By: Florence Wang
The first week was a great introduction to what the broader purpose of Open Design+ is. Originally, I was really uncertain about what exactly we would be doing and although we still haven’t exactly narrowed the scope yet, I am so excited that the work we are doing might actually have a tangible impact not only at Duke, but at universities nationwide. That’s why I think that we need to design an educational model that is both easily adaptable and covers a lot of bases so that it can be used expansively.
In regard to open source methodology, I definitely find it easy to have a “cookie-cutter” mindset when approaching problems and I find it hard to really reach outside of my personal box because of how easy it is to be confined by certain societal constructs, especially in terms of the education system. However, the ideas of divergent thinking and creativity that are attached to open design thinking are both super inspirational and helpful in terms of allowing me to think about the world differently. I had never done a design sprint before, and both the one that we did with Kevin and the IBM certificate pushed me to delve deeper when asking questions and approaching problems. I don’t think I have ever asked a question over and over again until it has completely transformed and broken past its surface-level meaning until now.
Additionally, the idea and effectiveness of grades is something that I’ve thought about a lot in both high school and college. However, I just assumed that grades were too ingrained in our “system” for there to really be any change. But after hearing about the MTC and hearing one of our actual Dean’s talk about a potential educational model with no grades or even majors, I feel like I can actually see a future where this is possible. Before, my ideas of a “reimagined” educational system were probably very limited. But now, I honestly think that learning (both in and outside of the classroom) can become rid of this “banking” method, incorporate adaptability and flexibility, and value this student-teacher “with” relationship instead of “for” relationship.
