Dear Norm:

Your thoughts  interest me but I am not sure that I
understand them adequately :

You said:
"design-learning is a collaborative visual-emotional &
practical knowledge
negotiation from which a group understanding emerges
because in the
non-reductive complexity of multilayered visual
negotiations knowledge
often seems to just happen prior to judgment ...indeed
this is a context
where the suspension of judgment is a prime moral
code."

How is this moral? Do you mean fairness in listening
to the observation of others? If so isn't that ethical
rather than moral? What do you mean by a multilayered
visual negotiation? Is it attentive to different
aspects of a situation or is it introducing images
from outside the observed circumstances?

Similarly, you said:
"When these knowledge 'things' begin to just happen in
a group we then begin
to focus on the meta-relations of knowledge
negotiations...those patterns
observed in our interactions which prompt knowledge
events...which we may
then represent visually in many individuated
conceptions that are then
brought together to establish another layer of
knowledge
negotiations....another engagement cycle of
design-learning><observation-learning where we may
begin to track the
temporal rhythms of these patterns."

This sounds like learning through using images as the
focus of discussion?

And at the end you said:
"This approach focuses on people engaging equally as
human beings through
visual and oral knowledge formation without a central
control, a series of
texts or defined-implied objective. Sometimes it is a
lot of fun and
students occasionally make profound cross-cultural
transformations of their
understanding of human-being-in-the-world."

This sounds like the students interpret what an object
means to them without input other than their own.
Sharing their interpretations? Is this what you mean?

If I am (more or less) correct you might also be
interested in this approach: A student is asked to
convey a myth or fairy tale that has personal meaning
to them through a few visual icons representing the
main events in the story. The icons are presented
without explanation to the other students for their
interpretation. The author then indicates what each
icon was intended to convey and receives advice to
help clarify them. The author then incorporates the
resulting visual language into a product intended for
someone with whom they would like to share their
story, attempting to retain its imagery, meaning and
emotional content. Students really get into the
personal meaning aspect of this learning experience.

But based on your earlier exchange with Terry, I
detect the tendency to put too much emphasis on the
visual and not enough on what I have termed "formative
thinking" which is what interested me in the way you
said what you did. (Formative thinking, in my
definition, is the making of meaning through the
convergence and adaptive reconfiguration of mental
events only some of which are visual and immediate).

Thanks for your post

Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs
in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Norm
Sheehan
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 7:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Learning


Thanks Terry

I present design learning in the last posting as two
words but maybe they
could best be presented as
design-learning><observation-learning a single
conception of those engagements with the world which
are productive of
visual 'things' such as images artefacts etc...the
significance of this
learning is that the products and the methods of
production engage multiple
layers of meaning and produce multiple layered
understandings...you might
say a different layering of meaning for each 'maker'
and 'viewer'and with
each revisitation to presentation of an image.

There has been a lot of discussion concerning the
notion of judgement in
relation to such productions in design...however the
context of my use of
these approaches is within the mainstream academy
where analytic,
interpretative, critical, rational, normitive
formations of learning
dominate...judgement in this Western traditional
context is almost always
based on an exclusion of the visual as a sound basis
for a philosophy. The
programs i conduct are titled Indigenous Knowledge &
Indigenous
Philosophy...these programs are based in a Visual
Philosophy...essentially
a philosophy wherein the texts have been seen by
western viewers as "ART"
for decades.

In such a context the normal design things that happen
in art/design
schools become tools for engageing students in
understandings across
cultures... they also teach the basics of this
Indigenous visual philosophy
which is founded in a very particular natural systems
morality concerning
knowledge itself. To make the jump across these
understandings of the world
design-learning is a collaborative visual-emotional &
practical knowledge
negotiation from which a group understanding emerges
because in the
non-reductive complexity of multilayered visual
negotiations knowledge
often seems to just happen prior to judgment ...indeed
this is a context
where the suspension of judgement is a prime moral
code.

When these knowledge 'things' begin to just happen in
a group we then begin
to focus on the meta-relations of knowledge
negotiations...those patterns
observed in our interactions which prompt knowledge
events...which we may
then represent visually in many individuated
conceptions that are then
brought together to establish another layer of
knowledge
negotiations....another engagement cycle of
design-learning><observation-learning where we may
begin to track the
temporal rhythms of these patterns.

This approach focuses on people engageing equally as
human beings through
visual and oral knowledge formation without a central
control, a series of
texts or defined-implied objective. Sometimes it is a
lot of fun and
students occasionally make profound cross-cultural
transformations of their
understanding of human-being-in-the-world.

Norm

At 08:20 AM 26/08/03 +0000, Terence Love wrote:
>Dear Norm,
>
>Good post. You say,
>
>"Design learning can be seen as an interaction and
manipulative interplay
>between persons, materials, objects, our conceptions
and the responses they
>elicit...at another level this activity may be seen
as an enmeshment within
>the relations which constitute the whole of a
being-in-the-world...this
>view presents design as elemental to human sapience
as a continual (albeit
>inhibited & interrupted in some  societies) cognitive
tradition undivided
>from the world...an enmeshment within the relational
knowledge of the world."
>
>Just wondering why 'design learning' . Seems to me
that what you are
>describing in this and your second paragraph is the
same as what is normally
> meant by 'learning' - the ordinary sort that is
learnt in order to do
something with it.
>Seems a bit odd to need to prefix it with 'design'?
>
>I welcome your thoughts.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Terry
>
[log in to unmask]
Norman Sheehan
Lecturer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia