Author: Can Yang

Reading Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts by Addison brings forward questions about how we define and measure learning. The text unsettles the idea that learning can be fully captured through predetermined outcomes. Instead, Addison advocates for an approach that allows for negotiation and emergence. This perspective brings me back to my own struggles with formal assessment structures in design education. There is often an expectation that learning should follow a linear path, but in my experience, true intellectual and creative growth unfolds in unpredictable ways.

When I teach, I notice that students often approach assignments with an acute awareness of assessment criteria, sometimes to the detriment of their own creative and critical instincts. They ask: “What do I need to do to meet the outcome?” rather than “Where can I take this idea?” This fixation on predefined goals is what Addison critiques, pointing out that “learning outcomes are too often framed in terms of what students should have achieved by the end of the course” (Addison, 2014). The assumption is that knowledge is something to be attained rather than embodied or situated. But what if learning is more about movement, about the shifting nature of ideas as they develop through dialogue, making, and reflection?

Christine Schranz’s introduction Commons for Design, Design for Commons in Commons in Design proposed another way of thinking about knowledge production. Schranz describes the commons as an ongoing negotiation, a space where different voices interact to create something collectively. She writes, “The commons are places of sharing and negotiation, where different voices contribute to a collective understanding” (Schranz, 2024). In this way, learning is not about arriving at a fixed destination but about engaging with others in a process of exchange. My own experiences with students have reinforced this. The moments when they challenge each other’s ideas, when they push beyond what was expected, are often the most meaningful.

This is also where Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society enters the conversation. Illich critiques traditional education for its rigid institutional structures, which condition learners to believe that knowledge is something dispensed by an authority rather than something created through lived experience. His argument pushes me to reconsider how much of my own teaching is shaped by institutional expectations. If learning is to be meaningful, it must be freed from rigid frameworks that dictate what “success” should look like.

In the history, the experimental ethos of Black Mountain College challenges conventional notions of education outside of hierarchical governance structures that risk stifling innovation. The college operated on the belief that learning happens through doing—through risk-taking, improvisation, and collaboration. This history reminds me that as an educator, I am not just delivering content but facilitating conditions where knowledge can emerge organically. It makes me question whether I, too, sometimes fall into the trap of seeking measurable results at the expense of deeper, less predictable forms of learning.

Reading these texts, I return to a simple but pressing question: How can I create an environment where students feel empowered to pursue knowledge beyond the limits of predefined learning outcomes? Addison, Schranz, Illich, and the experimental practices of Black Mountain College suggest that the answer lies in allowing uncertainty, in continuous dialogue, and in recognizing that learning is always in motion and in commons.

References

Addison, P. (2014). Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: From performativity towards emergence and negotiation.

Schranz, C. (2024). Commons for design, design for commons. In Commons in Design (pp. 14-20). Valiz.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. Harper & Row.

PAGES Teacher Resources. (2016). Leap Before You Look: Black Mountain College 1933-1957. WexPages. Retrieved from https://wexpagesonline.edublogs.org/files/2016/08/PAGES-Teacher-Resources_Look-Before-You-Leap-11e6hel.pdf

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: 

1. Brief 2: Visiblise (written by Can Yang) with corrections and guidance from our former course leader, Barbara Müller, in Unit 1: Research, Risk + Context, 2024–25 Graduate Diploma in Graphic Design, Chelsea College of Arts.
2. Briefing presentation slides (designed by Can Yang) based on the brief.
3. Lecture slides from one of the three workshop sessions related to the brief, focusing on semiotics and visual codes.

Size of student group: 16

Observer: Catherine Smith

Observee: Can Yang

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One (Can)

Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

Visiblise is one of three briefs in Unit 1: Research, Risk + Context, running from November 4th to 29th over four weeks. The brief is designed to strengthen students’ research and analytical skills while supporting the development of their visual language within the context of visual communication.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I have been teaching as an Associate Lecturer on this course since 2022. With this year’s cohort, we began working together in September 2024. The number of students varies each year—this year, we have 16 students from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. Some aim to refine their professional graphic design skills for practice beyond academia, while others intend to pursue an MA degree.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

• To undertake practical research methods and apply findings to explorations of graphic design problems and challenges (LO1).
• To demonstrate a critical understanding of the theories, debates, and contexts relevant to graphic design practice (LO2).
• To use reflection and self-evaluation to inform decision-making and experimentation, taking responsibility for one’s own learning (LO3).
• To communicate project ideas with clarity and an awareness of audience needs (LO4).
• To select and apply appropriate methods for generating ideas and developing design solutions (LO5).

For further details, please refer to the brief.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

Students will produce a spatial text-object and a transcription device (please see the brief for a glossary and explanation of terminology), a presentation for formative assessment, and a process book with specific requirements.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

The terminology and selected readings/references are primarily within philosophical discourse. To meet different needs, students could benefit from additional perspectives on how knowledge can be acquired—particularly in applying semiotics to practical and social contexts.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Ideally, students will be informed in advance that an observation/review is taking place. I will explain that the purpose is to reflect on and improve teaching practices, ensuring that the brief, workshop activities, and discussions are as effective and engaging as possible. The observer’s presence will be introduced as a supportive and constructive element of the session, rather than an evaluation of individual student performance.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

I would appreciate feedback on:

• The design of the brief, ensuring alignment with Level 6 learning outcomes.
• The effectiveness of workshop activities.
• The clarity of instruction.
• Strategies for fostering more critical discussions during workshops.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Feedback will be shared through a written report with a follow-up discussion during the tutorial/review. The observer could provide written comments on the clarity, structure, and effectiveness of the brief, presentation materials, and workshop activities. This will be followed by a reflective report where I will address areas for improvement, and strategies for enhancing engagement and critical discussions in future sessions.

Part Two (Catherine)

Visiblise brief

Page 1: Overall impression is that it looks good. Nicely laid out, clear column structure and headers breaking the information down for the reader-student. 

