Dan wrote: "However, one of the things we should know as a designer is what we can replace with a technology solution, and what we cannot (or should not). The interactions with instructors (masters) and other students (apprentices) on a day-to-day working level is invaluable, and given our level of technology currently, I do not think it could be replicated effectively. Critiques, for instance, which are such a large part of a design education, would be difficult to conduct remotely."
I'm so surprised that you think this way Dan because it's exactly looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. The mistake is to think about replacing one thing with another on a simple one-to-one mapping basis. You have to look behind to the purpose of why anything is being done (or taught, in this case) the way it is. Certainly a face-to-face interaction between student and teacher is different from an online one, but both have positives and negatives. The reality of many programmes is that the student numbers have grown enormously in relation to staffing levels. That means that a student's face-to-face contact is often very minimal and, for some, non-existent. Face-to-face can also be dominated by a few enthusiastic or outgoing students, reducing the face time for the others even more. Online is much more even in that respect and the entire relationship is much more one of mentoring and guidance on a journey as teacher and student together than a top-down dynamic which, regardless of your style and personality, standing up in front of a roomful of students encourages. Crits are, in fact, one of the easiest things to do online, but you have to go back to basic principles and think what is the purpose of it? Why are we doing crits at all and are they the right way to help the student? The answer is probably yes, they do help, but you can give critique and guidance online very easily in text and/or voice (and video if you really want, but it's probably less useful than people imagine). The disadvantage is that it's not as speedy (see my previous post about brainstorming), but that's an advantage too. Other students can take time to think about their critique, harsh criticism is less embarrassing than in a face-to-face context and that makes it both easier for the student receiving it as well as easier for those giving it to be more honest because the social borders are slightly more distant. Is it the same as a face-to-face crit? No. Some kind of group video chat crit probably wouldn't work very well either because the technology is still too much in the way. But written and/or audio crits can work extremely well because they suit the online space much more %u2013 and that's the key to using the appropriate approach to the technology, which is why I was surprised at your take on all of this. It's easy to underestimate the amount of emotion a narrower bandwidth medium can convey just as its easy to forget just how much we miss in a face-to-face context. When Will wrote about seeing the face of the stakeholders and how critical that is, I agree. But I bet everyone on this list has also had the experience of hearing the tone of their partner's or friend's voice on the phone %u2013 or even in a text message - and knowing something is up as well as having the experience of being completely oblivious to the emotional state of someone even when they're in the same room. There are pros and cons to both face-to-face and online education when the approach and learning and teaching structure is misaligned. I've been to terribly dull face-to-face lectures and have read tedious online lectures, just as I have experienced brilliance in both. There are some approaches that I wouldn't use online just as I wouldn't (probably) get divorced via SMS. But then I wouldn't have as close a contact with my family (who live in another country) on a daily/weekly basis without the intimacy that e-mail and text messaging can bring. There is a tendency for everyone who is an expert in their own area to assume that their discipline is "different" and can't be taught online. I've seen it time and time again across universities. It's simply not true most of the time. The main problem is that we all are too close to what we do to be able to step out of it enough to look at the underlying principles of it and how we might teach them. There is no doubt that someone who has learned to be a designer via online education will be different from one who has learned on campus, but I would hesitate to say they are better or worse. They will, for example, be likely to be able to work independently and remotely better, which I wager will be an ever more important skill. In the end no design training really makes you ready for the pressure of a professional studio (or freelance life from home). That only comes when you actually have to do it - it's the pressure of the stakes that makes the difference. That said, there is a lot of terrible online education out there and a lot of trying to use technology to replicate face-to-face experiences (hence the use of video or other software). But that usually doesn't work. Text messaging or e-mail or Twitter aren't the same as any other face-to-face communication. They are similar, but different and, crucially make the best of the medium they are operating within rather than banging up against its limitations. That's what is key when thinking about education - it has to be designed as you would design anything else and that means going right back to first principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37349
________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
