This model formed the basis of the first modern design school, the Bauhaus. As well as providing quite rigid scaffold in the form of an initial 'foundation' course in the basic underlying design principles, the Bauhaus facilitated learning by promoting staff as active practitioners. By witnessing and working alongside the masters as they practiced their art and design, students of the Bauhaus gained knowledge and understanding through social learning. This approach has dominated art and design pedagogy ever since, but some embrace is more forcefully than others. This quote from Bennington College, Vermont, sums it up pretty well:

"Two things intersect in the master-apprentice model of teaching: the Bennington principle of learning by doing, and the passion and mastery of the faculty, all teacher-practitioners doing ongoing work in their fields. Bennington’s curriculum is driven by the faculty, who teach courses that reflect their current curiosities as well as their deep knowledge of their particular disciplines. The way in which they create new work and pose new questions becomes a model for students, who in turn and over time create work and pose questions of their own with the faculty as mentors." http://www.bennington.edu/about_phil_masterapprent.asp  

Many design educators have, in my opinion, slipped into the trap of over-emphasising the industrial focus, dwelling on real world practice as a basis for study, at the expense of a deeper understanding. Graduate study should never imitate professional practice; rather, it should challenge students to look deeply into the discipline and into themselves to connect design to its culture, its history, its users, its society, and its technology http://contactsheet.org/articles/cat_graphic_design.html

The kind of master that I value is not the master designer, but the master learner. The master I have in mind is an uber-learner who shares the power of discovery with his apprentices. At Leeds Met, we are trying to re-invigourate this particular flavour of the master/apprentice model through the manipulation of our learning environment. Graham has his own public studio space with a number of Macs that staff and students drop in to use. Graham has his beast of a Mac, and is usually to be found there working on his various research projects. I have duplicated this sort of space within my course's space. I have a handful of Macs, some comfy chairs and a spot to plug in my laptop. It's not my office, but it is the place that I work on my research and practice. Students work alongside me, and I discuss my learning as well as theirs. The virtual master/apprentice model The master/apprentice model has manifested itself in a profound way through our involvement with Second Life. AngryBeth ShortBread acted as a mentor to Kisa Naumova in the early days of her Second Life exploits, and still plays that role when time permits. Kisa in turn acted as Cubist's mentor when I first started out, and she is still there for me when I need to tap into her vastly superior expertise. Our keenest Second Life student often comes and chats to me whilst I am building a hologram or new tool, and the more advanced development of my practice helps her to develop her own practice. The LeedsMet sim that we will use for the pilot has been designed to provide the virtual equivalents of our real life 'hubs'. Kisa has the northwest corner of the sim, Cubist has the southeast. Our bigger plots are bordered by the smaller personal plots of the participating students. Students will be able to watch us work, see work in progress, and see the work that we have already produced. By setting examples of good practice, we will provide students with a framework for engaging in similar activities, with the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue.

http://iantruelove.blogspot.com/2008/04/masterapprentice-model.html  

Monday, 21 April 2008

Obi-Wan has taught you well, but you are not a Jedi yet.

AngryBeth Shortbread pointed out the Jedi nature of my master apprentice rants. The fact that my youngest lad has had all 6 episodes of Star Wars on a continuous loop for the last year may well have influenced me slightly. The other thing that I have realised about the master apprentice model is that it does not work on its own. In fact, ironically enough, it's something that I have been sort of fighting against on the course that I teach on. Let me explain. On our course, each student is assigned a personal tutor. The vast majority of input that a student gets is from this tutor. Invariably, this master influences their apprentice, inducting them into the ways of the force as they see it. What often happens is that the apprentice turns into a mini-me, a watered down version of the original. The master is invariably disappointed in this sub-standard clone. This is the first danger of the master apprentice model. The second danger is that a student may end up with a tutor that isn't really that interested in that student's practice, and the tutor that is into that student's practice is in a different year, and not accessible. The pressure to adapt the practice to pleases your tutor is tremendous, and damaging. In short, when the 'master apprentice' model gets mixed up with the 'manager of learning' role of a tutor, things ain't good. The solution? To separate out these two distinct roles, and make sure that each tutor knows when they have the media neutral, manager of learning hat on, and when they are a master, expanding their practice and inspiring all who witness their greatness, unrestricted by the practical day-to-day needs of students. The way that I have tried to do this on our course is to introduce a week-on, week-off system. In the first week, I see all of my 28 graphics students face-to-face, and I go to wherever they are, teasing them forward into the zone of proximal development. Any sense of my own practice is not allowed. It's about them in week one. In the second week, I am the master, and any student from across the whole of the School that happens to have an interest in mad virtual art and bad/good creative programming can seek me out and share my joy. So the 'master apprentice' model, and the 'zone of proximal development' model are two sides of the same coin. Students need both equally, and staff need to do both equally. The two projects that we will be running during the pilot reflect both the zone and the master apprentice models. The first project (zone) asks the students to build a shrine to their avatar. This is all about going to the student and drawing out of them what they are really about, and what they potentially might become. The second project (master apprentice) is to make some art for an exhibition that Kisa and Cubist are preparing work for. This is about students working along-side us, learning by example, witnessing good practice and being able to imagine themselves playing the part of the artist. If they play that part well enough, they become the artist, and their work will hopefully sit along-side ours in the actual exhibition.

http://iantruelove.blogspot.com/2008/04/obi-wan-has-taught-you-well-but-you-are.html

Thursday, 15 May 2008

The Atelier Method

I was pleased to hear our Dean mention the master apprentice model yesterday in a meeting (I'd like to thing that he's been reading my blog posts, but I think he's probably too busy). He also mentioned something called the Atelier method, which I'd not heard of. A quick bit of Googling, and I discover that this is an educational model with many similarities to the sorts of things that we have been discussing in relation to the Open Habitat project. The Atelier is a studio where an artist works with a small number of students to progressively train them to become professional realist painters. They were big in France in the 19th century, apparently, but continue to this day. This system places great emphasis on an instructivist approach, and has much in common with approaches such as intelligent tutoring systems. It is a bottom up approach, with students completing progressively complex tasks in order to master their technique. However, where it rings true with me is in the way that the master painter/tutor individually tailors the programme of study to each individual student. This seems to link with the constructivist goal of maintaining the zone of proximal development. I also like the fact that the independence of the painter/tutor from any institution or central governing body, means that he or she has complete autonomy in their teaching methods, unrestricted by the requirements of external validators. I think that the framework of the Atelier model is attractive (particularly the emphasis placed on the studio), but the rigidity of the instructivist approach and the over-dominance of the master, perhaps limits the potential for peer learning and discovery based learning.

http://iantruelove.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html