Designing Serendipity and Surprise into Learning Encounters
Designing learning experiences that focus on self-efficacy and innovation requires participant-driven activities. This is not a new idea. Learner-centeredness has been recognized as an antidote to top-heavy instructionist methods since Dewey formalized notions of a learn-by-doing pedagogy in the 1930s. And yet still today, educational norms across the K-16 spectrum favor high-stakes demonstrations of mastery in isolated content domains. This is in spite of repeated calls from educational theorists and the private sector that emphasize interdependent, critical thinking skills. In fact, the call itself has now become cliché.
And yet the conundrum remains: how do we prepare the next generation of graduates to compete for jobs that don’t yet exist, and about which we know next to nothing at all? How might teachers help students navigate the chasms in our collective knowledge? And why, even in the midst of this looming uncertainty, do educational systems maintain their resistance to change?
This paper argues for a radically different way to respond to uncertainty. Instead of attempting to eradicate uncertainty by adopting stricter standards and tighter pedagogical approaches, the strategy here is to fight fire with fire to make uncertainty the goal. To strengthen innovative self-efficacy for all students, educators across the spectrum must design serendipity and surprise into the curriculum at the ground level.
Though the strategy might appear unintuitive racing into uncertainty to increase the predictability of outcomes we need the premise is foundational to advanced art and science, where problem-finding is valued as much as if not more than problem solving. This paper adopts an approach that has been described elsewhere as an enacted encounter with materiality. Because it relies on learner-initiated trajectories to generate serendipity, this paper leverages encounters with learning as a pedagogical approach that could be more central to art & design education.
To sketch a way forward this paper frames certainty as a hinderance to self-efficacy and innovation. Learning activities will be introduced that leverage serendipity and surprise as a pedagogical tool to strengthen learners’ capacities for analytical and critical thought. Examples from the K-16 spectrum will be described and analyzed, with an emphasis on post-secondary art and design. Learning plans will be distributed for a series of hands-on computational activities that produce emergent outcomes in the field of generative art.
Generative art is created by a system operating autonomously or with input from various interdependent components. The designer creates the system, but outcomes emerge from the relationship between system and components. Contemporary generative art and design often includes computer programming, but generative art predates the widespread availability of computing.
The outcome of a generative system is different each time the system is set in motion. In fact, uncertainty is the measure of the system’s success. Rather than lock in outcomes, generative design activities invite serendipity. This dynamic of uncertainty activates authentic and personalized problem-finding skill sets and mindsets precisely the attributes of self-efficacy and innovation we need if we are to embrace our collective uncertainties.
And yet the conundrum remains: how do we prepare the next generation of graduates to compete for jobs that don’t yet exist, and about which we know next to nothing at all? How might teachers help students navigate the chasms in our collective knowledge? And why, even in the midst of this looming uncertainty, do educational systems maintain their resistance to change?
This paper argues for a radically different way to respond to uncertainty. Instead of attempting to eradicate uncertainty by adopting stricter standards and tighter pedagogical approaches, the strategy here is to fight fire with fire to make uncertainty the goal. To strengthen innovative self-efficacy for all students, educators across the spectrum must design serendipity and surprise into the curriculum at the ground level.
Though the strategy might appear unintuitive racing into uncertainty to increase the predictability of outcomes we need the premise is foundational to advanced art and science, where problem-finding is valued as much as if not more than problem solving. This paper adopts an approach that has been described elsewhere as an enacted encounter with materiality. Because it relies on learner-initiated trajectories to generate serendipity, this paper leverages encounters with learning as a pedagogical approach that could be more central to art & design education.
To sketch a way forward this paper frames certainty as a hinderance to self-efficacy and innovation. Learning activities will be introduced that leverage serendipity and surprise as a pedagogical tool to strengthen learners’ capacities for analytical and critical thought. Examples from the K-16 spectrum will be described and analyzed, with an emphasis on post-secondary art and design. Learning plans will be distributed for a series of hands-on computational activities that produce emergent outcomes in the field of generative art.
Generative art is created by a system operating autonomously or with input from various interdependent components. The designer creates the system, but outcomes emerge from the relationship between system and components. Contemporary generative art and design often includes computer programming, but generative art predates the widespread availability of computing.
The outcome of a generative system is different each time the system is set in motion. In fact, uncertainty is the measure of the system’s success. Rather than lock in outcomes, generative design activities invite serendipity. This dynamic of uncertainty activates authentic and personalized problem-finding skill sets and mindsets precisely the attributes of self-efficacy and innovation we need if we are to embrace our collective uncertainties.
Designing self-efficacy and innovation into learning outcomes requires participant-driven activities. This is not a new idea. Learner-centeredness has been recognized as an antidote to top-heavy instructionist methods since Dewey formalized notions of a learn-by-doing pedagogy in the 1930s. And yet still today, educational norms across the K-16 spectrum favor high-stakes demonstrations of mastery in isolated content domains.
This paper argues for a different approach. Instead of attempting to eradicate uncertainty by adopting stricter standards and tightening learning outcomes, the better strategy might be to fight fire with fire to make uncertainty the goal.
To sketch a way forward this paper frames certainty as a hinderance to self-efficacy and innovation. Learning activities that leverage serendipity and surprise to strengthen capacities for critical thought will be introduced. These examples will be described and analyzed with an emphasis on post-secondary art and design. Learning plans for a series of hands-on computational activities that produce emergent, generative outcomes will also be distributed.
Presentation goals include:
• Compare and contrast learning frameworks centered on certainty and uncertainty;
• Differentiate generative versus predetermined learning outcomes;
• Understand the concept behind generative art and design pedagogy;
• Recognize computer programming as one kind of generative learning system available to novices;
• Explore strategies for implementing emergent design activities that premise uncertainty as a primary outcome.
In spite of repeated calls for interdependent, critical thinking skills, mainstream education across the K-16 spectrum remains mired in its insistence on certainty, on predictability, and on mastery of esoteric trivia. In fact, the call has now become cliché.
But the conundrum remains: how do we prepare the next generation of graduates to compete for jobs that don’t yet exist, and about which we know next to nothing at all? How might teachers help students navigate the chasms in our collective knowledge?
The strength of a generative pedagogy is that it prompts different outcomes each time it is set in motion. In fact, the degree of uncertainty attained is one measure of its success. Rather than predictable outcomes, generative design pedagogy invites serendipity and surprise. And though it might seem counterintuitive, at least in our era of lock-tight accountability across every dimension of learning, this uncertainty activates authentic problem-finding skill sets and mindsets essential ingredients of the self-efficacy and innovation needed to embrace the uncertainties we collectively face.
This paper argues for a different approach. Instead of attempting to eradicate uncertainty by adopting stricter standards and tightening learning outcomes, the better strategy might be to fight fire with fire to make uncertainty the goal.
To sketch a way forward this paper frames certainty as a hinderance to self-efficacy and innovation. Learning activities that leverage serendipity and surprise to strengthen capacities for critical thought will be introduced. These examples will be described and analyzed with an emphasis on post-secondary art and design. Learning plans for a series of hands-on computational activities that produce emergent, generative outcomes will also be distributed.
Presentation goals include:
• Compare and contrast learning frameworks centered on certainty and uncertainty;
• Differentiate generative versus predetermined learning outcomes;
• Understand the concept behind generative art and design pedagogy;
• Recognize computer programming as one kind of generative learning system available to novices;
• Explore strategies for implementing emergent design activities that premise uncertainty as a primary outcome.
In spite of repeated calls for interdependent, critical thinking skills, mainstream education across the K-16 spectrum remains mired in its insistence on certainty, on predictability, and on mastery of esoteric trivia. In fact, the call has now become cliché.
But the conundrum remains: how do we prepare the next generation of graduates to compete for jobs that don’t yet exist, and about which we know next to nothing at all? How might teachers help students navigate the chasms in our collective knowledge?
The strength of a generative pedagogy is that it prompts different outcomes each time it is set in motion. In fact, the degree of uncertainty attained is one measure of its success. Rather than predictable outcomes, generative design pedagogy invites serendipity and surprise. And though it might seem counterintuitive, at least in our era of lock-tight accountability across every dimension of learning, this uncertainty activates authentic problem-finding skill sets and mindsets essential ingredients of the self-efficacy and innovation needed to embrace the uncertainties we collectively face.