A Comparative Study of Research-For-Design: \nTeaching and Learning in two undergraduate Graphic Design Programs in Canada and Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on effective ways to teach and learn research-for-design, looking for creative ways to do research and contribute to the field of design education. This study has examined the pedagogical practices of educators engaged with research-for-design and how students learn research skills. The challenge was to determine how to explore current education and draw connections between teaching and learning, and how to identify best practices that contribute to the advancement of design education. The review of theories of graphic design education, design processes, and research in the design process has supported the methodology of an international comparative education research between two undergraduate graphic design programs one in Canada at Concordia University and one in Mexico at the University of San Luis Potosi, through focused interviews to students and educators. \nParticipants have stated that graphic designers connect people to people, objects and ideas as a dynamic interface. The programs showed differences coming from the art and design streams but both have validated functional and aesthetic dimensions of design. The interviews have shown how designers do research-for-design through observation, questioning, comprehensive thinking, iterative, informal and intuitive processes, collaboration and empathy. Educational strategies should develop questioning and critical thinking, comprehensive and sustainable views, interdisciplinary and collaborative practices, self-develop and interaction with clients, users and stakeholders. In the results, some of the concepts that may improve education of research are: an institutional design methodology, the connection between theory and practice, motivation and engagement of students, balance between creation and research, collaboration among educators, real-world experiences, and effective use of mock-ups. The application of the outcomes of this study in my practice is helping students to understand their role as designers in the community and to develop their potential in design practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".