 |
 |
Dear Costanza Thanks for this response. It is often missed that courses are not the same as pedagogy or andragogy. Nor is pedagogy/andragogy an education any more than flour and eggs are a birthday cake or the communal celebration. Regards Harold EMAIL ADDRESS FOR Harold Nelson: [log in to unmask] (secondary email: [log in to unmask]) On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Constanza Miranda wrote: > I believe the point is not that Design comes from the Arts... the real fact, > is there are not many real pedagogues dedicated to Design Education. Or the > other way around, Design educators that prepare themselves for teaching in > higher education. I challenge you to find well constructed curricula with > courses that build on one another and that have clear lesson > plan<https://helpdesk.bcit.ca/fsr/teach/teaching/ja_lessonplans.pdf>s > and syllabus that contain concrete and actionable learning > outcomes<https://helpdesk.bcit.ca/fsr/teach/teaching/ja_learningoutcomes.pdf>and > related grading > rubrics<http://www.ncsu.edu/grad/preparing-future-leaders/evaluation-and-grading.html>. > How many teaching portfolios can we count among the Design Teaching > Community? > > Best, > > On 26 April 2011 16:24, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> just to you, Terry >> >> Applause! >> >> Yes, that is precisely my concern and why i asked for examples of real >> curricula. it is amazing how many of the documents sent to me are actually >> only about the philosophy of the curriculum. I specifically said I wanted >> courses. as far as I can tell, designers (at least on PhD design) like to >> talk, argue, and be philosophical. Don't any of them do real things and >> teach real subjects? >> >> The HCI community as I stated and as you demonstrated puts real meat in >> their stuff. Hmm, HCI comes from engineering. Design comes from the arts. >> >> >> Don >> >> . >> Don Norman >> *Nielsen Norman Group >> *[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org >> http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/ >> Latest book: "Living with Complexity <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#608>" >> KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea). IDEO Fellow. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> A couple of days ago, Andrew Jackson pointed to the UK Quality Assurance >>> Benchmark for undergraduate design education in the UK. >>> >>> >> http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/ADHA08.asp >>> >>> It's an interesting to read it with a critical eye about whether it >>> specifies the quality of performance of Design graduates. >>> >>> >>> >>> Some snippets: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Undergraduate Art and Design education in the UK is only for >>> creating *visual culture* (section 3), except it includes products as >> part >>> of that visual culture. Weird. For example, the chap down the road will >> be >>> using his bobcat (a designed product) to rearrange some house foundations >>> tomorrow. What matters is that the bobcat is designed so it can safely >>> move dirt - lots of dirt and very accurately and safely. I'm pretty sure >> he >>> (or I) doesn't mind at all what the visual culture affects of the bobcat >>> are >>> compared to whether it will stay the right way up and move a lot of dirt >>> very accurately to level. Similarly, I'd expect designers of surgical >>> equipment to view them in other ways than as part of visual culture >>> >>> 2. As the core of the Quality Assurance, there are broad bush >>> definitions (sections 4 and 5) of subject-specific knowledge '.ability >> to >>> generate ideas.' 'employs convergent and divergent thinking.' etc; and >>> generic knowledge '..ability to study independently.'. 'formulate a >>> reasoned >>> response.' etc. Nowhere, however, in the document does it specify any >>> standards or specific competences or even levels of competence or skills >>> that can be assessed in terms of whether the person unarguably has got >> the >>> skills/knowledge or not; >>> >>> 3. The actual benchmark standards are in section 6. It is this >>> section >>> that one would expect to accurately define what a graduate is able to do >> on >>> successful completion of the program (which would also define what is >>> taught >>> and how it is assessed). The information in this section, the benchmarks, >>> are as loose and unspecific as the earlier sections. For example >> 'presents >>> evidence of an ability to generate ideas.', 'will be able to use >> materials. >>> methods.. associated with the discipline studied and familiar with good >>> working practices.' >>> >>> >>> >>> Nowhere in this UK QAA quality assurance benchmark does it indicate the >>> standard, any standard, or specific level of skill or knowledge to be >>> expected of a Design graduate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mischievously, it's possible to take the words used in this QAA for Art >> and >>> Design and ask 'Could a primary school program accord with the wording >> of >>> this honours degree Quality Assurance for a UK Design degree?' It might >> be >>> possible. Certainly a secondary-school Design course might easily fulfil >>> this wording for UK Design degree quality assurance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Contrast the QAA Design degree spec with, for example, a specification >> of >>> what is expected of a Human Centred Design professional as described in >> ISO >>> 134087 >>> ( >>> >> http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa_projects/body_of_knowledge/certif >>> ication_project/files/competence_v0.7.doc ) >>> >>> >>> >>> Am I missing something in expecting a design degree to specify the level >>> of >>> skills and knowledge that graduates will possess? Without it, it seems >> that >>> there is no real basis for a claim for professional standards in Design. >> Is >>> the UK's Art and Design university education really essentially only >>> interested in designing everything in terms of visual culture? If so, >> where >>> is the UK Design education program that teaches people to design things >>> that work? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Terry >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Constanza S. Miranda M. > PhD Student NCSU-Design > www.innovacionsocial.cl > www.facebook.com/designforsocialinnovation > > "Develop Design, Design to Develop"