It is always interesting to me when we equate what we see going on in a
situation with the lack of capacities or talents of someone else. The
appropriate question I would suggest is what am I doing as a teacher to create
an atmosphere which fosters creativity, risk taking, refinement, self
critiquing, collaborative spirit; and what am I doing which is squashing those
things. I really don't believe it a reflection of economic class, gender, or
any other division of people. In fact we are not psychoanalysts nor, should we
present ourselves as such, think as though we are capable of understanding the
deep hidden drive of our students, nor is it our business unless they come to
us for something and then it is appropriate to remember the limits of our
education. Personally I have a lot of training outside of my design training in
conflict resolution and mediation and my experience in these areas confirms
that people - all people are capable of leaps of creativity. I have also found
that it is very easy for teachers to bamboozle students into thinking they (the
student) is lacking in something and that is the problem, when the problem may
actually be one of communication. I have found that as you put it (working
class)"kids are as capable as any in respect to creativity. 

Jan Coker
C3-10 Underdale Campus
University of South Australia
+61 8 8302 6919
"There is no way to peace, peace is the way" 
Gandhi
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lubomir S. Popov [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2003 2:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Transformative learning

Hi Cris,

I just write to second your experience. You have described vividly what 
happens in our program.

However, I have some things to add. I have been in several different 
schools and noticed considerable differences in student learning behavior. 
In my experience, students from strong schools and programs (which means 
selected students) do not behave like this. They are confident, willing to 
discuss their designs, probing to get outside view. In such programs I have 
not seen people hiding their drawings besides the students at the bottom of 
the class. These students do not compare to their immediate colleagues but 
to the whole world and aim at a room at the top of the profession.

Now I am in a program where everything you describe actually happens every 
day. I am trying to explain that to my students and to relax their fears, 
but it is deeply ingrained in their characters. Teaching in such programs 
is like doing psychoanalysis, counselling, baby-sitting and so on. My time 
gets consumed by personality and character issues rather than design. It is 
difficult to come to the design points because there are so many obstructions.

What appears in common with these students is that they have low capacity 
and law self-esteem,  but at the same time they would like to feel great 
and create the image of great people. They want to call themselves 
"designers" but at the same time they want to get engaged only in drafting 
and budgeting -- the mere technicalities that have always made me sick. 
They have the personalities of accountants and their design decisions are 
not very different from the common housewives on the street. Also, they are 
predominantly working class kids that work more hours on the job after 
school than they work on their lessons. In some way they are almost 
full-time workers that attend a Sunday school. They have tough lives, have 
to fight for their survival and come to class with such attitudes, treating 
their instructors the same way they fight with their co-workers and clients 
for survival. My experience with middle and upper-middle class kids is much 
different, as I mentioned above.

These contradictions creates unbelievable tension and practically precludes 
them from getting into design. They prefer to do it like their grandmothers 
because they are most comfortable with it this way. At the same time they 
openly beg for praise and it is just mind-hurting. It is a difficult choice 
which way to go and what to tell them.

Part of the problems with design learning might be in terms of reference 
groups and opinion leaders, social values, aesthetic values, upward 
mobility intentions, life goals, motivation, and the like.

I don't want to make a long story and I omit a lot of details. I am 
interested whether other colleagues in this list have similar experiences 
and do they link them to the quality of the program and the students or 
these are common traits of all people. May be my experience in my previous 
programs is an exception? But I still believe that strong students tackle 
all challenges and actually jump into more challenges in order to grow.

Regards,

Lubomir


At 12:04 PM 2/18/2003 +0100, Chris Heape wrote:

>I witnessed a discussion the other day between some design teachers. They 
>were wondering why it is that some students
>literally hide what they are doing when, in this case, they are drawing. 
>Or are very reluctant to discuss their work until it is complete.
>The particular student in question was apparently drawing on A3 with 
>another sheet of A3 in her free hand, that she used to cover her drawing 
>with, if anybody came in her vicinity. Unfortunately an extreme example, 
>but very enlightening nonetheless.
>The conclusion was that the students were shy about what they had drawn. I 
>very particularly say "had drawn".
>
>I was unhappy with the conclusion and discussed it with some other 
>students. The conclusion was that it wasn't so much what someone "had" 
>drawn - most students are very willing to show what they have done "if it 
>looks ok."
>The conclusion was on the other hand that students are very often "afraid" 
>of allowing others to see what they are doing "whilst" they are working or 
>as in this case drawing.
>
>This little anecdote, I feel, touches on several interesting points, which 
>ultimately come back to a reluctance to experiment and take risks.
>It also points to the generally held misunderstanding of the role of 
>design artifact. The design artifact is considered by many students as 
>having to "look cool".
>This reflects two attitudes in my mind.
>1. The only artifact that plays an important role in the design process 
>and requires attention, is the artifact as a representation of the 
>potential product.
>2. All other artifacts that are produced, e.mails, budgets, plans, 
>descriptions, posters, rough sketches, video etc and the false leads ( to 
>mention just a few) is considered as not having the status of design 
>artifact and are considered as something secondary or worse, irrelevant.
>
>It's easy to understand that if the students have such a misunderstanding 
>of the role of their various phases of their work, including all the 
>experiments, the resultant solutions that don't hit on target and the 
>general mess that is part of an ongoing dialogue, then they can feel very 
>uncertain about allowing others to see the mess. And ultimately feel very 
>confused and frustrated as a central part of their dialogue with their 
>work is either missing or is tacit.
>Even though all the experiments are an essential part of the design and 
>enquiry process.
>
>So I think part of your point may deal with aspects of intrinsic 
>motivation and transformative learning - breaking the mould as it were - 
>but part of it is closely linked to giving design students a clearer 
>understanding of modern design thinking and process. That's up to us 
>teachers / consultants.
>
>Thank you for the literature tip. I'll be happy to continue the discussion 
>with you.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Chris.
>
>ps: I noted that you sent your mail to [log in to unmask]
>As far as I know the address is [log in to unmask]
>Maybe there is no difference.
>
>
>-------------
>
>from:
>
>Chris Heape
>Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice
>Mads Clausen Institute
>University of Southern Denmark
>Sønderborg
>Denmark
>
>http://www.mci.sdu.dk
>
>Work:
>tel: +45 6550 1671
>e.mail: chris @mci.sdu.dk