Can you say more about what 21st century learners are and how they differ from learners from any other century? Also, you say “we understand why we need to change.” Can you say *how* we know this? As well as *why* we need to change? (This latter bit isn’t spelled out yet; just asserted as dogma.)
Hi, Michael! Thanks for your note. I don’t identify as a pessimist, so you’d have to let me know what definition of pessimist you’re using here. As is well-known in science and technology studies, science and technology aren’t changing exponentially if that’s what your line about “exponential growth” is about. Check out David Edgerton’s essay “Ever…
Hi, Dario. I don’t know why you can’t see your own original comment, which I thought was very interesting, but I’ll repaste it here. Also, I’m going to drop you an email soon. I have a question or two. Thanks for your comments. Lee
Yes. This is one form of complexity my colleagues have talked about, and it fits classic sociological definitions, including increasing division of labor. But this notion of complexity typically does not support or undergird the educational changes that proponents of the complexity view urge, like “putting DT in the core.”
Thanks for your note. DT fans have repeatedly raised two issues with my essay: 1. That I say DT is linear when it is in fact a cyclical process. And 2. that I say the Empathize Mode is about clients when really it is about getting into the first-person perspective of the user (or something like that).
Sascha, thanks for your response. You pulled out sentences from the paragraph where I say that I can’t adjudicate whether DT is useful for designers (though I’m surprised by how many great designers thinking DT is nonsense). Could you please address my larger argument about why DT is such a lousy model for general education? Thanks!