Beyond TPACK: Expanding Technology and Teacher Education to Systems and Culture

Posted by Punya Mishra on February 17 2019 at 9:03 p.m.

  • Triangles are so passe... and pointy too. Circles - now those are cool. And concentric ones are cooler than others :-)

    But more seriously, thinking of design as a series of discourses (circles or not) is a powerful idea and one that I hope we get a good crowd for.


    • Why are academics so biased against triangles? They don't get any of the play-time that circles do in theories and models. That makes them sad. At least the ancient Egyptians knew triangles were cool and built 3 dimensional pyramids from them.

      Posted in reply to Punya Mishra

    • Came across some related Buchanan quotes this morning: (From Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.)

      "Discontent with the results of current design history suggests that new repositionings are called for if the discipline is to retain vitality and relevance to contemporary problems." (p. 13)

      [Designer's] "primary concern begins in one area, but innovation comes when the initial selection is repositioned at another point in the framework, raising new questions and ideas." (p. 11) ("framework" here is described as similar to our Five Discourses framework--designing physical artifacts vs experiences vs systems).

      Posted in reply to Punya Mishra

  • I also think that more use of hexagons and octagons (or even decagons) would be good to see in academic models. :)


    • Well hexagons have been copyrighted by ideo and the d-school so we stay away from them. As to the broader point of going to shapes with more sides - the circle is the logical limit. Cant go any further... hence the best shape to use

      Posted in reply to Danah Henriksen

Log in to post a a comment in this discussion.