Enhancing material experimentation in design education Maarit MÄKELÄ*, Teija LÖYTÖNEN
Aalto University, Finland *
[email protected]
Abstract: Within art and design, education material experimentations are an integral part of learning processes. However, the attention to materiality in educational studies has been rather limited. In this study, we discuss materiality in design education and explore the relation of materiality to learning, that is, how learning is entangled with or an effect of the engagement with the material. We base our review on an MA course called Design Exploration and Experimentation (DEE) organised at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Finland. The paper is based on ethnographic notes and documentation gathered from the participating design students from the course during a five-‐year period of time, including courses from 2010 to 2014. By describing some critical elements, the paper sheds light on the role and relevance of materiality in learning within design education. Based on the study, we propose that physical environment and materiality have agency in learning processes and that together they create a performative learning space. In such a space, learning becomes a more unpredictable and experimental process, opening up new, emergent possibilities. Keywords Design education, material experimentation, learning, curriculum
Copyright © 2015. Copyright of each paper in this conference proceedings is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses, including extended quotation, please contact the author(s).
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
Introduction Learning is a concept central to education, but it is still extremely slippery and even abstract in meaning. On the one hand, learning has been understood as a solely individual process: an individual is conceived of as the basic unit of knowing, and learning as a process in which the individual agent acquires knowledge. On the other hand, learning has been understood as a process of socialising into a community, and to function according to its socially negotiated norms (Sfard, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Thus, it is now a commonplace in educational theory to understand learning as more than the purely individual, cognitive and acquisitive process. Notions of learning as socio-‐cultural participation that is embedded in particular joint activity, tools and routines have become widespread in educational writings and practices (Fenwick et al. 2011, pp. 5-‐6). In addition, learning as socio-‐cultural participation has been elaborated into understanding it as knowledge creation. Here, learning focuses on activities organised around the systematic and deliberate pursuit of creating or developing something new – such as concepts or design artefacts (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005; Hakkarainen et al., 2004). Alongside these developments, a notion of practice as an enactment of and a medium for learning has been argued. This “practice turn” weaves learning together with action; that is, learning is entangled with the everyday activities in a kind of knowing-‐in-‐ practice manner (e.g. Gherardi 2011; Gherardi & Strati 2013; Nicolini 2012). Despite these new re-‐conceptualisations, an element still often relegated to the background in educational theories and practices is the material part of learning, that is, how learning is entangled with or an effect of the engagement with the material, both human and non-‐ human (Fenwick et al., 2011; Fenwick & Nerland, 2014). Within art and design, education material experimentations are an integral part of learning processes. However, the attention to materiality in educational studies has been rather limited. Related studies (Welch et al., 2000; MacDonald & al. 2007; Anning 1997) show that rather than using sketching, novice designers explore their mental images using three-‐dimensional materials. For example, Malcolm Welch & al. (2000, p. 142) discovered that designing for simple three-‐dimensional forms may start from sketching, but modelling is often used when developing the idea further. Furthermore, they considered materiality important when generating and communicating ideas as it provides an informal and supportive way to develop the ideas further. In this study, we elaborate the discussion on materiality especially within a university context. By describing some critical elements within a specific design course, this paper sheds light on the role and relevance of materiality in learning, especially in design education. We base our review on an MA course called Design Exploration and Experimentation (DEE) organised at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Finland. The core idea of the intensive eight-‐week course is to support students in managing their own creative processes, for example via documentation, reflection and discussions. For most students, material experimentations play a significant role in the formation and framing of the concept and the expected final artefact. 2
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
The DEE course has been previously discussed in two publications. In their study, Krista Kosonen and Maarit Mäkelä (2012) discuss the overall purpose and structure of the course, and examine how the platform supported one student in framing and managing his individual creative processes. They describe how one student experimented with weaving and woodwork, with the final output of the course resulting in a weaving house, a combination of looms and house. Concurrently, when connected to the reflective process, the making of the construction enabled the student to negotiate his identity as a designer in a profound way. Kosonen and Mäkelä conclude that by offering both freedom and structure, the course encouraged the students to experiment with new materials and media, but also personal topics while working (ibid., 237). Camilla Groth and Maarit Mäkelä (2014) in their study on the knowing body in material explorations during the DEE course suggest that the students’ previous material experiences gathered through the body, guided them in material explorations even before the actual physical manipulation of the materials began. For example, tactile impressions and images of materials were key elements both in the choice of materials as well as in making sense of the materials and their behaviour. They describe how the manipulation of materials helped to resolve complicated spatial design problems as the design was taken into the lived experience through material prototypes. They propose that physical material explorations strengthen the students’ confidence in managing new materials and offer 1 them a wider toolkit to work with in their future endeavours. In our paper, we focus on a novel perspective to the Design Exploration and Experimentation course. Instead of looking at the material experimentations as such, we will explore the relation of materiality to learning, that is, how learning is entangled with or an effect of the engagement with the material. We begin by providing a brief overview of the course. Thereafter, we describe the methodological approach of the study, namely at-‐ home ethnography. Based on insights gained through this approach supported by the DEE students’ written reflections, we then give some specific accounts that show the critical role that materiality and physical organisation of the environment played in the learning process. We conclude by briefly discussing the challenges for university teachers in relation to materiality in educational processes.
