On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Andy Polaine wrote:
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.
That's an issue that should be addressed by administration (increase staffing or don't accept so many students). Besides, I don't see how distance learning fixes this issue. It takes more time and effort to communicate remotely.
Face-to-face can also be dominated by a few enthusiastic or outgoing students, reducing the face time for the others even more.
That's an issue that should be recognized and addressed by the teacher.
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.
I disagree. This really comes down to the teacher. There is nothing inherent in a studio classroom that disallows a mentoring journey as you've described it, and nothing inherent in the distance-learning technology to promote it.
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,
No "probably" about it.
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.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like you are saying it is okay for a design student to be introverted, fragile, and lacking in self-confidence. Critiques are DESIGNED to instill qualities in designers that will prepare them for the realities of the industry.
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.
I would never say it is impossible to have a good, on-line critique. However, in the short amount of time I've been thinking about it, every solution that I know of or start to imagine is based on trying to support the activities that are natural in-person. They are substitutes. They are less effective.
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.
Are you trying to say that an audio-only communication, or a text-only communication has an equal chance of being correctly interpreted as face-to-face communication? I don't buy it.
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.
Again, I would never say that it can't be taught online. But I will adamantly argue that it can't be done as effectively.
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.
There are no absolutes, as has already been stated. Better or worse depends on many more variables than the quality or presence of education. Quality education, however, significantly ups your chances for being on the "better" side of things. And, as I believe an in- person, studio-based education is higher quality than remote learning, it follows that it will provide better chances.
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.
Perhaps. But I bet a student that has participated in a studio program that performs work for actual clients will be better prepared than one who hasn't.
Best, Jack Jack L. Moffett Interaction Designer inmedius 412.459.0310 x219 http://www.inmedius.com When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only of how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. - R. Buckminster Fuller ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
