Teaching Creativity: Some Experiences in Teaching Emotional Design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There are disciplines stable and well formalised (e.g. Mathematics or Physics) and disciplines more soft and less formalise (e.g. Design or Literary Critics). While it is quite clear what to teach and how to measure the teaching results in the former, it is not so easy for the latter. Teaching Design means provide the students with a set of knowledge easily definable (e.g. representations, material properties, use of tools, history, etc.) and with a set of capabilities and sensitivities usually transferred from a master to a pupil through behaviours examples (e.g. how to invent new solutions, how to provide aesthetically valuable artefacts, how to convey emotions through artefacts, and so on). The paper will present a set of experiences carried on in teaching Emotional Design, in such a way that the students are simultaneously involved in learning / applying theoretical aspects and in defining / evaluating procedural methods for stimulating creativity and new solutions. The approach involves two parallel lines: the former consists of a set of design steps carried on individually, being each of them a re-design of the previous one , according to new theoretical knowledge acquires; the latter consists in a collective evaluation of the results, both as check of the validity of the theoretical indications and as set up of common practices, considered as fruitful by the en-tire group. So, a course can be organised according the following lines: 1. The disciplinary content is subdivided into well defined parts, each of them self-consistent and applicable without the others; 2. a specific design theme is chosen; 3. an analysis of the existing solutions on the theme are examined; 4. each student is required to provide the sketch/concept of a new artefact related to the theme; 5. for each of the disciplinary parts in which the content has been subdivided: a. a frontal lesson is held to the class; b. each student is required to modify/re-design his/her previous sketch as a consequence of the new knowledge; c. the individual contributions are collected, organised and collectively discussed, evaluating which actions provided the best results; d. the selected practices are properly described; 6. the previous point is repeated for all the parts in which the content has been subdivided, as in point 1; 7. Finally, a “research paper” is written, as collective contribution to a methodological approach in applying the disciplines. The paper will describe the disciplinary content of Emotional Design, will illustrate the various parts for the subdivision of the content, and will show the results, both from the point of view of the design results and of the selected good practices according to the discussions. The experiences have been carried on in different courses for graduation in Design, and for post-graduated students, as well as for PhD students. The experience of the postgraduated students will ne described in detail, while only some references will be given for the others. Critical remarks will complete the paper..
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».