Hello, it's nice to read this thread as this is something that I think
about a lot. I have been teaching Critical Studies to undergraduate 3D /
product design students for several years.
One common problem that I have is the understanding of words like
'argument' and 'critical' - I tend to talk about critical thinking and
narrative rather than argument, but the common perception is that being
critical or presenting an argument has to be negative, or binary -
positives and negatives. I explain it by saying that it doesn't need to be
about saying something is right or wrong, it is more about showing that
they can look at a range of evidence, understand other peoples perspectives
and form their own indepedent opinion based on a range of different
perspectives. It's about understanding criticality as independence rather
than criticism. I also say that the strongest arguments show that they
understand the complexity of situations/phenomena rather than boiling it
down to good/bad, right/wrong.
I've found that two strategies help -
One is to frame their critical studies projects as a research project
rather than a writing project, as they seem to be more comfortable with
research as a process (possibly because it's an explicit part of
designing?) than with producing written work.
The other is to closely link this to their studio design projects, to see
it as an opportunity to do research that strengthens their studio work by
providing a rationale for decision making, or a deeper understanding of a
process/context/user group.
Taking part in the Writing PAD project many years ago was influential in my
thinking about this teaching and I would recommend looking at their
resources and journal - http://writing-pad.org/HomePage
Also recently I saw the Rapid Response Collecting display at the V&A museum
in London, this is a small collection of objects that are collected because
they have a contemporary cultural and political story, and they are
symbolic of contemporary debates - for example they have the first 3d
printed gun that was fired, and they have the first lego set that was
designed by users which is a set of women scientists, they have a set of
flesh coloured shoes in multiple skin tones. These displays show how
designed objects sit within a complex combination of social and political
contextual arguments, and I thought were a neat way to communicate the idea
that critical and contextual arguments and stories can be built around
designed objects - and that it's not just a futile academic activity that
we make students do but that it is also an important cultural practice.
Being able to explain why developing independent critical thinking skills
is important seems important in this, and it needs to be important beyond
being successful in education, so other ideas about that would be welcome!
Katie
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Enbo.Hu12 <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear Jed and Gunnar,
>
> (Jed)
> The ability to clearly communicate and rationalize design decisions is
> clearly an asset, but I feel your problem has more to do with your
> students' fear of speaking publicly. Is it that they do not know now to
> rationalize their ideas, or that they are too afraid to orally communicate
> them?
>
> Yes, it has something to do with the fear of speaking publicly. Shy
> students give away speak chances willingly to active students. Therefore,
> it is important to balance the conversation in class. Let shy students
> speak more and active students to be patient. Every students should feel
> that they are in the conversation rather than be forgot. Shy students do
> have good ideas and need more orally communication practices. Active
> students need to practice their appreciation to peer students’ ideas, be
> open minded. How to let shy students talk more?
>
> My teacher Wibo Bakker uses memo as an assistant. He asks all students
> (shy and active) to write down their comments to all student works. The
> student works lay on the table and memos are around each of work. Students
> walk around the table. Moving makes people relax and not so formal.
> Therefore, students feel more confident in conversation. It works. Every
> students have some interesting ideas. As a starting stage, writing gives
> some time to students. It helps students to generate comments gradually in
> orally communication without a memo section.
>
> The issue in teaching may not due to a lack of rationalizing ideas skill
> but how students perceive their assignments. Students have more enthusiasm
> to what they good at, which is understandable. However, it is also
> dangerous. Students may treat what they do not good at as a reluctant task.
> There are limited motivation in accomplishing a reluctant task. Students
> never share about their ideas about assignments to friends if they treat
> assignments as a reluctant task. The thing students considered are quickest
> and easiest solution that looks cool visually and targets on a higher mark
> without a deeper consideration on rationales.
>
> In addition, students will guess what is the teacher’s personal preference
> in order to get a higher mark. The personal preference is different from
> assignment criteria. The personal preference refers to personal
> interpretation of criteria. I could not say it is wrong. The attitude of
> flattering is somehow not right since it causes students far away from
> design itself. The design result may not be bad but this way the design
> students to finish a task as they will do in the future career is less
> helpful to generate great works. The client may not have a standard in
> design that students can follow. Students need to understand the situation
> and establish the standard and interpretation according to requirements by
> themselves. In this case, students used to design according to a tangible
> standard and interpretation will have difficult to generate a good result.
