Abstract
The Studio curriculum in the Learning, Design, and Technology (formerly Instructional Technology) program at a large research-extensive university in the southeastern U.S. represents a deliberate application of contemporary theory of how adults learn complex information in ill-structured domains. The Studio curriculum, part of a graduate program leading to a master’s degree, has been implemented since 1998 to prepare professionals to design, develop, evaluate, and manage educational multimedia. Theoretical considerations played a major role in shaping the design of the Studio curriculum. Prominent among these were constructionism, situated cognition/situated learning, and self-directed learning. Important related theoretical constructs included scaffolding and flow theory. This paper describes the Studio learning environment, presents these theoretical concepts, and discusses the application of theory to practice in the training of adults in instructional design and development (IDD).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Faculty of the this instructional technology graduate program recently changed the official program name to Learning, Design, and Technology, a name which the authors believe to be entirely consistent with the philosophy of the Studio; however, because the Studio has operated under the familiar Instructional Technology banner for most of its ten-year history, the term “instructional technology” will be used in this paper to refer to both the graduate degree program and the broader field in which it resides.
References
Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., & McManus, S. E. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470.
Allessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.
Barrett, T. (2000). Studio critiques of student art: As they are, as they could be with mentoring. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 29–35.
Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. In Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual (pp. 123–145). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice. A special report. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. (1984). Self-directed learning: A critical paradigm. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 59–71.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Burroughs, S., Brocato, K., & Franz, D. (2009). Problem based and studio based learning: Approaches to promoting reform thinking among teacher candidates. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 19(3), 2009.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clinton, G. (2005). Graduate student experiences of creativity and flow during training in design and development. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.
Clinton, G. (2007). Creativity and design: A study of the learning experience of instructional design and development graduate students. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Georgia.
Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. (2005). Creativity, flow, and the training of graduate students in design and development skills. Instructional Technology Monographs, 2(2). Online: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/itm/archives/fall2005/gclinton.htm.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: McMillan.
Dick, W. (1995). Instructional design and creativity: A response to the critics. Educational Technology, 5(4), 5–11.
Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16–25.
Fiedler, S. H. D. (1999). The Studio experience: Challenges and opportunities for self-organized learning. Retrieved September 1, 2002, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/fiedler.html
Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Ensher, E. A. (2000). Effects of peer mentoring on types of mentor support, program satisfaction and graduate student stress: A dyadic perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 637–642.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Holschuh, D. (2006). In the company of designers: Examining the culture of design in the design studio. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Georgia.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.
Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Krause, J. (2004). Design basics index. Cincinnati: How Design Books.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. London: The Architectural Press, Ltd.
Lee, S. J. (2009). Exploring students’ beliefs about teaching and learning in relation to their perceptions of student-centered learning environments: A case study of the studio experience. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Georgia.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
Michael, J. A. (1980). Studio art experience: The heart of art education. Art Education, 33(2), 15–19.
Moran, J. J. (2005). A model for promoting self-regulated learning. New Horizons in Adult Education, 19(1), 15–26.
Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Orey, M., Rieber, L. P., King, J., & Matzko, M. (2000). The Studio: Curriculum reform in an instructional technology graduate program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Pargas, R. P., & Weaver, K. A. (2005). Laptops in computer science: Creating the “learning studio”. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 101, 43–49.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Rieber, L. P. (2000). The Studio experience: Educational reform in instructional technology. In D. G. Brown (Ed.), Teaching with technology: Seventy-five professors from eight universities tell their stories (pp. 195–196). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Rieber, L. P. (2003). Microworlds. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 583–603). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rieber, L. P., Orey, M., & King, J. (2008). Handbook for the EDIT Studio experience at the University of Georgia. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from the University of Georgia, Department of Educational Psychology & Instructional Technology Web site: http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/studiohb.pdf
Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Online). http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Retrieved April 8, 2003, from http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/indsoc.htm
Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Pearson Education.
Song, L., & Hill, J. (2004). Constructivist learning environments: What do students’ perspectives tell us? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tripp, S. (1994). How should instructional designers be educated? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 116–126.
Turbak, F., & Berg, R. (2002). Robotic design studio: Exploring the big ideas of engineering in a liberal arts environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 237–253.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
West, R. E. (2009a). Communities of innovation: Exploring collaborative creativity within a community of graduate instructional designers. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Georgia.
West, R. E. (2009b). What is shared? A framework for understanding shared innovation within communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 315–332.
Winograd, T. (Ed.). (1996). Bringing design to software. New York: ACM Press/Addison Wesley.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Beginning in the fall of 2009, when this manuscript was still in review, the Studio program was relocated to the Gwinnett branch campus of the University of Georgia in order to better serve the Atlanta professional community. This relocation has occasioned some changes in the curriculum that are still being worked out and have not been documented in this manuscript. The Studio continues to evolve in response to the needs of students.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clinton, G., Rieber, L.P. The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: an example of constructionist learning for adults. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 755–780 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2