Hi Naom,
Thank you for your reply. I'm intrigued at the response that my
question has generated.
You wrote:
"...Since I am busy, at the moment with a research into emotional
dimension of this kind of learning I come to a conclusion that
motivation
and the willing to take risks is very much influenced by emotions such
as
fear itself or the fear of being embarrassed, Pride or the need to be
proud
full..."
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
|