I am clear about the workshop I designed and ran for my MA Fashion Artefact students last term, and now reflect on the part of the intervention I should focus this blog post on. As I analyse there are several interventions that could be discussed: designing the workshop, creating the resources, collaboration with technical staff, running the workshop and dialogue with students. All these are interventions coming from within the experience of the ‘Emotional Toolbox Workshop’ creation. I cannot in this post reflect in depth on all parts and results of the workshop, so will focus on the significance of dialogue, experience, and transformation.
“Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist, and a new term emerges teacher-student with students-teachers. The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach”
(Freire, 1970, p. 80).
THE ‘EMOTIONAL TOOLBOX WORKSHOP’
The Phurba dagger seen here was designed to symbolically consume the triple poisons of ignorance, greed, and delusion that impede spiritual progress. The Phurba is the embodiment of the Vajra Kila Buddha, who is empowered to suppress all evil in the world. Image source: Ritual Dagger (Phurba) and Stand, Tibet, late 14th-earrly 15th Century – The Met Museum, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/75826
In this two-day experiential workshop, I aimed to explore the potential of making tools that encouraged emotional communication, and to build knowledge through ‘a transformative experience’ (Kolb, 1984, p.38). This artefact is called ‘The Emotional Toolbox Workshop’, inspired by Dewey’s foundation of experiential learning (Dewey,1938), and engages a reflective approach to design an inclusive ‘experiential’ activity. I am aware of the language inequality within my cohort – while students have access to language support at UAL, the onus to study and become culturally ‘competent’‘ is placed on the student – I aimed to mitigate this onus and offer a diverse and inclusive learning activity for all participants, by providing culturally relevant resources well in advance: (Ladson-Billings, 1995); (Banks 2007). My intention was to spark dialogic interaction, not conversation (Alexander, 2008); (Skidmore, 2000) but instead purposeful interaction in which participants (staff and students) would co-construct meaning. As noted by Engin (2016), Mercer (2000) uses the term “exploratory talk” to define the purposeful dialogue among students in which they make their reasoning visible. (Engin, 2016)’
I draw on my positionality as a neurodiverse person with acute sensory issues, challenged by accessing words or following conversational threads when overwhelmed by excessive noise. This I view as an aligned disadvantage experienced by some SLA (second language acquisition) students. I am a white woman, in my 50’s and do not ‘look like’ my students, this could be viewed as a disadvantage to my students, (as discussed by CSM tutor David Cappa and former student Sandra Poulson). I took the onus as workshop lead to respond to all cultural differences. I acknowledge ‘Reimagining Conversations with Multilingual Students’ the research project of Dr. Victoria Odeniyi examining interaction with international students and the educational potential of the use of language at UAL. I view my positionality as an English speaker, a boundary, that may create ‘perceived’ hierarchical structure, presenting as communication hurdle in the teaching space.
Language communication with SLA students is a predominant problem in my teaching practise, and while conversation is critical through (English) language, this is not always comfortable for students, or the neurodivergent brain. Therefore, to create an intervention that allowed me to be ‘seen’ in a different way, and to share something I use in my own creative practise – emotional connection – I placed myself in a vulnerable position, to engage in learning alongside the students. As previously outlined in my intervention proposal, I was inspired by educator Atima Joshi’s engagement with the ‘Pedagogy of Listening’ (Contentment Foundation, online, 2024), so a critical part of this intervention process was to first listen to myself.
“Honestly confronting the realities we faced, on carefully listening, on remembering what it means to be fully human, on using one’s lived experiences to think critically about that reality and how it might be changed”
(Freire, 1970, pp. 87-88).
Inspired by Freire (1970) advocating critical dialogue as a tool to empower students and promote social justice; and hooks (1994), elaborating on the role of critical dialogue to foster inclusivity through open, engaged dialogue, I borrow these ideas to build a experiential workshop for mutual learning and respect. I also drew influence from the a “Pedagogy of Discomfort” (Boler, 1999) and acknowledged the degree with which epistemology, emotions and ethics would be brought into the studio from outside; influences that shape who, where and why we ‘individually’ and ‘collectively’ view the world, and how these might shape the experience.
