Through my past scrambling of information for the conference abstract I came upon a report concerning the needed changes in undergraduate education. The Boyer Commission, are a group of scientists, educators and designers who have come together to offer some insightful methods to strengthen the quality of university learning by stressing on the re-development and integration of research in undergraduate education. While many of these types of reports I have written usually deal with research in science pedagogy which is unfortunate for design, more of that later, this report gives plenty good examples.

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.

As I mentioned in my last post since last week I have been desperately struggling to write a mere 400 words of positioning statement for the New Views 2 conference. Well, It’s done and thankfully so. I did learn a lot though from going through the process. Early on in the process I was trying to get the “flashy” or “catchy” topic. Too concerned with what type of paper they were looking for and not enough about what I really did know in the big world of design education. After speaking with my supervisor I understood that I was trying to drive to paper to far. That is, too much knowledge that I was not aware of, at least not yet. So her suggested I narrow it down to what I knew about which is for now, a lot about teaching, learning and knowledge. I framed the abstract around questions that I do not necessarily know the answers to but feel through some deep reflecting that could provide a useful insight to the use of research in design education. Also, through this process I found that I really need to get organized. I cannot afford to lose so much time sifting through notebooks and loose articles to find that reference. Oh yes, she did say something about assessment…where did I put that article…or maybe it was someone else that mentioned it. Where’s that notebook! I got away with that before but now I have an even larger pile of articles and notes. Next week, design a filing system that works!

Here’s the paper abstract.

Researching for the Future:
How principles of teaching and learning may facilitate communication of research in graphic design education.

It has been a good ten years since Sharron Poggenpohl from the Institute of Design described in her paper “Why we need Design Research”1 the need and call for research implementation in graphic design curricula. Many other educators also expressed their voice and advocated for a swift re-evaluation of graphic design pedagogy. Since then there have been many advancements towards the investigation of diverse methodologies and their relationship with the constantly changing landscape of professional practice.

“While many schools claim that their graduates can handle the analysis and solution of large scale or complex communication problems, rarely are their college experiences grounded in study that supports designer development of successful strategy.”2

The intertwining, complexity and relationship of research, learning and teaching have raised some important issues on how practice in the future will affect design research education. Recent studies have found that even with the awareness and use of research-led teaching, some methods are still directed towards the final product instead of process outcomes.3 Even though enquiry-based learning has become a standard in most universities as way of encouraging research 4 there is a void in the education of practice-based research to handle the communication problems faced today.

If we now understand why design research education is important then the next obvious step would be how to teach this knowledge towards a practice and educational system where project-based learning environments prevail. Drew argues that it is the way teachers conceive of and approach teaching that encourages deep learning.5 Paul Ramsden also describes how the goal in any teaching is to change the students approach to the subject matter they are learning.6 By actively inviting students to participate in their own learning teachers may find channels towards higher cognitive levels of understanding. These deep learning environments facilitate understanding and process in education and while they may not be directly linked to design research they provide a pathway for students to actively participate in their learning of reflection and process.

The question today is not what is design research and how is it useful but more importantly how are teachers adjusting to the urgent need of research integration in design curricula and what may be alternatives for creating a research-learning environment? This paper will examine how approaches to learning in higher education may provide an invaluable link towards research integration in graphic design pedagogy.

For the last two weeks I have been busily working on a grant submission and a 63 pg contacts booklet for the state of Victoria. Because of certain deadlines, these have been my priorities. Although, I will admit that my research progress has been less than satisfactory I have been reading some articles and taking notes as well as progressing on my visualization of a “new learning approach” (see case study). Other than banging my head on my wall, everything is going fine. Lately, I have been trying to write a position statement for the New Views 2 Conference coming up in London next July. I will hopefully attend as I will be in Europe at the time. Even though its only 400 words I’m having a great deal of trouble finding resources for the topic I have chosen.

The “R” word
Is research the new taboo?
How do its connotations affect learning environments in graphic design education?

So, I might have to go back to something I have more info on and less of a “flashy” topic.  As far as my research, I’ve pin pointed some key areas that I will need to connect with in order to communicate this new learning approach. Some key areas are: assessment, methods, constructively aligned environment, deep learning, principle of alignment, establishing clear objectives, teacher’s delivery, surface learners, the students approach, participatory environment, research based curriculum. At the moment, I have divided these topics up into phases and modules and am looking at mapping them out as a visual project brief.  Times ticking…

Ok…My last to-do list wasn’t quite accomplished but I ready to start again. Because now I’m a little too relaxed after the holidays I will get back into things by reading some of my old blog entries to refresh myself and try to find some concrete examples I can use towards my case study in some readings.

Here are some of the things I will begin to work on in the coming week.

1) Will diagram my learning approach post and others (advice to myself)

2) Take a 3rd person look to my reflections, assumptions and forces finding a way to communicate this information to “myself”

3) What “lenses” (surface/deep, student actions, teacher actions, research through design, etc.) can I use to look at the communication of all this information.

4) Collect information

5) Design a brief for new research course

With all of this reflection going on I have been increasingly been subjected to the “R” word. Since the GRC two colleagues and I have been piecing together a proposal for a new research and participatory learning course hopefully to be implemented into the 3rd year of undergraduate (communication design) studies in the following year. The framework for the course is to create a reflective learning environment where invited practitioners will work with the students in developing their industry related research project. Lecturers and research assistants will be used to facilitate the learning and delivery of the practitioners through practice-led research. What we are trying to do is create a participatory environment where the student, practitioner and lecturer participate in the learning, understanding and reflecting. The research project will be based around the design industry, i.e the students will be required to research and understand a particular area of the design industry that they are interested in.

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.

I feel stuck. I can’t think or express anything right now and feel like my research is standing still or even moving backwards. I’m not sure where all this reflection is going even though I feel I have made some good progress in the identification of the “forces at play” in my past curriculum design. But what next. I’m trying to piece together possible solutions, trying to read Biggs and Ramsden but every page feels like another block towards my research questions.
I guess we will see.

This thought came up after reading a little of Paul Ramsden’s book “Learning to Teach in Higher Education” (2003)

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?

This thought came up after reading a little of Paul Ramsden’s book “Learning to Teach in Higher Education” (2003)

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.

In my assessment post I made some huge revelations towards the importance of assessment and how it can be used to encourage a deeper learning environment. I also discovered some large holes in the designed curriculum one of which was that the program I built was not suitable for graphic design majors coming from North America. (see past posts) which were the majority of the enrolled students.

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)