Hi GK,
You ask 'which design are you referring to?'
I am referring to design in the context of it being an activity which
brings change to a situation. In reference to my study, the situation
requiring change is written text. What is required is to interpret it
into a visual text. The activities required are both cognitive and
applied, tacit and explicit, intuitive and systematic, ill-structured
and well-structured. I agree, that design is, as you say "an
amorphous time warp that exists in multiple states and across
multiple domains simultaneously". Nevertheless, there are times of
focus, when we are able to develop at least some level of
metacognitive awareness of what our focus is at a given moment. In an
educational setting I think the objective is to move beyond a total
reliance on intuition as if the activity of design is still one
totally embroiled in mystique. I believe Oxman talks of "learning
increments" when students can trace design activity to their thinking
processes. When it comes down to determining the structure of a
written text and getting to its essence, there are a limited number
of right answers. This is when one can determine one's activity as
being ill-structured.
Regards
Mike
On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:52 AM, GK VanPatter | NextD wrote:
> Mike: Regarding your second question: Which “design” are you
> referring to?
>
> Klaus might be talking about one “design” while you might be
> talking about another. Design is an amorphous time warp that exists
> in multiple states and across multiple domains simultaneously.
> Without some kind of sense-making framework it is difficult to talk
> about “design” and whether it is or is not “an ill-structured
> activity”. In some parts of the time warp it is and in other parts
> not. If by “structured” you mean not just intuitive Design 1.0
> “activity” tends to be relatively unstructured in comparison to
> Design 3.0 activity”. The proportional activity emphasis between
> SenseMaking and StrangeMaking is also often quite different from
> one to the other. I believe you will find that lots of thinking
> from various directions has been done on this subject.
>
> In any case you might find these docs useful in your quest.
> The first one contains numerous visual models.
>
> NextD Futures
> Visual Models as Innovation Accelerators
> http://nextd.org/pdf_download/NextDFutures.pdf
>
> Rethinking Wicked Problems
> Unpacking Paradigms, Bridging Universes
> http://nextd.org/02/10/1/index.html
>
> Revolution in Motion
> That “design thinking” thing might not be exactly what you expected!
> http://nextd.org/pdf_download/RevolutionMotion.pdf
>
> Towards Adaptable Inquiry
> Transforming That Sustainability Thing
>
> Part 1 of this text was originally posted to the Transforming
> Transformation discussion list on April 14, 2008.
> If anyone would like a copy send an email to
> [log in to unmask] with Adaptable Inquiry as the subject.
>
> PS: The term “problem solving” is as loaded as the word “design”.
> Most use that term in argument construction without acknowledging
> that like the universe of design, the universe of “problem solving”
> has not been standing still for thirty years but rather is itself
> in motion. The truth is that universe contains many framing tools
> that are extremely useful in the context of Design 3.0 as that
> “problem solving” universe long ago evolved towards multiple
> stakeholder involvement more recently being heralded in design
> circles as participatory design. I will leave that one for another
> day.
>
> Spring has arrived in New York!
> Regards to all.
>
> gk
> ...
>
> Co-Founder
> NextDesign Leadership Institute
> New York
>
> NextD
> DEFUZZ THE FUTURE!
> http://nextd.org
> ...
>
>
> Co-Founder, Director Global Ventures Development
>
> Humantific
> StrategyLab | UnderstandingLab | InnovationLab
>
> New York / Madrid
>
> http://www.humantific.com
>
>
>
>
> > From: Mike McAuley <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: Mike McAuley <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:34:47 +1200
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: well-structured and ill-structured activity in designing
> >
> > 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
|