I aimed to position myself alongside the students in a ‘new’ learning space. Likewise, the technical staff were faced with an unfamiliar experience, that required willing participation and co-operation. I looked at the concept of ‘co-operation’, particularly Richard Sennet’s ideas around the ‘Space of Cooperation’, defined as a ‘means of working with others to do things you can’t do by yourself’ (Sennet, 2012, pp. 5-6). This was a driving inspiration for this workshop.
As an ‘unusual’ workshop activity, I had several meetings with the technical team to discuss logistics, well-being, health and safety alongside the perceived outcome for the workshop. During initial meetings I shared the idea of making tools as emotional support objects; one technician suggested this could be more meaningful as a handmade activity, to engage solely in the physical act of making, avoiding CNC, laser cutting and 3D printing, (rapid prototyping requiring computers, normally used). We also talked about students using books to find visual references rather than digital sources. These ideas felt ‘right’ for the workshop, and I included these joint decisions in the project brief. It was rewarding to discuss and plan with other creatives and gain support from the whole technical team. By asking opinion and including shared ideas the brief was richer in content, I believe this resulted in every team member feeling valued. Also, by involving a collective of educators in one aim it fostered a feeling of excitement and enthusiasm leading up to the workshop. On the day everyone was fully engaged, and it was a fantastic working atmosphere. I view this as a transformative experience for me personally, to embrace the combined knowledge of all staff and allow space for shared ownership of the experience and outcome, a true collaboration of ideas and shared knowledge.
The ‘Emotional Toolbox Workshop’ took place on 27th-28th June and was attended by 16 participants, staged across multiple workshop spaces. I was supported by 5 technical staff and 2 other tutors. Scheduled at the end of the teaching term, with no other timetabled session occurring, resulted in students having extensive support and freedom to move between the wood and jewellery workshops, casting room, library and the MA Artefact base studio. In this way participants with sensory challenges were free to find a ‘comfortable’ quiet space, and work with staff they ‘resonated’ with; headphones and devices were encouraged for translation and personal well-being. I have previously discussed the importance of inclusive studio practise, meeting needs of ‘diverse’ learners in my Case study 1 blog post here.
Transformative pedagogies prompt students and instructors to “examine critically their beliefs, values, and knowledge with the goal of developing a reflective knowledge base, an appreciation for multiple perspectives, and a sense of critical consciousness and agency”
(Khedkar and Nair, 2016).
This workshop introduced the idea of spiritual tools as transformative objects to connect the user to a feeling or state of emotional well-being. I shared 2 examples of my own tools and explained their emotional function at the start of the day; a Tibetan singing bowl, and a Serpentine stone, using these to demonstrate my own healing process, and emotional vulnerability, aligned to the workshop brief:
Pick 3 that spark with you – from the Emotional Toolbox: (or create your own!)
The Mind Mover – Find your voice
The Mark Maker – Make your mark
The Space Clearer – Clears your path of confusion
The shape shifter – Helps you adapt and grow
Talisman – The Special ONE – A transformative object
My personal Examples shared with the students:
Example 1) – Tibetan singing bowl: Creates a sound and vibration, that gives me a feeling of calm and clearing. The effect is very powerful for me, helping to focus on one sound, clears my mind of clutter, allowing space for a new direction. I explain this as a full stop on bad thoughts and an access to a new path. ‘THIS IS MY Space Clearer’
Example 2) – Serpentine stone: This beautiful green stone is palm shaped and pleasing to hold, the colour green reminds me I am human and of this earth, part of the world, joint to others. The symbolic or spiritual use of this stone is to refocus the mind and is used in mediative healing for its transformative effects. It is my tool for accessing a clear mind and finding my words. ‘THIS IS MY Mind Mover’
Culturally relevant (to the individual) spiritual tools, or emotional support objects with personal narrative were explained in the brief and again verbally at the start of the first day, the diverse potential of personal application to the brief was supported through a workshop resources file; including work by former students, art, design and historical references; mindful to incorporate a variation of culturally relevant sources. Also included were museum archive sources and a reflection on the ethics of museum acquisition of artefacts, opening the potential for dialogue around de-colonisation of museum collections, and the effects of colonisation within individual cultural context. Understanding the importance of dialogue and awareness around this subject, though the work of the Decolonising Arts Institute (UAL; Doing The Work).
