Are we teaching right?

Few days ago, I had a student from a well-known design institute come to our studio, to get help on his TCP project. Citing a confusion, which apparently the entire class was having, he discussed the project at length. And whilst talking, he mentioned how the ‘systems’ class project had gone easier, and how there was a confusion right now as to how to take things forward.

He basically had two problems- one that his project was going beyond what had been expected in class. In fact he had managed coming out with an entire new design of his own. Second, his guides and staff in college were too busy to help him. Ditto with other students. [The same evening, we got another student wanting help.]

But the biggest problem was the brief itself. The class had been asked to look at TCPs [Technically complex products] and find problems and therein solutions. That was all. The process, means and selection/level of complexity of products were left to the students. If the students got stuck somewhere, they had the choice to take up another product, but only at the later stage of the earlier product- which does not give students time to complete either or anything . So this particular student was stuck because he not only had not really found any problems in the product, but had managed conceiving an entirely new product. And that’s when I realised that most of the time, students are only taught that they should take a product and HAVE TO find faults in it, and then give solutions. But rarely are they told that it is not necessary that products always will have faults or are problematic.

Look at the mobile phone. The functions are almost the same since its conception. But what has been changed is the version. Things have been added to ‘better’ it. Similarly with a software having many versions, a monitor vs a flat screen and so on. The earlier products are not ‘faulty’, they have just been modified to either look better or be perceived as different.

So when a student is supposed to find faults in a product, but cannot, and goes on to create a new product by synthesis of thoughts and ideas, which is not what is expected in class, he/she will get confused.

And if they find the ‘systems’ class easier, its because they’ve been ‘directed’ as to what needs to be done. And in fact the class was made to look at stuff/products that actually were not making much of a difference to the overall system itself. This kind of leading is extremely dangerous and detrimental. You need to make a student think. And think right. It also surprised me that they could not relate the system class to the TCP class. And that was because the level of complexity of a TCP class was totally in contrast to the basic overview of the system class.

So on one end, students are dealing only superficially with things, and at the other, they have to deal with completely complex products- and its not surprising that they cannot relate to either. And this is what is being taught in final year design classes. So how do we expect students to comprehend design and design solutions as a whole? Sadly, the students are eventually blamed for the lack of correct information and education. Are we creating a better race of designers then?

-Darpana Athale.