Abstract
This paper discusses the ways in which the long-established tradition of the design ‘practicum’ continues to structure teaching and learning in undergraduate programmes. It draws on an in-depth empirical study of one degree course in graphic design and accompanying research in a small number of professional graphic design studios; this dual focus enables identification of shared practices and discourses across the two contexts.
Examination of its distinctive modes of teaching and learning indicates the effectiveness of practicum pedagogy in promoting design understanding and the professional preparation of students. The study’s insights into the design classroom are illuminated by situated theories of learning, particularly the idea that knowing equates to participation in the specialist knowledge community of graphic design.
A key feature of the learning situation is identified as the practicum discourse shared by tutors and learners, which is characterized as metaphor-based rather than analytical and abstract. The strengths and limitations of this practice-oriented discourse are discussed in the light of the recognized difficulties in articulating art and design knowledge, and its consequent problematic status in the academy. The paper’s focus on metaphorical discourse offers a different view of design pedagogy, and suggests a means of researching it that may also be relevant to other practice-oriented domains.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Block, D. (1999). Who framed SLA research? Problem framing and metaphoric accounts of the SLA research process. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brennan, J., & Little, B. (1996). A review of work based learning in higher education. London: Open University.
Brown, P., Gough, P., & Roddis, J. (2004). Types of research in the creative arts and design, University of Brighton. Discussion Paper.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, 23(3), 219–231.
Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalizing “metaphor” for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Bridges to learning: Metaphors of teaching, learning and language. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coyne, R., Park, H., & Wiszniewski, D. (2002). Design devices: Digital drawing and the pursuit of difference. Design Studies, 23(3) May 2002, 263–286.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.
Fleming, D. (1998). Design talk: Constructing the object in studio conversations. Design Issues, 14(2), 41–63.
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Researching metaphor. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, A. (1999). Technical education and state formation in nineteenth century England and France. In B. Moon, & P. Murphy (Eds.), Curriculum in context. London: Open University.
Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001). Comparisons and contrasts between elementary/primary “School situated design” and “Workplace design” in Canada and England. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 111–136.
Hill, A. M., & Smith, H. A. (2005). Research in purpose and value for the study of technology in secondary schools: A theory of authentic learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 19–32.
Kimbell, R., Saxton, J., & Miller, S. (2000). Distinctive skills and implicit practices. In J. Eggleston (Ed.), Teaching and learning design and technology. London: Continuum.
Kvale, S. (1996a). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
Kvale, S. (1996b). Examinations re-examined: Certification of students or certification of knowledge? In J. Lave, & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (2nd ed.). (pp. 1–2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1999). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (8th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1996). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity. Chichester: John Wiley.
Low, G. (1999). Validating metaphor research projects. In L. Cameron, & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. London, Sage.
Mazijoglou, M., Scrivener, S., & Clark, S. (1996). Representing design workspace activity. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity. Chichester: John Wiley.
McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 1–2, 141–159.
Medway, P. (1994). Language, learning and communication in an architect’s office. English in education, 28(2), 3–13.
Medway, P. (1996). Virtual and material buildings: Construction and constructivism in architecture and writing. Written Communication, 13(4), 473–514.
Prentice, R. (2000). The place of practical knowledge in research in art and design education. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 521–535.
Schenk, P. (1991). The role of drawing in the graphic design process. Design Studies, 12(3), 168–181.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Trumbo, J. (1997). The process of critique in visual communication. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 52(2), 15–23.
Way, E. C. (1991). Knowledge representation and metaphor (studies in cognitive systems, v, 7). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, M. F. D. (2000). The curriculum of the future. London, Falmer.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Professor Bob McCormick who supervised the research, provided invaluable comments on this paper in draft and gave me the confidence to publish my findings.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Logan, C. Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum. Int J Technol Des Educ 18, 1–17 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9009-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9009-x