Research Proposal

John Dewey, the American psychologist, philosopher, educator, social critic and political activist, was probably the first educational theorist to advocate the use of critical reflection as a means of self-enlightenment and development within an educational environment. Dewey defined reflection as, “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Smith, 1999).

Donald Schon later build upon Dewey’s early work by further refining our understand of reflection into two distinct areas; ‘reflection in action’ and ‘reflection on action’. In his 1983 book, The Reflective Practitioner, Schon gives us a more expansive description of critical reflection as;

The practitioner allow(ing) himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation. (Smith, 2007)

It is this constant action and reaction that is central to Schon’s theory, as it is this which builds prior understanding (Smith, 2007), which in turn allows the practitioner to build up a repertoire of images, metaphors and theories (Smith, 2007) to draw upon. Schon called this reflection in practice, ‘thinking on your feet’ (Smith, 2007).

Reflection on practice, as the name suggests is the reflective process we go through at a distance from the incident. This is a more conscious action, rather than the reactive subconscious reflection in action and allows us time to explore and understand exactly why we acted how we did and allows us to develop future strategies to add to our conscious and subconscious repertoire should the incident ever occur again.

Reflection is cyclical in nature, with each reflection feeding back into practice to be then reflected on and improved upon, before again being fed back into practice. The most famous cyclical model is probably Kolbs Learning Cycle, however, I like Kemmis’s Action Research model (MacIsaac, 1996) as it clearly shows how reflective practice, though cyclical, shouldn’t be static and shouldn’t be seen as a theoretical exercise but as a valuable, pragmatic tool that should underpin everything we do on a daily basis as educators.

Looking through my journal and the notes I make on the backs of my lesson plans there have been several occasions or incidents that I feel fall into the criteria of being significant or critical. LaBoskey defines a critical incident as a problem or uncertainty (Strampel and Oliver, 2007), whilst Schon as stated earlier would define it as incident that caused surprise, puzzlement, or confusion.

Several incidents jumped out at me as being worthy of reflection and being the possible basis’s for a research proposals.

The group of students I teach are on an Edexcel Foundation Diploma in Art and Design, and I teach the Graphic Design Module. There are several students who suffer from dyslexia within my group and it became evident that they struggled more than most to use the software programmes that are a core part of the course. No matter how many times I demonstrated the software to them, they would still be unable to produce work using the computer, yet from their sketch work it was obvious that the lack of output wasn’t because of a lack of ideas.

When you start to read around the subject of dyslexia this scenario comes as no surprise and there is a great deal of research into the short-term memory problems, and the transfer of knowledge from short to long term memory that is a key feature of dyslexia.

David Grant in a paper entitled ‘That’s the way I think – Dyslexia and Creativity’, delivered to the 5^th BDA International Conference drew some interesting concussions on this subject when he noted that though, ‘the twin deficits of a weak working memory and a slow speed of visual processing are observed in at least 80% of cases of dyslexia’ (D Grant, 2001), many dyslexia sufferers show “The high levels of abstract verbal and visual reasoning ability reveal a capacity for problem solving’ (D Grant, 2001). He summarizes his findings as follows:

It would be anticipated that the ways in which dyslexics think about how to solve problems, the manner in which they arrive at solutions, and the means they use for verification, will be a reflection of their dyslexic cognitive style. That is, a weak working memory will result in a randomness in the generation of ideas, some ideas being lost, and a tendency to go off at tangents [because of forgetting what the original question or idea was]. It could be argued that the randomness and going off at tangents might be positive factors in reaching for creative solutions. Whether such a cognitive style could be termed ‘dyslexic creativity’ is, at this stage, an open question (D Grant, 2001).

Another incident involved a foreign student who’s English was so poor as to make it almost impossible to teach her. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that it soon became evident that she was claiming to understand far more than she actually did, so when I started asking her to explain back to me what I wanted her to do she couldn’t do so. I asked my mentor for help, and he agreed with me that it was virtually impossible to teach her and we both took the matter up with the course leader, who after talking to other tutors promised to look into the issue. My dealings with this student then came to an end as she didn’t elect to take graphic design as a specialism, and I believe she has since the course.

