Dear Mike and others,
I would propose that the nature of the problem as it is encountered
in practice is ill-structured but Design Activity is not:
1. Design = ... activity of deliberate transformation of the
environment (Bertelsen, O. Elements to a theory of design artefacts:
a contribution to critical systems development research, PhD. thesis,
1998).
2. Design= Activity that involves goal-oriented behavior, with the
intention to produce a given result. (D’az-Kommonen, PhD thesis, 2002)
Best regards,
Lily
-------------------------------------
õõ õ õ õ
Dr. Lily Diaz
Professor, Systems of Representation
& Digital Cultural Heritage
University of Art and Design Helsinki
135C HŠmeentie SF 00560
Helsinki, Finland
+ 358 9 75630 338
+ 358 9 75630 555 (FAX)
On 21.4.2008, at 4.34, Mike McAuley wrote:
> Dear list members,
> I am nearing the end of a study which incorporated two separate
> learning strategies designed to assist novice students interpret
> written text into illustrations. The first strategy involved
> comprehension and the second was based on analogical reasoning.
> Without going into details, one of the conclusions I am formulating
> is that designing is far from being an exclusively ill-structured
> activity. Within the process model of problem-analysis-synthesis-
> execution-production-evaluation, I have found that, at the early
> stage of problem definition and analysis students can benefit from
> a well-structured approach to certain aspects of the problem. In my
> enquiry this related to determining macrostructures (the gist)
> within the text (Louwerse and Graesser, 2006). Can anyone tell me
> who originated the terms ill-structured and well-structured? Has
> anyone else come to the conclusion that designing isn't exclusively
> an ill-structured activity?
>
> Mike McAuley
> PhD candidate
>
|