Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing studio-based learning for design education: a study on the perception and challenges of Malaysian undergraduates

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studio-based learning (SBL) is a teaching and learning methodology that combines different learning pedagogies such as social constructivist, problem-based, and active learning to mimic real-world working experience. Traditionally, SBL is practised in architecture and art programmes, however there is a growing number of research in other areas such as computer science, engineering, entrepreneurship and design courses. Nevertheless, in Malaysia, studies have only focused on architecture programmes. Therefore, this study focuses on reporting the experience and challenges of implementing SBL for a design course in the area of Visual Communication. By employing a qualitative methodology, findings show positive perception towards SBL where respondents reported awareness in improved design and communication skills, and increased acceptance towards team work. They found the critique sessions, facilitated their learning progress. Nevertheless, students reported challenges with inept teaching and learning facilities for design work, collaboration and communication breakdown with stakeholders. The study also reports on improvement strategies to enhance students learning experience through SBL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdullah, N. A. G., Beh, S. C., Tahir, M. M., Che Ani, A. I., & Tawil, N. M. (2011). Architecture design studio culture and learning spaces: A holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., & Luo, T. (2019). Instructional designers guided by external representations in a design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-09493-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bashir, M., Hamdan, M., & Hamid, M. (2013). Design studio as problem based learning in architectural education in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. In The 4th International Research Symposium on Problem-Based Learning (IRSPBL) 2013 Design (pp. 373–379).

  • Braun, R., Brookes, W., Hadgraft, R., & Chaczko, Z. (2019). Assessment Design for Studio-Based Learning. In Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Computing Education Conference on—ACE’19 (pp. 106–111). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3286960.3286973.

  • Brown, S. E., Karle, S. T., & Kelly, B. (2015). An evaluation of applying blended practices to employ studio-based learning in a large-enrollment design thinking course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(4), 260–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucholz, J. L., & Sheffler, J. L. (2009). Creating a warm and inclusive classroom environment: Planning for all children to feel welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(4), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Koc, M., & Kurimasuriyar, A. (2018). Insights from studio teaching practices in a Creative Industries Faculty in Australia. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022218802529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science., 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, D. B., Blair, K. P., Wolf, R. C., Conlin, L. D., Cutumisu, M., Pfaffman, J., et al. (2019). Educating and measuring choice: A test of the transfer of design thinking in problem solving and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 00(00), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1570933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). In J. W. Creswell & V. L. P. Clark (Eds.), Designing and conducting mixed method research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshun, E. F., & Osei-poku, P. (2013). Design students perspectives on assessment rubric in studio-based learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann, K. (2018). Hype or help ? Technology-enhanced learning in the design classroom : an experiment in online design collaboration. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 11(1), 331–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galford, G., Hawkins, S., & Hertweck, M. (2015). Problem-based learning as a model for the interior design classroom: Bridging the skills divide between academia and practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gestwicki, P., & Ahmad, K. (2011). App inventor for android with studio-based learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 27(1), 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M. (2018). Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9471-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Freed, R., & Sawyer, R. K. (2018). Fostering creative performance in art and design education via self-regulated learning. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9479-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güler, Ç. (2017). Use of whatsapp in higher education what’s up with assessing peers anonymously? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116667359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanpour, B., Utaberta, N., & Zaharim, A. (2010). Redefining critique session as an assessment tool in architecture design studio class. WSEAS Transactions on Advances In Engineering Education, 7(9), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrix, D., Myneni, L., Narayanan, H., & Ross, M. (2010). Implementing studio-based learning in CS2. Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 505–509). https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734433.

  • Jiang, H., Tang, M. X., Peng, X., & Liu, X. (2018). Learning design and technology through social networks for high school students in China. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9386-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kari-Pekka, H., Ulla-Maija, S., & Jouko, I. (2016). Entrepreneurship Education in Studio Based Learning Practices. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 247–256).

  • Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education., 33(5), 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. K. (2015). Effects of mobile phone-based app learning compared to computer-based web learning on nursing students: Pilot randomized controlled trial. Healthcare Informatics Research, 21(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2015.21.2.125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2018a). Critical perspectives of technology-enhanced learning in relation to specialist Communication Design studio education within the UK and Australia. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918761706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2018b). Supporting students’ self-directed experiences of studio learning in Communication Design: The co-creation of a participatory methods process model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: Supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megahed, N. (2018). Reflections on studio-based learning: assessment and critique. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-08-2017-0079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moremoholo, T. P., & de Lange, R. W. (2018). Anthropomorphic graphics : How useful are they as an instructional aid to facilitate learning ? The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moussawi, S., Quesenberry, J., Weinberg, R., Sanders, M., Lovett, M., Heimann, L., et al. (2018). Improving Student-Driven Feedback and Engagement in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research - SIGMIS-CPR’18 (Vol. 12, pp. 162–162). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209626.3209739.

  • National Education Association. (2014). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educators guide to the “Four Cs”. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polo, B. J., Silva, P. A., & Crosby, M. E. (2018). Applying Studio-Based Learning Methodology in Computer Science Education to Improve 21stCentury Skills. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10925 LNCS (pp. 361–375). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91152-6_28.

  • Remington, T. L., Bleske, B. E., Bartholomew, T., Dorsch, M. P., Guthrie, S. K., Klein, K. C., et al. (2017). Qualitative analysis of student perceptions comparing team-based learning and traditional lecture in a pharmacotherapeutics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe81355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. C., Ritsos, P. D., Jackson, J. R., & Headleand, C. (2018). The explanatory visualization framework: An active learning framework for teaching creative computing using explanatory visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1), 791–801. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosca, D. (2018). Acquiring Professional Software Engineering Skills through Studio-based Learning. 2018 17th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) (pp. 1–6).

  • Safiah, O., Jasmine, J., & Fauziah, N. (2013). Motivation in Learning and Happiness among the Low Science Achievers of a Polytechnic Institution: An Exploratory Study. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 90, pp. 702–711). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.143.

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2018). Teaching and learning how to create in schools of art and design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 137–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1381963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, P. A., Crosby, M. E., & Polo, B. J. (2014). Studio-based learning as a natural fit to teaching Human-Computer Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8510 LNCS(PART 1) (pp. 251–258). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07233-3_24.

  • Silva, P. A., Polo, B. J., & Crosby, M. E. (2017). Adapting the Studio based learning methodology to computer science education. In New directions for computing education (pp. 119–142). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54226-3_8.

  • Silva, P. A., & Read, J. C. (2010). A methodology to evaluate creative design methods. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the computer–human interaction special interest Group of Australia on computer–human interaction—OZCHI’10 (p. 264). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952279.

  • Smirnov, N., Easterday, M. W., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). Infrastructuring distributed studio networks: A case study and design principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1409119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahir, M. M., Abdullah, N. A. G., Usman, I. M. S., Che-Ani, A. I., Mohd Nor, M. F. I., & Surat, M. (2009). Constructing place and space in the design of learning environments for PBL in Malaysian universities. ASEAN Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, K., Doyle, T., & Kanasa, H. (2017). Collaborating With Stakeholders in STEM Studios. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 2017 (pp. 2015–2018). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2017.93.

  • Valk, J., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2014). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2017). Understanding students’ learning practices: challenges for design and integration of mobile technology into distance education. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1088869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The Universiti Sains Malaysia supported this work under USM Short Term Grant [304/PMEDIA/6315219].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

    Jeya Amantha Kumar

  2. Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Rua Sílvio Lima, Universidade de Coimbra – Polo II, Coimbra, Portugal

    Paula Alexandra Silva

  3. Politeknik METrO Tasek Gelugor, Tasek Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia

    Renugha Prelath

Authors
  1. Jeya Amantha Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Alexandra Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renugha Prelath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeya Amantha Kumar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, J.A., Silva, P.A. & Prelath, R. Implementing studio-based learning for design education: a study on the perception and challenges of Malaysian undergraduates. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 611–631 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09566-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09566-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation