To Know is NOT Enough...

"To know is not enough—you must be able to apply knowledge and demonstrate it in context." - Harvard Graduate School of Education, educator and software developer Tom Snyder.

The title of the post pretty much sums up some of the inherent dichotomy of technology and the use of computers in the education arena. On the one hand educators are aware of the need to keep pace with technology in order to make the field of teaching and education in itself that much more current and relevant, but at the same time, one must also be aware that technology in itself CANNOT, and WILL NOT just be that singular force that would transform education into something that would remain relevant in this day and age. At times in those obscure moments of reflection that time can afford me, I do wonder what are the THINGS that I have done differently from my high-school teachers, that I think I can be proud to say that I have pioneered, and that I feel are things that are different, not just for the sake of being different per se, but more importantly is really something that I can be proud of later on as something that I have done differently, and perhaps more effectively. It sometimes sickens me that as things have progressed so much more over the years, the didactic pedagogical methods are still very much pervasive, not that it is bad, but what I do wonder is that when all have been said and done, and when we observe all these changes that are happening all around us, can we say that, as educators, we have also 'progressed' with the times?

I mean, seriously, with the advent of new knowledge in various fields of assessment and pedagogy, isn't there a need for a small revolution of sorts? Should we relook at our assessment methods then! Could we be more precise in our assessment methodologies, perhaps going beyond the usual pen and paper, beyond just grades, and just start to educate, not for grades alone, but more importantly, to be able to prepare our charges for the 'test of LIFE'.

Design 3.0 in Globalization 3.0...part 2

It is interesting and refreshing to see Design in itself as an academic entity rather than just about fulfilling a certain degree of higher-order craving. In an age of consumerism and the age of constant change, of product trends and user-led experiences, it is interesting to note that perhaps Design 0.0 has its origins from the prehistoric times, when Man, battling nature and its very day-to-day existence, have managed to create tools and systems that is perhaps a modern technological marvel in its time. This is the advent of Science, Design and perhaps even Technology, in its most primitive and basic forms.

As Man forges ahead to build his dominance over the other species, it is with great trepidation that he moves inland in the greater land masses to seek a greater amount of wealth and resources that he can use, manipulate, consume and even own. Thus is the start of Design 1.0, which is marked by perhaps the greater need of not any single human entity, but more so by a society, whether big or small, to harness and reap what nature has to offer to them, in their greater desire to fulfill their needs, and perhaps even their greed. Simple machines and processes are the order of the day here, where one can see the emergence of role-substitution in day-to-day activities, especially in areas that are directly affecting the fulfillment of Man's basic needs. Simple machines that perhaps can do the work of a few are used, together with a more optimal use of the limited resources that they have. Simple experimentation and knowledge management, of the most basic kind, can be observed here as Man experimented with the various parameters that are available to them, perhaps Materials, Time, Weather, Water, Fire, Wind and other simpler basic chemical elements.

As the colonies where Man lives becomes even larger, the need to fulfill a greater amount of resource requirements are putting the limited resources that Man has discovered and been making use of, to an ever larger degree of strain. Design 2.0 marked this particular phase, perhaps circa the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution is starting to pick up steam, either metaphorically or literally! This is the age of the Steam engine, the Light Bulb, the Telephone, the Wright Brothers, and much much more. the age whereby Man has more or less effectively used the knowledge bank that Man has collated over the years to come out with various contraptions and systems in place that would allow for an even greater degree of efficiency in terms of its output, but yet is still bogged down by its energy-gobbling requirements. This is the age where Design is more of a technical domain, where technical prowess is the key to moving ahead, where technical elegance, though oxymoronic, somewhat sums up what Design 2.0 should be!

So what would Design 3.0 be? Let me tell you then in my next post!

Design 3.0 in Globalization 3.0

I'm currently reading Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat" and am a little blown away at some of his ideas and findings so far. It's unnerving at times, as he put forth case after cases of what are the qualifying situations that seems to support his theory. In fact, it's not far fetch to say that this could be very well be a continuation of a book that I read as a text, i.e. "Blown to Bits" by Evans and Wurster while I was taking my Masters programme way back in 2001.