Upon reading I did get confused quite quickly though. There appear to be a lot of elements and terms used which overlap and create uncertainty in my mind about what you are asking of me. You have a unit title that is “Research, Risk and Context”, and this appears to be one brief within it. What relationship does it have to the mothership unit brief? I wonder if an explanatory sentence that links back to the unit aims would be helpful as a starting section.

Then once we are into it, we are thinking “what is vizibilize?” before learning it is about creating a visual language. Because you don’t give an eg of what you mean by a visual language it may be hard for some students to grasp what your intention is. You then ask for a spatial text object and a transcription device. I imagine you want the visual language rendered through these devices but I am unsure. Then you introduce 3 stages and tell me I will be using cyanotype and collograph etc. I don’t know why I will be using these and it feels possibly arbitrary. 

You then tell me I will be observing and analyzing but at this point I don’t know what phenomenon I am observing, analysing etc. I imagine I am supposed to select it but other than suggesting it links to a prior project (why?) I have no idea what the source topic is. If the project can be about anything or should be about something specific then you need to be much clearer on that.

I would like to know/see what they made in response to it, and what your thoughts were when you saw it. Was it what you were expecting? If not, in what ways? What do you think went well or could have been improved? The real answers to your questions lie in looking at the work and asking them about how they found the brief! 

Your bibliography is interesting – I see what you mean about philosophy. Before we get onto content though I ask which are required and which are the further? There is no way of knowing. Re. content – you need design on here. These texts are challenging, and whilst there is nothing wrong with that per se, you need to show how these theoretical concepts apply to graphic design practice knowledge production. You are not asking them to write an essay after all. You might find Lucienne Roberts and Jonathan Baldwin’s 2006 text Visual Communication: From Theory to Practice, or even David Crow’s Visible Signs more palatable, as they deal with theory in use, rather than in the abstract. It’s fine if they are all understanding it and able to work with it, but the brief doesn’t really set out how they relate so working from this alone, it’s not clear why these texts are there. 

It is not Harvard referenced accurately, which will then make it difficult for the students to see a model for what you should be asking them to produce. Use CiteThemRight to edit it.

Page 2: Formative Feedback sounds great – I assume you are using Tracey Waller’s old model from Camberwell? Great to see it still in play at CCW after all this time. It seems a little tight on time, to submit the night before the feedback tutorial: when do the tutors review the work? Or do they just respond to it, seeing it for the first time in the tutorial itself? Would another day of review time be useful (I realise it is not always possible). 

With the Learning Outcomes I would use sentence case – these are pretty important items on a brief and they look a little too subtle here. The use of lower case looks slightly out of place here, although I can see that it is a design decision for the briefs, and headers. That’s fine but it is inconsistent to sometimes use it at the start of sentences, and other times not. (I am being very picky here!).

I am interested in why the binary of “you do / you do not” for each LO? If I didn’t know better then I would imagine you were marking in a binary fashion, rather than assigning grades for each LO. I think the sentences themselves are useful descriptors, but perhaps you can think of an alternative intro that is more nuanced. Even “How well do you…” could work, and at least flags that you are not just saying Yes or No when you are marking.

Briefing slides

Slide 1: Is it Unit 1, Project 2, rather than Brief 2? Not sure if it might be helpful to be more specific about that. Not a big deal, but I am a stickler for consistency between curriculum elements so I do notice this stuff! (Not sure the students would particularly mind or notice!). 

Image reference is not Harvard.

S2: Do you want to add in the breaks? Some of our participants don’t like it if we don’t flag when they will be / how long for.

S3: is it a brief or is it a project? I think you have 3 projects within unit 1. I would be sure to describe them as projects, and then the document that is the brief (with the accompanying class) is differentiated.

I really like this timeline. How long after the project 3 formative is the summative handin? Is there a reason you haven’t added a date?

S6: is that a quote from that reference cited at the side? If so, please use quote marks otherwise you might accidentally be modelling plagiarism. Fine if you have paraphrased though.

S8-10: I like the way these build. I know it’s basic but it works!

When you show an eg of work, do you talk about it and in what way it is visual language? I imagine you are doing this and it is really helpful. 

S16-23: these are what I needed at the start! Consider what would happen if you placed tem before the rest of the instructions and just explained what a visual language is? The brief then would be so much clearer! Also, I wonder if you can add in a slide even before that, where you ask them to chat together in pairs about what they think an eg of visual language is, or find their own etc. Then share back to the room. Then you go through yours, and then follow up with the brief etc.

S27: you refer to testing event day here but it is not listed on the brief itself. I think it is the same as formative assessment but not sure?

You are asking them to present and give details of timings etc but these details are not on page 2 of the brief itself. This is important info that should be on the brief.

S29: appears to be a suggested template structure for their presentation slides. Do you need to be clearer about whether it is mandated or optional to follow this?

S30: you talk about an area, but this is not mentioned on the brief. Anything like this needs to be on the brief.

S31: what kind of experiment? Do you need to give egs as bullet points?

Overall comments:

Whilst after seeing the egs in the slides I understood what you meant I don’t think it is clear enough in the brief. I think that there are too many different elements vying for attention and it dilutes the clarity that a brief requires. Students bring enough complexity and the fact that they get to select a starting point will require greater clarity over what you are asking for. 

I also wondered about the gap between the use of the lit on the brief (the refs) and its absence in your briefing presentation. This feels significant. Why is it not mentioned when you show the egs of practice? If you disaggregate theory from practice in your delivery how do you expect them to be able to integrate them or apply theory in use? Perhaps this comes out in what you say when you present the egs but the fact that you do not quote from any of those sources did make me wonder why then are they there? How do they link, in practice? I would review what they have produced in light of that question and see how far you feel their work has been informed by this thinking. If it has not, does it need to be? Or should you select different references and then integrate them more fully into the briefing? I don’t have an opinion on it, but your students might. Why not ask them?

Part Three (Can)

In my future teaching practice, I will make several adjustments to the Vizibilise brief based on this feedback to improve clarity and coherence. While the structure and layout were effective, I recognize that the conceptual framing needs refinement. One key issue raised was the lack of a clear connection between this brief and the broader unit, Research, Risk and Context. To address this, I will introduce a short opening section that explicitly explains how this project fits within the unit’s learning objectives.