> Furthermore, students may not remember the standard from teacher. What they
> get after graduated? Not memory. It is the attitude and the ability. The
> attitude of investigating design tasks that they may not good at (jump out
> of comfort zone). The ability of establishing own standard and
> interpretation in order to generate great works.
>
>
> (Gunnar)
> Also, don't underestimate the gulf between your thinking and knowledge and
> theirs.
>
> I think it is the same case as above. The issue is how students perceive
> the conversation. As a student, I know what it feels like if teacher tells
> ‘you will never reach that level’. As Jed said, the enthusiasm to
> participate depends on a variety of factors. A good environment is crucial
> for an interesting conversation. Even students can’t stand in the same
> level of a case with teacher. It would be better that the teacher finish
> the conversation appropriately. Therefore, the enthusiasm of students isn’t
> be killed. The next informative conversation is easy to start. Otherwise,
> shy students will have opposite opinion in their mind compared to their
> friendly face.
>
> BTW, I am a student so that the phrase ‘your students’ in emails is
> somewhat a little strange to me.
>
> Best regards,
> Enbo Hu
> Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
> 在 2015年5月11日，上午2:40，Jed Looker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> 写道：
>
> Hi Enbo,
>
> Lubomir summed up it up nicely, although I feel the number of students who
> continue to study a Masters is significantly less, perhaps due to its
> perceived value in industry.
>
> You have started a very interesting conversation. The ability to clearly
> communicate and rationalize design decisions is clearly an asset, but I
> feel your problem has more to do with your students' fear of speaking
> publicly. Is it that they do not know now to rationalize their ideas, or
> that they are too afraid to orally communicate them?
>
> From my experience teaching interaction design, a student’s enthusiasm to
> participate in a discussion or critique is dependent on a variety of
> factors including time of the week, time of day, project deadlines in other
> courses, hunger, the weather, the instructor’s approach and so on. Even the
> best curriculum and lesson plan can succumb to these external forces. If
> teaching the same lesson to 3 or 4 different sections you can literally go
> from wrestling to keep the discussion on the rails in one, to individually
> motivating students to speak out in another.
>
> Three strategies have worked for me. The first is to shuffle the sections
> between years. This has been successful in breaking up sections who as a
> group have fallen into a non-talkative rut. The second is to tune my
> approach based on the class dynamic of the day. I literally start my
> lessons discussing current events and industry news, and based on that
> conversation I'll have an idea on whether my approach is more as a
> behind-the-scenes facilitator, or as energetic motivator (or what sometimes
> feels like court jester). The third is to choose an activity that promotes
> conversation. Last semester I tried a variation on the 3MT (Three Minute
> Thesis) competition that was very popular with my students and gave them
> experience defending their design decisions. Each student had 3 minutes to
> present their project, and their presentation had to have three sections:
> 1. an introduction to the design problem, 2. an overview of the methods
> used to ideate a solution to the design problem, and 3. a reveal of the
> proposed solution. Students could use as many slides as they thought were
> appropriate (a deviation from the 3MT format), and after they presented the
> class would provide them feedback on their artwork. At the end we voted on
> best in show, the grand prize a gourmet cupcake from a famous local bakery.
> If you were to ask me having the critique as a competition is what
> generated the excitement, and the 3 minute time length kept the flow of the
> class quick and lively. This fun and informal atmosphere encouraged
> students who would otherwise be reserved come out of their shell.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
>
>
> --
> Jed Looker
> MDes Candidate
>
> School of Industrial Design
> Carleton University
> 613 715 1025
> id.carleton.ca<http://id.carleton.ca/><http://id.carleton.ca<
> http://id.carleton.ca/>>
>
> On May 10, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Enbo.Hu12 <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear Lubomir,
>
> I appreciate your and other’s reply. As I understand, you mentioned points:
> 1.vocational attitude of students
> 2.market doesn’t stimulate theoretical thoughts
> 3.programm improvement limited by valued customers (students)
>
> In fact, my first email title was Does argument ability earn money for a
> designer. People consider their career life early than before I guess. The
> school announces their career consultant service as an attractive point to
> current and potential students. The service somewhat release some pressure
> and satisfy needs from family and society. Chinese parents ask their ‘one
> child policy’ child that what they are capable to do after graduated.
> People talk to students how difficult to find a job referencing to news,
> personal experience and stories heard from someone. I think students have
> limited power to response appropriately to these pressure.
