





































 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 
 
ISSN 2184-6995 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International License. 
 

  
 
 
 

The pedagogy of discomfort: Transformational experiential learning 
 
Lisa Elzey Mercer, Deana McDonagh 

 
Published online: October 2021 
 
To cite this article:  
Mercer, L., & McDonagh, D. (2021). The pedagogy of discomfort: Transformational experiential learning. 
Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 
2(2), 22-35. 
 
 
  



 

23 

The pedagogy of discomfort: Transformational experiential learning 
 
Lisa Elzey Mercera, Deana McDonaghb  

 
aUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, United States. lemercer@illinois.edu 
bUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, United States. mcdonagh@illinois.edu 

 
Abstract 

Education is intended to be a transformative experience for the student. In the practice of transformative 

pedagogy, instructors provide students with the time and space to explore their own sets of beliefs, values 

and standards and how they incorporate those beliefs into their work, subconsciously and consciously.  

At times, transformative pedagogy can be uncomfortable. However, the value of discomfort in the 

pedagogical process of a design course is the ability to acknowledge a knowledge gap between one’s social 

experiences and the experiences of other social identities. This paper focuses on the value of 

transformative pedagogy in working through discomfort when learning about limit situations, developing  

a foundation for transformative pedagogy in a course setting, the importance of critical thinking in 

transformative pedagogy and how transformative pedagogy is presented with a focus on ethics, disability 

and responsible design. By embedding ethics, critical consciousness and strategic thinking, the process 

translates into a transformative practice of design and innovation. Students learn new emerging ways  

of affecting change with a multiplicity of ideas when educators engage in transformative pedagogy.  

It is also to ascertain what kind of learning enables people to create solutions for communities involved  

in a continuously ongoing process of defining sustainable development. 

 
Keywords: Design pedagogy, Empathy, Experience design, Transformational pedagogy, Transformational 
practice, Social impact 

Introduction 
It is human nature to resist and avoid pain, while we reluctantly accept that growth comes from discomfort 

(e.g.  social, economical and political). Empathic understanding can develop through this growth and can 

lead to more impactful problem-solving, more relevant design outcomes, more intuitive forms of 

communication and the co-creation of knowledge that has transformative power. To develop thought 

leaders for our tomorrow, we need to reimagine how we teach them today. Education is intended to be 

transformative for students and provide them with the space to develop critical thinking and produce 

innovative work and research. Transformative pedagogy is a term that describes an educational experience 

or set of experiences that allow the student to gain a deeper understanding of social experiences and be 

transformed in their thinking to further understand the complexities of their social experiences. In the 

practice of transformative pedagogy, instructors provide students with the time and space to explore their 

own sets of beliefs, values and standards and how they incorporate those beliefs into their work, 

subconsciously and consciously. 

 

When design educators create an intentional space, either physical or conceptual, for students to discuss 

social experiences, students are more equipped to objectively begin to analyse and create an 

understanding of their own lived social experiences. This ability allows them to identify a knowledge gap 

between their own lived social experiences and other individuals’ experiences. While this process might  

be uncomfortable, it teaches them the epistemic practice of identifying their lived experiences and learning 

about another person’s lived experience. In addition, it supplies them with the necessary tools, insights and 

awareness to create a transformative practice of developing innovative designs (Fricker, 2010). 

mailto:mcdonagh@illinois.edu


 

24 

 

The challenge is not only to identify transformative learning that assists people to respond and adapt to 

modern conundrums. It is also to ascertain what kind of learning enables people to create solutions for 

communities involved in a continuously ongoing process of defining sustainable development. The relevant 

question is not only what makes up transformative learning but also what stimulates individuals and 

communities to take part actively in collective growth processes leading to an as yet barely discernible 

sustainable future (Thoresen, 2017). 

 

This paper focuses on the value of transformative pedagogy in working through discomfort when learning 

about limit situations (Freire, 1972), developing a foundation for transformative pedagogy in a course 

setting, the importance of critical thinking in transformative pedagogy and how transformative pedagogy  

is presented when the focus is on ethics, disability and responsible design. By embedding ethics, critical 

consciousness and strategic thinking, the process translates into a transformative practice of design and 

innovation. Students learn new ways of affecting change with a multiplicity of ideas when educators 

engage in transformative pedagogy. 

