"Communities of Difference", DIY pedagogy and Maker Spaces

Reference: Gibbons, A., & Snake-Beings, E. (2018). DiY (Do-it-Yourself) pedagogy: a future-less orientation to education. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2018.1457453

Abstract: A future-less orientation, as defined in this article, explores approaches to education within the context of precarious, shifting, labour markets and the uncertain future of employment trends. A future-less orientation questions the validity of traditional views of education: as a means of preparing students for an imagined future career; one which may never happen. DiY (Do-it-Yourself) culture has a long tradition of finding innovative solutions to problems which institutions have failed to supply. In this article we explore the potentials of a DiY pedagogy based on a decentralised and transdisciplinary approach which emphasise diversity and community as a strategy to surviving a precarious future.

Notes: I collaborate with Andrew and have learned extensively from him. I selected this paper because it includes many key ideas which are interesting by themselves, including "Community of Difference" and "DIY pedagogy". It also connects to transdisciplinary, defined as:

"a transdisciplinary practice operates from a third space which is the excluded zones between two or more areas of specialised knowledge, creating a practice which remains outside or beyond areas of specialist knowledge and serves to highlight the negative space between specialist areas of  knowledge."

 I can't recommend enough this book to those interested in these topics:

Biesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. London: Paradigm.

Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler

Reference: Erica McWilliam (2009) Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler,Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29:3, 281-293

Abstract: This paper serves three purposes. First, it makes a case for seeing creativity as a keylearning outcome in our times, and thus the core business of education. It then goes on
to examine the nexus of creativity and pedagogy, showing the conceptual work done to
demonstrate creativity as a learnable set of dispositions and capabilities. Finally and
most importantly, the paper argues the value of a pedagogical approach the author calls
“Meddling-in-the-Middle”, in augmenting and enhancing the repertoires of “Sage-onthe-Stage” and “Guide-on-the-Side” in order to build students’ creative capacity.
Examples are given of what these meta-approaches might look like in relation to the
teaching of Shakespeare. The author concludes by arguing the important connection
between Meddling pedagogy and creative capacity building.

Notes: A culture of teaching that values obedient attentiveness or busy work for its own sake,rather than the attention and busy-ness that speaks of productive engagement, is death to
proactive, self-managing learning. Fortunately, active engagement, rather than listening
and regurgitating, reflects the learning preferences of the present generation of learners,
who are more likely in informal environments to try things out rather than follow
instructions “from above”. If teachers can understand the value of being “usefully
ignorant” about learning options and possibilities, at the same time as they are expert in
their disciplinary field and their pedagogical practice, who are active and inventive in the
classroom, who challenge and support, who do not make things too easy, and who are not
the only source of authority, who use processes of discovery, critique, argument and
counter-argument effectively, who enjoy learning themselves and who do not rush to
rescue their students from complexity – such teachers will contribute immeasurably to the
creative capacity of their students now and in the future.

Teaching Creativity in Engineering

Reference: Daly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., & Seifert, C. M. (2014). Teaching Creativity in Engineering Courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 417-449.

Abstract
The ability to engage in a creative process to solve a problem or to design a novel artifact is essential to engineering as a profession. Research indicates a need for curricula that enhance students' creative skills in engineering.

Our purpose was to document current practices in engineering pedagogy with regard to opportunities for students' creative growth by examining learning goals, instructional methods, and assessments focused on cognitive creative skills.

We conducted a critical case study of engineering pedagogy at a single university with seven engineering courses where instructors stated the goal of fostering creativity. Data included instructor and student interviews, student surveys, and course materials. For qualitative analysis, we used frameworks by Treffinger, Young, Selby, and Shepardson and by Wiggins and McTighe.

One aspect of creativity, convergent thinking (including analysis and evaluation), was well represented in the engineering courses in our case study. However, instruction on generating ideas and openness to exploring ideas was less often evident. For many of the creative skills, especially those related to divergent thinking and idea exploration, assessments were lacking.

An analysis of pedagogy focused on goals, instruction, and assessments in the engineering curriculum revealed opportunities for growth in students' creative skill development. Designing assessments that motivate students to improve their creative skills and to become more aware of their own creative process is a key need in engineering pedagogy.

Notes: Interesting in principle, the conclusion seem contentious, i.e.: that more/new assessments are needed -and that assessments motivate students.

Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers

Title: Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers
Authors: SIEGEL, Martin A and STOLTERMAN, Erik

Abstract: In this paper we make the case that there is today a growing number of educational settings experiencing challenges when it comes to transforming non-designers into designers, and in particular, interaction designers. We see this development as a consequence of an increased awareness and recognition of what broadly could be labeled as a design perspective. We examine the transformational process, the metamorphosis, by which nondesigner students become interaction designers. We identify and describe the barriers that make it difficult for the students to move through this transformational process. We also propose some pedagogical approaches that can reduce the barriers and improve the possibility for the transformation to occur. The approach that we have developed and describe consists of three parts. Based on a fundamental understanding of the nature of design, we have developed (i) a tentative transformational model of how nondesigners become interaction designers; (ii) a special kind of conceptual framework used to support students in the transformational process; and (iii) design assignments based on real-world design problems. We end the paper with two conclusions. First we argue that there is a challenge in transforming non-designers into designers, but that it is possible if the educational effort is based on an understanding of design and on the transformational process with its barriers. Finally we argue that the experience of trying to turn nondesigners into interaction designers is in itself a valuable research approach. Dealing with non-designer students reveals deep insights about the nature of the design process and makes it possible to better formulate what constitutes a designerly approach.

My notes: One of the best papers that will help design educators to introduce "designerly" themes to other disciplines, design researchers and practitioners to better collaborate with colleagues from other disciplines. I first read this paper three years ago and is one of those papers that I'm constantly talking about.