Dear all,
The new contributions to the debate make me think of a number of things.
The first one is an impression that comes from the reading of most (not all) contributions :
1/ We seem to consider that studio teaching is at the core of design teaching (My first reaction was implicitely making the same assumption); and as a consequence,
2/ That teaching is not a collective activity, in other words, that design is, in essence, what is taught by designers, the rest of the (compulsory) courses being contextual, rather then substantial to the discipline. Not to mention the contribution of the students (as individuals, but also as a group).
Both points are, to me, puzzling, and I try to find hints about possible responses by confronting them to my experience (with the inherent limits of such approach).
Mattias wrapped all contributions nicely, and then wrote :
"Now, there are even more meta-levels above the first one. This is when you
take a step back from the design artifact to reflect upon and assess the
process of design. What are the techniques, tools, and methods used in the
process, and how can they be used differently and to the best? Should one
use a completely different technique to, for example, externalise and
diverge thoughts on situation of use?"
I am not sure that I really agree. I feel that we cannot really put students in a situation of "deconstruction" of a practice they haven't internalized. And hoping that the "other" courses (typically lectures, as far as I know) will allow these meta levels to become operative is maybe slightly optimistic. If deconstruction is a key word, then the studio teaching itself ought to be deconstructed/reconstructed, if not permanently, at least often. And probably the school also.
I often try to have an "ethnographical" approach to (my) teaching moments. One thing that struck me was that most design students are more scared by having no answer to propose, rather then by challenging the subject itself. And in my view, the most open subjects do not request an answer, they request that you develop a position, and articulate it. I mean here that there is a sort of "dictatorship" of linearity (question>answer, that I prefer to replace by : situation/position) which, I think, produces often boring results. I sometimes say to the students : "I am as lost as you are. The only difference is that I am less afraid of it."
One of the questions I ask myself every now and then is "what should we expose the students to" so that they are equipped for proposing visions to the world in which they will be "blossoming", say in 15 years. I believe that there are substantial changes in the concepts of body, time and/or space, and that very little is done to project/articulate teaching along these open lines.
Best regards
Jean
> Message du 24/06/03 17:50
> De : Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]>
> A : [log in to unmask]
> Copie ŕ :
> Objet : Re: Good Designer=Good Design Teacher? ...
> Hello,
>
> In the context of the Good Designer = Good Design
> Teacher discussion, I thought I'd mention a recent
> paper that I think is quit relevant and informative.
>
> It's
>
> Designing and learning: a disjunction in contexts
> by L L Bucciarelli, School of Engineering, MIT,
> in Design Studies, Vol 24, no 3, may 2003,
> pp 295--311.
>
> I expect that many of you already know this paper,
> but for those who haven't seen it, here is the
> abstract:
>
> Two ideologies about engineering, one claimed the
> habit of engineering design practitioners, the
> other that of engineering educators, are advanced.
> The two are incompatible. The disjunction is
> elaborated in terms of two distinct postulates
> and their consequences. A remedy for educators
> is recommended and the experiences of the author
> in attempting to change the context of learning
> to better accord with engineering practice are
> described.
>
> The two postulates are, and these, I think, are very
> nice:
>
> 1) Engineering design
>
> Engineering design is a social process requiring
> the participation of different individuals having
> different competencies, responsibilities, and
> technical interests. Each participant sees the
> object of design differently, in accord with the
> paradigmatic core of their discipline, and their
> position of responsibility.
>
> 2) Engineering education
>
> Engineering is an instrumental process requiring
> the application of established, rational scientific
> theory in the development of new products and
> systems for the benefit of humankind. Different
> engineering disciplines rest upon different
> paradigmatic sciences.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tim Smithers
> Donostia / San Sebastián
>
|
