Just some thoughts for those looking for teaching work

More later…

One issue that Biggs points out is that in able to cite the objectives a teacher needs to first discover what knowledge is involved in the learning process. He states, Declarative knowledge: knowing about, Procedural knowledge: action, sequences, ect. and Functional Knowledge: Theory, Analyze, reflect and basically the when and why, putting procedural and declarative together. Problem Solving. One thing that stood out was how according to Biggs most teaching was done in the two streams of declarative and procedural. Student are then left with two set of information and left to sort the mess out.
I see significant relevance to what Biggs is describing and how it relates to what I have witnessed in graphic design pedagogy. Tools and technology are taught to students, separately, principles and procedures. How can the student put all this information together and gain knowledge from it? Enquiry-based learning helps and so does practice-based research.
I think the key here is to implement ways of teaching and learning so that all design courses have an underlying connection of creating designers with deep-learning skills and be able to articulate this knowledge in practice. Of course their are “forces” involved by this statement but I will get to that soon. (The academic institution and practice)

The report starts by advocating the push for more “Research Universities”, which are universities that “promote collaborative learning experiences, skills of analysis, evaluation and synthesis.”

One important note that they discuss is the importance of “types” of teachers needed in research universities and really all universities in my point of view that would like to introduce some type of deep learning environment for the students. “…students should be taught by those who discover, create, apply and transmit. The non-researcher focuses only on transmitting…” J. Biggs talks a lot about the same things on how it is vital for students to obtain any understanding of what they are doing the teacher needs to actively change there approach to teaching, thus not focusing on transmission or what the teacher does but what the student does. Effectively, trying to understand what the student does and how the student interprets, digests and outputs knowledge. The key here is to get the students to approach there learning. (Ramsden)  In  the design context L. Drew, also mentions that the key to understanding teaching and research is to first get teachers using research in practice thus eliminating the differences of what goes inside and outside of university environments.

The Boyer commission also makes some recommendations to engage research early in higher education (ie, undergrad). This will eliminate in my words “research shock” if they enter graduate school but more importantly will produce a system of inquiry and analysis that will affect practice. What I mean is that by introducing research in the first year of university, students by graduation will bring new skills to workplace which we understand now especially for design are needed because of how practice is changing and evolving into an area where practitioners need to be able to understand the user and be able to solve complex problems not common in the past.

Both the commission and educators like, Drew, McCoy, Davis, Poggenpolh, Nini call for in some sort enquiry-based methods of research to be instilled from the first year. I also think that participatory methods could also invoke a deeper learning and analysis by bringing the students together with “practicing researchers” (do they exist) and collaborative assignments in courses.

I got to go now and move on to some designing in my research. To be continued.

While we were discussing the plan for the course the “r” word came up constantly and not just because we are all doing design research but the use of the word in undergraduate education became a taboo. Teachers who mentioned research to students almost always received an automatic reply of research being “too boring”, “too academic” for communication design. It would be also safe to say that the word scares students because of its “undeveloped” connotations. Because of its historical background in the sciences and academia (Boyer) its no wonder students now are having trouble with the term. The discussion grew towards labeling it another name to avoid negative reactions from the students. Ah yes, a discovery of knowledge through the practice of designing. A little long. Maybe more time needs to be spent on how we can integrate research in early education so that its not just a separate part of design education (a research course) but a system in the entire curriculum. There are many references in communication design arguing the importance of practice-led research for both practice and education but there are few institutions really using design research as an integrated part of the curriculum. (Ill jump back here in a second) Maybe design research needs a good advertising campaign…

Speaking earlier about references:
I just finished co-authoring an abstract paper for a DRS (Design research society) conference. The paper is basically a stripped down version of what we are trying to do with the research course. While helping write the abstract there were many questions that came out of how we were positioning the paper and what exactly was the course about. Is it about research?, participatory learning? reflection? Through discussion I came to realize that we were not really building a research course but creating a pedagogical model using participatory learning. Through the learning of all parties, research would develop and be reflected on. The niche, lets say of the course is that it is bringing in practitioners to be involved in the learning and reflection. Too many big words here…

