 |
 |
Hurrah Karl. Hurrah Terry ------ Aside I'm in a lurking mode: reading but not responding. But the discussion between Karl Kuutti and Terry Love is to wonderful to be ignored. I started as a short personal note of thanks to Terry and Karl. But it got longer and longer (See Ken, I learn from you), and I finally decided to send this to everyone. ------ Hurrah Terry. Yes, if we had principles and theories, we would not teach history. Instead, history could be learned through osmosis, when appropriate. That is, learning the fundamental principles would automatically reveal the appropriate history. And hurrah, Karl, the lessons to be learned from history are through the careful study and understanding of the historical work. Not just the pretty pictures, not just names, dates, and "movements." The way to get to deep design education that cuts across disciplines is via Terry's goal. And one way to get to Terry's goal is through Karl's suggestions. On Teaching As an engineering undergraduate, I learned about F=MA, hence who Newton was. About springs and restoring forces, hence who Hooke was. As a psychology graduate student, in my studies of psychophysics I learned about jnd's -- just noticeable differences -- hence who Weber, Helmholtz, Fechner, and Stevens were. Learning about information theory taught me not only about Shannon and Weaver, but Miller. (And I later studied with Stevens and Miller.) I never took a course in history of science or of psychology, but I picked it up anyway: I learned history by learning the facts and theories, the experimental findings, and the long-lasting heritage of the great thinkers. I have a strong philosophy of education: people learn best by doing, by struggling with problems -- sometimes called problem-based education. Difficult problems first. Principles and theories second. History last, if at all. Get students motivated by giving them hard problems to solve. Do NOT first teach them principles or history: they won't know why they are being told that. Get them deep into hard problems, and when they get stuck (or fail to reach satisfactory solutions), then have them learn the relevant fundamentals -- because then they will understand why it matters. The same material that is dull and uninviting when being taught too early is exciting and relevant when presented just when the student needs it. Professors like to start with fundamentals and history, thinking if you don't know this, how can you do good work. That is good logic but horrible instruction. People have to be motivated to learn and the best way to motivate people is to give them interesting problems to work on. Hard problems, so they will get stuck -- which will motivate them to learn those principles you want them to acquire. History? Let them learn it when they turn 50. Don't waste previous time in the classroom. Trying to teach something where the students have no interest is a wast of time for teacher and student alike. Trying to earn something when there is no motivation is wasted time. So the real goal of the teacher is to get people motivated, to get them to experience the difficulties and pleasures of the problems, and thereby to motivate them to learn the fundamentals. Design a curriculum around problems that lead the students to learn just what they need, when they need it. In middle-life I started reading history of science. And more recently, history of design. That is how it should be: let people learn things when they are ready. I have long thought that we should NEVER teach history to students. It is dull and boring and lacks any reason to be learned. Students want to get on with it: to do substantive stuff. Professors think history is important. But students don't. They will later on in life, so be patient. Teach the students the work, Teach them the art and craft and where it exists, the science of design. When they become professionals or professors, the good ones will get interested in the history of their field and learn it. Don't confuse teaching principles through examples of previous workers with the teaching of history. Karl Kuutti did a good job of explaining that these are two different things. When a student gets stuck, it is quite appropriate to show a historical example of how similar problems were solved in the past. To quote Karl: "Design History may be the only remaining corner in Design Research where artifacts are still taken as objects of serious research, and that is something we must cling to for the sake of our identity. " The point is, don't teach history. Instead, learn from history. Learn from those artifacts. Capture the fundamental principles that made them so important. Then teach the principles, and sure, give full credit to those who first employed them -- this is what I mean by learning history through osmosis. This is how Terry pointed out the budding scientist learns history. Design is not a science, but it can learn from the parts of science that work. Teach what has been learned, not the history itself. I hated history when i was a student. Now I read it all the time. And that is the way it should be: Let people learn when they are most interested. Don