Thank you everyone for developing this interesting thread, especially Terry for the early provocation. As for the discussion on what students should be learning; for me the problem is that they should all probably be learning something that suits their own needs. There may not be one set of information that needs to be included. If you start to think about the content and build a curriculum in detail then you're probably going to end up with an overstuffed curriculum.
A curriculum framework approach where content is loosely directed would enable individuals to explore specifics that relate to their own needs and interests. Resources are highlighted and recommended (these used to be books). The work of an educator then becomes facilitating learning rather than transmitting content. A danger to this approach is that it could end up with a teach yourself method, disparagingly once known as FOFO, f off and find out.
For facilitated learning to be effective it needs to be guided by assessment, students need to know what kinds of qualities you want them to develop and what kinds of understandings you believe they should have. This is a good step towards deep learning.
Regards
Alun
Alun Price
Edith Cowan University
Perth Western Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Amanda Bill <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:39:54 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: History, Theory, Analysis
Dear Carma, Gunnar, Ken, Jacques and others interested in this thread.
Thanks very much Carma, for starting this discussion. Terry¹s original
post certainly had me thinking, but I didn¹t feel I could contribute
meaningfully in the time I have available. Your carefully considered
response makes this much easier.
Terry¹s speculation that the discipline is mature enough to move on from
Design History struck me because my College is indeed in the process of
moving away from teaching a range of specific design history and theory
Courses.
Our college began as a School of Design in the 1960s, adding
Schools of Fine Arts and Visual and Material Culture only during the last
decade. But for at least the last 15 years, history and theory have been
core components of our Bachelor of Design disciplines. Colleagues and I
have developed and taught separate undergraduate courses in the histories
of industrial, visual communication, spatial, textile and fashion design.
These have been prerequisites to discipline-specific theory courses, also
core to our design degree.
In my design theory courses (small seminars to large lectures) I have
tried very hard to apply critical knowledges from humanities and social
sciences, mostly filtered through visual and material cultural studies, in
ways that help students to think about what they¹re doing when they
design. This has been, I think, a very important part of our design
degree.
However, it is also seen as a very inefficient use of resources, and the
college is now moving to an approach that subsumes both design and art
histories under the title of Œcreative cultures¹. This will mean that
students will no longer get any kind of disciplinary canon. The huge
challenge we have been given is to develop modules that will encourage
deep learning experiences, while allowing student choice and managing
student numbers.
So I¹d welcome further discussion of what students should be learning, why
they should be learning it, and the really big issue - how to deliver
this in a post-disciplinary, NASAD compliant environment.
Yours hopefully,
Amanda
Dr Amanda Bill
Institute of Design for Industry and Environment
College of Creative Arts
Massey University, Wellington
New Zealand
+64 4 8015799 ex 62555
email: [log in to unmask]
|