Teaching Without a Classroom: What Product Design Has Taught Me About Learning
I did not think of myself as a teacher in the traditional sense. But the longer I work as a product designer, the more I realize that teaching is woven into my week.
It shows up when I bring customer interviews back to the team and translate what we learned into product decisions. It shows up when I facilitate a workshop to align on a problem statement. It shows up when I mentor junior designers through data analysis, design challenges, and stakeholder management. I am teaching while I am still learning, and that is exactly what got me interested in taking a course at Emily Carr University of Art + Design called Teaching Art and Design.
The course has been giving me language for something I have been doing for years. Teaching, especially in product work, is not limited to lesson plans or lectures. It is often the quiet craft of creating conditions where people can learn together and make decisions.
The work version of teaching
In product teams, we often talk about research as a deliverable. A readout. A deck. A doc. A meeting.
But the real challenge is not doing research. The challenge is getting research to land across design, engineering, and product in a way that actually changes the work. When it lands, it reduces churn and debate, speeds up prioritization, and creates shared confidence. When it does not, it becomes a discussion that loops, or worse, a document that gets politely ignored.
This is where Irwin’s writing has been shifting my mindset. She asks us to move away from extracting meaning as the main goal and instead pay attention to impact and movement: “Rather than asking what an art education practice means, the question becomes what does this art education practice set in motion do?” (Irwin, 2013, p. 198). That question feels surprisingly relevant in product work, where it is easy to confuse “a good presentation” with actual learning.
A research share-out that moved the team forward
Recently I shared customer interview findings over Zoom with a cross-functional group that included engineering leadership, staff engineers, product leadership, and design. The goal was straightforward: validate whether the workflows we were building were usable, surface gaps early while the work was still flexible, and align on what we needed to do next.
The outcome was unusually clean.
Even when one workflow clearly did not work for customers, there was no defensiveness and no debate for debate’s sake. The evidence created clarity. We aligned quickly, prioritized what customers actually needed, and identified what to test next. We also left the meeting feeling more connected as a team, which is not a small thing. Collaboration got easier afterward, not harder.
I walked away thinking that did not happen by accident.
It was not that the findings were more brilliant than usual. It was that the share-out was designed in a way that helped the learning take root.
Three practices that made my research share-outs more effective
1) Start with the decision, not the data
Before I share any findings, I try to name the purpose of the meeting in plain language.
What are we deciding today?
What do we need to align on?
What do we need to learn next before we commit?
This shifts the room from passive listening to active decision-making. It also helps the team connect the research to the work that is already on their plate.
2) Use evidence that creates shared reality quickly
I often use a simple structure in a doc or slide format:
who the customers are and the context they are operating within
pass or fail signals for key workflows
patterns tied to our hypotheses
a short summary of what customers are actually looking for
And when possible, I bring short video clips and direct customer quotes.
Not because it is dramatic, but because it makes the customer real. It reduces interpretation battles. It helps the team feel accountable to a shared reality, not just a summary.
Berleant offers a helpful way to frame why this works. He reminds us that aesthetics is not only about art objects or beauty, but about perception itself: “The term ‘aesthetics’ is a transliteration of the Greek aisthēsis, which means perception by the senses.” (Berleant, 2015, para. 4). Even in a Zoom meeting, learning is not purely cognitive. It is also sensory and affective. Tone, pacing, silence, and attention all shape what people can take in.
3) Slow down at the moment that changes the plan
When a workflow fails or an assumption breaks, my instinct is to move quickly to solutions. Everyone is busy. Time is limited. It feels respectful to keep momentum.
But I have learned that speed can flatten learning. If something in the research should change the plan, the team needs a moment to register it.
So I try to create space for a few questions:
What assumption just broke?
What do we need to change immediately?
What needs another test before we commit?
Irwin describes this as a shift in what pedagogy is for. She writes, “Pedagogy is no longer about what is already known but instead creates the conditions for the unknown and to think as an experiment thereby complicating our conversations.” (Irwin, 2013, p. 198). That feels like the difference between a share-out that checks a box and a share-out that actually changes the work.
Berleant helps me understand why that pause matters. He writes, “Sense perception is never simple sensation or pure perception but a complex, multi-faceted field experience.” (Berleant, 2015, para. 17). When the team is absorbing something that challenges our assumptions, that complexity needs room. A small pause can be the difference between insight and noise.
What I am learning at Emily Carr
Taking Teaching Art and Design at Emily Carr has been a helpful mirror. It has made me reflect on how much teaching happens inside design leadership and cross-functional collaboration, even when we do not call it that.
I am starting to see a research share-out as more than communication. It is facilitation. It is learning design. It is creating conditions for a group to perceive the same problem and move forward together.
That is what I want more of in my work. Fewer debates that go in circles. More shared understanding. More care for the people using what we build. More clarity that comes from real evidence, not just strong opinions.
A question I am sitting with
If teaching in product work is about creating the conditions for shared learning, then the question becomes: What conditions help a cross-functional team learn quickly, stay connected, and make better decisions?
I do not think there is one answer. But I am paying attention to it more intentionally now.
If you lead design, product, or engineering, I would love to know: what is one thing you do that makes research share-outs actually land with your team?
References
Berleant, A. (2015). Aesthetic sensibility. Ambiances. https://doi.org/10.4000/ambiances.526
Irwin, R. L. (2013). Becoming a/r/tography. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2013.11518894