On reflection this incident raised a number of issues and some uncomfortable feelings. Most obvious is how do we successfully integrate non English speaking students into our classes and how do these students affect the group dynamics, as on a number of occasions I heard students complaining about the time taken up trying to help the foreign student. Despite the current thinking that a teacher should be able to differentiate learning for all students, at what point are we allowed to say, without feeling that we are guilty of discrimination, that a foreign student cannot complete the course because their understanding of English is inadequate?

The final incident I have looked at, and the incident I would take further into my own research project happened on my first teaching session. The group of students I teach are on an Edexcel Foundation Diploma in Art and Design, and I teach the Graphic Design Module. I had prepared my lesson plans and the exercise I wanted the students to undertake on week One was a classic graphic design exercise called ‘the black square exercise’. This involves using black squares within a bounding square to illustrate words or phrases. I was taught this exercise when I was at college and it is an excellent way to force students to think creatively and always seems to elicit some exciting results. As the students are at H3 an increasing amount of a graphic design lecturers time is taken up with teaching students the software they will need to pursue a career in graphic design. The black square problem seemed the ideal way of allowing students to familiarize themselves with Adobe Illustrator, as it required little programme knowledge to successfully complete the task, which meant I could deliver a short directed demonstration of the programmes basic functions and then allow the students to experiment individually whilst I observed them and answered any individual questions.

The moment I entered the classroom it became obvious this wasn’t going to be possible as there were only 19 computers and I had a group of 32 students. Luckily I had access to another classroom, so after my initial demonstration I split the group in two, sent one group to the extra classroom and asked them to work on the brief with pens and paper whilst leaving the other half to work on the computers as I had originally intended. The groups would them swap over at lunchtime, problem solved! What surprised me was that even though the problem needed very little knowledge of Adobe Illustrator to complete it, the fact that the students were having to disseminate there ideas through an unfamiliar interface, the computer and software programme, appeared to hold them back, whist the students working in the next room using pens and paper were expressing themselves freely. Students on the computers were typically producing three or four solutions whilst students working on paper were producing ten or even twenty solutions. The really interesting fact was that when the groups swapped the process was repeated.

After the session I started reflecting on this and reading around the subject. It seemed to me that on a purely practical level that the fear of the unknown was stifling the students ability to think creatively, or that because of their unfamiliarity with the programme students were self censoring themselves; only developing ideas they felt comfortable producing, a kind of technological creative ceiling.

A more theoretical issue also occurred that perhaps by forcing students to combine two opposing learning styles, the linear, logical style needed to process facts and learn a logical process like a software programme and the non-linear, intuitive style needed to develop creative problem solving techniques.

The logic versus intuition debate was famously championed by the Nobel prize winning neuropsychologist Roger W Sperry in his discoveries on left and right brain physiology. More recently, Dr C Hopper’s work on Hemispheric Dominance published on the Middle Tennessee State University website is of interest, and her findings on logical versus intuitive learners states that;

The left brain processes in a linear, sequential, logical manner. When you process on the left side, you use information piece by piece to solve a math problem or work out a science experiment. When you read and listen, you look for the pieces so that you can draw logical conclusions. Your decisions are made on logic–proof. If you process primarily on the right side of the brain, you use intuition. You may know the right answer to a math problem but not be sure how you got it. You may have to start with the answer and work backwards. On a quiz, you have a gut feeling as to which answers are correct, and you are usually right. In writing, it is the left brain that pays attention to mechanics such as spelling, agreement, and punctuation. But the right side pays attention to coherence and meaning; that is, your right brain tells you it “feels” right. Your decisions will be based on feelings (C Hopper, 2003).

When I did my literature review I found some quite specific research into the effects technology is having on creative thinking. One study of note was Cassedy and Stones (2006) from Leeds University who undertook a research study entitled, “Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools” in which they conducted an “empirical experiment designed to compare synthesis strategies adopted by novice designers when using paper-based and computer-based tools” (Cassedy and Stones, p1, 2006). They asked groups of students to “elegantly combine the letter E with the number 6” (Cassedy and Stones, p4, 2006) to produce a new symbol. They then split the group into three; one group used pencil and paper only, one used a computer only and a third group could use both. There findings would seem to support my initial thought and they state that;

A total of 1196 solutions were submitted on paper and 552 were submitted on computer. Though this paper focuses on the type of synthesis attempted when using paper-based working or computer, the data show that twice as many solutions were created when designers used paper rather than computer.

