↝ pgcert notes ↝

[students] realize that these artifacts are in fact the result of much thought, iteration, and analysis; i.e., the design process. These products do not just “happen”. (Shepperd, 1992)

For my microteaching exercise, I chose to run a laptop disassembly task based on the e-waste workshops we run in the CCI. For the 20 minutes, participants were instructed to collaboratively take apart a scrap laptop as far as they could with provided tools, while discussing a set of three questions that prompted them to identify components, discuss standardisation, and identify different materials and manufacturing processes, inspired by Prown’s forensic analysis (Prown, 1980). Following a short risk assessment, I chose to remove the battery (due to fire risk), and advised participants to wash their hands after the activity.

Reflection

Overall, I thought this task was partly successful. The object became very compelling — it felt easy to involve everyone, all participants relayed that they found the task enjoyable. I was able to avoid talking entirely for the first part of the exercise, in which students correctly identified the laptop model and some components, though I helped later on to identify more obscure components.

The more critical feedback I recieved described the task as unstructured. This can also be an issue in the e-waste workshop — there’s a feeling of ‘now what’ once an object is disassembled, and guidance is required to make meaning from the scrap. Another participant reported that she would want to keep the freeform nature of the exercise, describing it as ‘learning through play’. To develop structure, it would be important to ‘scaffold’ learning () in order to maintain this sense of openness.

On reflection, the questions provided were too high-level and abstract, and the first question (around identification) was more than sufficient for the allotted time. This theme might have been better explored by drawing participants’ attention to specific components, rather than inviting general speculation. One potential task would be a ‘treasure hunt’ of different electrical connectors (which are a great example of standardisation), combined with short descriptions of their use. Connectors provide useful clues to the higher-level functionality of components, and so such a document could be used to inform exploration in a structured way, expanding the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ of the learners (Vygotsky, 1978).

Lastly, one participant said that they would appreciate more discussion of practical repair technique — while this was out of scope for the time period, it’s an important consideration for our longer e-waste workshops in the department, as it intersects with both sustainability and safety concerns.

References

Prown, J.D. (1980) ‘Style as evidence’, Winterthur Portfolio, 15(3), pp. 208–215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/495962.

Sheppard, S. D., 1992, “Mechanical Dissection: An Experience in How Things Work,” Engineering Education: Curriculum Innovation & Integration, Santa Barbara, CA, Jan. 6–10, pp. 1–8 Available at: http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/images/Dissection/dissphil.pdf

Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard university press.

I found the object-based learning lecture interesting for a few reasons. I’d slightly misunderstood what object-based learning was, and it was interesting to hear about different frameworks that got learners to do most of the talking in class. The one I was most drawn to Prown’s Forensic Analysis (Prown, 1980) — I enjoyed the materialist aspect of the analysis, and how rooted it is in the objects themselves, and I found it easier to relate to a technical context than the other examples.

One of the things I found surprising about it was the extent to which the frameworks and techniques didn’t immediately fit well with the teaching we do in the CCI, despite so much of our teaching having to do with objects. Prown specifically describes artistic objects as being distinct “from tools or mechanical devices” in being responsive to an analysis of form, and that “the configuration of a functional object… is almost completely determined by its purpose” (Prown, 1980).

Additionally, many technical objects operate at high levels of abstraction — packaged in standardised components that can make it very hard to discern functionality without higher level technical knowledge. Despite absolutely being cultural and social artefacts, analysing them in terms of outward appearance would miss a huge amount of potential information about what it actually is that they do in the world (that also forms a lot of their cultural/social function).

After thinking for a while, I could come up with a couple of examples from my own technical and teaching work that felt like they fit the broader technique (inquiry led mostly by questions/speculation from students rather than talking from staff). The first has a more material approach; the second takes a more science-and-technology studies focus, to understand a technical object in terms of its wider social implications.

E-waste workshop

The e-waste workshop is an annual workshop run by CCI technicians where we take apart electronic waste produced in the lab over the course of the year. This has included projectors, laptops, toasters, kettles, scanners and one huge iMac. The format of the workshop is that everyone — technicians, students — takes apart different items and asks each other questions about how they are made and how they work.

These questions bridge different technical areas — parts of physics, standards bureaucracy, manufacturing processes, supply chains, the politics of repair — that produce a way of looking at everyday technical objects. In some ways it’s almost an inverse of Prown’s approach — taking a contemporary object with which everyone is familiar, but finding questions that are less asked about it. Perhaps, reflecting on the original question, one of the ways to subject a technical object to this kind of learning technique is to take it apart.

