Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
University of the Arts London

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2019)
'Libraries, Archives and Special Collections' special issue

Provocations

How inclusive is object-based learning?

Published 2019-06-21

  • Jenny Lelkes

Jenny Lelkes
London College of Fashion

Abstract

Already widely used across the historical and cultural sectors to engage audiences and visitors in different collections, object-based learning (OBL) is increasingly being adopted by librarians as a pedagogical practice to engage students in their special collections. This article calls into question the seemingly inclusive nature of two methodological approaches used at the London College of Fashion (LCF) Library (UAL) to teach introductory sessions to its special collections. It suggests ways OBL can be used as a tool to critique library collections.

Keywords

Object-based learning, Critical pedagogy, Inclusive pedagogy, Special collections, Academic libraries

HTML PDF

Supplementary File(s)

How to read an object

Author Biography

Jenny Lelkes

Jenny Lelkes is an Assistant Academic Support Librarian at the London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London. In addition to working with the library’s special collections, she supports fashion textiles, pattern cutting and garment technology undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as further education international students studying at the college. Jenny has pedagogical interests in information literacy, special collection librarianship and inclusive teaching and learning.

References

  1. Accardi, M. T. (2013) Feminist pedagogy for library instruction. Sacramento, California: Library Juice Press.
  2. Arts Students’ Union (no date) Liberating the curriculum. Available from: https://www.arts-su.com/campaigns/liberate (accessed 19th September 2018).
  3. Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. S. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. 4th ed., Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
  5. Chatterjee, H. J., Hannan, L. and Thomson, L. (2015) ‘An introduction to object-based learning and multisensory engagement’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 1-20.
  6. Downey, A. (2016) Critical information literacy: foundations, inspiration, and ideas. Sacramento, California: Library Juice Press.
  7. Freire, P. (2017) Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Classics.
  8. Hannan, L., Duhs, R. and Chatterjee, H. (2013) ‘Object-based learning: a powerful pedagogy for higher education’ in Boddington, A., Boys, J. and Speight, C. (eds.) (2013) Museums and higher education working together. Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 159-168.
  9. Hardie, K. (2015) ‘Engaging learners through engaging designs that enrich and energise learning and teaching’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 21-42.
  10. hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge.
  11. hooks, b. (2010) Teaching critical thinking: practical wisdom. New York and London: Routledge.
  12. Kahn, P. and O’Rourke, K. (2005) ‘Understanding enquiry-based learning (EBL)’ in Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I. and Fallon, J. (eds.) (2005) Handbook of enquiry and problem-based learning: Irish case studies and international perspectives. Galway: CELT, pp. 1-12.
  13. Meecham, P. (2015) ‘Talking about things: internationalisation of the curriculum through object-based learning’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 57-74.
  14. Mida, I. and Kim, A. (2015) The dress detective: a practical guide to object-based research in fashion. London: Bloomsbury.
  15. Neil, K. and Reid, K. (2011) ‘Accessing and decoding communities of cultural capital’ in Bhagat, D. and O’Neill, P. (eds.) (2011) Inclusive practices, inclusive pedagogies: learning from widening participation research in art and design education. UK: Publisher not identified. pp. 240-247.
  16. Pollak, D. (ed.) (2009) Neurodiversity in higher education: positive responses to specific learning differences. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
  17. Prown, J. D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), pp. 1-19.
  18. Smyth, J. (2011) Critical pedagogy for social justice. New York: Continuum.
  19. Steele, V. (1998) ‘A museum of fashion is more than a clothes-bag’, Fashion theory. 2(4), pp. 327-335, https://doi.org/10.2752/136270498779476109.
  20. Tiballi, A. (2015) ‘Engaging the past: haptics and object-based learning in multiple dimensions’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 75-98.
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  22. Willcocks, J. (2015) ‘The power of concrete experience: museum collections, touch and meaning making in art and design pedagogy’ in Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 43-56.