Disegno diagrammatico per la sequenzialità tra discipline e percorsi

Flora Gaetani

doi:10.26375/disegno.18.2026.20

Authors

Flora Gaetani Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26375/disegno.18.2026.20

Keywords:

diagrammatic representation, schematic artifacts, learning pathways, design visualization, synaptic surfaces

Abstract

This paper frames curriculum redesign as a practice of diagrammatic drawing in which shared representations operate as synaptic surfaces: operational interfaces used to connect disciplines, impose temporal sequencing constraints, and make pathways legible. In a Sino-Italian joint bachelor’s program (delivered entirely in China with a mixed Chinese-Italian faculty), the initial issues were identified based on a synthesis provided by the partner institution of recurring student feedback, along with consultations with teaching staff. A multidisciplinary working group iteratively co-designed alternatives on a shared diagrammatic surface, formalizing successive versions in a verifiable mapping file. Syllabus analysis supported a two-level model: mutually exclusive Disciplines (used for conservative quantitative checks via delivered contact hours) and non-exclusive Pathways (used to articulate and describe transdisciplinary trajectories). The representation-track case study shows how the process makes the progression across methods and techniques of representation explicit and negotiable. The paper reports structural evidence and decision traceability only, deliberately excluding claims about potential employability outcomes for students.

References

Anceschi, G. (1988). Monogrammi e figure: teorie e storie della progettazione di artefatti comunicativi. Firenze-Lucca: La casa Usher.

Ciammaichella, M., Menchetelli, V. (2022). Disegno e Design. Declinazioni di termini e attualizzazioni di pratiche. In Diségno, No. 11, pp. 7-13.

Corner, J. (1999). The agency of mapping: Speculation, critique and invention. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings, pp. 213-252. London: Reaktion Books.

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2009). ECTS users’ guide. Publications Office. DOI:10.2766/88064

Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. In Creativity Research Journal, No. 4, Vol. 2, pp. 123-143.

Kitchin, R., Dodge, M. (2007). Rethinking maps. In Progress in Human Geography, No. 31, Vol. 3, pp. 331-344.

Larkin, J. H., Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. In Cognitive Science, No. 11, Vol. 1, pp. 65-–100.

Munari, B. (1993). Design e comunicazione visiva: contributo a una metodologia didattica. Bari: Laterza.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Star, S. L., Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. In Social Studies of Science, No.19, Vol. 3, pp. 387–420.

Tharchen, T., Garud, R., Henn, R. (2020). Design as an interactive boundary object. In Journal of Organization Design, No. 9, Vol. 1. DOI: 10.1186/s41469-020-00085-w.

Willcox, K. E., Huang, L. (2017). Network models for mapping educational data. In Design Science, No. 3, e18. DOI:10.1017/dsj.2017.18.