2019年末，為期兩年的天台塾項目「學學習：15個以藝術作為參與式學習的倡議」（下稱「學學習」）剛好完成一半，十五個受邀藝術家／單位之中的七個已完成工作坊，展覽與分享會算是中期小結，當日邀來藝術家梁展峰、雄仔叔叔 + 梁妍、鍾惠恩 + 吳家俊 (Mudwork)、許敖山、勞麗麗及梁皓然分享他們在過程中的觀察與體會，並由帶領學生參與計劃的官立中學教師關太作回應。項目的成果還包括將藝術家和參與者的互動過程整理成「教案」，但這個轉換，無論對藝術家抑或天台塾來說都是挑戰。這次分享茶會也旨在跟與會的各路教育工作者一起討論工作坊的經驗如何能轉換成教育者能應用的教學資源。

「學學習」的問題意識是，「假設我們每個人都將對於「學習」的想像，放進創作的思想與實踐過程，我們會經歷／創造了什麼？」天台塾負責人之一羅玉梅首先邀請各在場藝術家談「學習」在他們的工作坊如何發生。七組工作坊由藝術家／單位設計，扣連他們各自的藝術實踐，採田野考察、聲音實驗、遊戲、問卷調查等形式。梁展峰認為，出席工作坊的參與者因為知悉他的策展人身份，所以期望能從中取經。他自言近年的實踐以導賞為主，總感到觀眾只想知作品背後的「答案」，所以這次通過遊戲讓參與者仔細觀察作品，並且要求他們書寫，他也感到學習的內容與他們的期望有落差。Mudwork的工作坊讓參與者學習「自己動手造」，鍾惠恩表示希望通過幾次工作坊的練習，令他們習慣動手造和以新的眼光看待雜物，下次再想要什麼東西時，可以手造代替購買。

當然，工作坊並非單向的「教」與「學」，學習的一方不僅是參與者。許敖山為視障人士設計的工作坊分兩部份，一是讓參與者聽他們平常沒機會聽的東西，二是讓參與者以物品製造聲響。一位患有嚴重濕疹的參加者，提出要用自己的皮膚造聲，過程中以不同速度摸自己的皮膚，發出一般人留意不到的微弱聲響，他分享這是幾十年來一直伴隨他的聲音，他由憎惡慢慢變成接受它為自己的一部份，過程令許敖山既意外又深刻。至於勞麗麗，她一直以「半農半X」為工作、創作與生活的實踐方式，有著農夫和藝術家的雙重身份。在工作坊過程中她觀察到中學生在田間的興奮，令她意外地重拾喜歡耕種的初心。

其中一個天台塾與藝術家都念茲在茲的問題，就是「學學習」與一般在學校這種傳統教育場域發生的學習活動有何不同？以勞麗麗的工作坊為例，羅玉梅和關太都認為勞執行的是一種「體驗式學習」，學生可以從中找尋屬於自己的參與和觀察方式。羅玉梅認為，「學學習」不同於學校活動之處主要有二，一是實現跨代學習，二是探索溢出「教案」的教學法之可能。過去天台塾的學習活動多以單一族群為目標群，例如有只針對青少年的活動，但這次Mudwork和梁皓然的工作坊都有跨代的元素。Mudwork希望透過親子工作坊，讓家長嘗試和小朋友一起造玩具傢俬，並且感受小孩對父母手造之物的喜愛。梁皓然指出跨代學習目前在社福界蔚然成風，但因為要迎合社會和諧的期望，一般需要帶出正面的感覺，他則認為不必開心正面的跨代交流會是怎樣？此舉增加活動的不確定性，結果確實出現了一些狀況，有參加者情緒激動，由在場社工協助處理，但同時也開啟了不同於一般跨代學習的可能。

至於教案則涉及項目延續性的問題。為期兩年的項目始終受資源所限，每系列工作坊只有四堂可能比較匆忙，所以機構最初計劃通過教案讓教育者運用、延續工作坊現場所得的成果。然而，天台塾也很清楚，一旦提出教案這個元素，就必然會限制藝術家對工作坊的設計，他們還在摸索和拿捏這種做法所構成的障礙。現場回應的教育工作者也認同，將文字記錄的教案交給老師卻乏人傳授，其實老師也未必有信心能達成同樣的效果。

