Non-linear Paper


Published on

Presentation of my co-authored paper Innovation Design Engineering: Non-linear progressive education for diverse intakes with Prof Peter Childs at the E and PDE conference 2009

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Before I talk about intricacies of the programme I would like to describe a little bit about the student input profile.
  • Sketch illustrating the changing thinking patern of one students – accounting to IDE
  • Make point about convergent and divergent not being comptible
  • Mention engineers look for theories to grab onto
  • Model of 2006-7 course programme-designed to visualise and facilitate the non linear structure. Helps explain the teaching strategies
  • Plan view showing need for DE element and more programme balance
  • Animation showing the construction of the model and highlighting the diversity /disparity of the modules
  • Models of the last three years showing the changes from year to year and the differences of experience. Note greater divergence in early term modules.
  • Plan view highlighting the DE requirement and again showing increasing non-linearity. Mention strands DFM DE EXP
  • 2005 Degree show
  • Diverse destinations
  • Non-linear Paper

    1. 1. Ashley Hall <ul><li>Senior Tutor - Innovation Design Engineering RCA </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Partner - Diplomat design </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    2. 2. Innovation Design Engineering: Non-linear progressive education for diverse intakes Ashley Hall – Royal College of Art Professor Peter Childs - Imperial College London
    3. 3. Motivation for the Paper <ul><li>Disseminate IDE teaching practice for comment and reflection </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate models used to develop non-linear programme </li></ul><ul><li>Explore the case for non-linear design in Innovation Design Engineering </li></ul>
    4. 7. Cristina Ferraz Rigo – Imagine a phone
    5. 8. Greg Epps - Robofold
    6. 9. Rombout Frieling – Flupper
    7. 10. <ul><li>‘ Our education systems are dominated by linear assumptions of what will be relevant to the future, and frankly we don’t know what will be relevant to the future. What we do know is that it won’t be linear .’ </li></ul><ul><li>Sir Ken Robinson Apple Education Summit </li></ul>
    8. 11. <ul><li>Innovation is reduced by: </li></ul><ul><li>Top down control structures </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed hierarchies </li></ul><ul><li>Greater prediction </li></ul><ul><li>Individual assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of collaborative working </li></ul>
    9. 12. Non-Linearity Reasons for a non-linearity padagogic model <ul><li>Convergent vs. divergent models </li></ul><ul><li>Fit to individual problem solving process </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity of output </li></ul><ul><li>New educational models to reflect Industrial demand for thinking based skills </li></ul>
    10. 13. What do I mean by non-linearity ? <ul><li>A non-linear curriculum facilitated for enhancing divergence </li></ul><ul><li>Does not refer to student problem solving methods though its inclusive of all </li></ul><ul><li>Is progressive in terms of students development </li></ul>
    11. 14. Details: Teaching Strategies <ul><li>No implied course narrative </li></ul><ul><li>Avoidance of simplified problem solving techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Contrast of contexts and scales to allow individual creative development </li></ul><ul><li>Group working and interdisciplinarity to promote divergent thinking </li></ul>
    12. 21. Conclusions & Future <ul><li>New paradigm to support creative divergence </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits more diverse and better fit of mind to problem solving activity and creativity. </li></ul><ul><li>Application to other types and levels of programme </li></ul>
    13. 22. Questions
    14. 23. REFERENCES [1] Robinson K. Creatively Speaking: Apple education leadership summit 2008, San Francisco California, [2] Houghton R. S. A Chaotic Paradigm: An Alternative World View of the Foundations for Educational Enquiry, Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin- Madison, 1989. [3] Glanville R. Variety in Design, Systems Research Vol. 11, No 3 1994. [4] Robinson M. Classroom Control: Some Cybernetic Comments on the Possible and Impossible, Instructional Science , Vol. 8, 1979. [5] Cross N. Natural Intelligence in Design, Design Studies, Vol. 20 January1999. [6] Festinger L. A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance . 1957 (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson,) [7] Rittel H. Dilemmas In A General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences 4 , 1973. [8] Dorst K. and Reymen I. Levels of Expertise in Design Education, TU Delft, 2004. [9] Kelley T. with Littman J. The Art of Innovation , 2001 (Profile Books). [10] Conversation between Prof Jeremy Myerson and a new IDE student circa 2006. [11] Sketch by student Elena Figus as part of ‘I am a brand’ workshop, IDE programme, Nov 2008.