|
Teaching
and Learning
Many
problems assigned by design teachers provide little learning
for students other than the experience of doing. The focus
must be on factors that influence learning rather than on
what is presumed to be an interesting problem. Teachers are
obliged to define and present problems in a manner conducive
to student development. Learning is not an automatic consequence
of teaching. Effective teaching entails identifying what students
gain by doing problems, and using content, process and criteria
directed toward learning.
Teachers
deal with percentages more than they care to admit. They should
strive to provide programs in which the best students excel,
the group in the middle is elevated and enlarged, and only
a small percentage of students fail. Weak or strong students
will proceed at their own pace, while the main block of students
in the middle benefit most from sound pedagogy. An appropriate
definition of pedagogy is systematized instruction or principles
that promote student learning. Students who exhibit a lack
of interest in learning should be dropped from the program
during the first year. This action should be taken without
exception or regret, because these students seriously detract
from the program for committed students.
Learning
All
students do not learn in the same way nor at the same rate.
Some learn from success, others from failure. Learning may
be erratic. For many students, learning is the cumulative
effect of all course work; while for others, the learning
is centered in one or two problems.
For some students, understanding might not come until much
later. There are students who actually learn more from classmates
than from teachers. It is more effective for some students
to move from the general to the specific; while others learn
by progressing from the specific to the general. Most students
learn through doing, but others learn from exposure; a few
learn from hearing or reading about design. There are even
students who learn by imitating work of other designers. All
students learn by a combination of methods. No wonder teaching
is such a challenge!
I am as guilty as any other teacher of giving sequences of
one shot problems; a series of unconnected assignments based
on graphic design applications. For example, posters, album
covers, annual reports, corporate marks, packaging, advertisements
or similar projects, that students can accumulate as portfolio
pieces.
It
was not until later in my teaching career that I became aware
that students who executed well on a particular assignment
seldom carried over the experience of doing that problem to
the next one. This suggested to me that students were being
orchestrated through critique. They were influenced by other
student work, or guided to such an extent by the teacher's
helping hand, that they were not growing as students. At this
point, I began paying more attention to problem definition
and objectives.
Problem
Definition - Basel Pedagogy
My approach to problem definition evolved through
contact with Inge Druckrey and Hans Allemann who joined the
faculty at The Kansas City Art Institute during the mid-sixties.
They were graduates of Armin Hofmann's program at the Kunst
Gewerbeschule in Basel.
Bringing teachers from Basel grew out of a situation that
occurred at the Kansas City Art Institute. I realized our
upper-class students were undisciplined; they could not handle
formal values as well as students from previous classes. I
had been dependent on hiring graduates from Yale University
as teachers. I favored those who advocated Josef Albers' educational
philosophy and teaching methods, and they usually taught at
the introductory level. In 1957, Albers retired, and my well
for teachers went
dry.
My
faculty and I were too busy doing community projects and professional
work to stay in the studio for an entire period. We came into
class, gave a critique or presented a new assignment, answered
questions and then turned students loose. This was workable
with Seniors, but it was unproductive for Juniors and Sophomores.
In
looking around for another source of teachers who could fill
the gap in our faculty, I discovered the work of Armin Hofmann's
students. I was greatly impressed with their design performance,
especially the visual sophistication and intelligence reflected
in their work. It was evident that there was a strong pedagogical
basis for Hofmann's program. I wrote Hofmann a letter explaining
my predicament and asking if he would be willing to send graduates
from his program. In 1966, he sent Inge Druckrey to us. In
1967, Hans Allemann came from Basel, and John Baker joined
us from the Royal College in London. After two years each,
Inge and Hans returned to Europe, and in 1970, Ferdinand Steidle
came to our faculty from Basel.
In
our program, grading at all levels was done through individual
student reviews with the entire design faculty participating.
At student reviews, I focused on work done under the direction
of the Basel graduates. The problems that they presented and
the imagery interested me. I asked questions about criteria,
objectives and process, and carefully listened to their remarks
and criticism of student projects. Absorbing and interpreting
the information seemed crucial to me, and I was attempting
to translate their comments into my vocabulary. Not only was
the idea of using the Basel problems uncomfortable, but it
was impractical. My background was very different, and I was
not at ease teaching processes and imagery which were unfamiliar
to me, even though I understood the value of the objectives.
It
was obvious that aspects of the Basel pedagogy could strengthen
our program. However, it seemed to me it would be more effective
for American students if I could devise content, criteria
and processes achieving similar results that would be suitable
to our educational conditions and student temperament. I admired
the methods and content used by Inge and Hans. Their students
demonstrated highly desirable qualities in terms of performance
and attitudes. This was especially true as it pertained to
their enthusiasm for the work. The students also acquired
greater sensitivity for visual nuances, self-discipline and
better work procedures. At the same time, I recognized that
at the time there were significant differences between American
and Basel Graphic Design programs and students.
My
speculation was that teachers at Basel guided students through
problems with little articulation of criteria. A major part
of the learning process was through problem definition and
student self-discovery. This requires more time for students
to assimilate understanding than is generally allocated by
most programs in this country. The imagery connected with
Basel pedagogy was more rigid and abstract than was customarily
found in American programs. Problems were limited in scope
and greater emphasis was placed on visual relationships; professional
attitudes were stressed over professional practices.
My
impression was that Basel students were better educated before
attending art school. They were more serious about education,
and it was uncharacteristic for them to question assignments
or instructional criticism. European students appeared to
have greater respect for their teachers. They had better work
discipline, could maintain focus and had more patience with
the rigor of their studies.
The
Kunst Gewerbeschule was a trade school offering a certificate
for satisfactory completion of a five-year program. Graphic
Design had a small enrollment compared to the large number
of students in American programs. The Basel program revealed
a strong pedagogical approach to design education reflecting
its highly qualified faculty.
Students
were carefully screened for admittance, and only selected
students were permitted to advance after the first year. Students
worked in classes from eight o'clock in the morning through
the day and often into the evening. The Basel program consisted
of five-years of concentration in art and design.
|