在這部份的討論中，雄仔叔叔就是很好的例子。羅玉梅憶述，雄仔叔叔曾叫幼稚園老師不要去預備教案，他的「教案」並不是說明書式的指示，而是近似一種心法。雄仔叔叔補充，其實這個說法有個前提，就是主導工作坊的人要準備自己在現場成為參與者之一，和其他參與者同等，唯有這樣才能真正地聆聽、接收、回應。曾從旁觀察工作坊的Tammy認為，雄仔叔叔其實用了一生去準備，他累積的創意就是他在現場全身投入、和小孩即興交流的基礎。

羅玉梅最後總結，她們最初是思考教案如何能讓教師應用於學科，但後來發現這個想法是錯的，所謂教案不一定要對應學校教育；不過最後還是運用教案的清晰架構，試圖記錄藝術家與參與者的互動。在當代藝術的場域中，展覽這種生產形式多由圖錄記錄，然而近年不同的資助機構都在「學習」和「公眾」活動投放不少資源，這類型的生產即使是展覽的一部份，也少有被系統化的記錄，往往只是一次性地發生然後結束，結果只有少數在場者能受惠。天台塾與各藝術家在「學學習」中就教案此一紀錄媒介的嘗試，在這個背景下無疑是重要的，將在項目第二年度做工作坊的八組藝術家，也會繼續將工作坊轉化為教案，讓資源持續生長下去，並在反覆被運用時催發更多可能性。

---

At the end of 2019, the two-year Rooftop Institute programme ‘Hok Hok Zaap (HHZ): 15 Initiatives of Engaged Learning in Art’ (hereinafter ‘HHZ’) was halfway through and seven of the 15 invited artists/groups had completed their workshops. The exhibition and sharing session can be considered as a mid-term summary. On that day, artists Jeff Leung, Uncle Hung Jai + Yan Liang, Chung Wai Ian + Ng Ka Chun (Mudwork), Nerve, Lo Lai Lai and Leung Ho Yin were invited to share their observations and experiences in the process. Government secondary school teacher Mrs Kwan who led the students to participate in one of the projects was there to respond. The programme’s achievements also include the ‘teaching plans’ compiled from the interaction between the artists and the participants. Nevertheless, this conversion has proven to be a challenge for both the artists and Rooftop Institute. This tea sharing session also aimed to discuss with the various education practitioners about how the workshop experience could be transformed into teaching resources that educators could use.

The conscious issue of ‘HHZ’ is: ‘Assuming each of us puts our imagination of “learning” into the creative thinking and its practice processes, what are we going to experience/create?’. Co-founder of Rooftop Institute, Law Yuk Mui, first invited the artists present to discuss how ‘learning’ had taken place in their workshops. The seven units of workshops were designed by the artists/groups, who linked them to their respective artistic practices. They were conducted through different forms, such as field investigations, sound experiments, games, questionnaires and researches. Jeff Leung believes the participants attending the workshop, who knew about his role as a curator, hoped to learn from his experience. He said his practice in recent years has mainly been guided tours and he has always felt that the audience only wants to know the ‘answers’ behind the works. Thus, this time, in the form of games, the participants were invited to observe the works carefully and write down the observations. He found that there were discrepancies between the learning and the participants’ expectations. Mudwork’s workshop allowed participants to learn ‘to do it yourself’. Chung Wai Ian hoped that, through several workshop exercises, they could get used to hand-making and looking at assorted items with new eyes – the next time they want something, they can do it themselves, instead of making a purchase.

