Dear Stephen, Stanislav, and Colleagues,
This is to applaud Stephen’s work and solicit posting by others seeking to update and improve design education. I also add to a statement inspired by a remark in his paper.
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:21 PM, Stephen B Allard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Dr. Brunette's paper looks to combine the latest practice methods (Design Thinking, Agile, Lean and User Centered Design) and then try to link them to possible challenges in the design education field. His work gives more evidence that the design methodology that is being practiced in the USA continues to move closer to software development and its close relationship with User Experience Design to exclusion of the built environment.
>
In his paper he wrote;
A procedure can be cognitively represented on multiple levels. On a very superficial level, a procedure may be represented simply as a chronological list of actions or steps; on a more abstract level, a procedure can include planning knowledge in its representation. Planning knowledge includes not only the surface structure (the sequential series of steps) but also the reasoning that was used to transform the goals and constraints that define the intent of the procedure into its actual surface structure (VanLehn and Brown 1980).
It seems most of design education has not advanced to "the reasoning used to transform the goals and constraints that define the intent of the procedure into its actual surface structure" I suggest that the key is education based on how the mind works, recognizable as modes of thought applicable to any purposeful activity, as noted in my paper on academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>, “ Issues, Assumptions and Components in A Theory of Design Thinking”. My paper on Design Tools attempted to show how tools for reasoning in design fields could be related to the modes of thought of the theory. It would be helpful if someone could map the tools and skills they are teaching to the same modes of thought.
It has been my experience as a visiting studio teacher that even graduate students receive almost no instruction in collaborative work, or how social media, for example, can be integrated into a design process. (Although schools such as Carnegie-Mellon are introducing such tools.) A role oriented problem solving process has been employed almost from the beginning of A Theory of Design Thinking from K-12 education and teacher training to graduate level design studios and research projects to introduce modes of thought through collaborative work. Unifying how skill sets and reasoning can be brought together should be a major objective for design education today.
Or, so I believe,
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|