I also see the importance of defining “visual language” earlier in the brief. Instead of assuming prior understanding, I will include an example or an initial discussion prompt where students can explore and share their interpretations before I introduce specific methodologies. Additionally, I will ensure that technical processes, such as cyanotype printing, are better contextualized—clearly explaining their relevance to the project rather than presenting them as arbitrary tools.

Another area for improvement is the integration of theory and practice. I acknowledge that while the bibliography provides valuable theoretical references, its connection to the practical work is not explicit enough. Moving forward, I will carefully select required and supplementary readings and actively reference them in class discussions and briefing slides.

Lastly, I will refine structural details: ensuring consistency in terminology, improving the accuracy of citations, and reconsidering submission timelines to allow tutors adequate review time. These changes will help create a more accessible and engaging brief that better supports students’ learning and creative exploration.

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Workshop

Size of student group: 24

Observer: Guiseppe Renga

Observee: Can Yang

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One (Can)
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

This session is part of an ongoing exploration of visual documentation methods within the Typology course. It focuses on alternative ways of seeing, material processes, and the act of imprinting vision beyond digital tools. The workshop ties into critical design theory, referencing key texts such as Walter Benjamin’s The Task of the Translator and Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind, to challenge conventional notions of perception and documentation.

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I have been working with this group since the start of the academic year in my capacity as an Associate Lecturer, leading workshops and seminars that encourage critical engagement with visual and typographic practices.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

-Develop an understanding of how materiality and process shape visual documentation.

-Experiment with imprinting and documentation methods, challenging conventional ways of seeing.

-Explore the relationship between objects, texts, and perception through hands-on making and theoretical reflection.

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

Mental Drawing – Drawing from memory.

Blind Drawing – Drawing without looking at the paper.

Cyanotype Print – Using light-sensitive paper to create imprints.

Printed Scan – Experimenting with scale and perspective through photocopying.

Your Choice – A final documentation piece that integrates or extends these methods.

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Students may have varying levels of familiarity with cyanotype printing and alternative documentation methods.

Some may struggle with the conceptual shift from traditional representation to material/process-based documentation.

Managing time effectively to allow for both experimentation and reflection.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students will be informed on the date during the session starts. The observation will be framed as a reflective practice to improve teaching and learning experiences.

What would you particularly like feedback on?

How effectively the workshop structure supports students’ understanding and engagement.

Whether the balance between theory and practice is appropriate.

How students respond to and integrate the critical readings into their documentation processes.

The overall clarity and flow of the session.

How will feedback be exchanged?

Feedback will be shared via written reflection. Any insights or recommendations will be incorporated into future iterations of the workshop.

Part Two (Guiseppe)

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

Hi Can, 

Thank you again for inviting me to observe your technical practice in exploring cyanotype printing and imprinting vision through different tools. As you have suggested, your workshop focused on documenting which doesn’t merely mean reproducing reality but about translating and transforming perception. The workshop was developed through a series of five visual documentation methods, focusing on material processes and alternative ways of seeing.

To begin with, I really enjoyed preparing this workshop, in which students received clear instructions about its structure, including the typology of tools they were going to use, the schedule, and the reading list. 

The classroom was formed by circa 20 students all sitting in a circle based in an Open Space. 

The space seemed quite challenging because of the lack of privacy and proper separation from other classrooms, and in delivering these workshops within this design how do you capture the attention of your students? Were you already prepared to work in a similar space? Besides that, all the students were listening, taking notes and pictures of the slides you were sharing on the screen which I found quite hard to read due to the size of the fonts and the background colour. Would you think I will be better at adopting colours and family fonts and sizes that are more readable (e.g. white colours and sans serif fonts) in particular by students affected by neurodiversity? Notwithstanding, the lack of a super clear presentation was obviated by detailed instructions and guidance printed on 2 A4 papers. 

The flow of the first part based on the theory was impeccably enriched by great references within the field of Architecture, Pop Art of artists and practitioners from South Africa, France and so on and on. The description of the artists’ technique was meticulous with an abondance of example from different historical periods. Moreover, I found very inspiring a reference to John Bergers, Ways of Seeing book written in 1972. 

The second part focused on cyanotype print and the use of light-sensitive paper to create a direct imprint. The process was explained scrupulously and the amount of tools was enough for all the students. With a huge amount of joy and excitement suddenly all the students were keen to lay on their paper the chemical emulsion and swiftly hide them wherever there was a bit of darkness available. I enjoyed the session and the fact that all the students were eager to imprint the objects and shapes of a certain personal value. Don’t you think that you could do something slightly different next time by maybe redesigning the layout of the space with a dark area big enough to host all the students ‘artefacts? 

Moreover, I loved the fact the students were recycling a lot of paper containers like egg trays or paper cups which became proper treasures. Hence this led the workshop to generate the unpredictable and let the students explore the unknown. Finally, you have been able to incentivise all the students to have fun and work with multiple experiments which has positively affected the kinship and affinities among them.  

Part Three (Can)

Reflecting on Guiseppe’s observations, here’s how I would address and adapt the points raised:

1. Space and Attention: Since I cannot control the group size or the space setup, I would focus on adjusting my teaching methods to work within those limitations. I could experiment with alternating between group discussions and hands-on activities to keep students engaged in the open space. Additionally, using visual or auditory cues to refocus attention could help manage distractions in the environment.
2. Font Legibility: I understand the feedback on font legibility, but I believe my handout already employs a clear visual communication approach with legible type and high contrast between headings and body text. From a design perspective, I don’t see it as a legibility issue, but I do acknowledge that the lighting, screen resolution, or the way the material was displayed may have affected its visibility. In the future, I would consider ensuring that handouts are distributed in advance and may also experiment with adjusting font sizes or color schemes when displaying material on screens to further improve readability in varied environments.
3. Space Layout for Cyanotype Process: Given the space constraints, I would look into structuring the cyanotype activity in smaller group rotations, allowing for a more organized space for students to lay out their objects. I could also experiment with temporary partitions or designated areas for different activities to create a clearer workflow, while still working within the open space available.
4. Incorporating Unpredictability and Recycling: I’m glad my colleague highlighted the students’ creative use of recycled materials. I plan to keep encouraging this experimental approach, as it not only adds an element of unpredictability but also aligns with the workshop’s focus on transformation and exploration.

