Dear Susana,
I'm suggesting something rather different - that design education should
rapidly wean itself from trying to teach design theory and practice through
design history.
An organisational analysis of other disciplines trajectories provides some
examples:
1. Science as a field emerged from 'Natural Philosophy'. Education in
'Natural Philosophy' previously depended on teaching the history of
'development of 'Natural Philosophy'. As theory and empirical evidence
became better established than speculation, the need for using history as
the basis for education diminished to the point where it is now almost
irrelevant and historical issues are mentioned only in passing.
2. In its early days, the study and teaching of Language (e.g.
English Grammar) and Linguistics initially primarily used History of
language development as its central teaching method. As empirically-based
theories have been developed, the role of history in education of linguists
has reduced significantly.
3. In its early days, the study and teaching of Psychology initially
primarily used History as its central teaching method. As empirically-based
theories have been developed, the role of history in education of
Psychologists has reduced to the point where it is now almost irrelevant and
historical issues are mentioned only in passing.
4. Education in the skills of historical analysis previously drew on
History as its primary mode of education for those wishing to learn those
skills. Now the disciplinary skills of historical abnalysis are taught
primarily via theories about comprehension, accurate reasoning , conditions
for cause and effect relationships, validit of evidence - theories from the
philosophical discipline of Theories of Knowledge or Epistemology.
5. Education in the discipline of Theory of Knowledge is another example of
a discipline that used to be taught via History (intitially via the
classics). The development of well-justified theory has meant that
education in this area is based on teaching the theories and theoretical
tools and rarely uses History.
6. Perhaps most significant is Engineering Design. Typically, the trajectory
of Art and Design education and theory development follow that of
Engineering design between 50 and 200 years later. The reason is simple.
Engineering design was and is an art that, like Design in the Art and
Design realms, finds benefits in increased use of theory. History of
Engineering Design (or its more common name 'History of Technology') was
until 50 years ago central to Engineering design education. Now, the same
materials are taught directly with only passing reference to history because
it more effective and efficient to do so and because it results in more
skilled and more creative designers.
Think of any field in university and you will see it following this path.
Even in Art, the more recent theories of Art since Kant have shifted the
emphasis away from primarily studying Art history towards analysis and the
development of newer forms of theory and theory-based art practices that
have little requirement for Art History being the primary mode of education.
Recent mathematically-deifed communication and media theories move Art-based
activity further down this track.
The overarching characteristics of this transition towards dropping Design
History as the basis for education in design subjects are twofold. As theory
develops it replaces history. In one sense, theory may be seen as an
empirically-validated distillation of history and hence, its replacement.
Theory offers benefits over history because history provides only examples
and justified theory presents knowledge and understanding that goes beyond
using exemplars. Second, Using theory rather than history is significantly
more educationally efficient and effective for educating designers who are
more creative and more likely to understand the consequences of their design
output.
Finally, are the problems caused by continuing to teach Design History in
Design as a stand-alone subject rather than distributing historical
information at appropriate points in other Design courses. The most obvious
is the issue of efficiency - teaching Design History takes up time that
may be better used in other areas of design education.
A second and potentially significant problem is that of bias causing
restricted development of individual designers and the field as a whole. I
think this problem is deontically obvious. The role of Design History in
design education and the way it has been taught have limited the
development of Design as a discipline and has limited both the education of
designers and the way Design research has been undertaken. I suggest it is
obvious from observation that role Design History has had in maintaining
the culture of 'what it is to be a professional designer' has compromised
the development of the Design field over the last century. Similar problems
can be observed in all fields when the teaching of History has been a
central educational element. The evidence indicates that fields develop more
freely, rapidly and creatively when freed from the conservatism of a
culture based primarily on their prior history.
So, I am suggesting there are signficant benefits in dropping Design History
from Design education. Perhaps it is more appropriate in the discipline of
History, or as a short optional course that the small number of designers
with a conservative historical interest might take to round out their
studies in that area. I suggest the design theories and skills currently
taught in the context of Design History are better taught in a different
way in other courses rather than Design History.
