In selecting an object for my object-based teaching session, I went for an analogous item reflecting the adaptive nature of my teaching practice, and the ever-changing interpersonal requirements of every tutor/practitioner working through an unprecedented transition into online and blended learning.
I chose the watering can: a figurative and adaptive object, with a principled system of design dating back to the John Hawes patent of 1886 when on his British Colonial Service in Mauritius — British colonial government (defined as ‘service’) administered over the majority of what were termed as Britain’s overseas possessions.
As part of a broader interest in ethnography and political discourse, I was interested in the tension between the watering can as a symbol of nurture, after removing a plant from its natural environment and the inherent absence of nurture—and indeed violence—of the global colonial narrative. However, that latter point played no conscious part in my session delivery.
The session played out to varying degrees of success. I gave initial context to the session:
— Who you are (The personal + professional)
— How you nourish (Your methods + tools)
— Who you nourish (The needs of those you teach)
This was interspersed with a brief overview of the watering can as an invention. The aim of the session was to encourage the participants to consider themselves as a nourishing vessel, linking that to the specific needs of their proverbial plants (i.e. students).
Hawes’ flowery prose set out a warm tone that got slightly lost in my efforts to give structure rather than a sense of fascination to the session. The rich history of the item became unnecessarily intertwined with goal setting, which perhaps prevented the group participants from seeing themselves in the object and its nurturing capacity.
My cohort answered each of the three questions. Question 2, ‘How you nourish’ would have been more explanatory if it read ‘How you nourish others?’. Feedback ranged from the fact I was asking for them to consider a humanist approach to their teaching practice when their curriculum requirements did not always allow for that. The same student also thanked me for introducing these humanist considerations. My tutor appreciated the analogy but questioned the delivery. I believe me forcing the context may have influenced how the content or exercise was received.
Dr Kirsten Hardie in ‘Wow: The Power of Objects in object-based learning and teaching, speaks of a delivery method designed to invoke a ‘wow’ from the participants. I do not believe the ‘wow’ to be a necessary requirement of the creative process. The onus instead rests on the creative process, and a fascination with possibilities—that is to say, what can be created from this initial starting point and what might be required in order to produce a specific outcome?