Enhancing design skills in art and design education

What I read

In this text, the authors investigate the potential relationships between design-based learning, gender, and motivation in the development of student skills. They conclude that design-based learning is effective, there is no relationship between gender and skill development, and intrinsic motivation has a positive impact on skill development and performance.

First, the authors describe the growth of design-based learning as an evolution from problem-based learning through project-oriented learning, but indicate that this form of learning hasn’t been extensively studied. They describe five sets of design skills that might be gained through design-based learning. These include research skills (primarily secondary-research), communication skills, technical expertise in product creation (including prototyping), reflective skills, and presentation skills, including storytelling and narrative development. They describe that motivation “plays a pivotal role” in developing design skills, and cite references for each of the five skill areas.

Then, the authors describe design-based learning in more detail. This form of education “integrates principles of design thinking into the learning process, with a focus on hands-on, experiential tasks where students confront genuine design dilemmas.” The describe these in more detail, and indicate that the teacher’s role in this form of education is to inspire and share experiences, to ask probing questions, and “acting as consultants, teachers prompt students to articulate engineering concepts… fostering reflective practices to elucidate the rationale behind technical design decisions.”

The authors discuss various other studies that have generated knowledge related to design-based learning; they then articulate the four questions that their study will address. They hope to understand if there is a relationship between design skill acquisition and design-based learning, if there are gender-differences in skill acquisition, if motivation predicts performance, and if variables like gender or motivation predict skill acquisition. They then describe their study, which included a questionnaire concerning design skills and motivation, a split between hands-on (experimental group) and lecture (control group) education and performance on a design skills assessment, and a second questionnaire concerning design skills and presentation skills.

The authors describe their statistical analysis in detail, which I will skip here.

The authors then indicate the findings of the work, and the implications of those findings. First, they learned that students who learned in a hands-on capacity performed better than those who learned through lecture. They identified that there was no relationship between gender and skill acquisition. Intrinsic motivation had significant positive impacts, but extrinsic motivation had no significant effect. And, motivation was a positive predictor to skill acquisition. They conclude that “educators should emphasize the design-based learning, and students’ motivation to enhance their design skills in the field of art and design education.”

What I learned and what I think

While this text follows a formal experimental design that I’ve been reluctant to embrace in the context of creativity, it feels much more formed than the others that I’ve been reading; I think it’s because the experimental conditions were so obviously differentiated: students either did design work, or heard about design work. I’m not sure why this would feel better to me, and I’ll reflect on that more. The researchers used a skill assessment rubric for the instructor, and I think that feels a ton more realistic and useful, and true to life, than just counting the number of things made or the speed at which they were made.

The main finding, around design-based learning being more effect than lecture-based learning, is not surprising; it’s one of the issues with asynchronous or recorded lectures on design in practitioner-focused programs or executive learning. The findings around motivation are also not surprising.

But what was really interesting to me was the way the authors described the role of a design educator. I quoted it above, but the two pieces that really stand out to me are the idea that an educator acts as a consultant, and that they encourage reflection on the rationale behind decisions.

The consultancy metaphor doesn’t fit perfectly, but it feels right. In a consulting environment, we lead, but often don’t assert. We ask questions, and those often get our clients to think in different ways. The questions are typically open-ended, although with an agenda. The power dynamic is exerted subtly, because we ultimately aren’t in control (we can get fired.) We put structure around ambiguity. These are all things a strong design instructor does. The metaphor breaks down on the actual making part—we make things, and our clients respond, but a student should be the person making most of the things—but I don’t mind that it doesn’t hold up 100%.

The other part, though, is the piece that I think is missing in a rapid program, like a bootcamp. In such a compressed timeline, there’s little to no reflection on why decisions are being made; they are just being made. It happens broadly (I made a persona. Why? Because you told me to.)and also at a detailed level (I added the persona’s favorite car brand. Why? Because I’ve seen other people do it that way). I know this is true in my graduate students; I have to assume it’s even worse in a high-anxiety bootcamp context. And without the studio mechanics of a teacher walking around from student to student, or gathering in small groups, or holding impromptu mini lectures, there’s no environment in which this in-situ reflection can actually happen.

This is a missing part for me, that probably should have been obvious: reflection in action isn’t happening in a non-traditional or non-studio based educational context and setting.