 

Developing the roots for transformative pedagogy in design 

The value of developing roots for transformative pedagogy in design is the development of space for 

students to focus on a specific social experience, also described as a limit situation. A limit situation  

is a social experience that prevents someone from living freely (Freire, 1972). An individual who gains  

a critical consciousness of their own lived experiences can understand how their social identities intersect 

with their culture and how those identities can determine their lived experiences (Freire, 1972; Pinto, 

1960). Transformative pedagogy is intended to prevent the over-generalization of social experience 

through discussion and requires participants to develop a genuine and critical understanding of a social 

experience. One way of developing such an understanding is through the acknowledgement of social 

identities that are social constructs in our culture, i.e. race, gender and ability (Crenshaw, 1989) and the 

way these social constructs turn into prejudices and biases that become ingrained in our everyday lives 

(Ben-Ari & Strier, 2010; Nadan & Stark, 2017). 

 

Designers can apply the iterative design research process to develop a design for a specific social 

experience and provide a transformative pedagogical experience. The steps include the following:  

1) the development of the context of the social experience or limit experience being focused on, 2) the 

application of research—qualitative or quantitative, 3) the development of ideas based on learned factors, 

4) the prototyping of those ideas and 5) the testing of those ideas. When implementing this process  

in a course where transformative pedagogy centres a social experience as the primary determinant of 

learning, students are prompted to engage in activities in which they must think through the perpetuation 

of limitations or oppression prevalent in design. Gale and Molla (2016) emphasize “[…] the importance of 

invoking pedagogic actions directed at creating an environment for learners to share cherished beliefs and 

assumptions without fear of ridicule or condemnation” (p. 253).  

 

When engaging in pedagogical activities, students can critically assess their values, beliefs and assumptions 

in a way that does not simply lead them to the ‘correct’ answer. Instead, this form of learning highlights the 

diversity of design deliverables and innovation resulting from learning about social experiences different 

from our own and interacting with material that provides a safe learning environment. In addition, deeper 

understanding and empathy of others tends to reveal that many questions do not necessarily have ‘right’  

or ‘wrong’ answers. Theorists focused on transformative pedagogy see immense value in developing 

activities that provide students with the opportunity to understand another individual’s lived experience. 



 

25 

The experiences should not exist in isolation, but the process should involve prompts or interventions that 

generate critical thought in the student that requires an assessment of who they are, their values and their 

beliefs (Nolan & Molla, 2018). 

 

Through the focus of transformative pedagogy, we provide emerging designers (design students) with the 

time and space to be innovative when designing for complex social issues. Learning about the person we 

are designing for is not a unique or new concept in design but is a foundation for many designers. As 

Koppen and Meinel (2012) wrote, “Understanding the perspective and social context of the user is one  

of the most important parts of design and design education” (p. 35). Transformative pedagogy can 

encourage a designer to consider human experiences we might not otherwise think of or even have the 

words to discuss. Our collective forms of understanding are rendered structurally prejudicial in respect of 

content and/or style: the social experiences of members of hermeneutically marginalized groups are left 

inadequately conceptualized and so ill-understood, perhaps even by the subjects themselves; and/or 

attempts at communication made by such groups, where they do have an adequate grip on the content  

of what they aim to convey, are not heard as rational owing to their expressive style being inadequately 

understood (Fricker, 2010, p. 6). By removing the ‘distance’ between ourselves and the experiences of 

others, we begin to understand knowledge from a more intimate and personal perspective. For the 

student, this educational experience tends to be memorable in comparison to more abstract constructs. 

For design students, the notion of designing for your future self (e.g. ageing and disability) or your wider 

community (e.g. gender and ethnicity) is critical to meaningful and impactful design solutions. 

 
When we try to understand and contextualize a social experience outside of our own experience, we 

require tools that provide us with the means to be critically conscious of what is outside our known ways of 

understanding. McDonagh-Philp and Denton (2000, p. 111) used the term “empathic horizon” to describe 

“the boundaries to a designer’s knowledge and understanding” (McDonagh & Thomas, 2010, p. 180). They 

added that understanding is itself progress toward the development of relevant outcomes. This way of 

understanding could occur through words that offer a person agency by supplying a term that matches  

a social experience or tools that physically and mentally contextualize a limit situation. While these terms 

or tools might lead to some discomfort for students, educators must create meaningful space for ethics and 

criticality to be discussed within a course—space allowing exploration or a period of discovery. 

