|
'...The present challenge to art and design pedagogies stems from changes in HE due to expectations and pressures for the development of curricula that address the graduate skill set for the global economy. The introduction to this research noted the consensus that has emerged in identifying the needs of the global economy and the prognosis of the skills base or ‘meta-skills’, needed for HE graduates.
A similar rhetoric – not unsurprisingly – permeates the recent discourse on art and design education. As universities are called upon to cater for the provision of the skills and knowledge required to succeed in the knowledge economy, inevitably art and design education - not immune from such pressures - is confronted with the complexities of dealing with what Kirschenmann (2001, p.12) described as the ‘electronic Prometheus’. The defining characteristics of this ‘electronic Prometheus’ in the context of art education, is that visual information can be extensively modified and thus impact upon what is perceived or experienced. Subsequently, there is a need to encompass in art and design curricula a new form of visual literacy and competence that cater for the interpretation of digitally generated visual outputs, as well as address the ability and skills to create them.
In addition to the pressures from above, i.e. the current role of HE in preparing graduates for the knowledge economy in response to the dominant rhetoric on the skill set needed in the employment market, there are also pressures from below in the form of the current generation of art and design learners; these are comparatively more computer literate than teachers who were educated in the pre-digital world of the immediate post-Coldstream period. The use of the WWW, including email, blogs, and Facebook, plus the widespread use of mobile devices such as ipods, is a common characteristic among a younger generation of learners, who often turn-up in the design studios holding laptops with the latest software. ‘…Design schools today employ an entire generation of disillusioned pre-computer design educators who feel increasingly irrelevant and are retiring en masse.’ (Maeda, 2002). In a similar vein, Kirschenmann (2001, p.12) states ‘Art teachers are especially reserved when it comes to placing a computer next to their easel...’
October 2009
An examination of the art and design prevailing learning models
and pedagogies, provides for an understanding of possible
obstacles or points of concensus with learning theories associated
with elearning. As I embark on researching and writing this
chapter, my temporary summary identifies a significant lacuna
in art and design education.
In contrast to the plethora of sources on the historical
evolution of art and design education in England, the literature
on the respective evolution of educational models and theory
is minimal. It is through the examination of the historical
debates on content and structure of curricula that we deduct
the changes and transformations of pedagogies, as well as
the internal critiques and debates on teaching and learning
in studio-based disciplines. The historical evolution is broadly
divided into three periods of significant change in relation
to dominant trends and beliefs of how art education was practiced.
An additional objective for this chapter, is to identify areas
of comparison with the learning theories associated with elearning
from the previous chapter, and to detect overlaps and differences
between the two, i.e. between the prevailing learning theories
in elearning and those of Art and Design. This comparison
is timely in light of recent debates on what is design education
and designer in the context of the global economy and the
wide-spread use of ICTs (Swann & Young, 2000; AIGA/NASAD,
2004).
November 2007
|