Overall, I’m grateful for the feedback and would integrate these suggestions to improve the workshop, ensuring it remains accessible and engaging while maintaining the spirit of experimentation.

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Adobe InDesign for BA Year 1 

Size of student group: 10 

Observer: Can Yang 

Observee: Giuseppe Renga 

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action. 

Part One (Giuseppe)
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review: 

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum? 

I teach Adobe InDesign which is a powerful tool that helps student in the composition and construction of portfolios, magazines, zines, books, pamphlet, leaflet and presentations. 

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity? 

I usually work with these cohorts for the entire duration of the course that lasts 4 days. 

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes? 

The creation and customization of the workspace within Adobe InDesign. Moreover ,students will get more familiar with the main panels incapsulated in the software like the Layers, the Properties, The Pages and the Styles panels. The recreation of a small magazine by using a combination of images and text supported my the use of a gamut of digital tools like: the frame, the type and the shape tools. 

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)? 

These students will be able to design their own portfolios, zines, leaflets and so on and on. 

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern? 

Because these sessions were delivering online my main concerns were about the lack of physicality of the students which might determine a lacuna in the control of the classroom with a consequent reduction of attention from the attendees. 

How will students be informed of the observation/review? 

My observer Can Yang has been able to observe me on an online record session. 

What would you particularly like feedback on? 

Ways of interactions with my students, methodologies used to inculcate concepts to the students, gamut of exercises developed. 

How will feedback be exchanged? 

The feedback will be exchanged through this document. 

Part Two (Can)

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions: 

Observer: Can Yang 

Date of Observation: March 10, 2025 

Lecturer: Giuseppe Renga 

Course: Adobe Certified Professional (ACPro) InDesign Online Session 

Duration: 100 minutes (40 minutes lecture, 60 minutes demonstration) 

Questions for Reflection: 

1. How to balance theoretical content with practical exercises to increase student engagement and learning retention? 
2. Could a brief recap or summary at the end of the session help reinforce the key points discussed and aid student understanding? 
3. How might incorporating case studies or examples from more global cultural contexts to make the historical and artistic aspects of the lesson more inclusive? 

Part Three (Giuseppe)

To begin with I want to say thank you for observing an online recorded session of the Adobe Certified Professional I have delivered to the BA Creative Direction for Fashion Year One students from London College of Fashion.     

To deliver the ACP sessions, I used Blackboard Collaborate. Normally, each session started at 10 and finished at 16:30, including a one-hour lunch break and two 15-minute tea breaks. By sharing my screen, I showed the students how to use Adobe InDesign, underpinned by theoretical didactic material via a separate presentation. Moreover, all the sessions were recorded and shared with the students via Moodle to help those students who were working from a different time zone.    

Although students are contacted via email at least 48 hours before the start of the course with all the vital didactical resources attached, I have never thought to share with them a reading list or a theoretical context that could have been linked to an artefact to be created in the classroom. Nonetheless, in my last year, I have been practicing with my students the design of their major final degree show poster based and inspired by those created by the Bauhaus artists by adopting the dogmas and axioms of simplicity, balance and aesthetic explored by the German avant-garde. Upon your feedback, I will certainly include in future more examples related to a variety of art movements to inspire the students even more and to make them curious.  

Moreover, I firmly think that the attendees would have also been guided in a better way if I had created a map of the course which would have facilitated my students in being oriented and engaged with the flow of the lecture that consisted of a fusion of theory and practice. In addition, a final recapitulation of the key concepts touched and analyzed throughout the course could be refreshing and clarifying for the students in particular after 5/6 hours spent in front of a screen.  

Furthermore, whilst you have mentioned the lack of examples of art practices explored by different practitioners I have been inserting in my slides examples inherent to fashion illustrators such as Elsa Schiaparelli and Rene Gruau’ as well Tony Viramontes and based on their artefacts I have tried to shift their styles towards artifices that I have collaboratively constructed with my cohort.  

Finally, although I have inserted at the end of my presentation a reference list, I evince that it will acquire a more professional appearance if I include the written reference to each image deployed during the presentation with a list of the image at the end of the presentation. 

In Aesthetic Learning About, In, With and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study, Lars Lindstrom explores the intersections between aesthetic learning and the arts in education. By categorizing aesthetic learning into four dimensions—learning about, learning in, learning with, and learning through the arts—Lindstrom offers a comprehensive framework for integrating the arts into education. This framework challenges the traditional view of art as an object of study and emphasizes the dynamic roles that art can play in shaping personal, social, and intellectual development.

The study highlights that aesthetic learning goes beyond intellectual knowledge and includes personal engagement with the artistic process. Learning about art pertains to studying its history and theory, while learning in refers to personal experiences with art, and learning with involves collaboration with others. Lastly, learning through stresses the transformative process of creation, where students use art to make sense of and navigate the world. This holistic approach could encourage students to engage with the arts in varied and meaningful ways, bridging critical reflection and creative practice.

Lindstrom’s model reminds me the discussion around developing research models for higher education students, particularly in visual communication. It is essential to provide students with a framework that encourages critical reflection on their motivations, practice, and societal relevance as they begin their research journeys. Christopher Frayling’s categorization of research in Research in Art and Design (1993)—Research into, Research through, and Research for—serves as a complementary model for guiding students in understanding the diverse aspects of their research. These categories, which mirror Lindstrom’s framework, create a model that includes intellectual inquiry, creative production, and practical application, offering a complete approach to research.

For students in higher education, particularly those in the visual communication context, it is necessary to understand the intersections of their Personal Interests, Visual Communication Relevance, and Societal Challenges. These three areas form the basis of any research journey, helping students critically reflect on their identities, the relevance of their work to the field, and the broader societal issues they are engaging with. A visual model can represent these areas as three overlapping circles, with analysis at the intersection, surrounded by context. The model encourages students to recognize the dynamic relationships between self-reflection, practice, theory, and the external factors that influence their research.

By incorporating such models, students are better prepared to understand their research processes and the significance of their work in relation to both personal and societal concerns. This diagram has been applied to the tutorial group session with my cohort in developing deeper engagement with the research journey and ensures that students are equipped to address complex challenges in the art and design fields.

References:

Lindström, L. (2012) ‘Aesthetic Learning About, In, With and Through the Arts: A Curriculum Study’.

Frayling, C. (1993) Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art. Available at: https://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/9/frayling_research_in_art_and_design_1993_OCR.pdf (Accessed: 15 March 2025).

Nelson, R. (2022) Practice as Research in the Arts (and Beyond): Principles, Processes, Contexts, Achievements. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sara Ahmed’s What’s the Use? On the Uses of Use (2019) interrogates the structures that shape institutional and design practices, exploring how systems of power determine the possibilities of engagement, participation, and exclusion. Through Ahmed’s lens, “use” is not neutral but an instrument of reinforcement and regulation—objects, spaces, and institutions become worn by the patterns of those who are granted access and rendered obsolete by those who are not. Reading the article inspires me to think with feminist design pedagogy, which questions the dominant narratives shaping design education and seeks alternative ways of knowing and practicing.

Feminist Design Pedagogy and Spatial Politics

Feminist pedagogy, much like Ahmed’s notion of “queer use,” attempts to repurpose and challenge existing frameworks by acknowledging lived experiences, positionality, and intersectionality. We could possibly argue that discomfort is not a failure but a necessary condition for transformation—by confronting biases and privileges, students and educators can begin to rethink power dynamics in design. However, this process is neither straightforward nor universally welcomed; institutions often resist such shifts, as they challenge deeply ingrained hierarchies and economic interests.

This resistance parallels Ahmed’s critique of institutional diversity efforts, which often perform inclusion without enacting meaningful structural change. When feminist design pedagogy attempts to engage with voices traditionally excluded from design history and practice, it frequently encounters institutional barriers that dictate what counts as “valid” knowledge. The discomfort experienced in these pedagogical spaces—whether through student resistance, faculty pushback, or institutional inertia—reveals how deeply ingrained ideas of design function as mechanisms of exclusion.

Doreen Massey’s Space, Place, and Gender (1994) provides further insight into how spatial structures reinforce gendered experiences. Massey’s argument that space is socially constructed aligns with both Ahmed’s concerns about how institutional norms shape who gets to participate in knowledge production. If certain modes of working, thinking, and existing are deemed “out of place,” then feminist design pedagogy must actively create spaces where these forms of knowledge are recognized.

Teaching Experience and Institutional Barriers

In my own teaching experience, I have observed how students who challenge conventional notions of design—whether through exploring personal narratives, non-Western perspectives, or non-commercial applications—often struggle to justify their work within institutional assessment criteria. Some students express frustration that their projects, which engage with feminist or decolonial critiques, are met with skepticism or deemed too “subjective” compared to more traditional, commercially viable outputs. Similar to the very structures that Ahmed critiques, where institutional norms dictate whose work is valued and whose is rendered marginal.

To use feminist pedagogy as an active, material practice that extends beyond theoretical discussions, I designed and hosted a workshop earlier this year to reimagine the use of writing tools and reinvent gestures of writing for creating typography and textual language.

Drawing on the ideas of Vilém Flusser and asemic writing, the workshop invited participants to question the functional constraints of writing instruments and the standardization of textual representation. By altering or even constructing their own tools, participants explored new, embodied ways of mark-making that defied traditional legibility. Many expressed both excitement and unease—some struggled with the lack of predefined structure, while others found liberation in moving beyond linguistic constraints. Similar to the notion of queer use, as students repurposed objects and gestures in ways that diverged from their intended function. By physically altering the means of writing, students engaged in a direct critique of dominant typographic traditions.

References:

Ahmed, S. (2019) What’s the use? On the uses of use. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Flesler, G., Neidhardt, A. and Ober, M. (2025) ‘A conversation on the discomfort of feminist design pedagogy’, in Mareis, C. and Paim, N. (eds.) Design struggles. Amsterdam: Valiz, pp. 205–225.

Massey, D. (1994) Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Matrix (1984) Making space: Women and the man-made environment. London: Pluto Press.

Flusser, V. (2011) Does writing have a future? Translated by N.A. Roth. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Background
This microteaching session was designed to explore object-based learning through the lens of visual perception, representation, and semiotics. The session leveraged the philosophical framework of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to facilitate a deeper understanding of how objects are perceived and described, both visually and verbally. The workshop aimed to challenge the hierarchical relationship between object and subject, drawing on concepts from Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). A ring gauge was selected as the central object for its metaphorical resonance—akin to “books on books,”¹ this was a case of “rings on rings”—which served to disrupt traditional object-subject dynamics by granting the object agency through self-naming and narrative.

As Harman (2002) suggests, “objects can never be reduced to the mere sum of their relations to humans or other entities. Each object has its own unique essence that is distinct from its interactions or qualities” (p. 7). This notion of objects as autonomous entities underscores the purpose of the workshop: to challenge the subject-object dynamic and allow the object to narrate its identity independently.

Objectives

1. To engage participants in critical thinking about the relationship between visual perception and verbal description.
2. To explore the semiotic processes involved in representing objects through language and imagery.
3. To challenge traditional hierarchies between subject and object, inspired by Object-Oriented Ontology.
4. To investigate how functional, everyday objects can gain autonomy and subjectivity through self-referential abstraction.

Methodology
The session was structured around an interactive, collaborative activity involving six participants divided into two groups (Group A and Group B).
Activity Design

Step 1: Projection and Observation
Group A (three participants) was shown a projection of the silhouette of a ring gauge. This projection was carefully chosen to obscure some functional details, focusing participants on its visual form rather than its utility.

