Is there an aesthetic component to the design of instruction? I've been wrestling with this notion the last few days. Not that I don't think there is. On the contrary I firmly believe there is a relationship. What I'm struggling with is how to articulate what I'm thinking. So here it goes.
Aesthetics are concerned with the study of beauty. We determine something to be beautiful based on our sensory, emotional, and intellectual response to it. As a general rule we make this determination immediately and simultaneously (on all three levels). Therefore, an aesthetic response is a response to the whole.
Let me illustrate with an example. For Valentine's Day my wife gave me a special order iPod (Product) Red nano. I loved it from the moment I laid eyes on it. From the brushed metallic cherry red finish, to the way it fit into the palm of my hand, to the incredible definition of the small screen, it was something that, from the first moment, I knew would work for me. My nano is more than the function it was made to do (play audio and video). It is a work of art. A thing of beauty.
So what does that have to do with the design of instruction? Unfortunately, it serves as a non-example. We instructional designers are not trained to think in these terms. We're trainined not to think in wholes but in component parts. If the parts work the whole must be fine. We breaks things down into pieces, parts, and components. We're so preoccupied with the trees we have no sense of the forest.
Now let's flip that. When a student comes into a learning environment you designed how are they approaching it? Are they seeing the component parts you worked so hard at or are the seeing an entity that may or may not resemble a Frankenstein monster? My guess is the latter.
We subconsciously associate beauty with value. If something is beautiful it must be valuable. And, ostensibly, we seek to learn because we want something greater for ourselves than just having our base needs met. The learner is coming to us seeking a form of transcendance. To move from who they are to who they desire to be. They are looking for value. So why don't we design our instruction that way?
Aesthetics are concerned with the study of beauty. We determine something to be beautiful based on our sensory, emotional, and intellectual response to it. As a general rule we make this determination immediately and simultaneously (on all three levels). Therefore, an aesthetic response is a response to the whole.
Let me illustrate with an example. For Valentine's Day my wife gave me a special order iPod (Product) Red nano. I loved it from the moment I laid eyes on it. From the brushed metallic cherry red finish, to the way it fit into the palm of my hand, to the incredible definition of the small screen, it was something that, from the first moment, I knew would work for me. My nano is more than the function it was made to do (play audio and video). It is a work of art. A thing of beauty.
So what does that have to do with the design of instruction? Unfortunately, it serves as a non-example. We instructional designers are not trained to think in these terms. We're trainined not to think in wholes but in component parts. If the parts work the whole must be fine. We breaks things down into pieces, parts, and components. We're so preoccupied with the trees we have no sense of the forest.
Now let's flip that. When a student comes into a learning environment you designed how are they approaching it? Are they seeing the component parts you worked so hard at or are the seeing an entity that may or may not resemble a Frankenstein monster? My guess is the latter.
We subconsciously associate beauty with value. If something is beautiful it must be valuable. And, ostensibly, we seek to learn because we want something greater for ourselves than just having our base needs met. The learner is coming to us seeking a form of transcendance. To move from who they are to who they desire to be. They are looking for value. So why don't we design our instruction that way?
Coming from my field, I would say that aesthetics are quite important in learning because one important obstacle to overcome is buy-in. Presenting the same information in interesting ways I believe sparks learning because you presented it in a way that is relevant. This is marketing at its most base level.
Aesthetics can also inspire; this is an old concept introduced my Hindus in India many centuries ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#Indian_aesthetics
How important is rasa in learning? I think it's pretty important.
Very interesting that how in Indian art, no matter the medium, there is not only an underlying set of beliefs but also a set of procedures to describe the relationships among the concepts represented.
This definitely can be applied to designing courses. Oftentimes we get fixated on the medium and lose what it is were hoping to accomplish. Perhaps we should begin with the concepts before getting to the medium, even if the medium is pre-determined. Thanks for sharing this.