Re Terry's questions:
Q. What was the new knowledge that you derived from your research?
A. Following on from Goldschmidt's (2001) position that novice design students will not use analogy as a spontaneous creative thinking method I was able to establish that when analogical reasoning is formally applied to a design situation students can develop greater meta-cognitive awareness of their design process. The study also helped establish the argument that creative process is not unfathomable but personal understanding can be accessed through reflection, thus making the tacit explicit.
Q.How did you prove it is valid and an accurate explanation of the phenomenon?
A. The action research cycles can themselves be replicated in that they were systematic. However, action research cycles are iterative and incremental. Nevertheless other researchers could follow the process of enquiry used. What phenomenon? My enquiry was into a process, not a phenomenon. If I was enquiring into a phenomenon I would have considered phenomenology as my methodology.
Q. How do you use it to predict for the future in a way that others can test
its validity?
The enquiry sought to demonstrate that analogical reasoning can be formally applied to a design situation within a student learning environment. Other design educators working with novice students can themselves explore with their students the benefits of analogical reasoning as a formally applied thinking method.
Mike
Dr. MIKE MCAULEY
SENIOR LECTURER, SUBJECT DIRECTOR,
ILLUSTRATION
Institute of Communication Design
College of Creative Arts
Massey University
Museum Building
Buckle Street
Wellington
http://creative.massey.ac.nz<http://creative.massey.ac.nz/>
________________________________
(04) 801 5799 ext 62461
(04 027 357 8799
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Terence Love wrote:
What was the new knowledge that you derived from your research?
|