Úrsula Bravo
Universidad del Desarrollo
Santiago, Chile

ubravo@udd.cl

In 1982, Nigel Cross claimed to incorporate design into general education with the same relevance as sciences and humanities to develop abilities in solving ill-defined problems by adopting solution-focused strategies, using abductive reasoning and nonverbal models. Forty years after Cross´ paper, design-based learning strategies are used as a learning-by-doing methodology that enables students to integrate knowledge from different areas through problem-solving. In school settings, design aims to develop both thinking skills –such as problem-solving, inquiry, and creativity– and socio-emotional skills –such as empathy, collaboration, self-efficacy, and frustration tolerance– (Carroll et al., 2010; Carroll, 2015; Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017; Retna, 2016; Rusman & Ejsing-Duun, 2021; Woo et al., 2017; Zupan et al., 2018).
A more recent perspective updates Cross’s interest in incorporating design into the school, having sustainable ethics as a central focus. It seeks to raise awareness about the negative impact of mass consumption patterns on the environment and form environmentally responsible citizens and consumers (Nielsen & Braenne, 2013). The 2013 DRS/Cumulus Conference at Oslo promoted a critical design approach from kindergarten to PhD as a way to build a greener future. According to this perspective, a design-literate general public would be able to address problems more ethically and sustainably (Nielsen, 2013). Unlike the expert skills acquired by professionals, the notion of literacy refers to a set of basic skills that allow access to a shared culture and participation in social life.
This vision coincides with the critical spirit of the so-called New Literacies Studies (Coiro, Knobel, & Lankshear, 2008), which questioned the traditional notion of literacy by considering it excessively technical and socially decontextualized (Kress, 2003). This approach understood literacy as a means of social transformation for individuals and their communities. It conceived education as a means to achieve a more equitable redistribution of power and social goods (Luke, xi in Pahl & Rowsell, 2005). In 1996 The New London Group suggested a broad conception of literacy, including the linguistic, visual, audio, spatial, gestural, and multimodal systems of meaning (Cazden et al., 1996). Under this perspective built on Freire’s (1996 [1970]) work, being literate would mean having the ability to read the world in all its complexity and to participate with autonomy and self-determination in the creation of meaning and the very transformation of society (Bravo & Bohemia, 2020). Over time, the notion of literacy was extended to other fields, such as digital, ecological, civic, financial, emotional, health and design literacy.
Through a systematic review of key texts that conceptualize design literacy as part of general education, Lutnæs (2019, 2021) identifies the following four shared narratives on cultivating design literacy amongst non-designers: (a) Awareness through making: By using and transforming materials to externalize and develop ideas, students understand the socio-environmental impact of human-made artefacts and the value of long-life products. (b) Empower for change and citizen participation: To provide students tools to question, rethink, and transform the world around them, developing their agency sense and more responsible citizen participation. (c) Address the complexity of real-world problems: Students are challenged to deal with conflicting interests and dilemmas embedded in design practices and solutions. (d) Participate in design processes: Enabling students to adopt the designer’s tools for innovation and understand how designers think (Lutnæs, 2021, pp. 9-10).
As the Chilean Ministry of Education (Mineduc, 2018) aims to form socially responsible citizens committed to their environment, we wonder about the convergences of the Chilean curriculum with design literacy principles. Does the Chilean curriculum offer opportunities to implement design literacy-based pedagogies? At what level and related to what courses subjects could they be implemented?
Documentary research will be carried out to determine which curriculum objectives are related to the four design literacy narratives, at what levels and in what subjects they are embedded, and what their relevance is within the curriculum. A thematic analysis of the learning objectives of four primary education subjects will be performed: Visual Arts, Technology, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences. The first two are related to making, and the others are associated with the natural and social environment.
The results of this research are expected to guide the design of teacher training programs and teaching material.

References

Bravo, Ú. & Bohemia, E. (2020). Editorial “Alfabetización en diseño para todos”. RChD: Creación Y Pensamiento, 5(8), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-837X.2020.57649

Carroll, M. (2015). Stretch, dream, and do – A 21st century design thinking & STEM journey. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 59–70.

Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, Imagination and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29, 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.

Cazden, C.; Cope, B.; Fairclough, N.; Gee, J.; et al. (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review; Spring 1996; 66, 1. pg. 60-92.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Handbook of Research on New Literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-

Freire, P. (1996 [1970]). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans. 2nd ed.): Penguin.

Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. New York, Abingdon Routledge.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. New York, NY: Routledge.

Luke, A. (2005) Forward Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (p.xi). Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. Paul Chapman Publishing. 

Lutnæs, E. (2019). Framing the concept design literacy for a general public. In E. Bohemia, G. Gemser, N. Fain, C. de Bont, & R. Assoreira Almendra (Eds.), Conference proceedings of the Academy for Design Innovation Management 2019: Research Perspectives In the era of Transformations (pp. 1294–1304). London, UK: ADIM. https://doi.org/10.33114/adim.2019.01_224

Lutnæs, E. (2021). Framing the concept design literacy for a general public. FormAkademisk, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4639

Ministerio de Educación (2018) Bases Curriculares Primero a Sexto Básico. Ministerio de Educación, República de Chile.

Nielsen, L. M. (2013). Design Learning for Tomorrow – Design Education from Kindergarten to PhD. In J. B. Reitan, P. Lloyd, E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, I. Digranes, & E. Lutnæs (Eds.), Design Education from Kindergarten to PhD – Design Learning for Tomorrow: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (pp. i-iii). Oslo, Norway: ABmedia.

Nielsen, L. M., & Brænne, K. (2013). Design literacy for longer-lasting products. Studies in Material Thinking, 9, 1–9. https://materialthinking.org/sites/default/files/papers/SMT_V9_07_KarenBraenne_LivNielsen_0.pdf

Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “design thinking”: a study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(0), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049

Rusmann, A., & Ejsing-Duun, S. (2021). When design thinking goes to school: A literature review of design competences for the K-12 level. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09692-4

Woo, Y., Yoon, J., & Kang, S. J. (2017). Empathy as an element of promoting the manifestation of group creativity and survey on empathic ability of Korean elementary school students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3849–3867. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00761a

Zupan, B., Cankar, F., & Setnikar Cankar, S. (2018). The development of an entrepreneurial mindset in primary education. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12293

Úrsula Bravo is a designer, a PhD candidate and a Master in Education by Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. She is the Base Diseño e Innovación’s Editor-in-Chief and Design Literacy International Network member. She has taught for more than twenty years in undergraduate and postgraduate programs in Design and Education schools. She has advised the Ministry of Education in Chile for five years during the school textbooks selection process.

back to the Symposium Programme