To put it as clearly as I can, it appears that Design education would be
better if Design History was dropped from its curricula.
Best wishes,
Terence
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012 11:17 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Design Education - Rethinking the role of Design History
Terence,
I'm not entirely clear about what you're advocating, but it seems as though
you're saying design education would benefit if design history shifted more
to a theory-focused curriculum.
I agree that in order to advance design as a discipline, design education
would benefit hugely from more theory-based classes. However I'm not sure
the best way to do it is by removing the traditional historical perspective
from design history classes.
To use your example of art education, many fine arts programs I am familiar
with offer both art history and art theory as separate classes-- satisfying
separate needs in the curriculum.
History classes in both Art and Design disciplines provide students with
the historical development of movements throughout time and across cultures.
These classes also examine what factors influence movements such as
religion, politics, historical events and so on. With this understanding,
students are better able to position themselves (and their work) within the
context of what has come before them and are better equipped to critically
examine the choices they make with their own work.
While I agree wholeheartedly that we need more theory in design education
curriculum, I don't think we need to throw the design history baby out with
the bath water.
Regards,
Susana
-Sent via telephonular magic!
-----Original message-----
From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 22:16:36 EDT
Subject: Design Education - Rethinking the role of Design History
Hello,
Erik's posting about Design History brings to attention its academically
rather weird position in university-based Design Education curricula.
Until relatively recently (since the 60s), Design education in Art and
Design has lacked theory foundations. Instead, it has used guidelines such
as 'contrast', 'repetition', 'colour wheel' etc combined with teaching
designers about what has been done in the past from examples, via Design
History courses..
In the non-academic craft context prior to Design being taught in
universities, teaching design history makes sense as a way of teaching
through examples of the work of others. In that craft design education
environment design history has a central role.
Design education in the Art and Design realm is now, however, a university
discipline with increased use of theory that encapsulates and provides
increased generalizable knowledge compared to observing past examples of
designed artefacts .
In university, subjects are taught without this dependence on reviewing
historical examples. All other disciplines in this academic context, focus
primarily on teaching theory, concepts and theory-based practices.
Historical issues are integrated into that teaching and hence, there is no
need for a purely historical course to be a major element in their
curricula. For example, If a course was teaching the use of Planck's
constant , it would occur in a theory course and, in focusing on the
theory, may in passing mention the historical knowledge that Planck
identified it in 1900. Certainly, the use of Planck's constant would not be
taught primarily via History course and the theory derived there. The same
framing happens in all academic subjects including History.
In the discipline of History in university, the educational use of
historical analyses differs from that common in Design . Educationally,
historical analysis typically offers three benefits: a) as a means of
teaching the skills of reasoning and critical thinking that engenders
awareness of and avoidance of fallacy and bias ; b) as a corrective to
current biases and false assumptions; and, c) as an exposure to the
development over time of social considerations. The latter, however, is
almost certainly more easily taught in ways other than by using history as
the primary frame.
It seems that design education is currently disadvantaged by using Design
History where more theoretically-based courses would be more appropriate,
and design education does not take advantage of the above three benefits of
using historical analyses in the Design History courses.
The above seems to suggest the transition of Design into university
requires changes to the balance of the curricula that reduces the role of
Design history as a primary means of design education. Part of that change,
as all other disciplines have discovered, is a significant reduction in
the role of historical examples in education. The requirement for
disciplines to develop theory is to improve efficiency and effectiveness in
teaching, learning, and professional practice. Experience in most areas of
design that have already made the transition to universities are that
designers who are taught primarily via generalizable theory constructs
rather than historical examples can design across more realms, do it more
reliably and better address design issues that are not contiguous with past
examples.
Taken together, it appears there is a need to rethink Design Education in
ways that have a much less central role for 'Design History', and, in
terms of the length of time Design education has now been a university
discipline, this rethinking would appear to be becoming overdue. The
potential benefits are better thinking, better skilled and more creative
design graduates with more employment opportunities. This, in practical and
ethical terms, would seem to trump the costs of avoiding rewriting curricula
and moving away from practices of an earlier era.
Best wishes,
Terence
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
|