Curricular Development in Industrial Design: An Initial Dive into Understanding

Abstract: The Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) lists 36 industrial design programs accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). Each program is reviewed on a 10-year +/- schedule which can be daunting for some programs considering the speed of advance in the profession and the difficulty/refusal in more experienced faculty to keep current. When reviewed, each school must demonstrate “Essential Competencies, Experiences, and Opportunities” to be NASAD accredited as a school for Industrial Design. However, the list, A-K, has a wide range of necessary competencies, experiences, and opportunities providing each program the academic freedom to teach what they think is necessary in preparing students to practice industrial design. This can be fueled by the local industry, professional and academic backgrounds of the faculty, the mission of the university and specific program, and/or the student population. In addition, NASAD states that all faculty “must be represented and taught primarily by instructors with appropriate industrial design education and professional experience.” Appropriate industrial design education does not, necessarily, mean appropriate educational preparedness when teaching industrial design. Most preparedness comes from experience but experience comes slowly with many advances and setbacks along the way. Just like parameters in an assignment, structure in an Industrial Design Curriculum (IDC) provides educators, new and experienced, the ability to focus on content, thereby, providing opportunity for developing assignments that can support and foster creativity in their students. This paper will reflect upon the exploration of a program undergoing a, roughly, thirty-year curricular review.

Keywords: Curricular Development, Pedagogy, Educator Creativity, Review, Student Creativity

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1005126

Cite this paper:

​