Introduction: On February 3rd, I delivered a microteaching session to peers on the PgCert. This text discusses my planning and delivery, the feedback I received and my reflections.
Session aim: To test strategies for teaching tacit knowledge. Specifically, whether clay can be used as a proxy for building tacit knowledge pertaining to copper. (Copper and clay behave similarly under pressure, however clay is more classroom friendly). This is part of a larger exploration of Object Based Learning and Hardie’s assertion that “objects can provide unique and effective learning experiences when placed physically in the hand of learners’”(Hardie, 2015, p. 4).
Session plan:
(2 mins) Set up room and objects (a clay disk for each ‘student’ and a copper bowl made by sinking).
(5 mins) Share session aims. Draw attention to the copper bowl and invite ‘students’ to handle it. Contextualise and support their engagement with questions.
(10 mins) Ask ‘students’ to apply pressure in concentric circles to their clay to form a bowl. This mimics the process of sinking copper. Guide learning with questions. Centre their experience of making and connect it to the session themes.
(3 mins) Conclude by testing the hypothesis: does working with clay give a better understanding of working with copper?
Session description: I rearranged the room, so we were seated around one table. This helped facilitate warmth, discussion and reciprocal learning. As Gibb’s observes it is “crucial to establish an appropriate emotional tone for learners: one which is safe and supportive, and which encourages learners to value their own experience and to trust themselves to draw conclusions”. (Gibbs, 2008, p.19, cited in Hardie, 2015 p. 19). I also set up the objects – a clay disk for each person and a copper bowl. ‘Students’ were asked to engage with the materials as per the session plan. My teaching method is Socratic, and I used questions throughout to support engagement and learning.
Feedback: Feedback was very positive. Participants described the session as “therapeutic” and said sharing a table created a feeling of “togetherness” strengthened by my participation in the task. Furthermore, working together enabled everyone to build confidence and have fun making. Everyone agreed handling material directly is important for gaining tacit knowledge. Also, talking while making helps to draws out learning that extends beyond the immediate task. There was a useful question around scalability, specifically whether this task would work with a larger group.
Reflecting on feedback: Feedback confirms an inter-material approach can be used to teach tacit knowledge.
I will test scalability with a group of 36 students in May. Scaling up requires students to be more autonomous which contradicts my current Socratic teacher-led approach. This is something I will need to be mindful of, as Gibbs observes “an unstructured discussion can often turn into a rambling sequence of anecdotes” (Gibbs, 2008, p. 48, cited in Hardie, 2015, p. 6). Hardie similarly describes unstructured, student-led discussion as a “higher risk activity for a teacher” (Bonwell, n.d., p. 7, cited in Hardie, 2015, p. 19). To mitigate risk, I will do a briefing beforehand and give students questions to use as prompts during the task.
References:
Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching, Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/kirsten_hardie_final_1568037367.pdf (Accessed: 10th March 2025)
.
