Art Education and Design Thinking: Reflections on Students Engaging With Community Using Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The creative process has long been interwoven with art education practice. Design thinking has numerous parallels to the creative process and may be viewed as an appropriate method to encourage creative thinking in both art and design students. This observational case study reflects on two disparate challenges in which 47 students tackled aesthetic and community provocations by applying the design thinking process. Reflective consideration of the results of each ‘project’ provides insight into the application and value of a proposed Design Thinking framework in art and design education. Keywords: Creativity; Design thinking; Innovation; Community. Résumé : Il existe depuis toujours une sorte d’interaction entre le processus créatif et la pratique de l’enseignement des arts. Il y a de nombreux parallèles entre le processus créatif et la réflexion conceptuelle, cette dernière pouvant être perçue comme une méthode appropriée pour encourager la pensée créatrice chez les étudiant.e.s, aussi bien en art qu’en design. Cette étude de cas par observation s’articule autour de deux défis distincts dans le cadre desquels 47 étudiant.e.s ont dû gérer des impératifs esthétiques et communautaires en recourant à un processus de réflexion conceptuelle. L’analyse réflexive des résultats de chacun des « projets » offre un aperçu de la mise en œuvre et de la valeur d’un cadre potentiel de réflexion conceptuelle au regard des études artistiques et de design. Mots-clés : créativité, réflexion conceptuelle, innovation, communauté.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".