My microteaching session was developed around the platform iNaturalist, but that was not my object. After introducing my practice in the Grow Lab and the platform itself, I invited participants to each choose a location that held a strong nature-related memory and navigate there virtually. This was based on the emotional reading of an object framework presented by Dayna Tohidi in her lecture.* I offered some prompts for reflection and then invited people to share their perceptions and findings. The session was well received and I got generous feedback on it.
The whole experience was quite interesting to me. I found myself reflecting deeply about the concept of objects in the context of digital teaching and learning—what counts as a real object versus a representation, and how I could propose a real location digitally as an object for learning.
Object-based learning reminded me of a concept I had learned a while ago: codification, from the pedagogue Paulo Freire (1974). In OBL, artifacts are facilitators of students’ learning, critical thinking, observation, and analytical skills through sensorial contact with an object. This holds similarities with Freire’s methods, in which a representation of an object—like a photo of a brick—becomes a codification of a real situation, also promoting learning, observation, reflection, and empowerment of the learner.
The concepts have their differences, but both use material items to prompt critical thinking and position the learner as an active subject in the construction of knowledge. Both also consider the learner’s experience with the object as central. I consider that my digital approach sits interestingly between both frameworks—offering a virtual experience of a real, emotionally significant place.
These reflections made me think about which other objects—palpable or not, real or represented—could be featured in activities in the lab. I’m particularly interested in exploring the different perceptions that arise from direct examination of an object versus representations of invisible phenomena. For example, how can the visibility of invisible organisms be explored? Maybe observing the biodiversity in supposedly sterile environments by observing what grows when materials become contaminated with unwanted organisms. Is the petri dish the object, or the invisible organisms, or the concept of contamination itself?
Object-based learning is a fantastic tool to teach about nature and the world. Everyone experiences nature and natural phenomena, makes observations, and forms deductions about why and how things are. Observation is therefore the basis for science. Then we take it into a lab with equipment like microscopes, and we can expand our direct observation to materials and beings that are invisible to the human eye. And then I start to think about the means for the observation, and how this also could be meaningful in the construction of meaning by the observers. I don’t have many conclusions, just some hypothesis and plans for some… experiments.
References
Freire, P. (1974) Pedagogia do oprimido. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
*Dayna mentioned that the Forensic framework is only applicable in an in-person environment. During the presentation, however, even understanding it correctly, I said it all backwards—as if the emotional reading was not suitable online, only in person. I got even more nervous when I realized, and just hoped no one noticed. That is why I am admitting it here in the footnote.