Transformative pedagogy takes a critical approach to pedagogy from the perspective of both the educator 

and the student, and it requires both to leave their comfort zone and engage in “critical investigation of the 

self” (Zembylas & McGlynn, 2012, p. 1). The feelings of discomfort in these situations are important to 

acknowledge and are what ultimately allow a student to identify their knowledge gap and then encourage 

them to determine their individualized positions of accountability regarding different forms of ‘-isms’,  

i.e. racism, ableism and sexism (Nadan & Stark, 2017). 

 

Discomfort in the pedagogical process 

At times, transformative pedagogy can be uncomfortable; however, when one or more social experiences 

are the primary learning objective in a classroom, educators can centre the activities to prompt critical 

reflection and self-actualization. This provides students with the opportunity to learn how their social 

identities differ from those around them. This type of pedagogical experience in a design course allows 

students to approach a design challenge from a more empathic and contextualized space of understanding. 

 

“This critical analysis provides a space to create a context of understanding, a different 

way of knowing, to become change agents. This is evident in classes where students are 

presented with transformative pedagogy and transformative practices that prompt 



 

26 

critical thought and interventions for disrupting the status quo […] to transform 

students’ experiences of discomfort into generative learning tools, a process which 

requires time, energy and emotional investment.” (do Mar Pereira, 2012, p. 133) 

 

Yale professor and social activist, bell hooks, shared a student’s experience walking into her classroom: 

“We take your class. We learn to look at the world from a critical standpoint, one that considers race, sex, 

and class. And we can’t enjoy life anymore” (hooks, 1998, p. 42). After she heard this, her students 

continued to talk with her about the pain or discomfort a person can have when learning their way of 

knowing. Other instructors have written of a similar experience of an “uncomfortable classroom” (do Mar 

Pereira, 2012), which describes didactic discomfort, i.e. intellectual and/or emotional discomfort felt by 

students, which is triggered directly or indirectly by the material covered and/or methods deployed in a 

course and is perceived by teachers (and often also by the students themselves) as an experience that can 

enable or generate learning. 

 

This discomfort is an acknowledgement by an individual who is starting to develop a critical lens for the 

social experiences of people who have different social identities. It is the act of knowing that there is a limit 

to one’s knowledge when it comes to other people’s social experiences. The acknowledgement of not 

knowing is a form of epistemic injustice and can be unforgettable for people who have come to this 

realization. As educators, we need to help students question how they tell their own stories, how they 

engage with a community with those around them and whether they are willing to acknowledge what they 

do not know. Nadan and Stark (2017) added, “The development of critical reflectivity among students is 

also related to their exploration of their own identities and (largely privileged) social positions and how 

these shape their assumptions, attitudes and images about the ‘other’” (p. 686). 

 

The impact of criticality on transformative pedagogy 

A person’s ability to critically understand their own social identities allows them to reflect on their own 

social experiences more critically. Transformative pedagogy teaches students critical thinking and critical 

consciousness and provides them with a lens for seeing the diversity of opportunities and ways of doing 

rather than focusing on a social monoculture. Nadan and Stark (2017) emphasize the importance of this 

process by highlighting Schön’s (1983) conceptualization of a ‘reflective practitioner’ as one who creates 

new meanings through observing and analysing case experiences, either during the experience (reflection 

in action) or in retrospect (reflection on action)” (Schön, as cited in Nadan and Stark, 2017, p. 686). Through 

the conceptualization of an experience, emerging designers can develop a process in which they begin to 

develop an understanding of a specific social experience through listening, critical thinking, analysing and 

intentionally breaking down barriers in their assumptions. 

 

“Having the ability to reflect critically on one’s practice brings to light contradictions and 

inconsistencies relating to beliefs, understandings, and practices, and enables teachers to be 

adaptive professionals.” (Nolan & Molla, 2018, p. 722) 

 
Transformative pedagogy allows students to develop a critical consciousness and an individualized design 

practice with a foundation of ethics that become embedded into their work. This style of teaching and 

learning ultimately translates into a transformative practice in which innovation can flourish. Siegel and 

Dray (2019) wrote, “When companies allow a deep emotional understanding of people’s needs to inspire 

them—and transform their work, their teams, and even their organization at large—they unlock the 

creative capacity for innovation.” In the following sections, we present two courses focused on how 

students learn new ways of affecting change about ethics and a responsible process for developing design 



 

27 

solutions and how their designs can affect change for people who have experiences outside of their own. 