Databases

For some teaching work I did at the CCI on open data, I came up with a list of questions to ask about databases, to help students think critically about them as social objects. These are partly inspired by Data Feminism (D’Ignazio and Klein, 2020), and partly from my own work on public access data provenance with the Knowledge Futures Group.

• Who made it?
• Who paid for it?
• What knowledge does it claim to represent? Is this accurate?
• Where does the information in it come from? Does the database tell you about this?
• How often is it updated? Who maintains it?
• Is there a record of the changes made? A version history?
• Am I able to challenge what’s in it? What’s the process for that?
• Is it accessible? Can I get a copy of it?
• Is the information in it legible? To whom?

These questions help to frame and situate the database as a social rather than a technical artefact — made by people, and subject to stylistic cultural and political decisions. It’s still not an exact match for something like Prown — by definition, most of these questions can’t be answered just by looking at databases themselves (and in fact many of these questions have non-answers, which are also indicative).

Reflections

I’d like to think more about how to combine these approaches, and explore them in the microteaching exercise. I’ve written elsewhere about my interest in the militarised aspects of technical development, though I think these histories can be hard to read from the objects themselves without some introduction — and I’m also really interested in teaching techniques which involve me talking less! I think combining some transfer of specialist knowledge with tools to scaffold students to do that is what I’m most interested in.

References

D’Ignazio, C. and Klein, L.F. (2020) Data feminism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Prown, J.D. (1980) ‘Style as evidence’, Winterthur Portfolio, 15(3), pp. 208–215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/495962.

This first workshop contained a discussion of different teaching case studies, and short readings from UAL’s Spark journal. The Spark pieces in particular I really enjoyed — there was something really satisfying about reading research on one’s immediate environment.

The specific reading I chose to focus on was Clare Sams’ article on technicians’ conceptions of their role (Sams, 2016), which used a combination of qualitative and quantitative method to provide a technicians’ account of their jobs. While many of the points discussed I found related to my own role, I found that the ending classification of technicians’ roles undercut these points somewhat. The classification (between supporter/helper/’quasi-teacher’) gave a picture of the role as subordinate to the development of students academically — this felt like a missed opportunity, given the emphasis in the rest of the article on the importance of specialised technical resources, particularly in programmes that combine technical and academic development.

I also read a couple of the supplementary readings. I found the (Gibbs, 2014) piece on learning gains particularly insightful. Having studied and worked as both a lecturer and technician in quite a broad range of UK and US institutions and departments, many of the conclusions synthesised in the paper reflect my own experiences.

One concept I was particularly interested in was the contrast between formative vs summative assessment as applied to the tutorial system at Oxford (Gibbs, 2014). I experienced a similar system as an undergraduate engineering student, where very large class sizes with complex technical material were complemented effectively by a regular small-group tutorials, which required a great deal of self directed work.

It’s interesting to compare this to the current status of the CCI, where class sizes have also increased markedly since I joined as staff (the maximum class size can run to 90 students). Both academic and technical staff provide opportunities for one-on-one (or two, three) tutorial support outside of classes, but these are not typically formalised or regularised. One difference I have noticed (compared to a few years ago) is how much less prepared students tend to be for one-on-one tutorials, and how much less underprepared students get from them as a result. I wonder about the use of ‘flipped classroom’ (Tucker, 2012) tactics — e.g. pointing students to relevant wiki pages or exercises before they attend tutorials — to encourage students to make the most of tutorials as a time for problem solving.

I’ve also observed the negative effects described by Gibbs of not paying part time staff to attend training or meet other staff members — both in my past experiences as adjunct faculty, and in present observations of technical teaching in the CCI. Students on courses relying on hourly paid staff to deliver core technical elements encounter a range of difficulties, including lack of knowledge of departmental resources, assignments that fit poorly with the rest of the curriculum, and occasionally severe safety issues, when departmental health and safety policy has not been known to or enforced by teaching staff.

In an attempt to address some of the latter issues, myself and my colleague Mayra have applied for funding to pay hourly paid staff to attend a Technical Teaching Working Group we are planning to run in the department. The aim of this is to improve student outcomes by sharing materials, while also supporting staff.

References

Gibbs, G., 2014. Maximising student learning gain. In A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 215-230). Routledge.

Sams, C., 2016. How do art and design technicians conceive of their role in higher education?. Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 1(2), pp.62-69.

Tucker, B., 2012. The flipped classroom. Education next, 12(1), pp.82-83.