> To illustrate, smart watch is not firstly announced by Apple. However,
> Apple has power to introduce this idea to the mass audience compared to
> other companies. This power could benefit the smart watch industry but also
> the industry shares the failure risk reluctantly with Apple. In other
> words, the industry will be hurt if Apple Watch failed. Market plays the
> role of powerful Apple and students have difficulty to response
> appropriately. I asked myself that can I write down argument ability ( in
> your aspect, design philosophy and theory) as a skill in my resume? Does it
> earn money for me? I think the ability is valuable after cooperation with
> non design students.
>
> Currently, I have an entrepreneurship module cooperating with business
> students in my university. At the beginning brain storm stage, one business
> student show 4 sketches without a clear approach behind, two students
> search on Google. The search keyword is ‘1000 great product ideas’. I
> suddenly know the value of a designer. Their direction is totally wrong. I
> have no idea that people will do things like this. Then, I suggest them to
> think about the target customers first. The tools (paint storming,
> root-cause analysis) generates two ideas. Then business students want to
> stick on one of them.
> Let's say the tangible skills are tools. As Susan said, tools also enable
> students to argue (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). In
> this case, the ability distinguishes a design student is the way we observe
> and response to the world, which is probably the design philosophy rather
> than the tools.
>
> Appreciate for all replies again.
>
> Best regards,
> Enbo Hu
> Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
> 在 2015年5月10日，下午8:20，Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 写道：
>
> Dear Enbo,
>
> I am glad you raise this question. I will slightly modify it and focus on
> the content you brought rather than on the argument ability itself.
>
> The nature of design attitudes of the students has baffled me for years. I
> have done some research on this problem, although I never published it for
> political reasons. Students are valued customers and we don't want to
> offend them. University administrators don't like raising issues that will
> offend the customers and turn them off.
>
> I will share some thoughts, although not in a systematic way. I will talk
> regarding the state of this issue in architecture and interiors.
>
> The situations are different across different institutions and design
> disciplines depending on the emphasis of the program of study, the
> tradition, and the culture.
>
> I found that most of our students have vocational career plans, but they
> feel social pressure to go to college and get a degree. Of course, a degree
> for them is the undergraduate degree. Most of design students rarely go for
> Masters. But the way, this is typical across all disciplines. Only about
> 10%-15% of people with Bachelor's degrees continue their studies at
> graduate/Masters level.
>
> If you look at your problem from that perspective, it is easy to see
> student motivations. They want the tools of the trade. They are very
> visual, immediate, and concrete. The Gen Ed courses are an absolutely
> useless rite for them. Do not bother them with theory, even less with
> philosophy.
>
> The vocational attitude drive these students to admire the tangible, the
> things that can be seen, touched, and quantified directly. Students also
> admire tangible skills with somewhat exoteric nature. I have observed
> students in awe of young professionals that demonstrate rendering with
> Photoshop. It looks like a miraculous ability that they want to master. And
> Photoshop is a high school scrap book software, we all know that. Students
> admire faculty who teach them hand rendering. Again, a skill that many of
> them cannot master and they envy and respect everyone who is skillful
> enough to make a line drawing vivid with rendering. This drives to some
> extent the curriculum, the teaching process, and the professional hierarchy
> in the design programs.
>
> There is also influence from some practice-based faculty. It is not an
> exception to hear practitioners talking with disdain about theory. Some of
> the practitioners that teach as adjuncts are job captains, at best, and
> occasionally, even newbies. For them, the most important thing in the world
> is to put the project together, because if the project is not completed,
> there are no fees. That is natural. But they also perceive only the
> tangible deliverables, like presentation drawings, construction drawings,
> detailing, and speck writing. Most of them have managed to stay on the
> market and even lead the profession by perfecting their project delivery
> skills. The reality is that the market doesn't stimulate theoretical
> thought, conceptualization, great design ideas, etc. The market wants the
> project delivered on time, on budget, and without technical errors. In this
> environment, thinkers might experience drawbacks, and job captains thrive.
> After that these thriving people go to teach and share their job skills.
> What skills --the skills related to the technical aspects of project
> delivery. Of course, without such skills we are done. However, these are
> not the core design skills, the design innovation and invention skills.
> Again, I am aware that without technically literate project, no design idea
> can be materialized.
>
> Many programs conduct alumni surveys about skills needed in practice, in
> the "real world." After that, the programs "improve" their curriculum
> accordingly and by develop new courses in these domains. The majority of
> the alumni surveyed have "paradesign" positions or do paradesign work on
> the job. However, they believe that this is the real world; they want to
> fit and progress into that real world (not my real world); and they wish
> they have developed skills for that real world. When asked what design
> skills they wish they have mastered, alumni talk about software,
> construction documents, and speck writing. Not a single one have mentioned
> a curricular deficit in philosophy of design, theory, and design methods.