The first course highlights ethics and responsible design, utilizing the framework of Racism Untaught 

(Racism Untaught, n.d.). The second course highlights disability and the role design can play in enhancing 

quality of life through more relevant products, environments and experiences, by employing empathic 

design research methodology. 

 

Ethics and responsibility + design 

The Racism Untaught course is a 16-week course focused on critically analysing artefacts, systems and 

experiences that perpetuate racism and the oppression of historically underinvested communities (Racism 

Untaught, n.d.). Since the development of the framework in 2018, this course has been taught four times  

at the University of Illinois. The students are guided through the design research process and prompted 

with design-led interventions that provide them with a way to analyse and reimagine racialized design 

challenges and critically assess anti-racist design approaches (Mercer & Moses, 2019). Students learn how 

“ever-escalating pressures toward simplification and speed have generated innovation in the types of 

deliverables that researchers produce in their effort to condense information and make it digestible to 

others” (Siegel & Dray, 2019, p. 82). This course aims to guide students through identifying forms of 

racialized design, a design that perpetuates elements of racism. The learning outcomes in this course 

include critically analysing artefacts, systems and experiences that perpetuate racism and the oppression  

of historically underinvested communities, prompting students to select qualitative and/or quantitative 

methods to assess individual and shared experiences of racism. The instructor works with the students to 

examine systemic forms of institutional racism that are essentially invisible and how we and our culture 

perpetuate them. This course uses the iterative design research process to cultivate learning environments 

for students to further explore issues of race and racism. Students utilize design research methods and 

processes to solve systemic problems and inspire further work in the public sector or a passion for  

public service. 

 

Before the students start using the Racism Untaught toolkit, they go through an onboarding process in the 

first two weeks in which they unpack the concept of racism and the role racism plays in their lives. They 

begin the process by navigating their own story, background, cultural identity and upbringing to help shed 

light on their cultural biases and how they came to acquire them. The students then participate in the 

following activities: writing a poem critically assessing where cultural bias is present in their upbringing; 

creating a social identity profile in which they share five social groups they belong to and the roles they 

hold in each group; carrying out personality assessments; and developing a community agreement for the 

semester to use during more difficult conversations. 

 

At the beginning of the course, it is verbally acknowledged that everyone is learning new concepts and 

language, and students are asked to be open to change and flexible when new knowledge is gained. Marta 

Elena Esquilin from Bryant University and Mike Funk from New York University wrote on the importance of 

community building and the value of engagement agreements. They provided over 20 guidelines for a 

meeting or classroom environment (Esquilin & Funk, 2019) to create an intentional space for conversations 

focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. Through a course, they work together on the development of  

a community agreement that includes prompts such as the following: 1) listen actively, 2) speak from your 

own lived experience using “I” statements, 3) seek to repair harm when you mess up and 4) step in, step 

back; that is, if one person is often speaking within a space, they should step back to allow others who are 

quieter to speak up. 

 



 

28 

Students are divided into groups based on what the instructor has learned from the onboarding activities in 

weeks two and three. The students are prompted with a racialized design and begin using the Racism 

Untaught framework, starting with the first step, context. This step has over 60 cards, which include 

definitions and terms that focus on elements of racism, sexism and ableism. Students use the terms in this 

deck to create the context for the racialized design they have been prompted with (Figure 1). The 

conversations often teach students unfamiliar words and prompt discussion on how forms of oppression 

are perpetuated and supported in the world around us. The terms also provide a specific understanding of 

the prompt, which prevents oversimplification and overgeneralization in conversations on race and racism. 

Participants often speak of the ownership of agency they earn when learning a new element of racism that 

applies to a racialized design they have interacted with themselves or have witnessed the interaction 

(Siegel & Dray, 2019). The students are asked to identify why each element of oppression (racism, sexism  

or ableism) are relevant to the identifier and which elements are not. This first step allows participants to 

understand how to break down one instance of racism into the various ways it is present. To exemplify 

different elements of racism in design, the course focuses on three identifiers: artefacts, systems and 

experiences. These three areas include comprehensive examples of racialized design, which designers can 

positively affect in our society. 

 

 
 
Figure 1: The first phase in step one of the Racism Untaught framework. 



 

29 

 
 

 
 
Figure 2: The second phase in step one of the Racism Untaught framework. 
 
The first step also includes a diagram outlining what are called the levels of oppression. This allows further 

contextualization of the instance of oppression on four distinct levels: 1) beliefs—personal beliefs, ideas 

and feelings that perpetuate oppression, 2) agentic action—when oppressive beliefs translate into 

oppressive behaviour, 3) institutional—structural oppression that results from agentic oppressive 

behaviour and 4) cultural—norms, values, beliefs and trusted systems of acquiring truth that preserve, 

protect and maintain oppression (Figure 2). 

“A vague, general sense of knowing the user is not empathy. As Gregory Bateson said, 

information is a difference that makes a difference. Because designers are trying to 



 

30 

make a difference in users’ experiences, we need to be able to explain nuances of 

difference across those experiences.” (Siegel & Dray, 2019, p. 83) 

The next five weeks are focused on the second step, define. This step has about 50 cards, including 

qualitative and quantitative methods and theories to define how the participant might approach the design 

challenge. In this step, students must create a thesis question to help focus on their design challenge. The 

instructor provides students with this guiding question: “How might design be used to [action] in order to 

[create change] with [stakeholders]?” Students garner factors from their research to move forward to the 

next step, ideation. 

 

The next step is called ideate and is completed in one week. This step includes over 100 cards. During this 

step, students begin to determine what they will create—an artefact(s), a system(s) and an experience(s)—

and which will help dismantle the form of racialized design. Students determine how they can affect change 

and how they can be part of the solution. This step includes a quadrant map to help evaluate the value of 

each idea. On the x-axis, students consider the intent of the idea in comparison to the impact, and on the y-

axis, students consider how far the idea might shift stakeholders from systemically oppressive thought(s) to 

anti-oppressive action(s). Students plot their most robust ideas and discuss whether their idea only has 

good intentions or if it will have an impact and focus on anti-oppressive actions against oppressive thought. 

This quadrant map is often revisited in the prototype stage to help students ensure they continue to work 

toward impact and an anti-oppressive final deliverable. 

 

The fourth step, prototype, is worked on for five weeks. This step has approximately 30 cards and walks 

students through a low-, mid- and high-fidelity prototyping process. The low-fidelity prototype is non-

functioning and is initially presented to communicate an idea. A mid-fidelity prototype is limited in 

functionality, and a high-fidelity prototype requires minimal modifications for the final deliverable. In this 

step, students work iteratively through the framework to further contextualize or apply research methods 

to help them understand how the idea they are creating impacts communities. The last step is called 

impact and is focused on for one week. This step has approximately 20 cards. This step helps students 

understand their impact on their work because of the iterative framework and design interventions. This 

process is iterative and the time frames are meant to support the students moving to different steps to 

ensure they are conducting research and learning from the people who would engage with their designs. 

 

Disability + design 

“If a designer chooses a scientific approach, the whole design process will have strong similarities to 

a research process. This will limit or eliminate not only what is considered to be the preconditions of 

the design, but also what is possible, what is needed, what is desired, and what the eventual 

outcome will be. It will no longer be a design process.” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012, p. 33) 

 

Traditional scientific research tends not to impact the researcher on such a personal level. Research 

outcomes are specifically based on unbiased researchers. When focusing your efforts on creating a bridge 

between lived experience and theory, researchers need to be more empathic and lean into the experiences 

of others. Seeking whole knowledge is a balance of what is true (scientifically provable) and what is real (a 

person’s experience) and directs the designer to develop a deeper felt sense for and understanding of 

others (McDonagh, 2015, p. 422). 

 

The Disability + Design course (established 2008) is based on empathic design research and aims to bring 

together design students, non-design students and students (from any discipline) with disabilities. It brings 



 

31 

the students together as equals by elevating the value of the diverse range of lived experiences beyond the 

typical person. The students are encouraged to embrace the development of the new norm, those living 

with a different lived experience. By expanding the students’ empathic horizons through experiencing 

discomfort, vulnerability and frustration with activities of daily living (e.g. eating, walking and grooming) 

(Woodcock et al., 2017), they develop a deeper understanding of other people through their own 

experience. This bridges the gap between themselves and others. Challenges become more relatable 

(Hansen & Philo, 2007). Another person’s experience becomes relevant to them. Two student activities are 

shared that highlight 1) the levelling of the classroom and 2) the physical and almost immediate impact of 

analogue empathic tools in simulating physical challenges. 

