Reflection: Microteaching session
The microteaching session was planned around the mannequin to facilitate decoloniality through discussions on diversity and inclusivity. The aim of the session was to enable participants to consider the issues with current mannequins in terms of body proportions and standards, but in an organic and discussion-led format. I did not want to dictate the pace of the session or indeed lead the discussions, but rather to facilitate and guide the participants, so they could reach their own conclusions. I also hoped to produce a ‘wow’ moment (Hardie, 2015), hence the choice of a half-size mannequin.
While working as a curator at Historic Royal Palaces and British Museum, I used to lead similar sessions with student groups, where I would ask a series of questions about the objects on display to enable participants to engage with them and consider them through new perspectives. These sessions were usually well received and in general the discussions would take the course I had originally intended. Due to conservation restrictions, groups were never allowed to touch the objects on display, so I would become their hands, handling the objects according to their directions. As the microteaching would take place online, I anticipated a similar format, manipulating the object in front of the camera for the participants. I was also prepared with measuring tape, as I was sure the half-sized mannequin would entice questions about scale.
My teaching style tends to be informal, anecdotal and energetic (my enthusiasm has been noted throughout my curatorial and educational careers), so I started the session by sharing my personal issues in sourcing my object. I hoped this honesty and sharing would enable a sense of relatability and thus diminish any notion of hierarchy between us. Students tend to respond well to this feeling of approachability, especially in my role as Academic Support tutor for Fashion Communication. Unfortunately, the tenuous line between honesty and apology was crossed, and I fell back into my pattern of over apologising.
I introduced my session by explaining its aims to explore ideas of representation and meaning making. I also introduced the group to object analysis methodologies which I had used in my own practice and had found useful. However, I forgot to include the sources of such methodologies (Fleming, 1974; Prown, 1982). In my classes, I always caption images or quotations, and usually provide a separate reference list with the sources consulted/explored and suggestions for further independent learning. It did not cross my mind to produce one for the microteaching exercise, which was an issue. Nevertheless, the guidelines on the screen served as the blueprint for the session and were added to the chat so they could be consulted during the exercise.
I explained the format of the session, in which we would work together as a group in our examinations, deductions, interpretations and discussions. As the session progressed, I continually asked the participants how they wanted to proceed, for instance:
Would you like me to turn my guideline off, so my image is larger in your screen?
What would you like to see next?
Would you like me to measure it?
Why do you think it this is the case?
These questions, and seemingly opened format were designed to create a sense of agency and engagement, especially in the context of online learning.
An important aspect that participants noticed was the size of the mannequin, which I would argue produced the desired ‘wow moment’ (Hardie, 2015). Both Alex and Steph mentioned their surprise, as they were familiar with the full-size version but had never encountered one on that scale.
This surprise led seamlessly to the second step in the methodology, where we deduce the function of the object. Alex’s own professional background and experiences in filmmaking enabled him to correctly deduce that this scaled mannequin could be used for experiments, in order to save materials. Prompted by my questions, we also considered terminologies: Steph (and I) called my object ‘mannequin’, however, Kirsty thought mannequins needed to have limbs (like in shopping windows) – her Scottish term was ‘dolly’.
After a couple more unnecessary apologies, we progressed to the final stage, which is interpretation. Kirsty mentioned:
I’m quite, alarmed is the wrong word, calico is naturally white, but it is interesting that it is white and not for another skin tone. It is also interesting that it has a waist, a hip, and a bust, so it’s obviously female. To me in terms of the interpretation, the representation of a white female. It doesn’t seem pliable or changeable or moveable. It is what it is.
I was pleased with Kirsty’s remarks, as they enabled me to guide the discussions to my intended direction. I followed with questions:
The colour white: what does it say about what we understand as being the typical body, when creating Western fashion?
The shape: the size of the bust, the size of the waist in comparison to the hips. How many people fit these proportions?
Female: does all females have this particular body shape? What about different types of gender? What about people that weren’t born with a female body but are now female?
If we were to create clothes on this form, what kind of bodies are those clothes dressing?
What is your emotional response to it?
This is the type of mannequins the students use every day. How do you feel about us teaching fashion and using this kind of tool?
Alex replied how it felt
inherently problematic. I wonder whether the manufacturer does create varying shaped bodies or with elements of variation or difference. I also wonder how they derived that form. What was the anthropometric data that fed in to create this form and why is it proportioned that way? Why is it perpetuated? I would be very interested to know the context around the data or the decision or the motivation. It feels almost generic but not, in any way, a personality. It feels very neutral and unrealistic, void of any character.
Taking Alex’s questions further, I ask us to consider:
Who were the manufacturers, where were they based, how would they compare to makers in Brazil or Japan?
How about different periods?
We also discussed how bodies have changed in history, because of dietaries, exercise, lifestyles. Kirsty felt the discussions
‘touched a nerve for me, because it is something I feel passionate about. How women’s bodies across the globe, even within Europe, are represented by that mannequin in terms of this perfection. And also, if you look at the diet of Western women to Asian women to Far East Asian women, and people who identify as women, does that represent who they are? And life changes that have gone through, all sorts of things. What a brilliant point for discussion!’
Feedback was mostly positive. Rachel commended my dynamism and ability to hold a whole session around this single object. Initially, Kirsty felt uncomfortable with the opened structure, however as the session progressed, felt more at ease. She mentioned my confidence and listening ability but pointed out the unnecessary apologies. Rachel further noted the difference between honesty (necessary) and apologetic narrative.
In our first workshop as a group, Hunter mentioned the issues with PowerPoint, and since then I have been consciously trying different formats. We had also had conversations about decoloniality/inclusivity, so I was please to read in the chat:
Steph and Alex both noted my aim to allow the discussions to evolve organically, but to gently guide them towards specific subjects:
Good balance of opening it up but then guiding us when we floundered! Not overpowering with direction. You introduced the theories, but then let us interpret them and guided us into asking, digging deeper into the meaning, which I thought it was good, because it was less prescribed but still structured. (Steph)
I feel it’s an object I encountered throughout my life – my mum used to have one in her studio. It felt familiar, but it was really nice how you helped us deconstruct the object and our preconceived ideas. I found the questioning at the start to be nice to take away my initial reactions and try to think differently about it. I found as the discussion evolved, it made me quite uncomfortable in a nice challenging way. I felt things we took at face value to look through a much more critical and interesting lens. The way that you guided us through that was really great! I felt, not led, but brought down onto this path that was very uncomfortable. (Alex)
Watching back the recording, I was pleased with how I was always handling my object and having it in the centre of the screen throughout the session, taking centre stage.
As discussions evolved, we were constantly referring back to the object. Overall, I was deeply grateful for my peers’ enthusiastic engagement with my session and their positive and constructive feedback. I feel the session’s development met the anticipated format and its aims were successfully met. Moving forwards, I will be more mindful of my apologetic tendencies and will ensure references are clearly communicated and shared (always).
References:
Fleming, E. (1974) Artifact Study: A Proposed Model. Winterthur Portfolio, vol.9, pp.153-173.
Hardie, K. (2015) Innovative Pedagogies Series: Wow: The power of objects in object-based learning and teaching. Heslington: Higher Education Academy.
Evans, C. (2021) Capturing the Ghost: Technologies of the Body, from Mannequins to Movement. In: O’Neill, A. (ed.) Exploding Fashion: Making, Unmaking and Remaking Twentieth-Century Fashion. Tielt: Lannoo.
Prown, J. (1982) Mind and Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method. Winterthur Portfolio, vol.17, pp.1-19.
Associated blog posts: