Francisco Zamorano
Universidad del Desarrollo
Santiago, Chile
Over the last few years, digital literacy (DL) and computational thinking (CT) have increasingly gained importance in general education. Many countries are now in the process of creating and implementing strategies to strengthen CT in young students (Dagienė et al., 2022; So et al., 2020; Vahrenhold et al., 2017). In Norway for instance, programming is becoming a compulsory part of the new curricula in primary and secondary schools (Haakonsen & Fauske, 2021), in the Asian Pacific Region, many countries have launched curricular reforms to implement CT in K-12 education (So et al., 2020). Similarly, design literacy has gained momentum worldwide, mainly through the use of design thinking as a methodology to address complex problems in different contexts. In 2012, the European Union recommended fostering general design education on all levels of the education system (Nielsen & Brænne, 2013). Although still in its early stages, several initiatives are permeating design into both the educational and professional disciplines (Bravo et al., 2022).
At a first glance, design literacy might seem unrelated to DL and CT, but there is common ground in both their methods and goals. By exploring the interstitial space within these domains, we might find ways in which one domain can contribute to the learning of the other, and consequently develop simultaneous skills. Some researchers have addressed this possibility. Van Mechelen et al. (2021) presented a study on digital design literacy, where they report on the experience of highly qualified K-9 teachers who had used design as a vehicle for digital literacy education. Bekker et al. (2015) developed a framework (Reflective Design-based Learning) to teach both digital literacy and design thinking through design-based activities for young children. Although there have been some initiatives, the development of integrated education within these domains is still emergent (van Mechelen et al., 2021). Further development of this interstitial space is of importance as Design can no longer be separated from DL. Perhaps an obvious argument is that knowing how to use digital tools is nowadays a fundamental competency of the design practice, but a more developed perspective would be that processes in CT can be analogous to design methods, and there is an opportunity to foster integrated learning in both domains. If we push the idea further, we can foresee a scenario where CT and DL will be considered essential design skills.
It is worth taking a look at a neighboring discipline to design: art. The movements of conceptual art and abstract/geometric art share some particularities with the design discipline that are relevant to this discourse. In these movements, artists challenged the paradigms of what is considered a “work of art”, many times placing the creative and artistic process as more important than the final result. Sol Lewitt, one of the pioneers of conceptual art, argued that “the idea” was the central point of a work of art, separating it from the productive aspect that can be done by someone else.
“In conceptual art the idea of concepts is the most important aspect of the work … the idea becomes a machine that makes the art.”
(LeWitt, 1967)
Many of Lewitt’s art pieces consisted in creating a series of rules of logical and mathematical order to generate works in various media and scales. But Lewitt did not reproduce his works himself, instead, he frequently commissioned a group of people to implement them following a set of instructions embodied in small texts. Lewitt’s instructions were understandable, reproducible, and clear, but also open to interpretation and embracing the randomness of the human hand. Although his works have been reproduced multiple times, no work is identical to the previous one because they have been reproduced (and interpreted) by different people and in diverse contexts. Perhaps what is most remarkable about Lewitt’s work is that his art is still “alive” because new materializations of his works keep arising all over the world, even though he passed away in 2007. Lewitt’s stance on the creative process is analogous to design methods in the sense that the projective process is separated from the production process. Thus, using his work as inspiration for design literacy education is coherent with the relevant skills addressed by the domain: ideation, sketching, visualization, abstraction, prototyping, concepting, creativity, iteration, and effective communication, among others (Pacione, 2010).
This paper reflects on a case where the main author designed and carried out a three-session course that explores the interstitial space between CT, DL, and design literacy for university-level participants coming from diverse disciplines. Inspired by Lewitt’s work, the class aimed to understand the relationship between art and mathematics and to provide a design-driven approach to developing basic computational thinking skills. Through group activities where students created a series of instructions (“the algorithm”) to generate visual art pieces, the students explored mathematical and programming concepts: algorithms, geometry, fractions, angles, and randomness, repetition, modularization, among others. The class did not cover any programming language, instead, everything was done either in analog forms and using everyday language to develop algorithms. Since the course was open to all disciplines (some of which do not include mathematical training), the focus was on drawing and visualization using traditional analog tools, such as colored pens and paper.