> Not a single one ever thinks about design research, even in the intuitive
> way lay people do research. Not a single one experiences deficit in these
> areas because of their job tasks do not require such skills.
>
> There are many other issues to consider, and the issues I have mentioned
> are sketched just impromptu. It is good to talk about this, to develop a
> support community, and to develop the curriculum of the 21st Century in a
> new ways, balancing the "clerical" requirements of the design profession
> with the core design thinking.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lubomir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan
> Hagan
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 5:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How to teach argument ability to design students?
>
> Hi Enbo,
>
> It’s such a good question. The link that already appeared from Tom Fischer
> might be the answer to your question.(I haven’t read that article, so my
> apologies if what I’m about to say is already explained in more detail
> there.)
>
> This is what hit me. Since so many students seem to want to begin
> discussion with the tangible because they value it, here’s how you might
> handle it.
>
> To start, I would say that your students are interested in the argument,
> but from a perspective that is too limited.
>
> I hope that this will make sense. I know that I won’t be able to stay in
> the conversation because of a busy week, but here goes. If the idea of
> argument emerges from the Aristotelian model (invention, arrangement,
> style, memory, and delivery), the focus on the Creative Suite taps into
> some aspects of invention because the tool helps students consider what
> they want to communicate; arrangement because they consider the big
> relationships of one element to another; style because they look at the
> smaller relationships; memory because they remember how to use the tool
> (but here is one area where i think that you might be able to explore
> memory as a function of audience); and delivery in the final presentation.
> Unfortunately, in the assumption that the tool is the argument, they miss
> out on a lot.
>
> The question is how do you find a way in to persuade your students that
> more is needed? In other words, what's your argument?
>
> In their assumption, the tool is the argument, you have the first part of
> the given/new contract. The idea behind the given/new contract is to start
> with something that the audience understands (i.e. they know addition and
> that is performs helpful functions). In your case, the given would be the
> Creative Suite and how it contributes to the argument. To that you
> introduce the new (i.e. but addition cannot do everything so you need
> subtraction).
>
> To your given the new could be inventional, such as, you claim that the
> way Photoshop was used here shows mastery of the tool. Your proof is in the
> the artifact. But once we get past what the object can say for itself, what
> other claims does it make? Is it an empty vessel? Give your students a
> limited amount of time, working in small groups to come up with other
> claims about the object. And once they make a claim, ask why you should
> believe it. Their claims must have proof if they are going to convince
> anyone. Where do we see the proof in that work to the claim that you are
> making? You might include examples where you demonstrate this process.
>
> The given/new can also be related to memory as something that the audience
> contributes. You can ask how an exploration of the world that their
> audience inhabits has found its way into the design. In other words, how
> has looking around inspired their use of the tool? You can argue either
> that their serious exploration of how the audience sees the world, can
> increase the inventional elements that they bring to their exploration in
> Photoshop, or that their understanding of audience memory is part of the
> proof that is embedded in their claims.
>
> I hope that this is useful to you.
>
> All the best,
>
> Susan
>
>
> Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes | Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
>
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Enbo.Hu12 <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> How to teach argument ability to design students?
>
> I choose to study design since I believe there are much more interactions
> between people, teachers and students. The university life proved my
> expectation. However, I also see there have room for improvement.
>
> From my observation, some of students prefer to seek for tangible skills,
> for example Photoshop, Cero and sketching. They are tangible because I
> think they present the result of a design rather than rationales behind a
> design. The material of an IKEA Frosta stool is labeled but the rationale,
> meaning and original inspiration are neither labeled. The material is the
> result of a design. The meaning is the rationale of a design. The meaning
> of a design is interpreted by man rather than a software. Argument or
> interpretation ability is not the focus of students.
>
> Students asked for teaching sources of tangible skills. Students show
> their admiration to whom good at tangible skills. However, there are no
> such requirements and admirations after deep silence happened in review
> section. Why students can't see the value of argument ability? How much
> value it is for a designer? How to teach argument ability to design
> students?
>
> This is a question raised from an undergraduate industrial design student
> who studies at Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU), Suzhou, China.
> This may be an annoying question to the list members so that please ignore
> it. Please accept my apologies.
>
> Best regards,
> Enbo.Hu
> Email address [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or
> Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> Discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