Step 2: Description and Communication
Group A was tasked with describing the projected image using text or verbal language. They were encouraged to articulate their perceptions without naming the object explicitly, focusing instead on shapes, forms, and possible interpretations.

Step 3: Interpretation and Drawing
Group B (three participants), who had not seen the projection, listened to the descriptions provided by Group A. Based solely on these descriptions, Group B created individual drawings of what they envisioned the object to be.

In line with Barthes’ assertion that “It is impossible however (and this will be the final remark here concerning the text) that the words ‘duplicate’ the image; in the movement from one structure to the other second signifieds are inevitably developed” (1977, p. 26), the translation from visual form to verbal description and back to drawing emphasizes the inevitable transformation and divergence between the original object and its representations. This highlights the semiotic process at play: words do not merely “duplicate” the image, but rather generate new layers of meaning that reshape the object’s identity in the minds of participants.

Observations and Reflections
Throughout the session, several key observations emerged:

1. Variability in Perception: Participants in Group A described the silhouette using diverse language, influenced by their individual interpretations and biases. This variability highlighted the subjective nature of visual perception. As Eco (1976) notes, “meaning is not fixed, but is contingent upon the interpreter’s context” (p. 35).
2. Challenges in Translation: Group B’s drawings revealed significant discrepancies between the original object and its interpreted representations. This emphasized the limitations and challenges inherent in translating visual information into verbal language and back into visual form.
3. Object Agency: By refraining from naming the object explicitly and focusing on its visual characteristics, the ring gauge gained a form of autonomy. It became a “useless Thing,” transcending its functional purpose and acquiring a new identity through the participants’ interactions. Harman (2002) discusses the “vitality of objects,” explaining that “objects persist in their being, whether or not they are perceived or understood by human subjects” (p. 9).
4. Semiotic Exploration: The activity illuminated the semiotic processes involved in object representation. The transformation from object to silhouette, to description, to drawing, showcased the layers of meaning that emerge and shift in the communication process.

Conclusion
This microteaching session demonstrated the potential of object-based learning to foster critical engagement with visual perception, semiotics, and the philosophy of objects. By using the Allegory of the Cave as a metaphorical framework, participants were encouraged to question the nature of reality and representation. The ring gauge, as a symbol of “rings on rings,” served as an effective tool for disrupting traditional subject-object dynamics and highlighting the agency of objects.

Future Considerations
For future iterations of this workshop, I will try to incorporate accessibility considerations, such as potential discomfort with darkness should be addressed before the workshop. In addition, consider developing a broader range of objects and exploring digital mediums for representation which could further enhance the exploration of object agency and semiotic transformation. Moving forward, I could refine the pacing, provide clearer role distinctions, and incorporate sensory aspects like texture and sound to further enrich the experience and extend the activity to include a reflective discussion on the philosophical implications of the exercise would deepen participants’ engagement with the theoretical concepts underpinning the session.

References

• Plato. (c. 375 BCE). The Republic (“The Allegory of the Cave”).
• Harman, G. (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Open Court. pp.164-179
• Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press.
• Barthes, R. (1977). Image, Music, Text. Fontana Press.
• Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press.
• Steyerl, H. (2012). The Language of Things. Retrieved from https://artistsspace.org/media/pages/exhibitions/hito-steyerl/1128046083-1623172961/the_language_of_things.pdf [Accessed 1 Feb 2025].
• McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
• Drucker, J. (2004). The Visible Word: Experimental Typography and Modern Art. University of Chicago Press.

1. 
   Drucker, J. (2004). The Visible Word: Experimental Typography and Modern Art. University of Chicago Press. In this work, Drucker explores the relationship between graphic design, text, and the conceptual role of books in design, including the idea of “books on books,” where the form and content of the book are reflexively intertwined, each influencing the other in a continuous dialogue. This concept mirrors the recursive relationship explored in the session through the metaphor of “rings on rings.” ↩︎

This case study focuses on the planning and support of student learning through the use of workshops in design education. The teaching context revolves around the concept of workshops as spaces for collective and collaborative learning, where students engage not only with materials and techniques but also with each other’s ideas, values, and perspectives. Through hands-on experiences, students are given the opportunity to critically examine the process of making, which allows them to question the role of design in a fast-paced, consumer-driven world. Workshops, as spaces for critical inquiry, push beyond technical proficiency and allow for the exploration of ethics, sustainability, and social responsibility.

Workshops in design education have long been associated with the development of craft and technical skills. My personal experience studying at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD), a school deeply influenced by the Bauhaus, illustrates how workshops were historically situated within a design guild system. These spaces were once primarily concerned with mastering technical execution and craftsmanship. However, as design education has evolved, workshops have shifted from being mere spaces for individual skill development to more complex environments where students can engage with broader, interdisciplinary, and socially conscious design practices. As Paeva (2022) notes, “the power of the co-workshop space lies in its ability to challenge individual practices through collective engagement” (p. 34). This shift reflects the ongoing transformation of design education, where the emphasis is no longer just on the production of objects but on rethinking the relationships between designers, manufacturers, and consumers.

In the context of today’s fast-paced, consumer-driven culture, workshops provide an opportunity to rethink the ethical, environmental, and social dimensions of design. As Cramer (2022) highlights, critical making—an approach that invites students to reflect on the processes and implications of their work—has become increasingly important in design education. In a world driven by efficiency and mass production, where objects are made with little consideration for their environmental and social impact, workshops encourage students to slow down and think critically about the materials they use, the processes they follow, and the broader consequences of their design decisions. The tension between commonality and contrast in design education reflects a deeper need for cooperation, not just between students but between designers and the systems that produce and consume their work.

In addition to engaging with the materiality of design, workshops provide a unique space for face-to-face encounters, offering more direct and collaborative modes of learning. In an increasingly digital world, where technology often mediates our interactions, the workshop acts as a counterbalance to the passivity of screen-based communication. As Groten (2022) suggests, workshops offer “a grounding space for collective learning and personal engagement” (p. 112), where students can exchange ideas, critique each other’s work, and learn in a more embodied and relational way. These interactions, facilitated by the physicality of the workshop, help break the passive relationship many students have with technology, encouraging active participation and deeper engagement with the material aspects of design.

