evaluations carried out at the end of the lessons showed pupils enjoyed the lessons and understood the reasons behind the tactile exploration of the objects as well as the learning of Braille. Jerome Bruner’s theory (1915) of teaching based on discovery reinforced the teaching and learning in the PARPA lessons, as the objects allowed pupils to find out aspects of the existing counter/characters through the guidance of the teacher, (Bates, 2016). The lesson objectives were successful due to organised exploration of topics and activities as well as reflecting on what was being learnt. Topics were retained through group discussion of personal experiences and created deeper connections within pupils, seen in pupil mood board designs and evaluations. As mentioned above, it’s clear how beneficial active/object-based learning is as a type of pedagogy in delivering design & technology. The former points have outlined both advantages and disadvantages of active/object based learning, however it should be noted the positive and effective influences active/object based learning and teaching has on all subjects, especially design and technology, therefore all educationalists should implement this pedagogy in their teaching.
Bibliography
Stables, K. (2000). Hands on… Heads on… Hearts on: The use of handling collections and product analysis as a strategy for resourcing design and technological activity. London. Goldsmiths, University of London, p.6.
youtube. (2018). Ken Robinson – What is creativity?. [Online Video]. 18 September 2017. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1c3M6upOXA. [Accessed: 31 December 2018].
Claxton, G. Lucas, B. and Webster. R, (2010). How the learning sciences could transform practical and vocational education. London, Edge Foundation, p. 9 as cited in Owen-Jackson, G. (2013). Debates in design and technology education. London: Routledge, p.71.
Grant, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-Sides Mind: A Guide to Right Brain/Left Brain Education. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, p. 155.
Grant, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-Sides Mind: A Guide to Right Brain/Left Brain Education. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, p. 173.
Grant, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-Sides Mind: A Guide to Right Brain/Left Brain Education. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, p. 145.
Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths about Education. The Curriculum Centre, Routledge; 1 edition. P. 101.
Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths about Education. The Curriculum Centre, Routledge; 1 edition. P. 104.
Grant, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-Sides Mind: A Guide to Right Brain/Left Brain Education. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, p. 155.
Grant, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-Sides Mind: A Guide to Right Brain/Left Brain Education. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, p. 144.
Bates, B. (2016). Learning Theories Simplified. London, EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.48-49.
Grant, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-Sides Mind: A Guide to Right Brain/Left Brain Education. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, p. 174.
Lifestudyacuk. 2018. Lifestudyacuk. [Online]. [31 December 2018]. Available from: https://www.lifestudy.ac.uk/museums/learning-resources/object-based-learning
Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths about Education. The Curriculum Centre, Routledge; 1 edition. P. 101.
Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths about Education. The Curriculum Centre, Routledge; 1 edition. P. 101.
Watkins, C. (2008). Active learning is better learning. Managing Schools Today, [online] (November/December), p.45. Available at: http://www.excellenceeast.org.uk/uploads/Articles/2010/Mar/Watkins092active.pdf [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
Bates, B. (2016). Learning Theories Simplified. London, EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.18-19.
MARTINEZ, S. (2016). INVENT TO LEARN. Torrance, California, United States: CONSTRUCTING MODERN KNOWL, p.13.
Peel, R. (2014). Progressively Worse The burden of bad ideas in British schools. London: Civitas, p. 32.
Watkins, C. (2008). Active learning is better learning. Managing Schools Today, [online] (November/December), p.47. Available at: http://www.excellenceeast.org.uk/uploads/Articles/2010/Mar/Watkins092active.pdf [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths about Education. The Curriculum Centre, Routledge; 1 edition. P. 102.
Watkins, C. (2008). Active learning is better learning. Managing Schools Today, [online] (November/December), p.45. Available at: http://www.excellenceeast.org.uk/uploads/Articles/2010/Mar/Watkins092active.pdf [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
Watkins, C., Carnell, E. and Lodge, C. (2007). Effective learning in classrooms. London: Paul Chapman, p.70.
Bates, B. (2016). Learning Theories Simplified. London, EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.54-55.