Commentary on Burnette and Mazumdar

Firstly, thanks to the conference organisers for providing the
opportunity for such a stimulating topic for debate and for inviting
me to be a commentator. Secondly, apologies for my later than
announced arrival in the conference, not due to Thanksgiving at all,
but due to a combination of scheduled work 'revisioning' Chelsea
College's postgraduate provision and my own inadequacies with a new
computer and email set up.

I would like to comment on Chuck's views about design as a discipline
and how we structure learning in that discipline:

'If design is a universal discipline for thinking through projects to
realize goals it still lacks adequate tools and techniques. Design
education remains based in an apprentice style studio experience
where the"mastery" of the teacher often remains a "mystery" to the
student to paraphrase Don Schön.'

I am reminded not only of Schön here but also of the critique of
design learning by Cal Swann (2002). Swann argued that there was a
need for design teachers to reappraise the teacher-focused approaches
characterised by what he calls the 'sitting-by-Nellie' approach. His
challenge to practice-based teachers was to reduce the amount of
one-to-one contact in student-teacher tutorials, which rely heavily
on teacher guidance and instruction, the 'Nellie' approach.

'The so-called 'traditional' teaching method in art and design, as
far as studio work is concerned, has relied very heavily on a
one-to-one tutorial that generally takes place between the tutor and
the student as a discussion about the particular project on which the
student is working. It is usually an examination of the work 'on the
drawing board' and often results in the tutor demonstrating his/her
own expertise to improve some aspects of the students' work - more or
less a 'sitting-by-Nellie' approach. Most of the teachers in art and
design would call it a traditional 'atelier' method derived from the
master artist/craftsman showing an apprentice how to do it, which is
a kinder description but it comes to the same thing.' (Swann, p. 50)

He proposed that art and design teachers should make more
opportunities for peer directed problem solving, group work and
developing critical abilities. Crits, or critiques, are intended to
develop students critical sensibilities as a tutor/peer assessment
methodology, if the tutor leads the process in a teacher-focused way,
this intention is not realised and the students often come away
demoralised and demotivated. If a student-focus were enhanced, he
asserts, it would ensure that seminars and crits would develop higher
level learning outcomes for art and design students. It seems to me
that the 'Mastery/Mystery' or 'Nellie' approach often becomes a
default position for teachers in design faculties, relying more
heavily on skills than the induction of our students into the
practice of design.

Sanjoy proposed earlier that instead of layers in the design
education model we might in fact be thinking of a metaphorical core.
I propose that the core of design learning is the practice, whether
as the object of study (as in design studies courses discussed
earlier) or as the vehicle of study, learning through practice or
learning to practice.

With practice as the core the learner can address lifeworld issues -
by those I mean becoming a designer, being in the world, changing as
a person. In the teaching of design, with a core of practice,
teachers are also at the core of that practice and can work with
students to help them work from the periphery to the core. Learning
to practice, whether in design school or simulated settings is seen
as a move towards full participation in a community of practice (Lave
and Wenger 1991; Lave 1993). That move to full participation takes
place by engaging in 'legitimate peripheral participation' which is
taking part in the authentic activities of the practice albeit with
guidance and at the edges of the practice community. These views
emphasise social practice as a premise for learning and that 'knowing
in practice' arises from participation in that social practice
(Billett 1998).  Learning to be a designer is often the first
intention of our graduate students, they need to be able to do this
with the right opportunities for practice coupled with reflection and
criticality.

Chuck also refers to this as an issue for design schools:

'We are only beginning to begin to look at the cognitive processes
involved in design and schools must begin to articulate and
scientifically, philosophically and humanistically explore what is
involved. Design schools teach design by example and criticism in
ways devoid of theory coupled to practice. Currently, theories of
design are largely art historically minded theories of style and
design methods are narrow recapitulations of how things have been
done before, with small opportunistic shifts to include information
from human factors, ethnography, business practices, new media etc. I
believe that a new school should have a strong commitment to the
development of the underlying discipline of the field as well as
giving attention to all the areas of application that Sanjoy so
rightly noted.'

To do some of these things I think we need to heed the notion of
professional learning, the critical reflection needed for this comes
from acting on learning situations in context rather than using
theories from another discipline or field of enquiry (Eraut, 1994).
The context determines the learning in a sociocultural way, what one
student learns from a project within a workplace is qualitatively
different from the student working on an independent proposal. I base
this on the concept that there is an inseparable relationship between
an individual's knowing and their social lifeworld (Rogoff, 1990).

My particular point of view is that UCI can use this wonderful
opportunity to build in both practice-focused and student-focused
approaches to their design curriculum. These approaches address the
student experience of professional learning, learning to be and to
become a practitioner in the world.

Linda Drew

References

Billett, S. (1998). Situation, social systems and learning. Journal
of Education and Work, 11, 255-274.

Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence.
London: Falmer.

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave
(Eds) Understanding Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 3-32.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking - cognitive development
in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Swann, C. (2002). Nellie is Dead. Art Design and Communication in
Higher Education, 1, 50-53 (reproduced without change from Designer,
April, 1986)