Design exploration and experimentation as an educational platform The DEE course was designed in 2009 to complement the Industrial and Strategic Design education in the Design Department at Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Helsinki, Finland. At that time the Master programme’s curriculum was lacking proper studio-‐based practices, and individual design projects had been mainly replaced by group assignments. In our view, this resulted in a too narrow concept of both design and learning, highlighting a linear process of problem-‐solving exercises where a potential solution is specified and an outcome is achieved through a series of processes, such as 1 In addition to the aforementioned studies a special issue in Studies in Material Thinking 3
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
specifying, researching, prototyping, testing, refining, and evaluating. As noted by Patrick Dillon and Tony Howe (2007, p. 71), together these processes constitute one kind of design model, which also affects design education. We believed that the design students could benefit from handling processes typical to fine art. They often proceed through the personal, unique expression of each individual student, highlighting exploratory ways in design, which are fluid, sometimes chaotic, often complex and frequently involving a large element of uncertainty (see also McDonnell 2011, p. 569; Dillon & Howe, 2007, p. 71.) Hence, one of the aims in the DEE course was to bring together art and design, and experiment how artistic and “designerly” ways of working can feed one another (Kosonen & Mäkelä 2012, p. 229). We use the term ‘platform’ to emphasise that the course utilises the premises offered by the university profoundly: the students receive support from the professor, lecturer and course assistant involved, who have their background either in industrial design or studio-‐ based design disciplines and design research. Other professionals, including different workshop facilitators, such as studio masters in wood, glass and ceramics, are also invited to help the students in their experimentations. For enhancing the material experimentations, the platform utilises different physical environments, including the diversity of studio environments that the university offers. The other important physical environment is a trip to a destination. Thus, the platform builds on extensive mutual interaction with different stakeholders both inside and outside the university. The foundation of the DEE course can be related to the field of practice-‐led research initially developed within art and design universities. In the design context, practice-‐led research was originally closely connected to studio-‐based doctoral degrees with the intention of opening up and studying creative processes from within by a designer-‐ researcher herself (e.g. Mäkelä 2003; Turpeinen 2005; Nimkulrat 2009). As Kosonen & Mäkelä (2012, pp. 228 and 236) have noted, the course can be considered an educational implication of practice-‐led research, in which research and learning is intertwined. It emphasises the use of hands-‐on work and the dialogue between a person and medium.
The overall structure of the DEE platform The creative process during the DEE course is supported by providing a framework including numerous assignments related to becoming inspired, documenting the process and then reflecting upon it. The course begins by introducing the predefined themes, including the course topic and the destination of the related five-‐day excursion. This prepares the ground for initiating the creative processes, during which the students create concrete artefacts based on their interests, their self-‐defined individual design tasks and means for achieving the desired outcomes. From its inception in 2010, the eight-‐week DEE course has been arranged five times, each consisting of approximately 12 students. The international groups of male and female participants have represented different design fields, most of the students having their educational background in industrial design. However, the course has also gathered students from other design fields, such as textile, spatial and furniture design, as well as from the field of fine arts. The students have been from early twenties to late thirties of age and represented seventeen nationalities.
