Instructor:
Prof. Dr. M. Rauterberg |
Benefits This assignment need 50 hrs work in total, number of weeks depends on the actual period length (min 4 weeks). After following this
assignment
students should be able to:
|
Previous Knowledge
|
Abstract Dogma is
defined as: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or
opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.(
www.dictionary.com ) |
Assignment
work
The feedback for this assignment will be determined by the work done on the set of deliverables (see below). Each deliverable will cover a number of steps relevant for planning, applying and conducting a combination of different approaches. Furthermore, they will include discussions about the trade-offs of the decisions taken and the validity of the justification of made decisions. Feedback will be determined based on the rigour with which the work is done, whether relevant concepts discussed in the assignment are embedded in the work and the report, and extra initiative to ensure good quality of work. |
|
Deliverables [Dx] | Date due |
Presentations in electronic form [D1-D6: have to be included on D7 as PPTs, video, etc] |
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and final meeting |
D1: Presentation(s) (ie. PPT) from 4er-team about chosen dogma.
[report should follow the recommendations in this guide]
D5: Portfolio of design sketches; i.e. drawings, models, etc. plus manual (incl. scenarios of use) [also has to be described as text in the report D4, part 4 & 5]
[also has to be described as text in the report D4, part 6]
[D7: the proposed design have to be in addition to the report documented as video clip with audio explanations in English; stored on D6] |
two days after final meeting |
D7: all deliverables D1-D6 delivered on a CD per individual student handed in to the assignor's pigeonhole (HG 2.33), secretariat (HG 2.34), or himself (HG 2.36). |
three days after final meeting |
Assignment
schedule
|
Date |
Topic |
Literature |
kick-off |
Introduction in the basic ideas:
lecture-introduction
[PDF] See e.g. Wikipedia: Dogma and Taboo food for thoughts: |
Recommended literature: BROCKMAN, John (2002, ed.) The next fifty years. ISBN 0753817101.
CAILLOIS, Roger (2001) Man
and the Sacred. ISBN: 0252070348 JACOBS, Anka (2012) Cross-Cultural Communication. ISBN: 9789001807771
JOHNSON, Phillip E. (2002) The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate. InterVarsity Press.
MILTON, Richard (1996) Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment. ISBN: 0892816317.
PIKE, Albert (1909) Digest Index of Morals and Dogma. ISBN 0766142442.
SHELDRAKE, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion:
Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry. ISBN 1444727923 WITHAM, Larry (2003) By Design: Science and the Search for God. ISBN 1893554643. |
2nd meeting |
Each 4-student team present the chosen dogma and explains why the presented 'dogma' is a dogma and why it is worth to attack this dogma; what kind of impact and effects to individuals and society can be expected. |
First of all: Free your mind ! |
3rd meeting |
Each 2-student team present at least 3 draft concept ideas. Each concept consists of the original idea and possible usage scenario(s). |
|
4th meeting | Each 2-student team present 1 well worked out (!) concept. This concept consists of the original idea, typical usage scenario(s), a portfolio of design sketches plus usage manual, and risk analysis. | try a 'usage scenario' |
|
Each individual student present the working 'prototype' (ie. whole or an important part of the whole concept); this can be done in different ways (e.g. tangible product(s) plus description how to use, usage scenario(s), etc.). Additionally, each individual student present the results of a small evaluation (to be documented in a video clip). |
overview over
evaluation
methods e.g., how to perform a |
Student Feedback Students will be working in four person teams till 3rd presentation; for the second part of this assignment students will work in two person teams, and after that till final presentation each student works individually; s/he will get feedback based on the quality of the written reports/documents and the presentation given using a 5 level scale [not done; almost done; done; well done; very well done] and in constructive written feedback via the assignment feedback form. |