I have been studying the Montessori Method by Maria Montessori. In chapter, 14 which deals with the teaching of the senses, I have come up with an idea for class examples: Every material we wish to create should be accompanied by their real world counter part. While this maybe unrealistic for somethings like Gold, or sunken pirate ship wood, it is not impossible to ask of myself, the instructor, to build example materials that the student can have a tactile experience with. The importance of this approach is of that described by Maria:
"Education should guide and perfect the development of the three periods, the two peripheral and the central; or, better still, since the process fundamentally reduces itself to the nerve centres, education should give to psychosensory exercises the same importance which it gives to psychomotor exercises.
Otherwise, we isolate man from his environment. Indeed, when with intellectual culture we believe ourselves to have completed education, we have but made thinkers, whose tendency will be to live without the world. We have not made practical men. If, on the other hand, wishing through education to prepare for practical life; we limit ourselves to exercising the psychomotor phase, we lose sight of the chief end of education, which is to put man in direct communication with the external world."
This statement could not be more appropriate for the day and age we are living in now where the virtual world encroaches into and indeed overtakes that which is real. Tactile experience may connect the student to the real material, driving them to appreciate their surroundings; perhaps driving them to go out and experience the real world more (even while creating the a virtual one).
On a practical note, hands on real materials will allow for truly thorough observation of items. The student will be able to see by moving and touching the object, what the reflections really look like, how the smoothness of a surface changes the reflections, how bumpy the surface really is, what is the true color of the object according to their eyes, as opposed to the wide interpretation of the cameras sensor or monitor gamma correction. And they can play!
I cut out the review portion and I have extended (blue) and moved things around to reflect my current progress. biggest things that are changing is I want to be done with the visual prototype one week after break, and I am giving my self a bit more time for research.
These are questions from SCAD's course units asked about the review:
What was the single most important factor in the success of your presentation?
In all honesty I have to say that without the direction to research literature that Professor Gilbert gave me I might not be on the left side of the questions. According to the review documentation I was excellent in the areas of "Relationship to career", "Concept Application", "Implementation", and "Direction". The only area I was below "Good" was an "Average" in "Presentation", in the comments it was clear that this was a typography issue. While I don't typically like excuses for lacking in an area, I have never taken a typography class, so my knowledge in that area is weak; no excuse, but I have been working on other areas that are more closely related to my current role.
What other factor(s) do you feel were strengths that gained positive responses from the review committee?
I have to imagine my work examples end product gained points. My research, organization and execution was pointed out as "Great- a pleasure to view"
Did any specific feedback from earlier peer reviews help you refine your presentation? If so, what specifically?
Sure, people were very unclear about my topic at first. Through many iterations I was able to get an understandable response from peer review.
Did you receive any positive comments from the review committee with regard to the balance of your visual and written thesis development? If so, what specifically?
I was actually suggested to try to make the connection stronger between the two, so I will be looking to do that.
I am currently helping to develop curriculum at Purdue University and I have brought up an issue at almost every department meeting we have, here are the issues: 1) students do not know how to create, or what should go in a portfolio (most don't anyway). 2) even if students did know what to do with their portfolio, they are not required to make one till the end of the 4 years at Purdue! So lets think about this for a second; the goal of going to school is to get an education so that the student can have the skills to work in an area of interest, right? So instead of an early introduction of the concepts essential for building a portfolio, would we rather wait till the end of year 4? Do we then send them to confidence crushing career doom when they lack sufficient focus and content? Since I have been at Purdue I can not tell you how many portfolio reviews I have done where there is no focus, and really no work to show.
So here is my rough proposal: A one week workshop at the beginning of the 4 year bachelors degree. 1 to 2 hours each night. Required for ALL students (if they don't show they don't enter the program). During the 1 to 2 hour lectures all professors from each discipline present information about who they are, what they teach, how it pertains to industry (jobs in that field), and what a professional portfolio for that field currently looks like. Then on the last day, Friday the students have to create a website on Weebly or something similar. The students have to hand in assignments through normal measures, and all assignments must be presented on their website in a page named after the class they are in and in a process book format (with specific requirements laid out by the professor).
Here is the benefit of revising our methods and following this newly proposed model:
1) Students will know what is expected of them in order to compete in the field, from day one.
2) Students will know and understand a number of different disciplines that are possible avenues for career pursuits.
3) Students will know their teachers!
4) Students will have a portfolio already being built through their coursework by the end of 4 years. At which time all they need to do is refine, remove and/or add to what they have, rather than wasting time trying to organize all of their past works.
5) Students can hand in an assignment via URL where appropriate.
6)Professors will be able to review ALL of a students work and make assessments regarding students strengths and weaknesses, allowing for better guidance.
6) Students will be set up to succeed
7) Professors look good and get warm fuzzy feelings when their students succeed.
Daniel Triplett, is an artist that worked in game development for over 6 years, and now teaches in the Computer Graphics Technology department (CGT) at Purdue University.