4
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
The course begins with the students presenting themselves and their take on the 2 selected course theme of the respective year. This gives the students some understanding of the group that they are going to work with. Thereafter, the students are divided into smaller groups to prepare presentations on the geographical and cultural features of the 3 location of the forthcoming excursion . The aim of the trip is to generate inspiration around the selected theme, gather related information and also to create group cohesion. After the excursion, the course progresses following a repeated weekly structure. It forms a supportive framework for individual creative processes: Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays are reserved for individual work, enabling the students to develop their ideas, reflect on their process, and complete assignments; Tuesdays and Thursdays are for collective activities: sharing and discussing the progress of the evolving creative process, followed by feedback from peers and teachers. In addition, these days are reserved for lectures and discussions as well as for visits to local museums and galleries. To enable proper documentation and reflection, the students document their experimental processes in three steps. Working diaries are kept throughout the course for working on emerging experiences, ideas and thoughts. Weekly reflections are assignments through which the students reflect on and describe their progress, problems, insights and other issues related to their creative processes on a weekly basis. The reflection is a one-‐page compilation based on the more thorough working diary. The final reflections conclude the students’ creative processes. Related insights and critical reflections on the entire learning process are encouraged. The aim of the documentation and reflection is to make the creative process visible, allowing the student to return to any part of the process afterwards (see also Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011; Pedgley, 2007). At the beginning of each week, the students hand their weekly reflections over to the teachers. This allows the teachers to keep track of the sometimes sensitive and fragile creative processes, and offer suitable support when necessary. In weekly presentations, students share the status of their individual processes with the whole group. After reading the weekly reflections, the teachers are prepared to give relevant feedback to the students in the discussions that follow the student presentations. The entire design of the DEE platform supports a collective learning process. The course allows the participating students to share their own and follow their peer’s creative processes, as well as to reflect on their working approach and progress in relation to the others. Throughout the course, there is also the possibility for personal tutoring or mentoring with the teachers. Having now illustrated the background and overall structure of the platform, we move on to describe the methodological approach of our study.
2 The theme has changed each year, and thus far they have included The Roots of Culture (2010), Identity (2011), Family (2012), Faith (2013) and Journey (2014). 3 The destination has changed yearly, varying from northern Finland (Sodankylä 2010, Luosto 2014), to southern Finland (Espoo 2012) and eastern Finland (Karelia 2011, Heinävesi 2013). 5
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
Methodological approach This paper is based on teaching practice from 2010 to 2014 in the DEE course with five different groups of design students. During this time, one of the authors, namely Maarit Mäkelä, has been deeply engaged with the course. She also, with lecturer Simo Puintila, initially designed the course and has taught in it in each year. The other author, Teija Löytönen, a teacher and scholar in university pedagogy in the arts at Aalto University, joined the process of writing this paper by focusing on methodological issues and theoretical discussions. Throughout the five DEE courses, Maarit Mäkelä made careful observations of students by following their processes in shared discussions, and one-‐to-‐ one tutorials. The observations are supported by rich data from the courses, including students’ working diaries, written weekly reflections, final reflections and visual documentations of related exhibitions. This paper draws from the field-‐based ethnographic data that was assembled throughout the years: it is thus an ethnographic account of the relation of materiality to learning within the DEE course. Ethnography here is understood as: a process of creating and representing knowledge (about society, culture and individuals) that is based on ethnographers’ own experiences. It does not claim to produce an objective or truthful account of reality, but should aim to offer versions of ethnographers’ experiences of reality that are as loyal as possible to the context, negotiations and intersubjectivities through which the knowledge was produced. (Pink, 2009, p. 8; see also Pink, 2007, p. 22) The ethnographic approach in this study can be specified as at-‐home ethnography (Alvesson, 2009, 2003; see also Halstead et al., 2008; Löytönen, forthcoming) in the sense that we describe a cultural setting to which we belong. As Mats Alvesson has noted (2009, p. 160), at-‐home ethnography draws attention to one’s own cultural context, but, rather than placing oneself and one’s experiences at the centre, it is concerned with what goes on around oneself. In this sense, at-‐home ethnography differs from other ethnographical approaches, such as autoethnography (e.g., see Holman Jones et al., 2013). At-‐home ethnography, then, is “a study and a text in which the researcher-‐author describes a cultural setting to which s/he has a ‘natural access’ and in which s/he is an active participant, more or less on equal terms with other participants” (Alvesson, 2009, p. 159). Hence, our roles, in addition to those of teachers and scholars, include being “observing participants” (Alvesson, 2009, p. 159), and the observations concern the question of what goes on during the Design Exploration and Experimentation process. At-‐home ethnography can be approached in several empirical ways. One approach follows a more traditional way of doing ethnographic fieldwork, which consists of planned and systematic data collection, where the research interest is decided upon in advance. In our study, we are following a less structured form of at-‐home ethnography, one that uses an emergent-‐spontaneous study that begins when something interesting occurs. With such an approach, the researcher explores something familiar in a new light: “The idea is that a consistent, long-‐term scan of what one is experiencing produces a more extended set of 6
