When I was planning this session, I had doubts about which object to choose. I had previously run a similar session in which the focus was on cocktails (or mocktails for those who don’t drink or dislike alcohol). For this session, I wanted to add a “world-changing” element. I decided to explore the topic, “How can a watch change the world?” I chose to study a watch because it is an object that is recognized cross-culturally, making it familiar to the audience regardless of whether they wear one.
I should note that the previous session felt lighter; the students laughed and chatted during the exercises. In contrast, this session was much more serious and, I believe, less engaging. I feel I need to find a balance between both approaches. Afterwards, I reflected that I might need to take off the pressure to add a social, world-changing topic to every session. Not all need to be about saving the world.
The session began with me distributing handouts with the activities and introducing the concept of creativity, the session’s objectives, and the rationale behind our exploration. I reminded them that they could choose to write or draw, depending on their preference. I then passed around a watch to help participants connect with the object and remind them of how it feels.
Before each exercise, I provided a brief explanation of the task and outlined its potential relevance in future scenarios. For one exercise, I included a segment from a TED Talk by Taika Waititi (Waititi 2010). The objective was to give an example of how other people have also used those exercises in their practice. Unfortunately, the video became a point of contention for two reasons: I couldn’t manage to add subtitles, which left a participant with a hearing disability unable to hear it, and secondly, because the example he gave on ‘Divergent Thinking’ (Runco 2011) was a project he did on his two passions, Rugby and babies. He reimagined rugby as if babies were the ball. which was perceived as difficult to interpret and could be taken literally, particularly by neurodiverse individuals. And open the debate on adding humour can be polemic because of the different types of it. While I didn’t add it for humour, it was someone’s work. I understand that it might not have been the best choice. This is something I will take into consideration for future sessions. Now I am curious to do more research on the actual role of humour in teaching environments.
Overall, the feedback from the session was positive. Participants appreciated having the option to draw their ideas as well as write them, acknowledging that not everyone thinks in the same way. The design of the exercises and handouts was well-received, as they can be revisited multiple times, allowing for a circular approach to processing various ideas. The first exercise, which required participants to write down their distractions, got positive feedback, along with a suggestion to link it to ‘divergent thinking’ as an additional strategy for generating ideas. Another suggestion that I will take into consideration.
References
Banas, J.A., Dunbar, N., Rodriguez, D. and Liu, S.J. (2011) ‘A review of humor in educational settings: Four decades of research’, Communication Education, 60(1), pp. 115–144. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03634523.2010.496867
Runco, M.A. (2011) ‘Divergent Thinking’, in Runco, M.A. and Pritzker, S.R. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity. 2nd edn. San Diego: Academic Press
Pulapaka, S. (2024) ‘Humour as a teaching tool in higher education’, Advance HE, 30 August. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/humour-teaching-tool-higher-education-0
Waititi, T. (2010) The Art of Creativity | Taika Waititi | TEDxDoha. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL71KhNmnls