Student response to an Internet-mediated industrial design studio course

  • Wenzhi Chen
  • Manlai You


The purpose of this study is to investigate student attitudes towards and perceptions of using the Internet and information technology to mediate a design studio course and to propose guidelines and suggestions for developing Internet-mediated design studio courses. Two classes of third-year undergraduate industrial design students in two collaborating universities in Taiwan—Chang Gung University and National Yunlin University of Science and Technology—participated in an experimental design studio course mediated with an online design learning environment. Surveys and focus group interviews were conducted at the end of the course to record students’ attitudes and perceptions. The students thought that the approach used had a positive influence on design teaching and learning and expressed acceptance of using the Internet to support design education. Finally, suggestions were proposed to help design educators in adopting, modifying, and developing systems for using the Internet to mediate design studio courses.


Design education Design students Design studio Industrial design Internet Online design learning environment 



This research was partially supported by a grant from the National Science Council (NSC) (NSC 92-2520-S-182-002). In addition, the authors wish to express their appreciation to all the teachers and students who participated in the experimental courses.


  1. Abrams, G., & Haefner, J. (2002). Blending online and traditional instruction in the mathematics classroom. The Technology Source Archive, retried January 5, 2008, from
  2. Arsham, H. (2002). Impact of the Internet on learning and teaching. USDLA Journal, 16(3). Retrieved July 7, 2006, from
  3. Attoe, W., & Mugerauer, R. (1991). Excellent studio teaching in architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 16(1), 41–50. doi: 10.1080/03075079112331383081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2006). Using online education technologies to support studio instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 114–122.Google Scholar
  5. Brandt, E. (2004). Action research in user-centered product development. AI & Society, 18(2), 113–133. doi: 10.1007/s00146-003-0271-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broadfoot, O., & Bennett, R. (2003). Design studios: Online? Comparing traditional face-to-face design studio education with modern Internet-based design studios. Presented at the Apple University Consortium Conference, Digital Voyages, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Brusasco, P. L., Caneparo, L., Carrara, G., Fioravanti, A., Novembri, G., & Zorgno, A. M. (2000). Computer-supported design studio. Automation in Construction, 9, 393–408. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00024-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucciarelli, L. L. (2001). Design knowledge and learning: A socially mediated activity. In C. Eastman, W. McCracken & W. Newsletter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 297–314). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Budd, J., Vanka, S., & Runton, A. (1999). The ID-online asynchronous learning network: A ‘virtual studio’ for interdisciplinary design collaboration. Digital Creativity, 10(4), 205–214. doi: 10.1076/digc. Scholar
  10. Chang, T.-W., & Huang, J. H. (2002). A pilot study of role-interplay in a web-based learning environment. Educational Media International, 39(1), 75–85. doi: 10.1080/09523980210131141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chastain, T., & Elliott, A. (2000). Cultivating design competence: Online support for beginning design studio. Automation in Construction, 9(1), 83–91. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00053-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, Y. Z., Frame, I., & Maver, T. W. (1998). A virtual studio environment for design integration. Advances in Engineering Software, 29(10), 787–800. doi: 10.1016/S0965-9978(97)00063-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, W., & You, M. (2003). A framework for the development of online design learning environment. Presented at the 6th Asian Design International Conference, Tsukuba, Japan.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, Y.-W. (2000). Web-based teamwork in design education. Presented at Sociedad Iberoamericana de Gráfica Digital (SIGRADI) 2000, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  15. Clayton, M. J., Warden, R. B., & Parker, T. W. (2002). Virtual construction of architecture using 3D CAD and simulation. Automation in Construction, 11(2), 227–235. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00100-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craig, D. L., & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities. Design Studies, 21(2), 187–204. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00041-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dave, B., & Danahy, J. (2000). Virtual study abroad and exchange studio. Automation in Construction, 9(9), 57–71. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00048-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyson, M. C., & Campello, S. B. (2003). Evaluating virtual learning environments: What are we measuring? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 1(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  19. Elger, D., & Russell, P. (2003). The virtual campus: A new place for (lifelong) learning? Automation in Construction, 12, 671–676. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(03)00046-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forgber, U., & Russell, P. (1999). Interdisciplinary collaboration in the virtual design studio. Presented at the European Association of Architectural Education (EAAE) 17th International Conference, Plymouth, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  21. Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments. Oxford University Press of America: Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Gunn, C. (1997). CAL evaluation: Future directions. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 5(1), 40–47.Google Scholar
