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"
|