Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Design Pedagogy' keyword pg.1 of 1
27 JUNE 2014

Collaborative peer learning through pair programming

"Pair programming is a style of programming in which two programmers work side–by–side at one computer, continuously collaborating on the same design, algorithm, code, or test. One of the pair, called the driver, types at the computer or writes down a design. The other partner, called the navigator, has many jobs. One is to observe the work of the driver, looking for defects. The navigator also has a more objective point of view and is the strategic, long–range thinker. Together, the driver and the navigator continuously brainstorm a solution. Periodically, the programmers switch roles between the driver and the navigator."

(Laurie Williams, 2007)

Williams, L. (2007). "Lessons learned from seven years of pair programming at North Carolina State University." SIGCSE Bull. 39(4): 79–83.

1

TAGS

active learning • brainstorming solutions • co-learnercollaborative learningcomputer programming education • continuously collaborating • design pedagogy • design roles • design teams • driver (peer learning) • Laurie Williams • learn to codelearning is socially enactedlearning processlearning software • learning strategies • learning support • navigator (peer learning) • North Carolina State University • pair programming • participatory learningpedagogic approachespedagogic practicespeer instructionpeer learningpeer-production • role specialisation • side-by-side • social learningsocial-constructivist approachsoftware programmingtechnology educationworking practicesworking together

CONTRIBUTOR

Liam Birtles
06 APRIL 2014

State of Design: How Design Education Must Change

"But design faces an uncertain future. The traditional design fields create artifacts. But new societal challenges, cultural values, and technological opportunities require new skills. Design today is more human–centered and more social, more rooted in technology and science than ever before. Moreover, there is need for services and processes that do not require the great craft skills that are the primary outcome of a design education.

Although design can sometimes bring creative insight to new problems, this ability is more of an art than a science, limited to a few especially talented individuals and design firms. In order to expand beyond chance successes, design needs better tools and methods, more theory, more analytical techniques, and more understanding of how art and science, technology and people, theory and practice can commingle effectively and productively. ...

Design is still mainly taught as a craft. There are remarkably few fundamental principles, almost no science. If design is to live up to its promise it must create new, enduring curricula for design education that merge science and technology, art and business, and indeed, all the knowledge of the university. Design is an all–encompassing field that integrates together business and engineering, the social sciences and the arts. We see a tremendous opportunity for students that learn design in this integrated way. ...

For design to succeed, grow, achieve its potential, and train future leaders, we envision a new curriculum. In our vision, these new programs combine learning the art and craft of beautiful, pleasurable well–crafted design with substantive courses in the social and biological sciences, in technology, mathematics and statistics, and in the understanding of experimental methods and rigorous reasoning. Programming and mechatronics are essential skills in today's product world. Not only will this training make for better practitioners, but it will also equip future generations of designers to be better at developing the hard, rigorous theory design requires.

Design is an exciting powerful field, filled with promise. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, design and design education must change. So too must universities."

(Don Norman and Scott Klemmer, 25 March 2014)

1

TAGS

2014 • analytical techniques • analytical thinkingart and design education • behavioural sciences • call to actioncomplex phenomenacraft and materialscraft skills • creative insight • creative leaders • deductive reasoning • design academics • design and visual culturedesign artefactsdesign craftdesign curriculadesign curriculumdesign educationdesign education must changedesign facultydesign methodsdesign pedagogydesign studio educationdesign theory • design theory and practice • design thinkingdisciplinary specialisationDonald Normanexperimental methodsexperimental type design • finding and solving problems • formal design methodsfundamental principlesinductive reasoningintegrative practicesinterdisciplinary knowledge • LinkedIn Influencers (series) • material practicesmateriality of artefacts • mechatronics • people and society • people and technology • practical theory • practice and theorypractitioner wisdomquestioning traditionsScott Klemmersynthetic thinkingsystematic approachsystems thinking • technology and people • technology designtheory and practicetheory of designthinking toolsuncertain future • well-crafted design

CONTRIBUTOR

Linda Carroli
04 OCTOBER 2013

Meredith Davis: A Call to Action for Design Educators

"I believe that design education, at the most fundamental level, views complexity as a problem to be overcome through reductivist artifacts, not as an inevitable and pervasive attribute of life in the post–industrial community. So if the future is about an ever–expanding web of connectedness, how are we preparing students for meaningful work in this complex world? I'd like to suggest that we're not. Despite the obvious emotional impact of Glaser's poster, he belongs to a generation in which the goal of design was to make things simple. Negroponte, on the other hand, is a technologist for whom the design goal is to render the complex manageable and to make complicated things meaningful.