  23. Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (1999). The five levels of Web use in education: Factors to consider in planning online courses. Educational Technology, 39(6), 28–32.Google Scholar
  24. Haymaker, J., Keel, P., Ackermann, E., & Porter, W. (2000). Filter-mediated design: Generating coherence in collaborative design. Design Studies, 21(2), 205–220. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00042-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, A., Barnard, J., Calder, J., Scanlon, E., & Thompson, J. (2000). Evaluating learning and teaching technologies in further education. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 8(3), 56–66.Google Scholar
  26. Kalay, Y. (2006). The impact of information technology on design methods, products and practices. Design Studies, 27(3), 357–380. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolarevic, B., Schmit, G., Hirschberg, U., & Kurmann, D. (2000). An experiment in design collaboration. Automation in Construction, 9(1), 73–81. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00050-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kvan, T. (2001a). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 345–353. doi: 10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00051-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kvan, T. (2001b). The problem in studio teaching—revisiting the pedagogy of studio teaching. Presented at the 1st ARCASIA Committee on Architectural Education (ACAE) Conference on Architectural Education, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  30. Matthews, D., & Weigand, J. (2001). Collaborative design over the Internet. Journal of Interior Design, 27(1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCormick, R. (2004). Collaboration: The challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 159–176. doi: 10.1023/B:ITDE.0000026495.10503.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nam, T. J. (2001). Computer support for collaborative design: Analysis of tools for an integrated collaborative design environment. Presented at the 5th Asian Design Conference, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  33. Narvaez, L. (2000). Designs own knowledge. Design Issues, 16(1), 36–51. doi: 10.1162/074793600300159583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pektaş, Ş. C., & Erkip, F. (2006). Attitudes of design students toward computer usage in design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(2), 79–95. doi: 10.1007/s10798-005-3175-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Press, M., & Cooper, R. (2003). The design experience: The role of design and designers in the twenty-first century. England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  36. Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191–205. doi: 10.1076/csed. Scholar
  37. Scanlon, E., Jones, A., Barnard, J., Thompson, J., & Calder, J. (2000). Evaluating information and communication technologies for learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(4), 101–107.Google Scholar
  38. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio. London: Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).Google Scholar
  39. Schön, D. A. (1987). Education: The reflective practitioner. London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  40. Simoff, S. J., & Maher, M. L. (2000). Analyzing participation in collaborative design environments. Design Studies, 21(2), 119–144. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00043-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swann, C. (2001). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(1), 49–61. doi: 10.1162/07479360252756287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ulusoy, Z. (1999). To design versus to understand design: The role of graphic representations and verbal expressions. Design Studies, 20(2), 123–130. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00030-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Eijl, P., & Pilot, A. (2003). Using a virtual learning environment in collaborative learning: Criteria for success. Educational Technology, 43(2), 55.Google Scholar
  44. Wood, J. (2003). A report on the use of ICT in art and design. Coventry, United Kingdom: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA).Google Scholar
  45. Yee, S. (2001). Building communities for design education: Using telecommunication technology for remote collaborative learning using telecommunication technology for remote collaborative learning. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Massachusetts, USA: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  46. Žavbi, R., & Tavčar, J. (2005). Preparing undergraduate students for work in virtual product development teams. Computers & Education, 44, 357–376. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zimring, C., & Craig, D. L. (2001). Defining design between domains: An argument for design research? In C. Eastman, W. McCracken & W. Newsletter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 125–146). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignChang Gung UniversityTaoyuanTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate School of DesignNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyYunlinTaiwan

Personalised recommendations