Author: Can Yang

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].

On Reading ‘The New Life’: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR, and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti‐Colonial Solidarity by Polly Savage

“The Russians had learnt design from infancy, they had grown up knowing how to draw, to work with watercolours, gouache, clay.”

I thought about my own experience, starting technical training as a child. My father, a skilled draftsman, had been taught in the Soviet realist tradition—crosshatching, shading, every detail of a live portrait meticulously captured. I remember him showing me his techniques, his insistence that the drawing should be precise, each line steady and measured. His guidance, however, was never patient, often sharp, focused on the way my drawings wavered, out of proportion or lacking a firm hand.

His sketchbook, a relic of those days, still sits in his hometown of Qingdao. My aunt keeps it on a shelf, among other mementos: a clay portrait head, a strand of rosemary beads from my grandmother who passed away years ago, and old photographs of my grandfather, who retired from the navy. Qingdao itself, a city shaped by colonial history and now famous for its brewery, feels like a bridge between past and present, where the marks of foreign influence linger beneath the surface of everyday life.

When I reflect on Qingdao, it’s a city defined by the scars of colonialism. It’s strange how history operates in layers, like the sketches in my father’s book—sometimes the lines are clear, other times they blur. But within those layers, the past shapes the present in subtle and powerful ways.

Reading Polly Savage’s ‘The New Life’, I was struck by the parallels between the experiences of Mozambican art students in the USSR and my own journey through design education. Savage (2022) discusses how these students navigated the contradictions of learning in a space that offered both solidarity and subtle forms of control, reflecting broader tensions in decolonial movements. Similarly, I find myself questioning the structures within which I teach, recognizing how pedagogical frameworks can both empower and constrain.

Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) resonates deeply here. Freire emphasizes that “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world” (Freire, 1970, p. 34). This insight compels me to consider how my teaching can transcend traditional, hierarchical models and instead foster critical, reflective practices among students.

In reflecting on these readings, I recognize that my approach to design education must continuously interrogate its own assumptions. Decolonising the University (Bhambra et al., 2018) argues for dismantling Eurocentric epistemologies in favor of more inclusive, pluralistic frameworks. This challenges me to rethink not just what I teach, but how I teach—ensuring that my pedagogy remains attentive to diverse histories, perspectives, and ways of knowing.

References:

Bhambra, G. K., Gebrial, D., & Nişancıoğlu, K. (2018). Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Available at: https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf [Accessed 1 Feb. 2025].

Savage, P. (2022). ‘The New Life’: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR, and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti-Colonial Solidarity. Art History, 45(1), pp. 126-145.

I’m Can Yang, an associate lecturer at the Royal College of Art’s MA Visual Communication program (0.5) and Chelsea College of Arts’ Graduate Diploma Graphic Design program. My teaching focuses on cultivating critical dialogue and collaborative learning, encouraging participants to question conventional norms while developing their unique voices and perspectives.

My practice is dedicated to creating frameworks for collective thinking and being through collaborative activities, workshops, and open-ended conversations. These engagements are informed by a continuous exploration of new media and visual language studies, creating dialogical spaces for meaningful interaction.