Almost everything about today's graphic design education is matched to Glaser's worldview. We structure both curricula and projects in craft–based progressions from simple to complex, from the abstract to the contextualized. In typography classes, for example, we begin with the letter, and then advance to the word, sentence, paragraph, and page. Sequences of typography courses are built on this simple to complex progression, when opening InDesign demands that students address the formal and interpretive issues of publication design simultaneously; how do you defer a discussion of leading, of column width, of the modernist preconceptions of software, of language? The only option is default, and what kind of typographic lesson is that?

The reality is that our strategy for teaching typography is residue from how students could comp type in predigital times; by drawing. It is the organizational structure for every type book since James Craig's 1970 Designing with Type, but it holds less relevance for what students need to know about communication in a digital world. Typography today is a complex relational system that depends on the interplay of formal, technological, linguistic, and cultural variables. Yet we persist in teaching this progression of scale, isolating such variables within their own distinct conceptual frameworks and rules.

The same strategy exists for how students progress in other studies of form. Foundation lessons begin with abstraction: point, line, and plane; color wheels; and paper–folding exercises. We defer discussions of meaning and context until later levels of the curriculum and beginning students learn these abstraction principles only through patterns in what makes their teachers smile. Nothing about these studies resembles what students know about in the real world, and as a colleague recently suggested, what the clients of design see in our work. So what if we begin with the familiar and complex?"

(Meredith Davis, 4 April 2008, AIGA Boston Presentation)

Presentation made at W/Here: Contesting Knowledge in the 21st Century, Emily Carr University of Art+Design, Vancouver, Canada, 7–9 December 2011.

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
07 AUGUST 2012

Creative Tools: a handbook of 15 methods for design practice

"Creative Tools was co–authored by Alex Fung, Alice Lo and Mamata N. Rao based on their teaching and students' learning experiences in the Design Thinking subject. Foreword by Dr. Edward de Bono, this handbook is a comprehensive guide to 15 creative tools that help develop students' creative thinking, not only for design by other disciplines. Each tool has an introduction followed by a demonstration of its use with reflection."

(香港理工大學/Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

Alex Fung, Alice Lo, Mamata N. Rao (2005). "Creative Tools", School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

1

TAGS

2005 • Alex Fung • Alice Lo • art and designcreative problem solvingcreative thinkingcreative tools • Creative Tools (book) • creativitydesign methoddesign methodsdesign pedagogydesign principlesdesign processdesign studentdesign thinkingEdward de Bonohandbook • HK PolyU School of Design • Hong KongHong Kong Polytechnic Universityhow designers think • Mamata Rao • methods for design practicepolytechnic • PolyU • problem-solving • School of Design (PolyU) • student learning experiences • teaching • tools for creative thinking

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
01 JUNE 2011

Design-based Learning for Knowledge-based Economies

"in the ninety years since the creation of the Bauhaus, design educators have constantly challenged the definition of design as a discipline, consequently reshaping the mission and vision of design programs. With the advent of the Bauhaus, design emerged as the integration of artistic methods with scientific principles in order to educate a new generation of artists and craftsmen and better train them to infuse humanistic values into industrial production systems. Later, with the incorporation of design into higher education, it became a self–contained discipline as part of the arts and sciences responsible for the production of knowledge, followed by a process of branching out to multiple specializations within the design discipline. Since then, designers have graduated as experts instrumental in the development of new products and communication strategies demanded by market economies. Curiously, while in the professional context the design discipline has been interpreted as business function, in education, design and business–related disciplines such as marketing, management, and finance were separated by ideological principles and credit distribution requirements. Consequently, the design, business, and liberal arts disciplines were never combined into one program, despite the clear signals that these disciplines are complementary and dependent on each other in terms of imagining new ways of infusing social and environmental principles within resilient production systems regulated by market economies."

(Carlos Teixeira, p.560–561, IASDR 2009)

1). Teixeira, C. (2009). The Entrepreneurial Design Curriculum: Design–based Learning for Knowledge–based Economies. International Association of Societies of Design Research. Seoul, Korea.

TAGS

2009academic disciplinesarts and sciencesBauhaus Schoolbusiness • Carlos Teixeira • creative industries • design as a discipline • design curriculumdesign educators • design enterprise • design managementdesign pedagogydesign-based learningdesignersentrepreneurship • humanistic values • IASDR • ideological principles • industrial production systems • integration of artistic methods with scientific principles • International Association of Societies of Design Researchknowledge-based economyliberal arts • market economies • multiple specialisations • new products • production systems • professional contextrealisation rulesrecontextualisation of knowledge • self-contained discipline • social and environmental principles

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.