For my 20-minute microteaching session using object-based learning (OBL), I wanted to combine some theory on crafting a fleshed-out character for long-form journalism with an activity. I have used this combination before in creative writing workshops with children and adults in multiple countries – India, the UK, Sweden. Since the English-language literature in these cultures follows similar literary norms, the activity has been relevant for different audiences. I conducted this activity for the first time as part of an academic curriculum last year at LCC for my BA Year 2 students. It was received well then too, but I wondered if I could push it further by bringing in OBL.
I was not aware of the OBL pedagogy or that I had already engaged with it before. In an Artist Residency at The University of Edinburgh Museums (SGSAH 2022) a few years ago, I was asked to create creative writing workshops and activities that would engage people with the Museums’ collections. These workshops were aimed at people with low-level mental health concerns. This happened during the first few stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, so all the workshops took place virtually, as did the OBL – the curators showed attendees the images of the objects or the objects themselves.
In my microteaching session, I wanted to handle the objects myself although the teaching was again delivered virtually. I chose not to have any slides, especially as UCL uses research data to discuss how students across disciplines ‘thought object-based learning was a more effective method of learning than a lecture or talk’ (UCL nd). As a self-proclaimed geek, I happened to have action figurines of some of my favourite fictional characters – serendipity! I held up the figurines of Deadpool (Marvel) and Chewbacca (Star Wars), turn by turn, and asked the attendees if the physicality of the characters indicated anything about their personas. I received apt responses that I engaged with.
Figure 1: Screenshot of MS Teams call showcasing my chosen object, a Deadpool bust, for microteaching activity on creating fleshed-out characters (Misra 2025)
I delivered a brief introduction to the concepts of the significance of characters in stories, and flat/cardboard/two-dimensional vs round/fleshed-out/three-dimensional characters. I referenced creative writing practitioners and scientific research. One feedback I received from the group was that I could have gone into more detail about these two kinds of characters and illustrate with some examples, which I have noted for future delivery. This ‘talk’ and OBL portion took about 5–7 minutes.
I then moved to the activity, which I wanted the attendees to spend the most time on. I directed the attendees to a Sandbox Padlet I had created for them to draw upon (or write words, if they didn’t feel comfortable drawing details) and gave them the option to use paper-and-pen. I had created an example to illustrate what I meant:
Figure 2: Example of the stick figure illustration on Sandbox Padlet for the microteaching activity (Misra 2025)
The attendees later mentioned that they liked having these choices as they catered to different proficiencies and comfort levels. All the attendees opted to use Sandbox. I took a minute to explain the simple draw-and-colour tools they would need for this activity and pointed the tools out on the browser, checking if the attendees had all understood. This eased the use of Sandbox, although it was almost everyone’s first time using it. In the activity, I discussed how our senses can be used to create round, well-thought-out characters and how we would use our senses of sight, sound, smell and touch. I provided prompts as everyone drew/wrote, giving them a minute or two before moving to the next sense.
We had about 5 minutes remaining, which was enough time for 1–2 attendees to share their characters and talk a bit about them. It was interesting to see people’s different approaches and them reflect upon their character-creation processes:
Figure 3: Screenshots of microteaching activity participants’ work
I validated each attendee’s process as the activity was open to interpretation and they were free to go a realistic vs fantastical route and choose what details to highlight. I also did this with the aim to build confidence.
Some other constructive feedback I received was that it would be helpful to clarify the learning objectives of this activity from the get-go so that the learning could be reinforced. Overall, the feedback was positive and the attendees said that they were engaged, enjoyed reading the objects, and the step-by-step instructions were helpful. One said they were curious about where this activity would lead – which I saw as a part of the clarifying-learning objectives-feedback, but I also took it positively that they were eager to continue learning.
This microteaching session reinforced my faith in this activity and helped me evolve it using OBL to apply my theoretical arguments. It was interesting to see how objects could be usefully brought in a writing unit, as it may not be the most intuitive method. OBL may be more frequently used in design courses [such as Hardie (2015) discusses] or engaging with museums’ collections [as seen in my residency experience or as UCL (nd) discusses] – but aided me in my text-focused unit too. The feedback was helpful, and I will adapt my delivery accordingly when I teach this unit in the next academic year.
References
Hardie, K (2015) ‘Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching’. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (Accessed 7 Feb 2025).
SGSAH (2022) ‘SGSAH Research: Sonali Misra’. Available at: https://sgsahresearch.com/portfolio/sonali-misra/ (Accessed 19 March 2025).
UCL (nd) ‘Teaching & Object-Based Learning’. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/schools/teaching-object-based-learning (Accessed 7 Feb 2025).