The implications of these insights for design education are significant. Educators must recognize the value of workshops as spaces not only for making but for thinking critically about the ethical and social dimensions of design, but also about critical making. As Cramer (2022) points out, “critical making allows designers to interrogate their work, reconsidering how objects are made, and to what end” (p. 68). By incorporating these critical approaches into workshop practice, educators can help students develop a more responsible and reflective design practice. This involves not only reconsidering the materials used but also examining the production cycle as a whole, from manufacturer to consumer, and exploring the moral responsibility designers have in that cycle.

The action plan for integrating these practices into workshop environments involves creating spaces where students can engage in both making and critical reflection. Workshops should challenge students to question their design choices, encouraging them to think about the social, environmental, and ethical impact of their work. As Paeva (2022) notes, these spaces provide an opportunity for students to “step outside the fast-paced culture of technological efficiency and rediscover the value of slow, mindful making” (p. 56). In addition, educators should use workshops as a platform for fostering face-to-face collaboration, offering students the chance to engage in deep, personal interactions that go beyond the digital realm.

Ultimately, workshops in design education should evolve from being mere spaces for skill development to environments where students can critically engage with the implications of their work. By focusing on the ethical and social dimensions of design and encouraging active participation in the material aspects of creation, educators can help students develop a more thoughtful and responsible approach to design practice. As design education continues to evolve, the workshop must remain a central space for both making and thinking critically about the world around us.

References:

Paeva, V. (2022). Workshop Matters: How Can Access to Co-Workshop Spaces Change a Designer’s Practice? In: Commons in Design. Amsterdam: Valiz.

NanO’Sullivan, (2021). Our Everyday: The Intangible Yet Tangible Tensions Between Commonality, Contrast, and Co-operation within Design Education. Available at: https://openaccess.wgtn.ac.nz/articles/conference_contribution/Our_Everyday_The_Intangible_Yet_Tangible_Tensions_Between_Commonality_Contrast_and_Co-operation_within_Design_Education_/22650766 [Accessed 2 Feb. 2025].

Cramer, F. (2022). Artistic Research and Critical Making. In: Wesseling, J., Cramer, F., & Florian, eds. Making Matters: A Vocabulary for Collective Arts. Amsterdam: Valiz.

The Responsible Object: A History of Design Ideology for the Future. Amsterdam: Valiz.Figuring Things Out Together: Exploring the Workshop as a Concept and Format for Collective Learning and Publishing. Amsterdam: Hackers and Designers.

Metropolism (2022). Researching Collectivity as an Individual: How Is That Going to Work? In: Conversation with Anja Groten. Amsterdam: Metropolism.

The Art of Critical Making: Rhode Island School of Design on Creative Practice. (2022). Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Art_of_Critical_Making.html?id=7ZV4AAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2 Feb. 2025].

Context: Traditional Assessment Models

Traditional assessment methods in design education often feel rigid, focusing on final outcomes rather than the process of learning itself. These models tend to prioritize summative evaluations, standardized criteria, and numerical grades—approaches that can inadvertently stifle creativity and critical thinking. In design, where personal expression and subjective interpretation are central to the practice, such frameworks often fail to capture the depth and complexity of student learning. Brown and Glasner (1999) noted that traditional models typically emphasize measuring knowledge acquisition through objective testing, overlooking the nuanced development of critical thinking and reflective skills.

For many students, particularly those from diverse cultural backgrounds, these conventional methods can feel alienating. The emphasis on a one-size-fits-all, Western-centric approach to assessment fails to recognize the multiplicity of learning styles and the different ways students express their creativity. I’ve found, through my own experience, that this doesn’t just hinder creativity but creates barriers to deeper learning and reflection, as the process becomes overshadowed by grades rather than growth.

Evaluation

The more I’ve reflected on my teaching and the feedback from students, the clearer it becomes: traditional assessment models don’t encourage the kind of learning environment I want to create. Harris (2022) offers an interesting perspective on the power of silence in learning, especially for introverted students. “Silence can be a powerful space for reflection, not an absence of learning” (p. 102). This was a turning point for me; it made me reconsider how we often equate participation with verbal expression, leaving little room for students who process deeply in quieter ways. It’s a reminder that assessment should be about growth, not just vocal engagement.

This idea resonates with the principles of dialogic assessment that Alexander (2024) discusses. Dialogic assessment shifts the focus from judgment to conversation, allowing for reciprocal feedback and critical dialogue. Alexander describes this as “enhancing thinking and understanding by promoting cumulative, reciprocal, and supportive exchanges” (p. 15). This approach not only benefits students in developing their critical thinking skills, but it also invites a more collaborative, less hierarchical form of learning, one that I’ve come to believe is more effective.

bell hooks (2003) advocates for education as a “practice of freedom”—a way of teaching that encourages critical thinking, hope, and community. For me, this is what education should aim for: a shared journey where learning is seen as transformative, not transactional. When we move beyond judgment and embrace dialogue, assessment becomes a tool for growth rather than a measure of how well we’ve conformed to established norms.

Implications

Based on these reflections, it’s clear that we need a shift in how we approach assessment. Here are some specific changes I’ve been working towards:

• Redefining Assessment Criteria: I aim to move away from rigid rubrics that only value end products, toward criteria that acknowledge the process, critical thinking, and cultural contexts.
• Encouraging Reflective Dialogue: I want to create more opportunities for students to engage in reflective conversations about their work. These dialogues should allow students to see their creative process as just as valuable as the final result.
• Inclusive Feedback Mechanisms: I am developing feedback practices that recognize the diverse ways students learn and express themselves. This is about making sure no one feels overlooked or unheard in the process.
• Decentralizing Authority: Rather than seeing myself as the sole authority, I strive to position myself as a facilitator, encouraging peer-to-peer feedback and collaborative assessment practices.

Action Plan

As an Associate Lecturer, I’m working to implement these changes within my own teaching environment, focusing on the areas where I can have the most impact: individual tutorials, group tutorials, formative assessments, and summative assessments.

