Francesca Mattioli, Laura Cipriani, Andrea Giuseppe Manciaracina, Andrea Taverna
pp. 34 – 53, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-055-002)
Abstract
Teaching innovation research aims to experiment with new practices and methodologies that relate objectives, activities, tools, and other elements to respond to new educational challenges, such as equipping students with the right skills for increasingly complex and changing work contexts. For higher education institutions, innovation of didactic is an increasingly strategic goal to prepare students for jobs that do not yet exist and to be competitive with emerging players in the educational context. This article outlines a funded research project investigating the perimeter of innovation in design education. The research focuses on the context of the Politecnico di Milano to understand how experimentation in university courses can lead to innovation in design education. The paper presents a survey definition process aiming to map experimentation practices in courses over the past decade and how the results of this mapping can define potential models for codifying and defining teaching practices with innovation potential.
Keywords:
Design education, Experimental teaching practices, Instructional design, Innovative teaching
References
1. Findeli A.: Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological, and Ethical Discussion Des. Issues, 17, pp. 5–17 (2001), DOI:10.1162/07479360152103796
2. Rampino L.: Evolving Perspectives in Product Design. From Mass Production to Social Awareness, FrancoAngeli, Milano, (2022),
3. Sancassani S., Brambilla F., Casiraghi D., Marenghi P.: Progettare l’innovazione didattica, Pearson, Milano, (2019),
4. Eraut M.: Promoting innovation in teaching and learning: Problems, processes and institutional mechanisms High. Educ., 4, pp. 13–26 (1975), DOI:10.1007/BF01569099
5. Biggs J.: Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment High. Educ., 32, pp. 347–364 (1996), DOI:10.1007/BF00138871
6. Vrasidas C.: Constructivism Versus Objectivism: Implications For Interaction, Course Design, And Evaluation In Distance Education Int. J. Educ. Telecommun., 6, pp. 339–362 (2000), DOI:10.1080/0031383890330103
7. Bada S.O.: Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning IOSR J. Res. Method Educ., 5, pp. 66–70 (2015),
8. Clements D.H., Sarama J.: Learning Trajectories: Foundations for Effective, Research-based Education in Maloney, A.P., Confrey, J., and Nguyen, K.H. (eds.) Learning Over Time: Learning Trajectories in Mathematics Education. pp. 1–30. INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC, Charlotte, NC (2014), DOI:978-1-62396-568-6
9. Cobb P.: Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development Educ. Res., 23, pp. 13–20 (1994),
10. Castoldi M.: Didattica generale, Mondadori Education, Milano, (2021),
11. Clements D.H.: (Mis?)Constructing Constructivism Teach. Child. Math., 4, pp. 198–200 (1997), DOI:10.5951/TCM.4.4.0198
12. Schön D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, Inc., United States of America, (1983), DOI:10.4324/9780203963371
13. Efron S.E., Ravid R.: Action research in education: A practical guide, Guilford Publications, (2019),
14. Kemmis S., McTaggart R., Nixon R.: The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research, Springer, Singapore, (2014), DOI:10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2
15. McTaggart R.: Participatory Action Research: Issues in theory and practice Educ. Action Res., 2, pp. 313–337 (1994), DOI:10.1080/0965079940020302
16. Stringer E.T.: Action research, SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, (2013),
17. McKenney S., Nieveen N., van den Akker J.: Design research from a curriculum perspective in van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., and Nieveen, N. (eds.) Educational Design Research Educational. pp. 67–90. Routledge (2006),
18. Tassone V.C., Biemans J.A., Den Brok P., Runhaar P.: Mapping course innovation in higher education: a multi-faceted analytical framework High. Educ. Res. Dev., (2021), DOI:10.1080/07294360.2021.1985089
19. Westbrook J., Durrani N., Brown R., Orr D., Pryor J., Boddy J., Salvi F.: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing Countries Education Rigorous Literature Review (2013),
20. van den Akker J.: Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. in van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W., and Hameyer, U. (eds.) Curriculum Landscapes and Trends. pp. 1–10. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003),
21. van den Akker J.: Curriculum Design Research in Plomp, T. and Nieveen, N. (eds.) An Introduction to Educational Design Research. pp. 37–52. SLO, the Netherlands (2010),
22. Tessier V.: Étude exploratoire sur le travail en équipe d’étudiants dans l’atelier de design : vers un modèle d’évaluation, (2021)
23. Green L.N., Bonollo E.: Studio-based teaching: history and advantages in the teaching of design World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ., 2, pp. 269–272 (2003),
24. Dutton T.A.: Design and studio pedagogy J. Archit. Educ., (1987), DOI:10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461
25. Gómez Puente S.M., van Eijck M., Jochems W., Gómez Puente S.M., van Eijck Á W Jochems Á.M.: A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics Int J Technol Des Educ, 23, pp. 717–732 (2013), DOI:10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x
26. van Diggelen M.R., Doulougeri K.I., Gomez-Puente S.M., Bombaerts G., Dirkx K.J.H., Kamp R.J.A.: Coaching in design-based learning: a grounded theory approach to create a theoretical model and practical propositions Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., (2019), DOI:10.1007/s10798-019-09549-x
27. Zhang F., Markopoulos P., Bekker T., Paule-Ruíz M., Schüll M.: Understanding design-based learning context and the associated emotional experience Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., (2020), DOI:10.1007/s10798-020-09630-w
28. Savin-Baden M., Howell Major C.: Foundations of Problem-based Learning, Open University Press, Maidenhead, (2004),
29. Boutinet J.-P.: Anthropologie du projet, Presses Universitaries de France, Paris, (2012),
30. Gómez Puente S.M., Van Eijck M., Jochems W., Puente S.M.G.: Facilitating the learning process in design-based learning practices: an investigation of teachers’ actions in supervising students Res. Sci. Technol. Educ.,
31, pp. 288–307 (2013), DOI:10.1080/02635143.2013.837043 31. Chua K.J., Yang W.M., Leo H.L.: Enhanced and conventional project-based learning in an engineering design module Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., 24, pp. 437–458 (2014), DOI:10.1007/s10798-013-9255-7
32. Cross N.: Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer-Verlag, London, (2006), DOI:10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_3
33. Schön D.A.: Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass Publishers, (1987),
34. Lawson B., Dorst K.: Design Expertise, Elsevier Ltd, Burlington, (2009), DOI:10.4324/9781315072043
35. Schön D.A.: The Design Studio, RIBA Publications Limited, London, (1985), DOI:10.4324/9780203992715-12
36. Mattioli F.: Teaching And Learning Design In Culturally Plural Teams: Collaborative Learning Practices And Experiences In Plural Classes, (2022)
37. Webster H.: Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond J. Educ. Built Environ., 3, pp. 63–74 (2008), DOI:10.11120/jebe.2008.03020063
38. Saldaña J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, (2013),
39. OECD: The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies, (2005),
40. Voogt J., Roblin N.P.: A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21 st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies J. Curric. Stud., 44, pp. 299–32 (2012), DOI:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
41. Ivanovic I.C., Mattioli F., Ferraris S.D., Rampino L.: Adapting Active Learning in Presence to Distance Education: Effective Strategies from Four Cases in Higher Design Education Official Conference Proceedings of The European Conference on Education 2021, ECE2021. London: International Academic Forum (IAFOR). pp. 87–96 (2021), DOI:10.22492/issn.2188-1162.2021.7