3rd Micro teaching Reflection
I have always thought of Frankenstein’s monster as a very misunderstood character. Created by an eminent scientist who put it out there and then for various reasons turned his back on it and abdicated all responsibility when the intentions of the monster became interpreted as menacing because of how it was packaged. This is sometimes how I view academic conventions. Rules of academic engagement perceived of in the mists of time and left to wander the corridors of HE institutions, rifting ‘If I cannot inspire love I will cause fear’ Shelley, (1994, pp141).
One of the scariest manifestations of said conventions is the dissertation. This is especially true for neurodiverse students for whom the dissertation represents the communication of their ideas using methods that they find the most challenging or have been continuously told they are not very good at. Hence the fear factor. My job is to work with students to break down this fear. To encourage them to really examine why the task is so fearful After all research can be such a pleasurable pursuit when it’s not packaged as a monstrous task.
It was with this in mind that I chose a monster for the OBL activity. I was feeling very apprehensive as to whether using an object as a metaphor for a dissertation would translate. At first, I wrote an introduction providing context. Then after reading Hardie’s paper concluded that I should just present the object with a worksheet outlining some key questions. After the group had spent some time going through the questions, I revealed the true purpose of the object, which proved to be a bit of a revelation.
Reflecting on the exercise there are key moments that evidenced to me what worked and what didn’t and initial and further evaluation of these will enable me to improve on this activity when undertaking with my students. I’m not sure I would ask the participants to write down responses to the questions, although all reported that this exercise helped them to think more deeply about what the monster represented for them. Instead, I would facilitate more of a shared discussion. I would also encourage them to touch and handle the object as someone expressed interest in what material it was made from. The object itself elicited quite a visceral response. Opinions ranged from judging the object as more violent than monstery to thinking it was quite cool. Students will bring their own perspectives when asked to deconstruct the ‘monster’ and hopefully all will find redeeming qualities. Ethics came up, in a lighthearted way. How responsible was it to get students to carry out an exercise that asked them to access deep fears? Something to reflect on but facing our fears can be so liberating.
References
Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative pedagogies series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Higher Education Academy
Shelley, M. (1994) Frankenstein. London Penguin Books Ltd.
.