In individual tutorials, I make sure to explain the five learning outcomes of the UAL system clearly, so students can connect their creative process to the assessment criteria. This helps them understand that their work is not just evaluated in terms of the final product but also the critical engagement and reflection that went into it.

For formative assessments, I incorporate peer learning strategies that encourage students to engage in dialogues that critique and reflect on each other’s work. This not only decentralizes the traditional top-down feedback model but also helps students develop critical thinking skills in a reciprocal, supportive environment. I plan to hold structured peer review sessions, where feedback is presented as a collaborative, growth-oriented process.

In summative assessments, I’ve started asking students to submit self-evaluations alongside their projects. This encourages them to critically assess their own learning journey, reflect on the process, and articulate areas for growth. When giving feedback, I focus on encouraging dialogue, emphasizing both their strengths and areas for development.

References:

Alexander, R. (2024) Dialogic Teaching Bibliography. Available at: https://robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Alexander-dialogic-teaching-bibliography-June-2024.pdf (Accessed: 2 February 2025).

hooks, b. (2003) Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Routledge.

Brown, S. and Glasner, A. (1999) Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Harris, K. (2022) ‘Embracing the silence: introverted learning and the online classroom’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1), pp. 101–104. Available at: https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article

Teaching Context

Since 2022, I have been immersed in the world of design education, with a background in graphic design (BFA, United States) and visual communication (MA, United Kingdom). Growing up in the Pearl River Delta area in South China, my cultural lens is shaped by the rapid urbanization and the intersection of traditional and contemporary influences in the region. This context—rooted in the complexities of my cultural background—has pushed me to embrace graphic design as a critical and investigative practice, moving away from its often reductionist role as a commercial or aesthetic service.

In my teaching, I aim to engage students in a practice that is experimental, diverse, and rooted in critical thinking. My approach integrates various learning environments, providing students with the flexibility to experiment and question the conventions of design. It’s not just about learning how to produce aesthetically pleasing work but understanding design as an exploratory tool for deeper social and cultural questions.

Evaluation

Design education is often entrenched in a set of global assumptions that, at times, stifle new ways of thinking and doing. Graphic design be reimagined as research rather than mere output production: “graphic design can function as a form of research and investigation, pushing the boundaries of its discipline to create meaningful, thought-provoking work that engages with larger societal questions” (Van der Velden, 2006). This resonates deeply with how I see the role of design in my classroom: as an inquiry-driven practice that provokes thought, challenges norms, and opens up new avenues of reflection.

Yet, there is still a pervasive struggle for students to step outside traditional, commercial design paradigms. The feedback I have received often points to the difficulty in breaking free from familiar templates of commercial success. As one student mentioned, “Learning to view design as a way to challenge societal issues was a huge shift. It’s no longer just about making things look nice but engaging in a critical dialogue through design.” These sentiments reinforce the importance of a shift toward critical design pedagogy.

Designer and Educator Danah Abdulla sheds light on an important challenge that persists in design education today: the dominance of Eurocentric frameworks that marginalize voices from non-Western perspectives. In Design Struggles, Abdulla writes, “design is often shaped by dominant global perspectives, which exclude alternative epistemologies and cultural understandings” (Abdulla, 2021). This critique echoes in my experience working with students from various global contexts, especially those from the Global South, who often feel disconnected from a curriculum that doesn’t reflect their own cultural narratives. In response, I have deliberately integrated decolonial perspectives into my teaching, urging students to critique design as a vehicle for perpetuating or resisting power structures.

In design research and curriculum design, figures like Giovanni Anceschi and Massimo Botta’s call for an inclusive, cross-border approach to design research. They argue that, “these multiple approaches reflect the complexity and evolving nature of the design discipline” (Anceschi & Botta, 2021). This notion has propelled me to encourage students to work collaboratively with peers from diverse cultural and geographical contexts, forming a rich exchange of ideas that transcends boundaries and offers alternative ways of thinking about design.

Implications

The evolution of my teaching practice underscores the need for a global redesign of design pedagogy—one that embraces diverse methodologies, challenges cultural monopolies, and allows students to confront the intersections between design, culture, and politics. This evolution also means expanding the scope of design education to be more inclusive, critical, and interdisciplinary. A key implication here is the need to rethink design as an active site of resistance, not just a passive response to consumer demands.

Action Plan

1. Broaden Curriculum Content: Move beyond Western-centric design narratives by introducing global design case studies, especially from marginalized communities and cultures. This will provide students with a richer understanding of design’s role in different cultural and political contexts.
   
2. Building International Collaborations: Build partnerships with design schools in the Global South and other underrepresented regions to expand students’ worldviews and to reinforce cross-border collaborations that reflect a more nuanced approach to design.
   
3. Embed Critical and Decolonial Thinking: Encourage students to explore design as a tool for social transformation. This includes analyzing how design can both reproduce and challenge power structures, ultimately empowering students to reshape the design discipline through critical engagement.
   
4. Cultivate an Inquiry-Based Approach: provoke the notion that design is about asking big questions, not just providing solutions. By embracing speculative design, as Dunne and Raby suggest, students will be better equipped to use design to propose alternatives to the status quo (Dunne & Raby, 2013).
   

References:

Abdulla, D. (2021). Disciplinary Disobedience. In C. Mareis & N. Paim (Eds.), Design Struggles: Intersecting Histories, Pedagogies, and Perspectives (pp. 40-55). Valiz.

Anceschi, G. & Botta, M. (2021). “Hypermodern? Perspectives for the Design Education, Research and Practice.” In Multiple Ways to Design Research: Research Cases that Reshape the Design Discipline (pp. 18-35). Swiss Design Network. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/88840515/Multiple_Ways_to_Design_Research_Research_cases_that_reshape_the_design_discipline [Accessed 1 February 2025].

Dunne, D., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.

Van der Velden, D. (2006). Research and Destroy: Graphic Design as Investigation. [online] Available at: https://readings.design/PDF/vanderVelden_research-distroy.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2025].