In this exercise, you will explore an object without using your sense of sight—only touch. Through careful observation with your hands, you will describe its shape, texture, weight, and temperature, speculate on its purpose, and finally, you will attempt to visually represent the object through drawing, translating tactile information into a visual form. This activity encourages deeper sensory awareness, critical thinking, and speculative interpretation.
Timed Session Plan
Time: 1 min: to touch – 4 min: answer questions
| Theme | Area of enquiry | General question | Specific questions | Answer |
| Analytical responses | Observing and Describing the Object | Can you describe what you are touching? | What is the shape of the object? | |
| What textures can you feel? Is it rough, smooth, bumpy, soft, or hard? | ||||
| Is the object heavy or light? Does its weight feel evenly distributed? | ||||
| What do you think the object is made of? | ||||
| Is the object warm or cold? Does its temperature change as you hold it? | ||||
| Does the object have any moving parts? Can you manipulate them? | ||||
| Are there any patterns or details that you can detect with your fingers? |
Time: 1 min: to touch – 4 min: answer questions
| Theme | Area of enquiry | General question | Specific questions | Answer |
| Speculative response | Interpreting and imagining | What do you think this object is for? | Does it feel like something functional, decorative, or both? | |
| Who might have used this object? A specific type of person or group? | ||||
| Does it feel like something old or new? Why? | ||||
| Could this object belong to a specific culture or time period? | ||||
| If this object could make a sound, what sound do you imagine? | ||||
| What do you think would happen if you dropped this object? Would it break, bounce, or remain intact? |
Time: 1 min: to touch – 4 min: answer questions
| Theme | Area of enquiry | General question | Answer |
| Haptic Interpretation Response | Visualizing and Representing the Object from tactile experience | Can you draw the object as accurately as possible? |
Key Decisions & Justifications + photos
To ensure an experiential, inquiry-driven, and adaptable learning process, the session was structured around three progressive responses:
Analytical → Speculative → Haptic Interpretation
- A step-by-step approach helped students first describe, then interpret, and finally translate their tactile experience into a visual form. This aligns with constructivist learning theories, which emphasize active knowledge-building through structured experiences. (Chatterjee & Hannan, 2016)
- Prioritizing Tactile Exploration
- Excluding sight heightened sensory perception, reinforcing the idea that touch is a critical mode of inquiry. Supported by haptic perception research, which shows that touch enhances spatial awareness and critical thinking. (Lederman & Klatzky, 2009)
- Encouraging Speculative Thinking
- By delaying object identification, students engaged in cultural, historical, and functional speculation, expanding beyond immediate sensory input.
- Incorporating Drawing (Haptic Interpretation Response)
- Translating tactile knowledge into a visual form reinforces cross-modal learning and supports cognitive mapping. Studies in perceptual psychology suggest that drawing from touch alone strengthens cognitive mapping and encourages alternative ways of seeing. (Perceptual Psychology Studies)
What happened in the session + photos
Introduction & Instructions:
- Monika explained objectives and stages using a handout.
- The hidden object remained in a box to prevent visual identification.
- Monika provided verbal prompts about temperature, texture, weight, and structure.
- Students were instructed to complete Part A in silence after touching the object to facilitate focus.
Key Moments & Deviations from Plan
- First Round (Initial Tactile Exploration):
- Box passed around, students reminded to breathe and connect with the object.
- Some participants engaged with answering questions while waiting for their turn.
- M responded to unexpected interactions (e.g., when a participant made a sound with the object, M asked, “Can you make a sound with it?”).
- Second Round – Functional & Speculative Inquiry:
- Students explored the functionality and usability of the object.
- Instructions were repeated for each participant, ensuring focus remained on how the object might be used.
- Third Round (Haptic Interpretation & Drawing):
- M monitored engagement and provided reassurance (e.g., “You still have time, don’t rush”).
- Some struggled with waiting but appreciated the paced, mindful approach for deeper focus.
Participant Feedback & Observations
Engagement & Learning Experience:
- Students valued the multi-stage process, noting that each round built curiosity and deepened their inquiry.
- The calm, structured approach helped participants focus on the sensory experience, with some describing it as therapeutic, valuing the opportunity to focus on a single object amidst daily distractions.
- Suggestions for enhancing the session included:
- Dimming lights or adding ambient music.
- Using a larger box with multiple holes to allow for simultaneous exploration.
- If the overall group is bigger, some participants suggested interacting with the object simultaneously in pairs or small groups with more than 1 box.
Methodology & Structure:
- The question structure mirrored real-world research methodologies, prompting students to think about objects in relation to materiality, functionality, and cultural context.
- The visualisation process (3rd round) could be provided with more flexibility in terms of choosing a visual form or tools/materials for showing the sensation of the object.
Language & Framing:
- Clear instructions and structured questions helped guide inquiry.
- The term “haptic” raised concerns—would all students understand it? A brief definition could help.
- The repetitive structure of the exercise enhanced curiosity—by the second and third rounds, students wanted to explore the object further.
Final Reflection: Should the Object Be Revealed?
- Keeping the object hidden maintained mystery and provoked deeper thinking.
- A potential alternative: offering students the choice to reveal the object at the end, sparking a discussion on expectation vs. reality.
Future Applications & Teaching Reflections
This session reinforced the importance of structured progression, sensory engagement, and reflective inquiry in learning. Moving forward, I will refine the pacing by balancing structured waiting times with flexibility in response formats.
I plan to experiment with collaborative exploration by testing whether multiple students interacting with the object simultaneously enhances engagement. To improve accessibility, I will clarify language by providing brief explanations for specialized terms, such as “haptic.” Additionally, I will expand speculative inquiry by encouraging students to connect sensory impressions to cultural, historical, or environmental contexts. Beyond this session, I aim to adapt this method across disciplines, using sensory exploration to deepen critical thinking in both design and material studies.
This experience reaffirmed that learning is most impactful when it is embodied, reflective, and participatory, giving students the space to discover meaning through direct engagement.
References:
Chatterjee, H., & Hannan, L. (2016). Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. Routledge.
Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (2009) ‘Haptic perception: A tutorial’, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(7), pp. 1439–1459. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/APP.71.7.1439 (Accessed: 24 February 2025).