Anyhow, during this process I was thinking of some references to help back it all up. The key to all of this was participatory learning, which was something that I knew very little about. I found many cases regarding the model in sciences and medicine (wow) but very little directed towards communication design. I will admit though my search was very preliminary and on the surface. What I did find out was that it originated in Scandinavian countries mainly involving industry and not education. Some schools have used the model in their curricula, in fact Daria Loi at RMIT (industrial design) has used participatory learning and reflection as a core element for undergraduate teaching by introducing a group diary as part of the design process. Other institutes such as the New Jersey Institute of technology also are working to engage students as active participants in the design process by exploring, reflecting and questioning, allowing the students to create their own knowledge which also brings in a constructivists model of learning.
So once again my journey takes me into unknown territories.

How do we change the students’ learning approaches to graphic design subjects thus improving the learning and integration of research?

Does that make sense?

1) I think one point to make on this topic is getting students at an undergraduate level to be more reflective in their learning process. The ability to reflect creates an environment for deeper learning and understanding.(should back that up) One way that I have learned to push reflection is through assessment. Another would be establishing different criteria in project assignments.
For example: Designing a logo for company x
Concurrently with handing in thumbnails, brief, presenting comprehensives, and a final presentation, and assessment; the criteria could also include researching logotypes in the service of company x and design a mood board, self assess concepts early in the design process, and/or get the students to actively research the user’s perspective of possible comps using visual questionnaires, etc.

I think I’m going somewhere with this, but its late. I will continue tomorrow.

Its now tomorrow

I would like to frame my question (see above) now with one of the design courses I was teaching. It was essentially a course built to learn Photoshop and Illustrator. If I choose to not redevelop the entire graphic design program and focus on this course here are some possibilities I could have done to enhance deeper learning by changing the learning approach.

1) Background
Because one of the main goals of the course was to enhance technical skills class structure was founded on the classroom in a book tutorials. Each project progressed in difficulty and goals For example the first touched on the use of color, shape, form, ect (Creating a series of montages) 2nd, poster design and the use of type,ect. I would demo a tutorial, the students would practice the skill. The second half of the class was structured around informal discussions on design elements, principles and ways of communication and the students would work on their projects with one-to-one guidance and feedback. For assessment, student were asked to talk about their concepts early on in the design process and then a final presentation which in included a de-briefing paper. I could never get them to do a proper brief but for some reason a de-briefing paper, where they reflected on their project was more successful.

New learning approach:
I think I would keep the classroom in a book structure of tutorials because it gave the students a reference during demonstrations. I would change the structure of the assignment into three sections, all of them to be followed by an assessment (self and teacher) In phase 1 of the project the students goal would be of an investigator. I will deliver the message of discovery and knowledge. They would be asked to find out as much as they could on the subject. The students would informally present their findings to the class. The student would write a small description on what information they found useful and how they explored the process. In phase 2 the students will start initiating concepts for their projects, thumbnails, comps. the student would write a small brief on the process and reflect on the concepts. By one-to-one discussion the teacher could create a dialogue with the student creating an open environment for leaning and understanding. By adding the stop and reflect exercises and presentations I think it forces the student to understand a different way of viewing the task and hopefully create a space for deep learning.
One obstacle I see in this plan, is time. I spent a lot of teaching hours dedicated to producing “quality” work or acceptable design pieces for the school and for the students. But I think too much attention was spent on the aesthetic finishing of the projects instead of asking the question; what did that student learn? Are they aware of what they learned?

How do we change the students’ learning approaches to graphic design subjects thus improving the learning and integration of research?

Does that make sense?

1) I think one point to make on this topic is getting students at an undergraduate level to be more reflective in their learning process. The ability to reflect creates an environment for deeper learning and understanding.(should back that up) One way that I have learned to push reflection is through assessment. Another would be establishing different criteria in project assignments.
For example: Designing a logo for company x
Concurrently with handing in thumbnails, brief, presenting comprehensives, and a final presentation, and assessment; the criteria could also include researching logotypes in the service of company x and design a mood board, self assess concepts early in the design process, and/or get the students to actively research the user’s perspective of possible comps using visual questionnaires, etc.

