Advertisement

Relationships, Feedback, and Student Growth in the Design Studio: A Case Study

Chapter
  • 328 Downloads
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

An essential component of the design studio is instructors giving, and students receiving, feedback through the process of critique. While critiques vary by studio, their importance and influence on the student experience is worthy of inquiry, particularly regarding how they can influence student development of attributes other than learning the content knowledge of a discipline. This phenomenological case study explores one undergraduate student’s views on being critiqued in a studio-style entrepreneurship course. Data was collected through interviews and observation and analyzed through an iterative coding process. Major themes from the interviews suggested that the student learned to value direct and specific feedback within trusting instructor-student relationships. Implications for instructors include the suggestion that they make intentional efforts to build trust with students as they develop skills and dispositions in preparation for the professional world.

Keywords

Design studio Critique Case study Student-teacher interaction Relationships Feedback 

References

  1. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  2. Austerlitz, N. (2007). The internal point of view: Studying design students’ emotional experience in the studio via phenomenography and ethnography. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5, 165–177.  https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.5.3.165/1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2015). Discovering the business studio. Journal of Management Education, 39(1), 153–175.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914532801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belkis, U. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt, C., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2011). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 329–348.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., Brant, C., Scott, B., Reimer, Y., & McGrath, M. (2011, March). Promoting creativity in the computer science design studio. In Special interest group on computer science education. Symposium conducted at meeting of the Association for Computing Machinery, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  7. Chowdhury, B. T., Kusano, S. M., Johri, A., & Sharma, A. (2014). Student experiences in an interdisciplinary studio-based design course: The role of peer scaffolding. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 1–14).Google Scholar
  8. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 23, 427–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dannels, D., & Martin, K. (2008). Critiquing critiques: A genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24, 285–302.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041000020XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray, C. M. (2013). Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), 195–209.  https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.195_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howard, C. D., & Gray, C. M. (2014). Higher order thinking in design reviews. In Design thinking research symposium. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. Retrieved from https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dtrs/2014/Impact/4/Google Scholar
  13. McDonald, J. K., Rich, P. J., & Gubler, N. B. (2018). The perceived value of informal, peer critique in the instructional design studio. TechTrends, 63, 149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0302-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poteat, L., Shockley, K., & Allen, T. (2009). Mentor-protege commitment fit and relationship satisfaction in academic mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 332–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salama, A., & El-Attar, M. (2010). Student perceptions of the architectural design jury. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 174–200.Google Scholar
  16. Schrand, T., & Eliason, J. (2012). Feedback practices and signature pedagogies: What can liberal arts learn from the design critique? Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning, Design, and TechnologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUnited States

Personalised recommendations