Advertisement

Critical Issues in Studio Pedagogy: Beyond the Mystique and Down to Business

  • Elizabeth BolingEmail author
  • Kennon M. Smith
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

In a 7-year study of a studio-based instructional graphics course, the authors describe its evolution from a lecture-heavy course including some studio features to a course that has much in common with traditional studio classes as we experienced them in our own architecture and fine arts education. This multi-year experience has raised questions for us regarding the way we work with students to develop their expertise in design, including the following: (1) What is “the novice”? Can we teach to the general model of a novice? (2) Is it necessary to ask students to generate many alternative concepts early in a project? (3) Can we separate tool learning from learning concepts and habits of thought? Using examples from reflective analysis of student work and field notes, we discuss experiences suggesting that assumptions brought to this course from studio experiences deserve reconsideration. At a time when discussions of design and design thinking are exploding around us with widely varying commitment to specificity and rigor, we conclude that we cannot borrow ideas like studio pedagogy from other disciplines without sufficient critical examination. We need to pay careful attention to what is actually happening in our courses rather than designing solely from theory or, worse, from our assumptions regarding studio education.

Keywords

Action research Critique Design fixation Design tensions Instructional graphics Novice practice Precedent Primary generator Problem framing Signature pedagogy Studio pedagogy Tool use 

References

  1. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  2. Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research, practice and teaching in IDT. In M. Orey, J. McLendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2006. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  3. Boling, E. (Ed.). (2005). Design cultures. IDT record short papers. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/design_cultures.html
  4. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2009). Design tensions: Adapting a signature pedagogy into instructional design education. San Diego, CA: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  5. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2010a). Intensive studio experience in a non-studio masters program: Student activities and thinking across levels of design. Design and Complexity: Design Research Society Conference 2010. Montreal, QC, Canada: School of Industrial Design.Google Scholar
  6. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2010b). Design education in the studio: Iterations in the work of students studying instructional graphics design. Denver, CO: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  7. Brandt, C., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M. & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. (1999). Strategies for the delivery of instructional design coursework: Helping learners develop a professional attitude toward the production process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (731845241).Google Scholar
  9. Carspecken, P. (1995). Critical ethnography: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, W. (2011). A study of the learning problems of undergraduate industrial design students in studio courses. In N. F. M. Roozenburg, L. L. Chen, & P. J. Stappers (Eds.), Diversity and Unity: Proceedings of IASDR2011 4th World Conference on Design Research, October 31–November 4, 2011, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Christaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modeling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clinton, G., & Reiber, L. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Darke, J. (1984). The primary generator and the design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 175–188). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Goel, V. (1997). Sketches of thought. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hokanson, B., Clinton, G., Boling, E., Martindale, T., Rieber, L., Kinzie, M., et al. (2011). Comparing instructional design studio programs. Presentation at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Convention, Jacksonville, FL, November 8–12.Google Scholar
  19. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Mathews, J. M. (2010). Using a studio-based pedagogy to engage students in the design of mobile-based media. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
  21. Mewburn, I. (2010). Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio pedagogy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/15/1474022210393912
  22. Morgado, P. (2009). From passive to active learners: Implementing the pedagogy of “learning by doing” in a design foundation course with large enrollment. Proceedings of the Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Baton Rouge, LA, March 12–14, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Nicholson, R. (2000). Foreward. (Is this the spelling of the piece?). In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. xvi-xix). London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross, N. G. (1991). Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12(4), 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education: Designing the design studio. Releigh, NC: Tailored Text & Unlimited Potential Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegel, M. A., & Stolterman, E. (2009). Metamorphosis: Transforming non-designers into designers. Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, 16–19 July 2008. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69–08, 3122A.Google Scholar
  31. Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451.Google Scholar
  32. Tracey, M. & Boling, E. (2013). Preparing instructional designers. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, M. J. Bishop, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Webster, H. (2007). The analytics of power—Re-presenting the design jury. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(3), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Welch, M., & Lim, H. S. (2000). The strategic thinking of novice designers: Discontinuity between theory and practice. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-2000/welch.html
  35. Wilkin, M. (2000). Reviewing the review: An account of a research investigation of the “crit.” A case study. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 100–107). London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Willenbrock, L. L. (1991). An undergraduate voice in architectural education. In T. A. Dutton (Ed.), Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy (pp. 97–120). New York: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  37. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Smaldino, S. (2007). Using activity theory to evaluate and improve K-12 school and university partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 364–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations