Dear Norm and Chuck,
Thanks for you responses re: design learning. It has been very
interesting to follow your exchanges.
Norm, I was really interested to read your description of the card task
and that:
"...This knowledge just popped out for this group of students and had
meaning for them in this context...
and the words only have meaning because of the context in which they
are framed".
A couple of posts ago, (friday aug 22) I followed up on Cameron
Tonkinwise's post re: Judgement and decision making and referred to the
notion of "intimate conviction". 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.
In order to get away from a linear approach to the design process, I
encourage the students to think of themselves as explorers in a design
space. I've always held the belief that the answers and solutions to a
design task are "out there", and that it is a question of quality of
mind or intent, that allows certain qualities to shine through and be
identified.
So Norm I have great sympathy for your thoughts when you say:
"...the key to understanding this process is that this context is not
so random as we are conditioned to believe it is.."
Chuck, I too have a good example of the problem of "stimulating ideas
and awareness creation"and finding ways of helping the students to get
the qualities gained into their design work.
I have a course that I've now run on and off for about 7 years. In
order to reinforce the notion of exploring a design space, I ask the
students to invent an imaginary user. They have to get to know the
person and take them on a trip to a foreign city. There they expose the
person to various events or emotional situations that they have to
sketch using found materials. I ask them to experiment in intermediate
phases to build up their understanding of "this particular event or
feeling in this particular context". They learn to be very specific
and focused. The end result is a series of three to five objects that
represent s a "visual postcard" that their character sends home. In
other words they have to make priorities and choices with the range of
material that they have produced in three weeks.
This course was successful in that it allowed the students to
experiment, learn to take risks and get used to the notion of sketches
as sometimes being ambiguous. That their initial understanding of the
task or sketch could change the further down the road they got in the
project. So they ended up with a genuine dialogue and interaction
between their ideas, the task and what they produced. They soon learnt
that although the objects did not resemble "designed objects" that the
mediating power the objects had was very beneficial in explaining to
and engaging others in a negotiation of meaning. On a more personal and
emotional level, the course seemed to give them a boost of confidence -
that experiment was ok. Plus a lot more.
BUT! As soon as they went back to their normal design projects, they
went back to old habits, lost their will to experiment and were
basically unable to transfer the qualities or strategies they'd
acquired in my course to their other projects.
At one stage I was lucky enough to be given 7 weeks at a stretch, where
I ran the original course plus a further development concurrently. The
second phase was still oriented around their imaginary character, but
this time they had to invent a sophisticated digital device for their
character, that could capture some kind of impression. In other words
something other than a digital camera. They had to be able to send some
kind of recording device or chip, that was an integrated part of the
device, as a digital postcard.
So they were producing a very specific product, albeit an invented
product, for an imaginary character in an imaginary context.
THIS WORKED!! Somehow, it seemed that by continuing to use their
character, now an imaginary user, the students were able to wander back
and forth between a very imaginary world and a product world that
related to human needs.
The product concepts were for example:
1. A digital woven textile that was worn around the neck of an elderly
lady to catch glimpses of light.
2. A secret device worn close to the body to aid an arms dealer in his
negotiations
3. A device to put into the mouth to record and save the taste of a
meal in a restaurant in Rome
Finally, when they were presenting these products, I asked them to land
the imaginary product in the real world. Without hesitation and for the
first with no forewarning the students replied:
1. A digital bandage that could relay information about how a wound was
healing or level of infection etc
2. A body monitoring device for either healthcare or interactive games
linked to a gps system and the web
3. A digital device for home use to measure the quality of spit to
register general health levels.
The students surprised me and themselves. They were suddenly presenting
themselves with concepts that were far more advanced than those that
they normally dealt with. The ideal situation would have been for them
to develop their concepts through to completed products.
There are many issues here, some of which I understand and some of
which I'm still trying to work out. They clearly succeeded in
transferring the qualities gained form the first phase to the next. The
general situation allowed them to circumvent the problem of design
students' expectations as to what they should be learning in a design
school, and the creation a learning community of practice with a
mission to take risks and experiment, generated a sense of negotiation
and interest in the explanations and experience of the others present.
I think the most interesting observation was that the imaginary
character acted as some kind of mediator or messenger between their
world of association and the semi-real world of the product. They were
able to mentally shift between the two.
The students went on to use the techniques and qualities gained in
their other projects.
Best regards,
Chris.
------------
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 08:11 AM, Norm Sheehan wrote:
...This knowledge just popped out for this group of students and had
meaning for them in this context...this happens almost every time these
knowledge negotiations through design take place...the key to
understanding
this process is that this context is not so random as we are
conditioned to believe it is...and the words only have meaning because
of the context in which they are framed...the real learning is that the
way in which we organise ourselves in coming to knowledge is of prime
significance so much so that even when the text is invisible the
knowledge formation we adopt in our approach often generates a text
that corresponds to this approach...
Norman Sheehan
Lecturer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 04:12 PM, Charles Burnette wrote:
...I especially appreciate the multicultural issues and the awareness
creation involved. However, I have some doubts about whether this
focuses understanding in a design directed way - i.e.. moving toward
some intentional outcome to improve a situation (as distinct to
generating mutual understanding and shared experience - both
worthwhile.)
Much of the early work in group dynamics (Gordon, Prince, etc.,)
synectics especially, was great at stimulating ideas through
brainstorming and other methods, but really quite poor at bringing them
back into the context of whatever problem was being addressed - how to
realize the potential of the insights they afforded wasn't part of the
technique...
Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-------------
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]
|
