Research Paper

Research Paper

Purpose of the study

The research on which this paper is based investigates how learning and teaching are conducted in graphic design classrooms, and examines the relationship of this professional preparation to practices observed in industry. Degree level study has gained wide acceptance as the preferred route into the graphic design profession, providing one example of higher education's direct engagement in meeting the demands of the commercial world. However, the higher education context in which graphic design learning takes place also presents more educationally-referenced demands and affiliations. These features offer fertile ground for empirical inquiry, and two aspects of the situation make it likely to be of wider interest - the growing emphasis on practical, vocational aspects of higher education in Britain, and the scarcity of accounts of how design classrooms do their work in preparing students for professional destinations. This inquiry into graphic design allows the opportunity for a small-scale, local investigation of the issue

Research context and background

Key debates in recent years have discussed the effectiveness of the British educational response to vocational challenges, and the literature charts the many reforms of higher education intended to support its vocational relevance (Gleeson, 1996: Coles and MacDonald, 1995; Robertson, 1996; Tuckett, 1996). Despite attempts to align educational values, procedures and knowledge to the needs of industry and commerce it remains uncertain to what degree they do, or should, inform one another. A related issue in higher education is the “worth” of vocational learning, and evaluations of vocational knowledge as inferior to “traditional academic subjects” (Lewis, 1999) still have resonance today; these criticisms are intensified in the case of art and design, which lacks a formal research base. Lewis's (1999, p. 145) definition of the characteristics of the “Practical Arts” clearly places graphic design within the “vocational” camp, with its characteristic “education for and about work” slant, and he notes that the empirical basis of such activities has detracted from their validity as “important sources of knowledge, crucial to human advance” (p. 143). Another factor affecting the status of design subjects lies is their characteristic difficulty in articulating domain knowledge in terms consonant with the language of research and theoretical discussion (Prentice, 2000).

There is hardly any domain-focused research on graphic design - an exception being Schenk's (1991) account of graphic design processes; however, the research literature from other design fields provides some valuable insights. Notable among these is Schön's (1987) discussion of the design “practicum” in architecture, which he describes as “the setting designed for the task of learning a practice (Schön's, 1987, p. 37)”. Schön emphasizes the uniqueness of practicum pedagogy, describing its “alternative” paradigm for teaching and learning. His account sees the pedagogical setting as intimately related to the tenor of learning, with the student experience of “habitation” or “immersion” in the practicum the most significant factor in the development of design competence. This involves commitment of “… intensity and duration far beyond the normal requirements of a course… Students do not so much attend … as live in them” ...