I think I’m going somewhere with this, but its late. I will continue tomorrow.

I have to admit with all this reflection and intermittent readings I am feeling quite scattered and lost of where this is all taking me.

1) Program was not built to host graphic design majors from North America
- Perhaps more suitable to Italian students in their first year of undergrad +

As discussed previously, the curriculum design did not take into account where the majority of students where coming from and their academic backgrounds. Most students came from North American universities looking for a semester study-abroad holiday earning graduation credits. While I was looking to introduce a new program to the private graphic design colleges in Florence, there seem to be a division in my mind in what I envisaged the program to be and how it would all work. I saw the program to bring deep learning into a system that was rooted in the transmission of information and not reflection. I was looking to introduce a comprehensive program (in the learning sense), where students could expect more than technical instruction but also discover other mediums of visual communication. I was dreaming and hoping big. One thing that this reflection has taught me is how many variables and external forces where involved in the design and a good curriculum design takes research and support to push ahead.

I have been thinking of some possible solutions to these set-backs that I have discovered.
I possibly see two solutions. 1) Since the school was most likely not going to change its advertising towards North American students there either had to be a change in the objectives of the curriculum itself or maybe even the curriculum to be stripped down to its minimum. I could have taken the single course of digital imaging (since it originally had high enrollment) and done some research on how I could have modified the course to fit the needed objectives.

1b) All courses in the program could have been directed towards (Italian/Florentine graphic design)
This would create a niche in the education market in Florence and quite possibly aid in the enrollment of North American students.

This could be done by:
- Establishing a stronger link with design studios in Italy.
- Creating a practice-based research component where it could be linked with the industry
- Adding elements of historical and contemporary Italian design where students would research the influences and styles

1c) The curriculum design could have been scraped and I could have focused directly on bringing research and deeper learning into one course (Digital Imaging) It also would have allowed me something more manageable considering the support system and a concentrated time of research for myself to gather necessary information.

This could be done by:
- Researching graphic design education models i.e (Basel, Bauhaus, American, Bologna, ect
- Investigated a literature review on learning and teaching in higher education, (Ramsden, Biggs, Dorst, ect)
- Structured the course to include assessment techniques such as self assessment, peer, ect to create and more reflective environment
- Divided the course into smaller modules that included writing and reading. The student would research information regarding their project, write about what they learned in the stages of the design process.

In a chapter of Paul Ramsden’s book “Learning to Teach in Higher Education” (2003) he mentions that a goal in teaching is to change the students’ approach to the subject matter they learn. He states it is “the key to improving their learning”, which is also the key to improve teaching in changing the way the process is understood.”

I think this is a great point to reflect on and how it relates to teaching graphic design specifically in this situation of the revaluation of a course. I’m trying to think now what could have been some ways to change the approach of learning technical programs in the (Digital Imaging course) so that students come away with a deeper knowledge of graphic design and the ability to communicate this knowledge through practice. AHHH! My head is going to explode!
or

next post (to be continued)

One of the points that I needed to reflect on in my past curriculum design was that I was trying to really push the program to encourage deep learning with and without the use of the computer. I was trying to develop a system of teaching and learning which would also break the dependencies of technology for the learning of graphic design that were prevailing. What I didn’t want in this new design was the tendency for private study abroad colleges to teach strictly technical skills in any medium. To develop a one year program introducing other elements such as research, reflection and assessment were at that time I was not thinking about too much which definitely disabled the outcome of the program. I have always had the firm belief that students should not study graphic design to learn programs, they can grab a book, or attend a focused workshop for that. Studying graphic design means learning about communication. Students need the ability to use visual cues, design elements, principles, and typography and express these elements in various mediums appropriate for the problem. A graphic design now, must be able to communicate in a social environment both verbally and writing. To obtain this, I don’t think that doing away with the computer in learning environments is the answer but to find other ways of its integration into learning through the use of using research and assessment as a method of pinning a foundation to design pedagogy. Maybe this doesn’t make too much sense right now so I will get back to it.

(Drew, 2000) (Biggs, 1999)
Argues that it is in the way teachers conceive of approach teaching that encourages deep learning and it is the overwhelming factor that individual learners.”