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
incidents or an especially rich and interesting event calling for analysis” (Alvesson 2009, p. 165). In our study, Maarit’s observations during the DEE course and our joint informal ponderings around the question of learning in design education led us to go through the students’ documentations and reflections in detail from the perspective of materiality in relation to learning. Our ethnographic description explores something quite familiar yet seen in a new light. Thus, some specific incidents – acts, actors, events, and situations – that made us realise the specificities of the materiality within the learning processes are brought into focus (Alvesson, 2009, p. 165). As Alvesson continues: “The trick is more a matter of accomplishing a description and insightful, theoretically relevant ideas and comments out of the material” (p. 162). At-‐home ethnography in this study therefore constitutes theoretical developments that are well grounded in experiences and observations within and on the DEE process.
Materialising learning in design education The overall purpose of the DEE course is to create a challenging environment for action where the student has the courage to experiment with one’s ideas with a brave and open-‐ minded attitude. The learning outcomes of the course are not about specific artistic or design skills or knowledge. Instead, they focus on the learning process, during which the student is expected to: develop control over the creative process by documentation and run it according to the schedule; combine a creative process and free expression in a way that by the end of the course the student is capable of introducing concrete artefacts related to the chosen topic; and be able to reflect on one’s own creative process in a written form. The core of the course, thus, is an open-‐ended process that supports material experimentations and free expression around the given theme. The approach is characteristic to artists, who aim to keep the creative process open, reframing it several times, and letting it be influenced by surprises and insights that take place during the process (Kosonen & Mäkelä, 2012, p. 230). In the course context, design experimentation begins to make sense as the creative process proceeds and the students begin to crystallise their ideas in visual and material formats. Towards the end of the course, the focus switches from experimentation to careful planning and realisation of the selected idea (ibid., p. 232-‐233). This results in the creation of the final artefact and its presentation in the public exhibition (Figure 1). In the following, we will describe some specific incidents and phenomena to illustrate how, through the diverse assignments and working sites, the material becomes an integral element in the learning processes. Instead of specific learning outcomes, we will focus on the learning process, since the course aims to enhance the handling of the creative process by the various means described earlier. We also find it challenging to depict learning through actual changes (or new understandings) in artistic or design knowledge and skills within such a short period of time. However, it is possible to delineate some specific incidents within the process, that is, in the ways the students actually worked and in the encounters with the self-‐defined materials. 7
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
Figure 1 Different steps in Linda’s food-‐related creative process from the DEE 2014 course: showing material experiments in a group meeting (a); constructing the work from dyed crackers (b); the exhibition in Design Forum Showroom Helsinki (c). Photos Maarit Mäkelä (a) and Krista Kosonen (b and c).
Physical environment matters One of the most important components of the DEE platform is the five-‐day excursion to a theme-‐related location. It consists of visits within the local surroundings and lectures related to the theme of the platform as well as to the destination. During the excursion, teachers and students share thoughts and ideas in informal settings, such as in the sauna and during dinners (Kosonen & Mäkelä 2012, p. 231). The main purpose of the trip is to provide an inspiring and safe environment that supports the students in initiating their creative processes and, throughout the course, in discussing the emerging concerns related to their diverse processes. As an example of how the environment has an effect or agency in the learning process, we will next provide a more detailed account from the excursion that took place in 2013. The main reason for selecting the destination, Heinävesi, was that it is considered a site where spirituality and religious monuments are a fundamental part of the local culture. Thus, this particular eastern part of Finland offered suitable premises for the topic of the course, which was Faith. During the excursion, we visited the New Valamo Orthodox monastery and the Lintula Holy Trinity Convert. The group was accommodated in an old primary school consisting of two big lecture rooms and a kitchen. The building was situated in a small village and was surrounded by a meadow, a sauna and a nearby lake. The place served as a base camp to explore the surrounding cultural and natural environment. The surrounding environment also enabled a diversity of informal outdoor activities (Figure 2).
