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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
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.
Boling, E. (Ed.). (2005). Design cultures. IDT record short papers. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/design_cultures.html
Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2009). Design tensions: Adapting a signature pedagogy into instructional design education. San Diego, CA: American Educational Research Association.
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.
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.
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), 329–348
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).
Carspecken, P. (1995). Critical ethnography: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47, 27.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.
Darke, J. (1984). The primary generator and the design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 175–188). New York: Wiley.
Goel, V. (1997). Sketches of thought. Boston: MIT Press.
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.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York: Taylor & Francis.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Cross, N. G. (1991). Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12(4), 215–220.
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.
Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education: Designing the design studio. Releigh, NC: Tailored Text & Unlimited Potential Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
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.
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.
Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451.
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.
Webster, H. (2007). The analytics of power—Re-presenting the design jury. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(3), 21–27.
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
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boling, E., Smith, K.M. (2014). Critical Issues in Studio Pedagogy: Beyond the Mystique and Down to Business. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00926-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00927-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)