Hi Paraq,
The analysis-synthesis model was not actually part of my methodology.
I referred to it only to quickly establish that in a design project
we start by making sense of the information we have at hand and then
respond to it. As individuals — within a constructivist-
interpretivist framework, it is our life experience which will
determine what sense we make. However, in my own study, which was an
action research investigation, I set out to address a situation
involving text interpretation. The problem identified from previous
experience teaching illustration was that some students developed
concepts which were either very literal or based on secondary
propositions contained within the text. Through a three cycle
approach I was able to build an argument that some students were not
particularly good at establishing the gist of the text, what Van
Dijk and Kintsch (1983) call the macrostructure. By not being able
to sort the information into a hierarchical structure and
relationship, poorer students would then, based on what they
understood, conceptualise. So the argument is that a creative
response to a problem is determined by how the problem is understood.
As regards “the idea that a human designer is able to operate with
full knowledge of what he is doing and why he is doing it", I would
agree with that only if we are talking of tacit knowledge. If we
value the idea that explicit knowledge and metacognitive awareness is
desirable and achievable by a more systematic approach to how design
is taught, then working with novice students through the iterative
and cyclical structure of action research is one way to explore how
that can be achieved. What I have been analysing is, in a sense, the
analysis approach students have taken to comprehend text. The data
itself, is based on interviews and questionnaires and much of the
evaluation is carried out by the students themselves.
Getting back to well-structured—ill-structured problems; I am arguing
that part of the problem students had to deal with was well-
structured ·(comprehend the macrostructure of the text) and part of
it ill-structured (interpret understanding into an illustration). And
I think it is reasonable to argue that different, identifiable
thinking strategies were required for each stage.
Regards
Mike
Louwerse, M. M., and Graesser, A.C. (2006) Macrostructure. In K.
Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, (2nd ed), 7,
(pp. 426-429). Oxford: Elselvier.
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of discourse
comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:19 PM, Parag Deshpande wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I think Mike’s question raises an interesting issue which deserves
> little
> more debate.
>
> Mike is evaluating novice students using analysis-synthesis
> approach to
> arrive at his results. Analysis –synthesis approach for design
> originates
> from, using Jone’s terminology, Glass box approach, where a
> “designer is
> considered as a human computer, a person who operates only on the
> information that is fed to him”. This approach, as Jones notes,
> therefore
> disregards “the idea that a human designer is able to operate with
> full
> knowledge of what he is doing and why he is doing it”. This means,
> that
> this approach does not take into account design skills of a designer.
>
> Mike's note does not elaborate if he is evaluating design skills of
> the
> students. However, if he is, I feel that evaluating work carried
> out by
> novice students (which points towards their low level of design
> skills)
> using Glass Box approach is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions.
>
> Maybe Mike can elaborate on this further?
>
> Look forward to your comments.
>
> Parag
> IDC, University of Limerick,
> NID, India
>
> J.C. Jones, “The state-of-the-art in design methods”, in Design
> Methods in
> Architecture, G. Broadbent & A. Ward, Eds, Architectural Assocation,
> London, 1967
>
>
|