8
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
Figure 2 Igloo (a); Part of the group enjoying outdoor activities in front of our basecamp building in Heinävesi (b); Sauna (c). Photos Lewis Just (a) and Jaana Lönnroos (b) and Nina Chen c). In her final reflection, Nina, a Canadian student, reported the significance of the excursion, and particularly the sauna experience, in the following way: What I found most interesting and valuable in this expedition were the opportunities to bond with other classmates. We did a lot of activities together, building an igloo, 4 5 building a snowman, Saunaing, Avantoing , Making Karjalanpiirakka and more… The most memorable moment on this trip was our nightly saunas. It was a ritual where we… all together in the sauna bathe, reflect on the day and converse about anything… I realized that this significant event of being nude in front of the people that I barely know somewhat allowed me to truly be myself. It was not until the very last night of the trip where we went to the community sauna… that… I become aware of the liberation that the sauna experience has given me. Sauna was part of the course programme but, in addition, the surrounding environment inspired students to get involved in initiative activities. In his final reflection, Lewis, who came from Scotland, reports on how he became involved in building an igloo (Figure 2a): When in Heinävesi there was time to have for our own… With the help of another student… we started constructing an igloo… The next day we finished building the igloo and the locals who were hosting us generously offered a reindeers hide so that we could sleep in the igloo and not get cold. In Lewis’ case, the exciting experiment with nature gave direction to his entire project. He decided to continue with the thoughts he encountered when seeing the extravagance of the relics and artefacts in Valamo Monastery’s private museum. In his final reflection, he reports that: 4 A hole in the ice for winter swimming. 5 A traditional Finnish pie from the region of Karelia. 9
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
I wanted to take the relics of the Orthodox Church and recreate them to fit with the teachings of the religion. My aim was to make the aesthetics fit with the philosophy. I decided to redesign a cross, a chalice and an incense burner the way Jesus would have made them. During the course, Lewis spent many periods surrounded by nature for redesigning the selected artefacts, first in the Helsinki region and finally three days in Nuuksio Park – a natural park near Helsinki. The new artefacts were made from wood that he selected directly from the forest (Figure 3). He crafted the wood using manual labour. In his final reflection, he reports on the unique experience he encountered during the excursion: “It all felt a bit surreal, being in the middle of a forest, alone, naked in a sauna ‘working’ on a project”.
Figure 3 First carving experiments with wood in the Helsinki region (a); Crafting an incense burner from wood found in Nuuksio forest (b); Redesigned artefacts in Aalto University’s Atski Gallery (c). Photos Lewis Just. Nina’s and Lewis’ reflective comments illustrate how the specific physical environment had an effect not only on the theme of the course (Faith) and the chosen material (wood) but also on the learning processes and ways of working. Lewis’ entire DEE project was based on his encounters with the environment and the informal outdoor experiences in Heinävesi. For Nina, the most valuable thing was bonding with other classmates in informal settings, especially in the sauna. For her, this offered an opportunity to connect with others within the learning community, and these intimate relations made her realise herself as a person, “to truly be” herself. The experiences described above are not aimed at generalising the learning within the DEE course. Instead, the students’ subtle descriptions made us aware of the significance that the physical environments and the social arrangements might have within the course. In fact, Na’ilah Suad Nasir and Jamal Cooks (2009), in their study on learning settings, identified three core resources that influence learning: the material, relational and ideational resources. By ‘material resources’, they refer to the physical environment where an activity takes place, and by ‘relational resources’ to the positive relationships with others within the activity. The ‘ideational resources’ refer to “the ideas about oneself and one’s relationship to and place in the practice and the world, as well as ideas about what is valued or good” (ibid., p. 47). Physical environments and spaces, then, have affordances to learning processes: they 10
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
not only create inclusions or exclusions but also open or limit the possibilities for new practices, knowledge(s), networks and relationships to emerge (see also Fenwick et al., 2011 p. 11). When students connect to each other within a specific physical environment, space and/or practice, they come to define themselves as members of the learning community and the practice itself – such as design. These connections may arise spontaneously within the practice, but they can also be crafted, for example, by arranging opportunities for informal activities – such as organising the course-‐related journey and including the site specific features, such as the sauna.