This supports the notion that paper-based working is more cognitively efficient than using a computer (Verstijnen et al., 1996; Won, 2001). Given the fluid and temporary nature of the digital mark, the computer users had more opportunities for deletion and alteration, meaning that fewer distinct solutions remain. Equally, technical challenges might result in slower working. These characteristics of digital working are likely to result in lower levels of output. Conversely, the relative simplicity with which elements could be drawn means that more solutions are likely to be made on paper. (Cassedy and Stones, p6, 2006)

I conclusion, we all use reflective practice everyday; we act, we consider, we improve – are whole lives are built on learning we have gained through reflection on past successes and failures. Reflective practice is just a way of formalizing these subconscious actions into a self conscious routine that provides educators with a framework for self-development. We should, however, be careful that this formalization doesn’t turn intuition into navel gazing, or as The Higher Education Academy puts it when discussing Scion’s work on, ‘drawing on our intuition we do what feels right. It is an emotional response that complements our knowledge and what we understand about a subject, and which enables us to act in a situation.’ (HEA, 2008)

Cassidy, T & Stones, C. (2006). Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools Online. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2K-4MBC53Y-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&
_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b7aeddc69073fc4d0f0df0f73d9fdecd [6th April 2008]

Grant, D. (2001). That’s the way I think – Dyslexia and Creativity Online. Available: http://www.bdainternationalconference.org /2001/presentations/sat_s6_b_4.htm [5th April 2008]

Hopper, C. (2003). Practicing College Study Skills: Strategies for Success. 3rd edition Online. Available: http://www.mtsu.edu/~studskl/hd/learn.html [6th April 2008]

MacIssac, D. (1996). An Introduction to Action Research Online. Available: http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/danowner/actionrsch.html [8th April 2008]

Smith, M.K. (2007). Donald Schon: learning, reflection and change Online. Available: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm [9th April 2008]

Strampel, K. & Oliver, R. (2007). Using technology to foster reflection in higher education. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Online. Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au /conferences/singapore07/procs/strampel.pdf [29th March 2008]

The Higher Education Academy. (2008). What is reflective practice? Online. Available: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/about/resources/reflection/what.html [6th April 2008]

Research Proposal

I propose a primary research study into the detrimental links, if any, on the student experience, between the increased time taken up teaching post compulsory graphic design students computer software and their abilities to find creative solutions using the design theories and skills traditionally taught to student designers and that should still underpin the work of a graphic designer today.

I am also interested in whether forcing students into having to combine two very different learning styles, i.e. the analytical, logical and linear learning style needed to learn design software and the intuitive problem solving learning style needed to develop creative thinking inhibits students from freely expressing any innate creativity they naturally posess .

The research would be carried out via the internet, and consist initially of an online questionnaire that participants would access from an email inviting them to participate. It would work as follows:

Initial contact would be through graphic design course leaders at both FE and HE levels and would be made via email, explaining the research, introducing myself and explaining any ethical issues and terms of use associated with the study.

Course leaders would be asked to email back if they were interested in taking part.

The course leader would be then asked to supply the names of ten students in the first year of their courses who would be willing to complete the questionnaire. These results would be stored on an online database. All names would be removed to ensure anonymity.

The ten students would be then split into two groups of five and asked to complete a simple design exercise, one group on paper, one group on computer, and submit their results (the paper results would be scanned and submitted digitally along with the digital solutions).

The students would be asked to fill in a post exercise questionnaire and the results of the questionnaires and exercise would then be compiled and the results posted on the public section of the research website.

Participating institutions would be invited to a symposium to debate the research findings and lecturers would be invited to present any pertinent papers and research to the other design educators. The content of the presentations would then be put on the website and made freely available to design educators.

Appendix

Two sample questions from the initial student questionnaire:

Question One
Do you use creative software primarily to develop ideas or implement solutions?

1. Develop Ideas
2. Implement Solutions
3. Both

Question Two
Do you sketch ideas before transferring them to computer?

1. Always
2. Sometimes
3. Never

The brief for the split design exercise:

There is every reason to assume that our current alphabet will continue to evolve, and it is this assumption that is the starting point for this assignment.
You are to decide on a 27th letter of the alphabet and design a symbol to represent your new letter.