 

Levelling of the classroom 

For many courses, the student cohort’s profile and ability level tend to be similar. For this course, a diverse 

range of abilities and design awareness constitute the student group. Therefore, a need arises beyond the 

typical ice-breaking activities. One of the initial activities that resonates with students regardless of their 

abilities is the self-portrait. Students are required to draw themselves (maximum 5 minutes per task) using 

(i) their feet, (ii) their less dominant hand and finally (iii) their dominant hand. For those students with 

limited physical mobility, they can also hold the mark maker (e.g. pen, pencil) in alternative ways (e.g. in 

their mouth). After overcoming the initial shock of the task, which takes away all the perceived drawing 

ability of the design students and leaves all the students reimagining how they utilize their bodies for this 

task, students begin to ‘let go’ of realistic two-dimensional outcomes. The outcomes are truly remarkable. 

Non-design students who were told that they did not have drawing skills can draw. Design students who 

have progressed their academic careers based on their drawing skills have to reassess their notion of the 

portrait, particularly with the non-perfect portraits they have created. Overall, the activity brings the cohort 

together more as equals struggling individually with this task. Ultimately, students tend to delight in their 

unexpected ‘foot’ and ‘less dominant hand’ portraits, which often capture the essence of the person more 

organically than their more typical ‘dominant hand’ portrait (Figure 3). 

 

 
 

  

 
Figure 3: Range of foot portraits (from design and non-design students). 
 

Empathic tools 

We acknowledge that the only way to experience it is to experience it. However, empathic tools and 

approaches offer the able-bodied, young and healthy student the opportunity to physically experience 

challenges with activities of daily living. These tools range from low technology (e.g. tape up an elbow or 

knee joint with tape to restrict mobility) that is low cost and utilizes commonly found materials within the 

home and/or classroom to high technology (e.g. Oculus End-of-Life experience software). Low-technology 



 

32 

tools can be made by individual students at home and do not require significant cost beyond materials and 

time to construct them. Higher technology, such as the Gerontology (GERT) suit, provides a holistic system 

that can be applied to an individual so that they are experiencing several physical augmentations 

simultaneously but represents a greater expense (US$4500). The body can accommodate and efficiently 

adjust to one augmentation (e.g. reduced hearing or reduced vision), but when multiple ones are combined 

a more immersive experience is achieved (Figure 4). Experiencing the familiar material landscape through 

the perspective of limited vision, hearing, mobility and strength can result in an almost instant emotional 

response within the student. 

 

Activities such as the foot portrait and tools such as the GERT suit challenge the student’s mindset as they 

relate to others. Reducing this psychological gap between themselves and the ‘other’ (e.g. elders or people 

with disabilities) supports more empathic design outcomes. Through personal challenges (discomfort), 

understanding and humility develop within and beyond the classroom. Introducing this way of knowing the 

range of experiences develops a more empathic mindset. Designing for others becomes more aligned with 

designing for our future selves. It becomes personal and more relevant. 

 

 
Figure 4: Empathic tools (GERT gerontology suit) simulating range of physical impairments. 
COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 
 



 

33 

The value of such experiential learning activities is in the opportunities for learners to go beyond 

assumptions (felt sense) to more tangible ways of understanding (felt experience). Care needs to be taken, 

as many students have not experienced physical vulnerability (diminished vision, hearing or mobility), and 

conducting these activities within a safe environment (e.g. a classroom) and avoiding potentially harmful 

(activities of daily living) activities (e.g. making hot beverages) needs to be thought out. These activities are 

time-consuming and require planning and resources. However, overall, the benefits are significant to the 

individual, especially if they reflect upon their experience. When communicating through speaking out loud 

to others, they will generate and acknowledge the meaning they create and why it is of value to them 

personally and ultimately professionally as designers going forward. 

 

Conclusion 

The development of activities for students that prompt critical thought and potential discomfort capture a 

person’s understanding of a limit situation. Other ways of doing this are through a visual map, such as an 

empathy map or journey map, that students use to gauge what they have learned through the learning 

process. It enables them to reflect on the points of discomfort and acknowledge what they have learned. 

These activities allow students to reflect on the work they conducted over the semester, reflection being 

"the process of critically assessing the content, process or premise(s) of our efforts to interpret and give 

meaning to an experience” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 104). Reflection is vital because, as Siegel and Dray observe, 

“The pressure to develop design sprints for students to work through does not allow them to develop 

thoughtful final deliverables where they can conduct secondary and primary research to developing 

innovative solutions” (p. 82). Learning is a social interaction that takes place through a combination of 

different processes in the body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, 

values, emotions, beliefs and senses). An experience is therefore interpreted cognitively, emotively, or 

practices and integrated into a person’s biography, resulting in greater self-awareness (Jarvis, 2009). 