Matter matters – Case Gabriela Gabriela, whose background is in industrial design and whose roots are in Uruguay, participated in the 2013 excursion as well. Not having tight connections to any religion, she found the visits to the monastery and the nunnery uncomfortable. In her final reflection, this issue was reported more explicitly: … which was striking to me, is that everything was ruled and scheduled, from timetables to ceremonies, silence time or amount of glasses of wine. There was no space for spontaneity, and I saw the [nunnery’s] bee’s wax fabric as a materiality of it. The experience reminded Gabriela of Paul Klee’s series of works Imperfect Angels, as these angels had humane features and were thus imperfect in their nature. By following this idea, Gabriela decided to create her own series of imperfect angels by utilising the beeswax material she faced in the nunnery. In her final reflection, she writes that her work had two approaches, one being emotional and the other more rational, that is, to “liberate the bee’s wax and let the material be in a more free way that in the candle shape”. When starting the material experimentation with the wax, Gabriela had only an initial idea for the work. At the beginning of her working process, she felt frustrated, as she discovered that she could not control the material, nor the evolving shape (Figure 4). In her fifth weekly reflection, she writes: [The beeswax] is not a docile material at all. I hated it in some moments and the results I obtained were not what I was expecting. Anyway I found something interesting in it… I would say that working with beeswax is easy to reach imperfection, and to lose the control. This is a fact that I found important: going on from my comfort zone and realizing that I was not able to control the material is quite disturbing but also fascinating. Assuming the loss of control is a way of assuming imperfection. After accepting the essence of this unfamiliar material and finding some new techniques to cope with it, her attitude toward the working changed. In the sixth weekly reflection, she writes that: … accepting accidents as enhancer and not as limiting, allowed me to both develop the idea I was working with and enjoy the process of materialising the idea. In a way I feel more free moulding now, and instead of trying to force the material to achieve a predesigned shape, I try to find a balanced dialog between the material where both guide each other. 11
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
She realised that when working with the material, she was able to better understand the requisite ways of working that she was searching for. After finishing some bodies for the angels with beeswax, she started material experimentation for finding suitable material and technique for the wings. The most interesting results came out of porcelain, and she decided to equip the entire ‘population of angels’ with porcelain wings. Her aim was to develop a thin porcelain structure as it would allow her to play with the material’s transparency. In her final reflection, she reports on how she combined a variety of materials with porcelain to create a diversity of textures: I have been challenging the porcelain in order to obtain very thin pieces allowing me to play its transparency. At the beginning I tried different ‘traditional’ techniques but later I started to explore whatever appeared in my mind. I decided to let spontaneous and ‘out of rules’ experiments take their own way, and they were endless.
Figure 4 Beeswax candles in the nunnery in Heinävesi (a); Moulding melted beeswax (b); Broken angel with porcelain wings (c). Photos Lewis Just (a) and Gabriela Rubini (b and c). It is evident that Gabriela’s working process enabled her to find, experiment and adopt new ways of working that were based on accident and freedom. Furthermore, the courage to adapt to the new attitude and the readiness to accept the unique results this approach provides increased as her creative process proceeded. Based on Gabriela’s case example, we suggest that the material experimentations are integrally entangled in her creative process: starting from the very beginning, this entanglement proceeds via thinking and sketching towards the final artefact (Figure 5). That is, the material formation does not come after the ideation as a separate phase of giving form to the emergent idea. In fact, the materiality is simultaneous with and intrinsic to the creative process itself: materiality resists or imposes challenges and constraints on her ideas, ways of working and attitudes (see also Gherardi & Perotta, 2013, p. 240).