“Praxis involves a cycle of reflection and action that is essential for transformative learning and critical engagement in education.”
(Freire, 1970, p. 75).
Participants were encouraged to explore their own response to creating tools that could support their learning and encouraged an emotional response, from a list in the brief. These tools were all made by hand over the two days using excess waste, found materials and re-purposed objects contributed by tutors and technical staff. I felt it was important not to ask students to purchase or spend money, as economic restraints may prohibit inclusivity. I was aware that students working with learning differences would need time to process information, or SLA students to translate the written instructions, so I was mindful to supply the brief 7 days prior to the start date, advising them to only spend 2 hours on research. In this way I was supporting all learners.
I hoped students would have time to reflect and draw from their own praxis, asking them for visual research reference only, and to draw on existing cultural knowledge or personal response to trigger a starting point.
Participant 3). Teresa was inspired by the form of a material, (horn) donated by fellow tutor Michael Maloy. As she reflects in the feedback below, the materials inspired her artefact creation more that the emotional aspect of the workshop, she was inspired to created an object that played with the ideas around body restriction and posture. Image supplied by participant, and used with their permission.
CONCLUSION:
‘The Emotional Toolbox Workshop’ is on-going research, an artefact with potential to explore emotional connection and meaning making, both as a process of ‘thinking’ and a means of connecting to others through the process of ‘doing’. I include visuals of the beautiful emotional tools created by the students, and a selection of informal email feedback following the workshop posted below. Response was very diverse, some found it difficult to connect, or discuss personal resonance, while others were eager to share experiences and feelings easily. During the workshop students wanted to discuss and seek guidance, were open to sharing ideas and collaborating with staff and each other. I believe this workshop would be most beneficial as a longer process, allowing time for deeper emotional engagement. Since the workshop, I have observed students more confident with our technical team, experimenting with new possibilities in materials and are generally more open to informal dialogue with me, asking me questions, smiling, more comfortable. Importantly and unexpectedly, I feel I have built a closer working relationship with the technical team, and by allowing space for this co-created activity it has not only enhanced the student experience, but also nurtured my own and a wider staff well-being. I believe staff need more activities with students and each other that are fun and playful, challenging our creativity and building community knowledge. This is a workshop where staff wanted to join, noting one response ‘I would like to do this workshop myself’: I feel that’s got to be a positive outcome!
Upon reflection my personal barrier to learning, ‘communication’, created empathy toward student’s language barrier. ‘The emotional toolbox’ workshop broke down not only my student’s barriers, but my own and fellow faculty members, through predominantly ‘Playful Pedagogy’. I feel I have devised an inclusive activity for all creative learners.
FINALNOTE: I considered the possible cultural and political sensitivity of including Tibetan artefacts in this workshop brief and physical space, given that 14 out of 16 participants were Chinese. As I was not using the singing bowl as part of a religious practise, but as a personal sound object, I took the view this would not be considered uncomfortable, given the context. While the practise of Tibetan religion is banned in China, and the political and social issues remain complex, singing bowls are not disallowed as decorative objects. All participants were very fascinated to use this and experience the sound and vibrational effects and one participant of Chinese heritage used the form as their key inspiration.
‘EMOTIONAL TOOLBOX WORKSHOP’ OUTCOME
NB. Images used below were taken by the author, and used with permission of participants.
Particapant 1) Show, Focused her making a large padlock created by hand from wood, with fully functioning key turning mechanism, that was a tool to help her ‘make decisions’. As she explained it symbolised her difficulty in deciding, and committing to a design direction, and the mechanism in a locked position would to help her commit to a decision. (Images used with participants permission).
Participant 4). This student focused on creating a tool to rest her mind, and render her hands still. In this way making a tool that brought her comfort through restricting restless motion, and being mindful of stillness. (Images used with participants permission).
These artefacts were created by 3 different students, working beside each other enjoying the process of making together. Using similar materials and construction process there is a unified feeling to their work. (Images used with participants permission).
