FORUM SUSTAInABLY OURS

EDITOR Eli Blevis [e-mail]

eral form of learning by “X”—especially, learning
by design [ 2].
The core idea of DCBL is to present designers
with humanity- and life-centered issues-based
design research and design-concept challenges
in the arena of HCI and design that are manifest
as (i) individual, collaborative, and competitive
activities involving public presentation and cri-
tique; (ii) implicit rather than explicit inclusion
of rigorous concepts in the service of motivated
design-challenge goals; and (iii) linked pairs of
research and concept projects that prompt stu-
dents to practice ensuring that their concepts
follow from research insights and that their
research insights lead to concepts.
DCBL is appropriately described in this
Sustainably Ours forum, because it is an issues-
and values-first pedagogical paradigm. DCBL
relates to sustainability in two senses. First,
issues of sustainability are potential and fre-
quent challenge topics for the challenge part of
DCBL. Second, DCBL is intended as a sustainable
pedagogical practice in the sense that it fosters a
notion of content that depends on maintaining a
current view of vital issues, values, and technolo-
gies. DCBL is highly related to transdisciplinary
design, which focuses on broader goals such as
sustainability, with the intention of “transcend-
ing disciplinarity,” using disciplinary notions of
methods and expertise as needed in the pursuit
of these target broader goals [ 3].
I have taught a sophomore/junior level under-
graduate class of 92 students on the topic of HCI
and design using the DCBL paradigm. I am in the
process of teaching two graduate classes using
the paradigm—one on HCI and design with 39
students, and the other on digital imagery in the
context of HCI and design with 19 students. The
method appears to be working well regardless
of class size and is very similar in structure and
practice between the three classes.
Figure 1(a) shows the structure of classes
according to the DCBL paradigm; Figure 1(b) is
an alternative view. Ever week I assign broadly
construed issues-based design challenges. The
design challenges are of two sorts, namely (i)
design research projects, which require students
to find and critique existing designs or otherwise
understand the motivations and behaviors of
people with respect to things designed with the
materials of information technologies, and (ii)
design concept projects, which require students
to use the design research they have undertaken
to create conceptual designs that elevate people
and life using (or discarding) the materials of
information technologies. Figure 2 shows a model
design concept project on the theme of sustain-
ability and futuring [ 4].
Students work individually on the projects at
first to create a sketch. Figure 3 shows the model
sketch used to inspire the model concept project.
The form of this particular example sketch is a
semantic differential. This model sketch intro-
duces the semantic differential in a motivated
context without abstract instruction about the
notion of semantic differentials, and as such, it
constitutes an implicit rather than explicit use
of the somewhat rigorous notion of semantic dif-
ferentials as a tool rather than a learning goal in
and of itself. Some part of the project assignment
instructions is devoted to listing concepts and
terms of art in HCI that potentially relate to the
project and that the students may want to learn
about on their own—such as using a textbook
or Google. These concepts are never described
explicitly in class in lecture—there are no lec-
all
subgrouPs

Introduction
set DRP1
DRP1 sketch,
select finalists
DRP1 final
competition set
DCP1

DCP1 sketch,
select finalists
[ 2] The constructivist
education literature is
primarily targeted at
K- 12 education and
is very broad. For an
overview of constructiv-
ist views of learning and
inquiry based learn-
ing approaches, see
Duffy, T. and Raymer,
P. “A Practical Guide
and a Constructivist
Rationale for Inquiry
Based Learning.”
Education Technology.
( To Appear). See
also: Johnson, L. F.,
Smith, R.S., Smythe,
J. T., and Varon, R.
K. “Challenge-Based
Learning: An Approach
for Our Time.” Austin,
Texas: The New Media
Consortium, 2009.
http://www.nmc.org/
pdf/Challenge-Based-
Learning.pdf/; Savery, J.
and Duffy, T. “Problem
Based Learning: An
Instructional Model
and its Constructivist
Framework.“
Educational Technology,
35 (1995); Blumenfeld,
P., Soloway, E., Marx,
R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial,
M., and Palincsar, A.
“Motivating Project-
Based Learning:
Sustaining the Doing,
Supporting the
Learning.” Educational
Psychologist, 26 (June
1991); Kolodner, J.,
Camp, P., Crismond,
D., Fasse, B., Gray,
J., Holbrook, J.,
Puntambekar, S., and
Ryan, M. “Problem-
based learning meets
case-based reasoning
in the middle-school
science classroom:
Putting learning by
design(tm) into prac-
tice.” The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 12
(2003).

DCP1 final
competition, set
DRP2
May + June 2010
• Figure 1(b). Design Challenge Based Learning (DCBL)
Archetypical Structure: “DRP” denotes “Design Research
Project.” “DCP” denotes “Design Concept Project.” The directed
arcs denote individual work, the left-column boxes denote events
that occur with the entire assembly, and the right column boxes
denote e.vents that occur with subgroups of up to 30.

[ 3] See especially: Max-
Neef, M. A. “Foundations
of Transdisciplinarity.”
Ecological Economics,
53, 1 (2005); Nicolescu,
B. Manifesto of
Transdisciplinarity.
Translation: Karen-
Claire Voss. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press,
2002; and, Blevis,
E. and Stolterman,
E. “Transcending
Disciplinary Boundaries
in Interaction Design.”
interactions 16, 5 (2009).