12
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
Figure 5 Gabriela’s installation Imperfect Angels in Aalto University’s Atski Gallery. Photo Sami Kiviharju. In Gabriela’s experimentation, the shape was the consequence of the moulding experience with the beeswax, and she discovered that the material gave her more than what she had expected. The final work, then, emerges from the process of experimenting with materiality, feeling the materials and allowing the material to guide the creative process towards the final artefact. Thus, the material had an active role in Gabriela’s creative process: it had a kind of agency. Tara Fenwick et al. (2011, p. 4), in fact, point out that material things are performative and not inert – they are matter and they matter. This thought is in line with the notion of vital materiality, a power that cannot be separated from matter and where materiality is seen as the interface between human and the (non-‐living) physical world (Bennett, 2010, p. 56). A craftsperson, or anyone who has an intimate connection with matter, encounters a creative materiality with incipient tendencies and propensities, which are variably enacted. The direction in which this power takes the creator depends on what types of other powers, emotions and bodies are present in the process. In Gabriela’s case, this means that while working in the studio, she was able to develop a deep understanding of the "vitality" of a material, and thus had a productive "collaboration" with it (see also ibid., p. 60).
Conclusions The aim of this study has been to open up discussion on materiality within higher education. By describing some critical elements within a specific design course, we have given examples of the possible roles and relevancies that materiality might have within learning processes, especially in design education. The key argument of this paper is that pedagogical relationships go beyond the teacher and the curriculum, and that the agency 13
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
of materiality has a pedagogical effect. Thus, we propose that materiality teaches in its own way, and the design of the learning setting has an important role. One of the key elements in the learning setting is that the students find their material experimentations meaningful. Laamanen and Seitamaa-‐Hakkarainen (2014, 150) in their study on constraining an open-‐ended design task in the context of textile education describe how the students experienced uncomfortable feelings related to crafting when they had no end result or other clear goal in mind. The students taking part in the Design Exploration and Experimentation course have not reported similar feelings; thus, we believe that in our case the open-‐ended experimentation is conceived of as meaningful. We propose that this is due to the fact that the students are expected to create an artefact to be presented in the final exhibition. In this respect, we believe that even though the timeline of the course is tight, the exhibition has a crucial role as it has acted as an important driver for the individual processes. During their learning processes, the students are in relation to other human participants, that is students and teachers, as well as to the prescribed curricular contents and assignments. In addition to these relationships, the students develop relations to the nonhuman, wider material world. In our case, the most important material world consisted of a variety of self-‐defined materials, such as beeswax, porcelain and wood. With the above described case examples, we have demonstrated that matter can have an unanticipated or unexpected contribution to the learning processes – and, as evident in our case study, to the final artefacts. In addition to the pedagogical agency of matter, we propose that physical environment as part of the material world also has agency, thus creating a performative learning space. We consider this space not “a static container into which teachers and students are poured, or a backcloth against which action takes places, but a multiplicity that is constantly being enacted by simultaneous practices-‐so-‐far” (Fenwick et al., 2011, p. 11). Hence, the performative learning space affects learning in its own right. With this study, we want to challenge the current notions of learning and curriculum, which often focus on predefined and prescribed learning outcomes with the emphasis on specific subjects, contents, procedures or behaviours (Davis & Sumara, 2007; Osberg & Biesta, 2008). We hope that with our study we have been able to offer insights for thinking about learning through material sensibilities, that is, through becoming sensitive to diverse material agencies within learning processes. In this study, we have focused on the agencies particularly related to matter, space and place. With such an understanding, learning becomes a more unpredictable and experimental process, opening up to new, emergent possibilities beyond the already known. Instead of contributing solely to transmitting knowledge and skills, the teacher’s role then is to create conditions for the emergent and evolving learning – and to be prepared to learn herself, alongside the students. 14
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
Acknowledgements: We thank all the DEE students, who kindly allowed their diaries, drawings and written reflections to be examined in this study. We are also grateful to Simo Puintila and Krista Kosonen for their valuable comments that enabled us to better explicate the DEE learning environment. This research was funded by the Academy of Finland (project numbers 266125 and 253589).
References Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close up studies – struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education, 46(2), 167–193. Alvesson, M. (2009). At-‐home ethnography: Struggling with closeness and closure. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F.H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography: Studying the complexity of Everyday Life (pp.156 –174). London: Sage. Anning, A. (1997). Drawing Out Ideas: Graphicacy and Young Children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7, 219-‐239. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A political ecology of things. London: Duke University. Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2007). Complexity Science and Education: Reconceptualizing the Teacher’s Role in Learning. Interchange, 38 (1), 53-‐67. Dillon, P. & Howe, T. (2007). An Epistemology of Presence and Reconceptualisation in Design Education. Interchange, Vol. 38/1, 69–88. Fenwick, T.; Edwards, R.; Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging Approaches to Educational Research. Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge. Fenwick, T. & Nerland, M. (2014). Introduction. Sociomaterial professional knowing, work arrangements and responsibility. New times, new concepts? In Fenwick, T. & Erland, M. (eds.) Reconceptualising Professional Learning. Sociomaterial knowledges, practices and responsibilities. London: Routledge. Gherardi, S. (2011). Organizational learning: The sociology of practice. In M. Easterby-‐Smith and M.A. Lyles (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge nd Management (2 edn). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Gherardi, S. & Perrotta, M. (2013). Doing by Inventing the Way of Doing: Formativeness as the Linkage of Meaning and Matter. In Carlile, Paul R.; Nicolini, Davide; Langley, Ann; Tsoukas, Haridimos (eds.). How Matter Matters. Bjects, Artifacts and Materiality in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gherardi, S. & Stati, A. (2013). Learning and Knowing in Practice-‐based Studies. Surrey, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. th Groth, C. & Mäkelä, M. (2014). The knowing body in material exploration. The 5 Art of Research Conference, 26 – 27 November. Helsinki, Aalto University.
15
Maarit Mäkelä & Teija Löytönen
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational 23 perspectives. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Halstead, N., Hirsch, E., & Okely, J. (2008). Knowing How to Know. Fieldwork and the Ethnographic Present. New York: Bergham Books. Holman Jones, S., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Kosonen, K. & Mäkelä, M. (2012). Designing Platform for Exploring and Reflecting on Creative Process. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 45, 227-‐238. Laamanen, T-‐K. & Seitamaa-‐Hakkarainen, P. (2014). Constraining an open-‐ended design task by interpreting sources of inspiration. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 13 (2), 135-‐156. Lave, J. & Wenger, E.(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Löytönen, T. (forthcoming). Collaborative Inquiry in a Socially Shared Contextual Frame, Striving Towards Sensible Knowledge Creation on Dance Education. Teachers College Record. MacDonald, D.l. & Gustafson, B. & Gentilini, S.(2007). Enhancing children’s drawing in design technology planning and making. Research in Science & Technological Education 25 (1), 59-‐75. McDonnell, J.(2011). Imposition of order: A comparison between design and fine art practices. Design Studies, 32 (6), 557-‐572. Mäkelä, M. (2003). Saveen piirtyviä muistoja. Subjektiivisen luomisprosessin ja sukupuolen representaatioita. [Memories on Clay: Representations of Subjective Creation Process and Gender] Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki. Mäkelä, M. & Nimkulrat, N. (2011). Reflection and Documentation in Practiceled Design Research. In Koskinen, I. & Härkäsalmi, T. & Mazé, R., & Matthews, B. & Lee, J.-‐J. (Eds.) th Making Design Matter!, Proceeding of The 4 Nordic Design Research Conference, 29 – 31 May 2011, NORDES, 120-‐128. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work and Organization. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nimkulrat, N. (2009). Paperness. Expressive material in textile art from artist’s viewpoint. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki. Osberg, D & Biesta, G. (2008). The emergent curriculum: navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40 (3), 313-‐328. Paavola, S & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education 14, 537-‐557. Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analysing own design activity. Design Studies 28(5), 463-‐ 483. 16
Enhancing material experimentation in design education
Pink, S. (2007). Doing Visual Ethnography (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Pink, S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13. Suad Nasir, N. & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a Hurdler: How Learning Settings Afford Identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 40, 41-‐61. Turpeinen, O. (2005). Merkityksellinen museoesine. Visuaalinen kriittisyys kulttuurihistoriallisen museon näyttelysuunnittelussa. [A meaningful museum object. Critical visuality in cultural history museum exhibitions.] Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki. Welch, M. & Barlex, D. & Sook Lim, L (2000). Sketching: Friend or Foe to the Novice Designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10, 125-‐148.
17