 

References 

Ben-Ari, A., & Strier, R. (2010). Rethinking cultural competence: What can we learn from Levinas? British 
Journal of Social Work, 40(7), 2155–2167. 
 
do Mar Pereira. M. (2012). Uncomfortable classrooms: Rethinking the role of student discomfort in feminist 
teaching. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 19(1), 128–135.  
 
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of 
antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum,  
139–167. 
 
Esquilin, M. E., & Funk, M. (2019). Campus bias incidents: What could faculty do? Navigating discussions  
in the classroom. Resource presented at Bryant University, Smithfield, Rhode Island, USA, November 2019. 
https://cte.bryant.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bryant-handouts-Nov-2019-PDF.pdf 
 
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. 
 
Fricker, M. (2010). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. 
 
Gale T., & Molla T. (2016). Deliberations on the deliberate professional: Thought-action provocations.  
In J. Lynch, J. Rowlands, T. Gale, & A. Skourdoumbis (Eds.), Practice theory and education: Diffractive 
readings in professional practice (pp. 247–262). Routledge. 
 
Hansen, N., & Philo, C. (2007). The normality of doing things differently: Bodies, spaces and disability 
geography. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98 (4), 493–506. 

https://cte.bryant.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bryant-handouts-Nov-2019-PDF.pdf


 

34 

 
hooks, b. (1998). Engaged pedagogy: A transgressive education for critical consciousness. Bergin & Garvey. 
 
Jarvis P. (2009). Learning to be a person in society: Learning to be me. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary 
theories of learning: Learning theorists … in their own words (pp. 21–34). Routledge. 
 
Koppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2012). Knowing people: The empathetic designer. Design Philosophy Papers, 
10(1), 35–62. 
 
Kullman, K. (2016). Prototyping bodies: A post-phenomenology of wearable simulations. Design Studies,  
47, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.08.004 
 
Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2018). Teacher professional learning through pedagogy of discomfort. Reflective 
Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 19(6), 721–735. 
 
McDonagh, D. (2015). Design students foreseeing the unforeseeable: Practice-based empathic research 
methods. International Journal of Education through Art, 11(3), 421–431. 
 
McDonagh, D., & Thomas, J., (2010) Disability + relevant design: Empathic design strategies supporting 
more effective new product design outcomes,The Design Journal, 13:2, 180–198. 
https://doi.org/10.2752/175470710X12735884220899 
 
McDonagh-Philp, D., & Denton, H. (2000) User-centred design and the focus group: Developing the student 
designer’s empathic horizons. In Kimbell, R. (Ed.), Design and Technology International Millennium 
Conference (pp. 111–116). D&T Association. 
 
Mercer, L.E., & Moses, T. (2019). Identifying racialized design to cultivate a culture of awareness in design. 
The Design Journal, 22(Suppl. 1), 1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594965 
 
Mezirow J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult education. Jossey-Bass. 
 
Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world.  
The MIT Press.  
 
Nadan, Y., & Stark, S. (2017). The pedagogy of discomfort: Enhancing reflectivity on stereotypes and bias. 
British Journal of Social Work, 47(3), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw023 
 
Pinto, A.V., (1960). Consciencia e realidade nacional (Vol. II). Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasileiro. 
 
Racism Untaught (n.d.). https://racismuntaught.com 
 
Siegel D., & Dray S. (2019). The map is not the territory: Empathy in design. Interactions, 26(2), 82–85. 
https://doi.org/10.1145/3308647 
 
Thoresen, V. (2017). How transformational learning promotes caring, consultation and creativity, and 
ultimately contributes to sustainable development: Lessons from the Partnership for Education and 
Research about Responsible Living (PERL) network. International Review of Education, 63(6), 915–934. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9688-4 
 
Woodcock, A., McDonagh, D., & Osmond, J. (2017). Developing empathy for older users in design students. 
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, 7 & 8 September 2017, Oslo and 
Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway. 
 



 

35 

Zembylas, M., & McGlynn, C. (2012). Discomforting pedagogies: Emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and 
transformative possibilities. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 41–59. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.523779 

 


	Introduction
	Levelling of the classroom
	Empathic tools

	The value of such experiential learning activities is in the opportunities for learners to go beyond assumptions (felt sense) to more tangible ways of understanding (felt experience). Care needs to be taken, as many students have not experienced physi...

