TPP. Microteaching Session. Digital Literacy.

mMicroTeaching Session. 07^th February 2024. Online via Teams.
Facilitator. Rachel Marsden.
Attendees. Billy, Luke, Samuel and Myself. Order. Samuel, Luke, Billy, Myself.

Two sessions were provided for the group to choose from.
Session One. Ethics using Object Based Learning. A Microteaching session adapted from a session previously run onsite with 200 students.
Session Two. Digital Literacy. A new session designed to discuss digital literacy, by utilising digital literacy around Object Based Learning.


Option One. Ethics using Object Based Learning.


Option Two. Digital Literacy.

Session Two was chosen unanimously by the group.

Timed.

Full Session.


MIRO Link: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVNwKTBYE=/

Decisions Made.
I wanted this session to be an open discourse with peers, with me being the facilitator of the session but not the gatekeep of knowledge or answers. We practice critical pedagogy on the MA Design for Art Direction course and I wanted this to follow that approach here. The session was about generating shared knowledge together through democratic decisions and open discussions. I wanted to tone to be informal and inclusive, I think this was achieved by the tone I set and by asking people to leave their mics on and engage openly.

What happened.
The session ran without any major issues or challenges. Using new digital platforms or different software can always provoke surprises, but fortunately this did not occur. Rachel, and the peer group were incredibly generous with their enthusiasm and engagement in the session which was key to it succeeding, without that, then it would not of been successful.

The only major challenge was the listed references on the MIROboard became obscured under an object. This was acknowledged in the session by myself, and for a traditional teaching session this would be fixed after and an email would be sent out to individuals to notify them of the fixed amendments.

Feedback Reflection.

The MIRObaord layout was designed to create an ease and clear direction for the presentation, which is reflected here in the feedback, this was a conscious decision and I am happy it was received well. I also appreciate Samuel acknowledging that it felt democratic which was another key aspiration of the session.

This was welcome feedback, as I the intention was for it to be a shared experience, and for it to be an open discussion with everyone contributing. Another comment Billy added was that they enjoyed being able to look at the object as we openly discussed it.

This comment was in regard to the direction of the conversation, but also the visual MIROboard. This is a positive in this context, but I also do think we need to be mindful of not manipulating discourses that should not be, to a direction or endpoint that we have a bias for.

3D Digital Object Chosen and discussed be the group.

Conclusion.
The session was a little meta in regard to it being a discussion around digital literacy while utilising and testing peoples digital literacy. I think I did a good job of supporting peoples practical digital literacy needs in these moments while provoking questions around theoretical digital literacy of objects and object based learning. I supported peoples needs quite simply by asking individuals comfort on the software to lend my experience, and trying to be aware of individuals different digital setups.

When lesson planning, I provide extra activities as a time contingency, but also to provide people an asynchronously opportunity to continue. By doing so in this session and not communicating this explicitly, it may have been perceived as optimistic in regard to time management. Everything that I wanted to accomplish in the session was done so. Moving forward this is something I need to reflect upon.

Overall I think the session went to plan and was successful, I really appreciated everyone’s generous participation.







Reference List.