| | June 20189required, in different degrees. Where does that put people like me ­ design educators who are also trying to straddle the right line between these teaching these seemingly opposite skills? Given the limited time we have to prepare students for an increasingly competitive industry, where should we focus our energies in teaching? Students in Indian design schools today express a strong desire to learn digital skills, whereas the employment market is looking not only for people who are conversant with software, hardware, digital fabrication tools, prototyping, and so on, but who can also sketch and model by hand. That's not to mention the ongoing important need for critical thinkers and problem solvers.One of the common discussions I have with design students is managing their expectation of learning software. Savvy students know very well that the industry will require them to know various software suites upon graduation, and they often demand that we teach them how to use the important software in the classroom. But this presents a two-pronged problem: (a) Are design schools simply software training institutes? And (b), what happens when the software (and other technologies) become obsolete by the time they graduate? Which is increasingly common these days, with the rapid, almost monthly, upgrades and innovations in technology.The answer to the first problem is that, no, design teachers should not be software trainers. There is already a huge (and low-cost) market for that. Students paying high fees for quality design education would be better served learning software from technical training centers (or even learning it themselves online), while design colleges should focus on the aforementioned need to develop conceptual skills and critical thinking. Colleges should instead be concerned with teaching software `approach' rather than `instruction'. In other words, design teachers should avoid spending valuable class time teaching how to navigate menus of specific (perhaps soon-to-be outdated) software suites, but on general approaches to digital visualization and prototyping, that is independent of the brand or version of a particular software or technology.The answer to the second problem is that, along with genericizing the teaching of technological tools, design curricula should be flexible enough to allow for rapidly changing technologies. Embedding a specific software brand or suite in the curriculum is a mistake; in fact, assuming that the design process is dependent on that specific type of digital tool, which may not be around in 2-3 years, is misguided. For example, 3D printing is all the rage today ­ not just in design, but in other walks of life, but 3D printing technology undergoes new innovations almost every few months. Design curricula must not only be adaptive in its language, but a good design school should constantly be revisiting and revising the curricula to update against new innovations and trends in the profession. To illustrate these answers, in my design school, Pearl Academy, we have actively revised our curriculum and removed any mention of software suites and specific technologies. The learning outcomes refer instead to generic ­ and innovative ­ ways to use the software and tech tools, and our assessment system rewards students who show initiative and ingenuity in finding the right software for their particular needs and using it in innovative ways, often exceeding their own teachers' expertise and expectations. Managing these expectations of the students' demand to be technologically dexterous and up-to-date against the constant flux of changing technology, against the desire to keep the focus of design education on critical thinking, theory, process, and problem-solving is the task of the 21st century design educator, and it's not an easy one. But a way forward is to understand - and make students understand ­ that technology in any form is a tool, and is not the solution itself. No amount of cutting edge technology on its own is going to solve design problems... that has been, and always will be the domain of the intellect and talent of the designer's mind and spirit. Just as a pencil is only useful in the hands of someone who knows how to use it skillfully, through long practice, with failures followed by success, so is any high end technological tool. It has to be used ­ and taught ­ wisely. Today, students express a strong desire to learn digital skills, whereas the employment market is looking not only for people who are conversant with software, hardware, digital fabrication tools, prototyping, and so on, but who can also sketch and model by hand
< Page 8 | Page 10 >