Priscila Lena Farias / Anna Calvera Marcos da Costa ... - Blucher

OLIVEIRA, Izabel Maria de / COUTO, Rita Maria de Souza
design project. He suggests that distinguishing the approaches
used by subjects, with a return to basic investigative studies, and
another with demarcated objectives, leaves the student unable to
perceive the possibilities of association. Consequently, the lecturer
must create stimuli, with dynamic activities that foster these
interactions, in parallel to questioning that prompts the student to
seek out links with other experiences.
This leads to a fundamental issue for teaching design, related to
the approach adopted for conducting the design process: whether
this should be steered rigidly by pre-determined methods that
sometimes mechanize thought, or be guided by reflection that
blends doing and thinking in the construction of a line of thought
and the definition of methodological guidelines.
Issues related to methodology, as a set of methods applied to the
development of a project, are a permanent focus for attention,
when analyzing or discussing design education. Nevertheless, a
mistaken perception of this issue might result in distortions. As
noted by Cross (2007), when the educational processes applied
to this learning curve are poorly understood, they end up firmly
anchored in the design method. A clear distinction must be made,
as expressed by Naveiro and Medeiros (2008: 5): ‘The paradigms
and protocols of design education differ from those of design practice,
and consequently, design methodologies do not necessarily
coincide with design education methodologies’.
Ongoing stimulation is crucial for ensuring the quality of educational
experiences. The ‘experience continuum’ (Dewey, 1976), defined
by continuity, interaction and interpretation, is a necessary
condition for an experience to become educational, endowing the
individual with the capability of regulating, guiding and directing
subsequent experiences.
‘I think that this is very much an outcome of the belief, this nonconnection
(...) that knowledge is linear and is built up cumulatively
(...) and that it really does not take place in this manner.
Everything indicates that experiences are consolidated as they
are repeated and reiterated in other contexts.’ Prof. D.
Guidance from the lecturer, presented in appealing ways, may trigger
questioning that retrieves knowledge already acquired, which
may then be observed, analyzed and articulated from a different
angle, in new contexts. Thus, encouragement for exploration in
greater depth endows curiosity with a critical character, becoming
epistemological curiosity insofar as it explores the object of study
with methodical rigor (Freire, 1996).
The need for a critical look at design teaching, followed by a review
of the current paradigms, was stressed by Prof. H. when talking
about the demand for studies in the design teaching area: ‘There
is something wrong there... I don’t know whether this is a mistake,
but there is something missing, a supplement. I think that what is
missing for this area is for someone to usher in innovation on how
to train design students.’ Prof. H.
The belief of this lecturer is supported by the statement from Cross
(2007) that we need a better understanding of the specific nature
of activity, behavior and cognition related to design in today’s context.
In the quest to reach the core issue for teaching design, Prof.
D. focused his attention on the thinking process as the basis for a
pedagogy focused on developing the capability of enunciation and
reflection, in counterpart to the model targeting the establishment
of thinking standards with methodological formulas:
What is thinking? I propose that we start thinking about this. (...)
progressively, introducing new elements, concepts that will allow
us to develop our capabilities of enunciation and reflection. (...) in
general, the university must draw attention to the tools of thought
(...) completely different from what we had at the start of the design
course here, which was an outside-in methodology, where it was
unimportant whether you thought - or not - in this way or that (...).
Prof. D.
In his remarks on pedagogical experience, Prof. E. offers a reflection
on methodology as a tool for thinking, proposing the method
in action concept:
(...) So, methodological prescriptions are a contradiction in terms,
there are no methodological prescriptions, there are method
resources. (...) They are systematizations. (...) there is a method,
because there is a method, because there is a way of linking things
into chains. (...) method is extremely important, now, method in
action. (...) it is thinking about what is done and systematizing the
way of doing it. Prof. E.
The learning curve for a methodology is built up through constructing
a path that is defined according to an intellectual process.
Students have the opportunity to observe the differences
among the various routes, which highlights the reflexive nature
of the process. In the words of Miller (1988: 2): ‘What is actually
important is the understanding that the thought process in design
involves a wide variety of procedural structures and may thus not
be limited to a single specific methodology.’
When offering advice on the autonomous discovery and construction
of the methodological route, the curiosity of the students
must be nudged into a questioning restlessness (Freire, 1996),
encouraging them to try to construct and test meanings that they
see and hear. In this learning process, they gain hands-on experience
of the guidelines and descriptions of the tutor, applying to
their work the meanings that they produce on what they have
seen and heard, while reflecting on their personal experiences.
(Schön, 2000)
Educational activities must always target the active process of organizing
facts and ideas, according to a more intellectual and objective
scheme of progressive organization, thus spotlighting the
meaning and the importance of the problems being addressed.
This principle formulated by Dewey (1976 and 1979) is clearly applicable
to design education. If properly understood, this process
is consolidated through means that can steer new quests and
research projects, pursuing a flow of continuity in interpretation,
of analyses and synthesis that characterize and intelligent activity
whose goal is always to attain a specific intention or purpose.
Design Frontiers: Territiories, Concepts, Technologies 117