Adopting Engineering Problem Solving Framework for Applied Art Training
Saved in:
| Title: | Adopting Engineering Problem Solving Framework for Applied Art Training |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Ng Woon Lam |
| Source: | Athens Journal of Education. 2026 13(1):153-167. |
| Availability: | Athens Institute for Education & Research. 8 Valaoritou Street, Kolonaki, Athens 10671, Greece. e-mail: education@atiner.gr; Web site: https://www.athensjournals.gr/aje |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Engineering Education, Problem Solving, Art Education, Visual Aids, Training Methods, Differences, Student Attitudes, Educational Benefits, Transfer of Training, Visual Arts, Drafting, Creativity |
| ISSN: | 2407-9898 2241-7958 |
| Abstract: | In this paper, I will share my experience of how an engineering problem-solving framework can be adopted as an effective art pedagogy, especially for training applied art students. The major difference between applied art and fine art students from the perspective of training outcomes is the difference in their professional practice. While a fine artist is involved in constantly exploring new ground, an applied artist is also required to perform a task to fulfill the field-specific demand. While a fine artist may create a sculpture for sole visual enjoyment, a product designer needs to develop a product for its physical application. A car has to be driven. A cup has to hold liquid. Therefore, to tailor the needs of applied art students, a structural approach has its advantages. A new pedagogical approach borrows from the robust structure of engineering and scientific problem solving, the cause-and-effect diagram (also named the fishbone diagram) to develop a training approach for applied art foundation students. This engineering framework illustrates how a complex art-creating process can be deconstructed. Hence, variables can be introduced to make the overall creative exploration more efficient. A few students shared their experiences after participating in this art training approach. [Note: The page range (153-168) shown in the citation on the PDF is incorrect. The correct page range is 153-167.] |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1496266 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | In this paper, I will share my experience of how an engineering problem-solving framework can be adopted as an effective art pedagogy, especially for training applied art students. The major difference between applied art and fine art students from the perspective of training outcomes is the difference in their professional practice. While a fine artist is involved in constantly exploring new ground, an applied artist is also required to perform a task to fulfill the field-specific demand. While a fine artist may create a sculpture for sole visual enjoyment, a product designer needs to develop a product for its physical application. A car has to be driven. A cup has to hold liquid. Therefore, to tailor the needs of applied art students, a structural approach has its advantages. A new pedagogical approach borrows from the robust structure of engineering and scientific problem solving, the cause-and-effect diagram (also named the fishbone diagram) to develop a training approach for applied art foundation students. This engineering framework illustrates how a complex art-creating process can be deconstructed. Hence, variables can be introduced to make the overall creative exploration more efficient. A few students shared their experiences after participating in this art training approach. [Note: The page range (153-168) shown in the citation on the PDF is incorrect. The correct page range is 153-167.] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2407-9898 2241-7958 |