Materials and Methods
21 undergraduate students from diverse levels (first to third-year in their respective programs) and disciplines participated in the class, including Civil Engineering (7), Medicine (4), Business Administration (3), Dentistry (2), Medical technology (2), Architecture (1), and Design (1). The course consisted of three 8-hour-long sessions. During the first two sessions, the class worked on a series of preliminary exercises to understand the basic underlying logical concepts to develop an algorithm, a series of instructions that could be easily understood and faithfully reproduced by somebody else. For instance, students were given a geometric composition from which they had to create a set of instructions to reproduce it. The instructions were then handed to a second group to reproduce the original composition as accurately as possible. In the final session, each group wrote a series of instructions (the algorithm) on a one-page card to generate an art piece of their own making. Each group shared the card with a second group to reproduce the art piece without having seen the final result. In the final part of the class, all groups revealed their own and the given representations of the instructions. Students were then able to see the results and compare their results with their counterparts.
Results
The results of the course revealed that students could convey their ideas in clear instructions that led to accurate representations of their art pieces. In some cases, groups expressed surprise about how their counterparts could generate a new interpretation of their original conception by following the instructions accurately. The class enabled students to explore basic concepts of computational thinking and at the same time, develop basic design skills. Using analog media and abstract art as a medium, students who were not necessarily close to programming, mathematics, or design, were able to understand basic principles of CT in an exploratory, creative and design-driven way. Students could sketch, discuss and iterate on their ideas to create a conceptual design of a visual representation, that could be reproduced by someone else.
Conclusion, limitations, and further research
A Designer designed the course presented in this extended abstract. Thus, the approach to learning math and programming concepts is through the lens of the design discipline. This is reflected for instance in the iterative design of the algorithms and visualizations, or in having students share their results with someone else to receive constructive critique before going back to the drawing board for a new iteration. Through a design-driven approach students were able to learn some basic principles of CT, hopefully paving the way for formal programming learning in the future. The case presented in this abstract depicts an exploratory study with a small sample of students, nonetheless, the experience was enlightening and served as motivation to keep exploring the interstitial space between design literacy, computational thinking, and digital literacy.
References
Bekker, T., Bakker, S., Douma, I., van der Poel, J., & Scheltenaar, K. (2015). Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.12.001
Bravo, Ú., Cortés, C., LaFors, J., Téllez, A., & Allende, N. (2022, September 24). Track 01: Design thinking to improve creative problem solving. LearnxDesign 2021: Engaging with Challenges in Design Education. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.315
Dagienė, V., Jevsikova, T., Stupurienė, G., & Juskevicienė, A. (2022). Teaching computational thinking in primary schools: Worldwide trends and teachers’ attitudes. Computer Science and Information Systems, 19(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS201215033D
Haakonsen, P., & Fauske, L. B. (2021). Learning to create images with computer code. FormAkademisk – Forskningstidsskrift for Design Og Designdidaktikk, 14(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4633
LeWitt, S. (1967). Paragraphs on conceptual art. Artforum, 5(10), 79–83.
Nielsen, L. M., & Brænne, K. (2013). Design Literacy for Longer Lasting Products. Studies in Material Thinking, 9. http://www.materialthinking.org
Pacione, C. (2010). Evolution of the mind: A case for design literacy. Interactions, 17(2), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1699775.1699777
So, H.-J., Jong, M. S.-Y., & Liu, C.-C. (2020). Computational Thinking Education in the Asian Pacific Region. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00494-w
Vahrenhold, J., Caspersen, M., Berry, G., Gal-Ezer, J., Kölling, M., McGettrick, A., Nardelli, E., Pereira, C., & Westermeier, M. (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are We All In The Same Boat? https://doi.org/10.1145/3106077
van Mechelen, M., Wagner, M.-L., Baykal, G. E., Charlotte Smith, R., & Iversen, O. S. (2021). Digital Design Literacy in K-9 Education: Experiences from Pioneer Teachers. Interaction Design and Children, 11, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460696
Francisco Zamorano is an Associate Professor and Researcher at the School of Design at Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile. He holds an MFA in Design & Technology from Parsons School of Design, New York, and a Bachelor’s degree in Design from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Both his academic and professional work has been focused on how technology can help novices to learn complex topics through collaborative and playful learning experiences. Over the past few years, Francisco has been developing TAMI, a tangible user interface to facilitate the learning of mathematics. His areas of interest include Human-Computer Interaction, tangible user interfaces, and experience design.
back to the Symposium Programme
