MKP thoughts on Chapter 1 Design in general education: General education is traditional classified into two cultures, the science, and the humanities. Cross suggest that a third culture, design, should be included into the new model for general education. Design seems to straddle these other two cultures - but also provides a unique way of knowing.

Problems presented in the first two cultures tend to be well defined and unrealistic. Design problems are just the opposite.

Science vs Design: When given an ill-defined problem science wants to prod and poke until all the rules fall out, so the problem can be full understood and a solution can be found - this is a problem based approach to the problem. Designers given the same problem, immediately look for solutions - perhaps the rules will reveal themselves, but only in an attempt tp fit solutions to the problem - this is a solution based approach.

In design analysis should come only after ideas are generated. Proposed solutions and their evaluation help to define the problem.

The intrinsic value of design in general education is that it creates thinkers.

"As far as problem solving is concerned, design in general education must be justified in terms of helping to develop an 'educated' person, able to understand the nature of ill-defined problems, how to tackle them, and how they differ from other kinds of problems"

five aspects of designerly ways of knowing:

*Designers tackle "ill-defined" problems
*Their mode of problem solving is 'solution- focused"
*Their mode of thinking is 'constructive'
*They use codes that translate abstract requirements into concrete objects
*They use these codes to both read and write in object languages

3 justifications for design in gen ed:

*Design develops inate abilities in solving real-world, ill-defined problems
*Design sustains cognitive development in the concrete/iconic modes of cognition
*Design offers opportunites for development of wide ranges in abilities in nonverbal thought and communication