Both students in this case were working with ritualistic objects, on the left working with sound using found objects to create playful instruments. The student on the right, Participant 2), Devika was very inspired by the Phurba knife from the project brief and focused two days in creating a turned brass and found wood dagger. The process using the lathe was a new technique, that she now wants to use in final masters project. (Images used with participants permission).
There was many instances of collaborative activity during the day, gentle dialogue between students and teaching staff. All eager to help and support each others learning, through supportive interaction. (Images used with participants permission).
STUDENT FEEDBACK
NOTE: Below a selection of emails received following the workshop, all photos and comments used are with permission granted by participants to include their contribution in this post:
For me, this course was great, it not only helped me to be aware of the tools around me (bring us to the live. don’t think too far )but also opened up my senses and allowed the emotions and tools to be spliced. But I didn’t make the connection to my own project and wasted the opportunity,
By the way I really enjoyed the process of making it.
Thank you for conducting the workshop. It was exciting that we get to explore the subject- emotional toolkit in an academic environment. I had an incredible time at the workshop, where we delved into self-connection through thoughtful crafting artefacts. The brief encouraged us to explore our emotions deeply, leading to the creation of products designed to guide us through our emotional landscapes. The process was both insightful, enjoyable and deeply therapeutic. The process allowed us to focus on aspects of healing that were most important to each of us, making it both a personal and transformative journey while crafting objects that hold personal significance.
The workshop was memorable! In my case, I felt very lucky to meet such an inspiring material from Michael which made the design and making process happen very naturally and have the surprising nice effect. So I think broadening the material selection as the workshop preparation is very important. The irrelevant material (the horn I used is nothing to do with my project and very unfamiliar to me which is a material that I haven’t come into contact with before let alone bring them to the workshop) is the essential to refresh my thinking which let me feel exciting and learn something solid.
I like the workshop with the time limit which would push me think fast and stimulate my passion and potential, and two days is an appropriate duration for me.
For the briefing, I was little confused about the difference between tools and objects with function. Because I felt that I am not making tools in my project (the research resource in the brief are mainly about tools like hammer, lever tools… ). But I found “shape shifter” as the inspiring start point eventually.
I think it is a very inspiring and beneficial workshop! Appreciate for making it happen and bring it to us : )
I wanted to share my thoughts on the course. I find it absolutely fascinating! In fact, when I first heard the word “emotional tools,” I was pretty curious. But after giving it some thought, I could relate it to musical instruments. I’ve explored things like ocean drums and tubes that mimic the sound of rain before, but those already exist.
The part where we each make our own emotional tools in class, I think it’s a great opportunity to understand ourselves better and figure out what works best for us to relax or express our emotions. And each one is unique.
I really enjoyed making that tool where I can connect fingers together. It felt sort of therapeutic when each finger fits perfectly into its spot. So, yeah, I guess this course is all about having fun and discovering ourselves.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and Education. New York: Free Press.
Engin, M. (2017). Contributions and silence in academic talk: Exploring learner experiences of dialogic interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, pp.78–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.11.001.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
hooks, bell (1994a). Teaching to transgress : education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.45–47.
hooks, bell (1994b). Teaching to transgress : education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge, p.130.
hooks, bell (1994c). Teaching to transgress : education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.45–47.
Joshi, A. (2024). The Contentment Foundation. [online] www.contentment.org. Available at: https://www.contentment.org/ [Accessed 4 Aug. 2024].
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8(4), p.38.
Khedkar, S. and Nair, M. (2016). Transformative Pedagogies: Examining Critical Reflection, Multiple Perspectives, and Critical Consciousness. Journal of Transformative Education, 14(3), pp. 170-188.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, [online] 32(3), pp.465–491. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds. Routledge, pp.98–99.
Sennett, R. (2013). Together the rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. London Penguin Books.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (2019). Ritual Dagger (Phurba) and Stand | Tibet | The Metropolitan Museum of Art. [online] Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/75826 [Accessed 4 Aug. 2024].
Wolfram, W. (2023). Addressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model. Daedalus, [online] 152(3), pp.36–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02016.
Yarloong (2024). Yarloong | Stay Connected. Stay Inspired. Stay Tibetan. [online] Yarloong. Available at: https://yarloong.com [Accessed 4 Aug. 2024].
