Dear Lauchlan,

Thanks for your note. I'd say that the example you give is a design
problem. The distinctions involved illustrate my point. The issue is
not the kind of tools used to solve the problem or the level of
thinking required. For many kinds of gunnery, in fact, you don't need
to do the algebra or physics yourself. You can use gunnery tables and
and ballistics charts.

While this involves solving relatively simple problems, the exercise
of professional judgement remains important. A hit from "friendly
fire" is just as deadly as a hit from enemy fire.

Again, I'm not going to press the case too far. The point is that
using basic gunnery tables in a purposeful applied situation is a
case of design activity. Using the same tables in the classroom or
the firing range to learn gunnery is not a case of design activity in
the same sense. In the classroom or on the field, the gunnery
instructor or the curriculum designer designs the activity and
learning is the outcome.

At sea or on the battlefield, the gunner is part of a design team
using applied techniques to deliver a payload to its target.

The student gunner is learning the techniques, just as a student in
graphic design performs exercises to learn to use software
effectively. The working gunner uses skill and judgement to deliver a
payload under the direction of a tactical command officer just as a
working graphic designer may work on a book under the direction of a
senior designer.

All these kinds of reflections permit examples and counter-examples,
so I'll allow for drawing the line in different ways.

Yours,

Ken

--

Lauchlan Mackinnon wrote:

I'd like to ask one quick question to understand your view better.

Where you say "reasonable reflection would place solving algebra
problems in high school outside design" as "The goal of that exercise
is solving a problem to learn algebra" that is certainly reasonable.
But I could imagine a situation where someone in say the navy used
high school quadratic equations and basic high school physics to
calculate the trajectory of a ballistic missile fired from a ship (I
pick this only as a ready example of use of quadratic equations).
This is goal oriented (they need to fire the missile to land in the
right place), it is a (hypothetical but realistic) real world
situation, and it amounts to applying high school physics and algebra
(solving a quadratic equation). It improves the situation, at least
as far as the navy is concerned.

The question is: would you now say this is a design problem or not?
It is still applying definite known tools to solve a clearly defined
problem. The difference is only that it is moved from a classroom
education situation to a real-world context. But it's still applying
simple quadratic equations and additional straightforward Newtonian
mechanics.

I wouldn't have called this design (as it does not involve any
thinking about or questioning the context of the problem - that can
be taken as given), I would have called this problem solving. But I
am interested in how you are defining boundaries.