Dear Ken,


You wrote:

"...Another distinction between a progressive research model and an 
embedded model of teaching and learning is the issue of meta-learning. 
Meta-learning involves shaping a wider range of learning options for 
the field as whole, often - but not always - including learning about 
how to learn...

While some teaching and learning generates knowledge for the field, 
teaching and learning is not required to do so. Most teaching and 
learning takes place in the clinical or local context. Many studio 
activities in education and in professional practice involve 
significant teaching and learning without reaching beyond the local 
context to generate meta-learning..."


Whilst I don't feel qualified to comment on the various different types 
of research, I was struck by your comments regarding meta-learning and 
context.

Norm Sheehan (28 aug) introduced in his mail his thoughts on the 
relationship between knowledge emergence, meaning and context.

In my response (aug 29) I wrote:
"... I am convinced that there is a very particular relationship 
between the students' ability to identify with a task and find a sense 
of meaning and the two issues of intent and context. The combination 
and balance of these elements is necessary to ensure that they achieve 
the sense of "intimate conviction" necessary to carry a task through..."

You say:
"... Many studio activities in education and in professional practice 
involve significant teaching and learning without reaching beyond the 
local context to generate meta-learning..."

By building on your point, I would like to try and transfer my thoughts 
regarding design student learning to professional collaborative design 
practice.

I think a significant amount of design learning is achieved or 
encouraged to emerge actually outside the studio. There are a range of 
design enquiry activities of research, interactions with users, 
understanding the context or world of the product, plus organisational 
issues of production, marketing, logistics and development etc, that 
occur in contexts other than the studio. In fact, it is generally 
accepted that the old notion of usability testing in a lab is 
counterproductive as it often forces users, and there are many types of 
user not just the end user, to interact with their knowledge and 
experience in a foreign environment.
As one gets further into an assimilation of the initial understandings 
generated by design enquiry, it is quite definitely more productive to 
hold workshops and the like (if possible) in the environment of those 
who will either produce or use the product or both. Issues of ownership 
and identification are best dealt with, with a delicate sensibility and 
respect for those involved and their local domains.

Re, the studio, in my own experience it is here that one generates most 
of the syntheses and future strategies necessary to drive the design 
process forward. And yes, at some stage design the solutions that 
reflect a common understanding or as one might say,

"that reflect the design learning that has occurred throughout the 
design process".

To your point of meta-learning and learning to learn.

I would like to just twist that a little and say that before people can 
relate to their own learning experience, there has to be a will to 
learn or in design terms, there has to be a will to engage in design 
learning.

In my experience, one of the biggest hurdles we face in design is to 
involve those people necessary to have a rich collaboration and ask 
them to engage in design activities, which are essentially designed to 
support and encourage the emergence of design learning and a common 
understanding. To allow all involved to identify with and be actively 
involved with the issues, "above and beyond what they think" is 
necessary to fulfill the task.

Here is, I feel, a central point, that indicates the need to find a 
greater understanding of the learning expectations and learning 
processes involved when asking others to engage in design learning and 
activities. To understand the meta-learning involved.

The attitudes I've met are varied, but there can be the attitude of 
"well that's your job as designer, isn't it? Why should I have to spend 
my time doing this kind of thing? Can't you just come back with some 
kind of design, whilst I get on with the technical stuff?".

I've mentioned the phrase before, yet do so again as I feel it is 
significant. It is worth considering, in professional practice, what is 
needed to encourage a "learning orientation" to a design task "as 
opposed to just a "task orientation". My understanding of task 
orientation is trying to solve a design task by using means, processes 
and tools that are within one's immediate domain and with an 
understanding of a design task that is directly related to one's own 
understanding, whilst holding at bay any attempt to broaden the scope 
or horizon of a task.

My understanding of a learning orientation is just the opposite. One 
accepts that one's knowledge and experience of a design task, its 
context and those involved in a product's use and production is limited 
or nonexistent and that one has to explore possibilities in order to 
reach the best solution in the given circumstances.

There are many human issues here of security, habit, an aversion to 
taking risks and a reluctance to appear inexperienced or 
unknowledgeable, which are understandable yet which need to be 
addressed.

Designers are usually very good at accepting the need for a learning 
orientation. Most design enquiry and experiment is about that.

I think the questions that need to be looked into are:
What exactly is going on, with regard to learning processes when people 
are involved in design activities?
How can this awareness then be brought to bear on professional 
collaborative design practice?
How one can encourage and support the emergence of the design learning 
necessary to drive the design process forward and support the 
understandings (meaning-making models) of all those involved?

On another tack, activity (learning) theory has a lot to contribute to 
an understanding of design activities, especially the mediating role of 
the types of artifact used throughout the design process. I am also 
familiar with Etienne Wenger's "Community of Practice (Wenger 1998) 
which deals with similar issues.

In the literature I have looked into with regard to activity theory, I 
have found many references as to what happens when the context or 
artifacts in an activity context are changed. I have not yet found any 
reference to an approach to intentionally changing either context or 
artifacts in an activity in order to generate a specific result or 
experience.

For example, there is good literature on design practice that refers to 
the effect of intervention in a design situation, sometimes creating a 
"breakdown" in order to generate new perspectives for those involved, 
for example Pelle Ehn 's "Work Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts" ( 
Ehn 1989)
Learning has taken place, yet there is no real discussion of the 
learning processes involved.

If anyone can point me in some  direction on this - intervention and 
the use of activity theory - I would be very interested.

Best regards,

Chris.

References:
Ehn P (1989) Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. 
Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm (xii, 496)

Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and 
identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y. 
(xv, 318 p.)

from:

Chris Heape
Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice
Mads Clausen Institute
University of Southern Denmark
Sønderborg
Denmark

http://www.mci.sdu.dk

Work @ MCI:
tel: +45 6550 1671
e.mail: chris @mci.sdu.dk

Work @ Home:
tel +45 7630 0380
e.mail: [log in to unmask]