Walk the Walk: Using Learning Theory in the Exhibit Design Process (AAM 2011)
Your SlideShare is downloading.
×
Check these out next
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Breaking the Model, Breaking the “Rules:” Instructional Design in a Transdisciplinary Learning Environment (20)
More from colin gray (20)
Recently uploaded (20)
Breaking the Model, Breaking the “Rules:” Instructional Design in a Transdisciplinary Learning Environment
- 1. COLIN M. GRAY, MARISA E. EXTER, IRYNA ASHBY, & DEENA VARNER PURDUE UNIVERSITY BREAKING THE MODEL, BREAKING THE "RULES" INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN IN A TRANSDISCIPLINARY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
- 2. TEXT TECHNOCENTRISM
- 3. TECHNOCENTRISM SOCIO-CULTURAL COMPLEXITY
- 4. TECHNOCENTRISM SOCIO-CULTURAL COMPLEXITY EMPATHY & CARE HUMANISTIC ENGINEERING }
- 5. SOCIO-CULTURAL COMPLEXITY EMPATHY & CARE HUMANISTIC ENGINEERING }REQUIRES THE TAKING ON OF MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
- 6. HOW DO YOU PRACTICE ID WITHOUT “CONTENT”?
- 7. HOW DO YOU PRACTICE ID WITHOUT “CONTENT”? HOW DO YOU BUILD STUDENTS’ ABILITIES TO BRIDGE DISCIPLINES AND CREATE NEW ONES?
- 8. “We refer here to the unarticulated and unexamined means by which eclectic practices unfold in design work; or stated differently, we are concerned that merely claiming one’s practices to be eclectic, and assuming that this admission satisfactorily clarifies one’s modus operandi in the design process, obscures fundamental issues regarding the nature of one’s design decisions in a given situation and masks—often unintentionally—the values, assumptions, and judgments that guide such choices…” (Yanchar & Gabbitas, 2011, p. 385) ECLECTICISM
- 9. UNRAVELING DESIGN THEORY DESIGN METHOD DESIGN PROCESS DESCRIPTIVE PREDICTIVE PRESCRIPTIVE GENERATIVE REQUIRES ATTENDING TO THE DESIGNER’S JUDGMENT (E.G., HOLT, 1997; GRAY ET AL., 2015; NELSON & STOLTERMAN, 2012)
- 10. TRANSDISCIPLINARY UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM TECHNICAL FOCUS “HUMANITIES” FOCUS STUDIO + SEMINAR PEDAGOGIES CASE STUDY CONTEXT
- 11. TRANSDISCIPLINARY UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM TECHNICAL FOCUS “HUMANITIES” FOCUS STUDIO + SEMINAR PEDAGOGIES FALL 2014 SPRING 2015 FALL 2015 SPRING 2016 FALL 2016 SPRING 2017 CASE STUDY CONTEXT
- 12. TRANSDISCIPLINARY MINDSET DISCIPLINES COMPETENCIES DISCIPLINE AS MATERIAL WITH WHICH TO THINK (EPISTEMOLOGICAL LENSES). MULTIPLE COURSES TAKEN WITHIN EACH FOCUS AREA, WITH BROAD DISCIPLINARY EXPOSURE IN STUDIO. COMPETENCY TO RECOGNIZE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN TRANSFER ACROSS DISCIPLINES IN SPECIFIED WAYS TRANSDISCIPLINARITY TO RECOGNIZE SPACE ABOVE, BETWEEN, AND THROUGH DISCIPLINES THAT INFORM SPECIFIC ACTIONS (I.E., COMPETENCIES) SCAFFOLDING TRANSDISCIPLINARY THINKING AND ACTING
- 13. Privileging—Colonizing Designing for Content— Designing for Experience Knowledge/Skills/Abilities— Ways of Knowing
- 14. Privileging—Colonizing ▸ Role of signature pedagogies (e.g., Shulman, 2005) ▸ Presence of competing and multiple epistemologies and ontologies that are rooted in disciplines ▸ Including without marginalizing or universalizing
- 15. Designing for Content— Designing for Experience
- 16. SYSTEMS THINKING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION 2 3 DESIGN THINKING1 Links knowledge from multiple disciplines to analyze & solve a problem Aesthetic engagement Unstructured problem solving D D D E E E P P P Managed & iterative design with reflective design thinking D E P 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Problem framing & research Idea fluency Design options assessment D D D E E E P P P 1.1 1.2 1.3 1 of 3 at Emerging 2 of 3 at Proficient D : 1.1—1.3 at D E : two at E , one at D P : two at P , one at E Ability to see holistically D E P 2.4 D E P Ability to see and understand complexity 2.5 D E P Ability to communicate across disciplines 2.6 D E PAbility to take advantage of a broad range of concepts, principles, models, [...] 2.7 Ability to define the “universe” appropriately D E P 2.1 Ability to define the overall system appropriately D E P 2.2 Ability to see relationship D E P 2.3 Active listening D E P 3.4 Information literacy D E P 3.6 Written communication D E P 3.1 Audiovisual communication D E P 3.3 Reading D E P 3.5 Oral communication D E P 3.2 ENVISION & EXECUTE INDEPENDENTLY4 Lifelong learning D E P 4.1 Ensuring proper time management D E P 4.2 Entrepreneurship D E P 4.3 SOCIAL INTERACTION & TEAMWORK5 D E P Collaborate in interdisciplinary teams 5.6 Teamwork D E P 5.1 Individual Contribution D E 5.2 Working with clients and users D E P 5.4 INNOVATION & CREATIVITY7 Taking risks D E P 7.4 Embracing contradictions D E P 7.5 Creative thinking D E P 7.1 Innovative thinking D E P 7.2 Integrative thinking D E P 7.3 ETHICAL REASONING6 Ethical awareness (developing a global perspective) D E P 6.1 Ethical analysis and reflection (moral reasoning) D E P 6.2 Ethical implementation (recognize different value systems) D E P 6.3 1 of 2 at Proficient 1 of 3 at Proficient D E P Give, receive, and act on critique 5.5 D E P Leadership 5.7 D E P Mentoring of team and team members 5.8 1 of 3 at Emerging 3 of 4 at Proficient Working with culturally diverse teams D E P 5.3 D : 7.2—7.5 at D E : three at E , one at D P : three at P , one at E continued on back Knowledge/Skills/Abilities— Ways of Knowing
- 17. ID PRACTICE ORIENTED TOWARDS EXPERIENCES AND VALUES, RATHER THAN CONTENT
- 18. THANK YOU COLIN M. GRAY colingray.me gray42@purdue.edu
