A more precise formulation of my research

A more precise formulation:

1. A distinctively "designerly" way of thinking (as described by Brown, 2003) facilitates the production and use of "mode 2 knowledge" (as described by Gibbons et al, 1994);
   
2. Such "designerly" thinking is present to varying degrees in humanities teaching and learning at the University of Warwick;
   
3. This gives students and graduates an advantage when working with "mode 2 knowledge" in other situations that require such capabilities (that is to say, the capability is transferable).

From the literature:

What is "mode 2 knowledge"? What makes it a coherent and distinct pattern? What does it do? How do we recognize it in the field? How does it apply to humanities? Does humanities deal with "instrumentation"?

What is meant by a "designerly" way of thinking? How is it distinct from other ways of thinking (e.g. critical thinking)? How does it fit with other ways of thinking? How do we recognize it in the field?

In what ways does "designerly" thinking facilitate the production and use of "mode 2 knowledge"? How may they be successfully coupled?

Empirical study:

Questions:

How are such couplings distributed across teaching and learning contexts in humanities subjects at Warwick? How are they inhibited?

Are the students and graduates who have been exposed to such couplings using this to their advantage? How great an advantage? How common? To what advantage? Or is this connection somehow inhibited? How?

Methods:

A method for identifying and investigating couplings of "designerly" thinking and "mode 2 knowledge" in teaching and learning at Warwick.

A method for identifying and investigating successful transfers to contexts beyond the initial teaching and learning context (within and beyond academia), and evaluating the added benefit to the student.

Robert O'Toole : 07 Mar 2011 23:46 |  Tags: Implementation |  Comments (0) |  Report a problem