One idea that perhaps catches my attention was in the idea that globalization in itself is actually happening at stages over the years! Beginning from Man's early exploits during the British and Dutch colonial heydays of the 18th and 19th century, the idea was that this quest for land masses beyond the immediate regions, done by nations with the necessary wherewithal, is itself Globalization 1.0

What follows with these conquests in many parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America, are further 'exploitation' by the companies that are headquartered in these countries of origin, where multi-national companies are moving en masse to these resource-rich countries to further improve their profit margins and source out new markets for their various goods and services. This is Globalization 2.0

But interestingly Friedman (I hope he doesn't 'fry' too much, because the translated version of the word 'fry in Malay, i.e. GORENG, is a slang for talking shit! :) ), also brought forth the idea that there IS a third wave of globalization that is currently happening. Instead of nations and corporate organizations, what we are seeing now is the pervasive promulgation of individual content on a global scale, albeit in the online digital world of the NET, in what one would term as 'user-defined content'. Interestingly enough, this has a much more significant impact so far, as it does not only bring forth limitless possibilities in terms of its potential, but surprisingly, the very significant ripples that it creates are not necessarily being decided upon by financial or capitalist interests!

And hence as I was reading it, it comes to my mind, analogically speaking, whether there is such a thing as a Design 3.0, in a context similar to Globalization 3.0. I think there is indeed. Perhaps I should deal with it in my next post then!

Failure as an Option - Part 2

The ubiquitous iPod in all its various iterations are now seen as a standard of sorts in terms of what design is all about. Shapes, Forms, Functions...in fact the overall user-experience, whether it is the joy of listening to a well-made product, the coolness at being the owner of of the hippiest gadget on Earth, or simply being spot-on in your decision to buy one when you are making that decision to change your old multimedia player...I think the branding and cultish nature of iPod is something that perhaps very few products can emulate. But whether Apple in itself has been successful in all her previous endeavours is something that I have found a little surprising, because they have not! This article entitled "Learning from Failure: Apple's Most Notorious Flops" from Wired.com is a case in point.

What I can glean from this article, and all the various articles on 'Successes' and 'Failures' are that:

- Success in itself is not necessarily the sum total of previous successes, but a confluence of factors that would result in a success if well-managed
- There is no such thing as a Bad failures, only a stupid one, if one do not learn from it and avoid repeating the same failures
- There are always Successful Failures, those that results in a situation or a person becoming an even better individual as a result of tasting failure (or defeat)

The trick here then is to see to it that whatever adverse outcomes that shall come our way, it must be seen as one that would lead us to a greater degree of sucess. To end, I'd just like to share a story on "Why Failures Can Be Such Success Stories" here at BusinessWeek.com. Enjoy.

Failure as an Option - Part 1

My initial thoughts about failure is one of disdain, as it implies a certain sense of underachievement on the part of the person. But I guess a paradigm shift of sorts is needed when one looks at failure now. In fact:

FAILURE IS AN OPTION TO ACHIEVE GREATER SUCCESS

Lest the statement above sounds very much like a financial info-mercial that is so pervasive in the media nowadays, rest assured that it is not. Reading numerous articles on other people's life successes have somehow given me an insight that failures are actually necessary prerequisites for one to achieve an even greater degree of successes. Much like the proverbial woman being behind every man's success, I think that failures are the very thing that would give ANY success that much sweetness to taste.

In design education itself, I have embraced the philosophy that the first designs that comes out from my young charges are usually NOT the final design that they are going to be embarking on. Through constant and consistent one-to-one consultations that I have with them, it usually gives me a great amount of joy and satisfaction to see their design maturity developing and growing, to the point that they are able to see things from a practical and realistic point-of-view, definitely the kind of skills that I would want them to be equipped with before they leave their high school education. But at the same time, it is rather disheartening too to see that there is still this misconception amongst them that sees me as the 'Ideas bank', rather than a tool for them to facilitate in their design journeys and thinking skills. In fact, it is sad when they stopped thinking altogether and expect me to be providing them with the answers, when in actuality, design in itself is abundant with alternative solutions and possibilities for most given situations. Perhaps, what we would need is to relook at the way that some things or areas of study are being approached, so that this 'singular-answer mental model' can be de-established and perhaps put in place areas of study that in itself would be subjected to answers that are marked more by their Logicness, Realism and Depth of Reasoning and Thinkability, rather than Correctness alone!