I focused my microteaching session on an aspect of spatial design – thresholds. In architecture, thresholds might literally mean a doorway, but more often the term is used as part of architectural jargon to mark any transition from one spatial experience to another, like stepping inside from the outside or from a communal space to a private space. The term is also used for spaces between public and private spheres – a front garden is a threshold between the street and the home.

My main aims for choosing the topic:

1.     To share with the participants ways to consider their surrounding built environment and to draw attention to designed and thus challengeable aspects of it.

2. To challenge myself to teach an architectural notion simply, avoiding jargon and to learn from others’ perception of spatial design.

After starting with a brief explanation of thresholds and the aims of the session, I told the group that we will be using three doorways near the classroom as objects. Considering spatial design elements that affect their experience of transitioning from one space to another, I asked them to take 5 minutes to mark up everything they notice about these doorways. I explained that most of them might seem conventional but are nevertheless important to take account of. 

There were only a few of us left for my session and so two participants ended up working alone. This was fine, but looking back, doing the exercise in pairs or groups would’ve definitely evoked more noticing, discussion and learning for both myself (at this point I struggled with talking about these spaces in abstract terms and just saw “answers” clearly drawn out in front of me) as well as the participants.

We then took 5 minutes to go around all three doorways with the group to hear about everyone’s observations. The session ended with us back around the table looking at previously selected images of special, very deliberately designed thresholds. I asked everyone to identify devices that had been used to evoke certain perceptions in these cases and to find similarities between the spaces on the images and the very ordinary thresholds we observed.

My aim was that in having to take a close look at these doorways, the participants would start to notice the amount of designed elements and design decisions that make up spaces and surround them everywhere. During the group discussion most of the participants said the session led them to reflect on a number of their everyday thresholds, e.g. stepping onto the bus. I appreciated the participants noticed how this type of pro-active analysis encourages agency over designed spaces. I got feedback that participants became more mindful about their surroundings and that they appreciated the embodied dimension of the session.

To add some of my own:

• A more interestingly designed environment (e.g. CSM building) would benefit the observations and inspire further engagement with the theme.
• I didn’t quite manage to avoid jargon such as ‘design elements’ and ‘design devices’ and took it for granted that these terms are understood.
• I managed to hold myself back from speaking an awful lot myself and prompting too much, which is my usual way of handling nervousness or others’ silence.

The microteaching day made some of the benefits of object-based learning explicit to me, especially relating to the “power of wow” (as experienced in Joanne’s “Stop that!” plant session. My teaching of architecture already includes object-based aspects such as making of and engaging with models, asking students to bring material samples and found elements from project sites to studio. However, I never knew to set these into an object-based teaching framework and I was doubtful whether such activities made sense in the students’ tight learning and delivery schedules. I gained a lot of confidence in object-based methods from the workshop and I am already planning future sessions accordingly. I’m most excited about developing my teaching with bringing students in contact with real construction materials to encourage discussions of supply chains, labour, ecology and much else implicit in architecture.

Here are some immediate reflections I put down on the day:

• The day reminded me how tiring studying is and was, i.e. keeping alert and learning so much new takes a lot of energy. Even if fully enjoying it, I was exhausted by the end.
• Joanne’s computed plant really drove the “power of wow” idea home.
• I become antsy when a teacher talks about an object but hasn’t yet provided the rest of us with access to it, i.e. when there are objects of interest around that I am not yet allowed to touch or properly engage with. 
• I also get antsy during lengthy reflections which wander too far off from the actual activity or its central theme and might get too generic. I’ve found it suits me better to stick to a previously agreed programme and not diverge.
• Speaking plants are absolutely hilarious. The banana that says, “Hello” in a deep male voice still gives me nightmares to this day.
• Sarah Leontovitsch’s intense (many layers of activities within the short given period) and very well prepared session was best suitable for me. I liked going through precise activities quickly and being guided to an understanding of the main theme – alternative text. This type of very structured activity might not always be appropriate in my design studio teaching but it can certainly be implemented occasionally to cover some more precise topics and to bring in a change in tempo in the otherwise elongated individual design project development.
• I generally enjoyed more specific subjects/topics more within the microteaching format.

References:

Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative Pedagogies Series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching [online]. York: Higher Education Academy. Available from: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf [Accessed 20th March 2023].