Certainly, the workshops were not merely one-way ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’; the learners were not only participants. Nerve’s workshop for the visually impaired was divided into two parts. One of them enabled participants to listen to what they usually did not have the opportunity to hear, whereas the other invited participants to make sounds with objects. A participant with severe eczema proposed to use his own skin to make sounds. He rubbed his skin at different speeds that made faint sounds people generally would not have noticed. He shared his experience living with those sounds for decades. He has grown gradually from exasperation to accepting it as part of himself. Nerve found the process unexpected and memorable. As for Lo Lai Lai, ‘Half-Farming, Half-X’ has always been her practical way of working, creating and living. She has a dual identity as a farmer and an artist. During the workshop, she observed the excitement of the secondary school students in the field, which unexpectedly allowed her to retrieve her initial aspiration to cultivate.

One of the issues that preoccupied Rooftop Institute and the artists was, how would ‘HHZ’ be different from the educational activities that usually take place in traditional learning venues such as schools? Take Lo Lai Lai's workshop as an example, Law Yuk Mui and Mrs Kwan both consider what Lo carried out ‘experiential learning’, where students could find their own ways of participation and observation. Law Yuk Mui thinks ‘HHZ’ differs from school activities in two main ways. One is the actualisation of intergenerational learning and the other is the possibility of ‘teaching plans’ as a teaching method derived from exploration. In the past, the learning activities of Rooftop Institute mostly targeted a single community, e.g. activities targeting young people. Yet, this time Mudwork’s and Leung Ho Yin’s workshops consisted of intergenerational elements. Through the parent-child workshop, Mudwork would like parents to make toy furniture with their children and experience their children’s love for their own handmade objects. Leung Ho Yin pointed out that intergenerational learning is now prevalent in the social welfare sector. However, to meet the expectations of social harmony, it’s generally necessary to bring along positive impressions. He instead questioned the outcome of intergenerational exchange that’s not necessarily happy and positive. The thought increased the activity’s uncertainties. Unexpected incidents did occur as a result. Some participants were rather emotional and needed to be assisted by the social workers present. But at the same time, it opened up a possibility unlike common intergenerational learning.

The teaching plans, on the other hand, concern the programme’s continuity issue. The two-year programme has always been limited by resources. Merely four lessons in each series of workshops might be a bit of a rush. Therefore, the organisation initially planned to let educators utilise the teaching plans and extend the results of the workshops. Nevertheless, it was also clear to Rooftop Institute that once the teaching plan element had been proposed, it would inevitably limit the artists’ workshop design; they were still exploring and handling the obstacles posed by this approach. The education practitioners who responded on the spot also agreed that even after handing the teaching plans to teachers, there would still be a lack of manpower to teach. In fact, teachers may not have the confidence to achieve the same effect.

In this part of the discussion, Uncle Hung Jai is a great example. Law Yuk Mui recalled Uncle Hung Jai had once asked kindergarten teachers not to prepare teaching plans. His ‘teaching plans’ are not manual-like instructions, but something almost like personal insights. Uncle Hung Jai added that, in fact, this statement came with a premise that the person leading the workshop must prepare himself and become one of the participants there, taking up a role just like the other participants. Only in this way can he truly listen, perceive and respond. Tammy, who observed the workshop, thinks Uncle Hung Jai had used his entire life to prepare. His accumulated creativity is the basis for his whole-hearted engagement on the spot and his spontaneous communication with the children.

Law Yuk Mui finally concluded that they had first considered how teachers could apply teaching plans to academic subjects, but later found the idea mistaken. The so-called teaching plans do not have to correspond to school education. However, in the end, they still made use of the clear structure of teaching plans in an attempt to record the interaction between the artists and the participants. In the realm of contemporary art, production approaches such as exhibitions are mostly recorded by catalogues. However, in recent years, different funding agencies have invested a lot of resources in ‘learning’ and ‘public’ activities. Even as a part of an exhibition, this type of production is rarely recorded systematically. It often only happens once and for all. As a result, only a small number of people present can benefit. The attempts Rooftop Institute and various artists made in ‘HHZ’ through teaching plans as a record medium are undoubtedly important in this context. Eight groups of artists who are going to host workshops in the second year of the programme will also continue to transform the workshops into teaching plans, so as to let resources grow continuously and trigger more possibilities when applied repeatedly.