Abstract
Studio-based instruction, as traditionally enacted in design disciplines such as architecture, product design, graphic design, and the like, consists of dedicated desk space for each student, extended time blocks allocated to studio classes, and classroom interactions characterized by independent and group work on design problems supplemented by frequent public and individual critiques. Although the surface features and pedagogy of the studio have been well-documented, relatively little attention has been paid to student and teacher participation structures through which design knowledge is co-produced among instructors and students within the studio. The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of faculty–student interactions through which students learn to think and act as designers. To that end, we have collected and analyzed ethnographic data from five studio classrooms across three design disciplines (architecture, industrial design, and human–computer interaction). Our findings provide insight as to the ways that dialogue—the “right kind of telling”—and particular social practices in the studio support students as they learn to solve ill-structured design problems while being simultaneously inducted into practices that reflect the professional world of their discipline. In each of the studio classrooms, the instructors were able to create an environment where students and faculty practiced reflection-in-action and listening-in as a form of intentional participation, design knowledge was conveyed through modeling and meta-discussions, and focused assignments and in-progress critiques enhanced opportunities for the individual and group processes through which design knowledge was co-constructed in these studio classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All names are pseudonyms.
References
Anthony, K. (1987). Private reactions to public criticism: Students, faculty, and practicing architects state their views on design juries in architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(3), 2–11.
Arvola, M., & Artman, H. (2008). Studio life: The construction of digital design competence. Digital Kompetanse, 3(2), 78–96.
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Johassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barab, S. A., & Roth, W. M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowledge from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13.
Boylan, M. (2010). Ecologies of participation in school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 61–70.
Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., & McGrath, M. (2011). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5.
Brocato, K. (2009). Studio based learning: Proposing, critiquing, iterating our way to person-centeredness for better classroom management. Theory into Practice, 48, 138–146.
Clinton, G., & Reiber, L. P. (2010). The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 755–780.
Cossentino, J. (2002). Importing artistry: Further lessons from the design studio. Reflective Practice, 3(1), 39–52.
Cox, C., Harrison, S., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Applying the “Studio Model” to learning technology design. In C. DiGiano, S. Goldman, & M. Chorost (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.
Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fleming, D. (1998). Design talk: Constructing the object in studio conversations. Design Issues, 14(2), 41–62.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Greenberg, S. (2009). Embedding a design studio course in a conventional computer science program. In IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Volume 289, Creativity and HCI: From experience to design in education (pp. 23–41). Boston: Springer.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Keiner, L. E., & Burns, T. E. (2010). Interactive engagement: How much is enough? The Physics Teacher, 48, 108–111.
Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architecture Students.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 146–154.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (Eds.). (1997). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
Lee, C. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267–279.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oak, A. (2000). It’s a nice idea, but it’s not actually real: Assessing the objects and activities of design. Journal of Art and Design Education, 19(1), 86–95.
Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education Journal, 13(3), 191–205.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175–203.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In R. A. Lesh, J. J. Kaput, & E. Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 99–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tassoni, J. P., & Lewiecki-Wilson, C. (2005). Not just anywhere, anywhen: Mapping change through studio work. Journal of Basic Writing, 24(1), 68–92.
Taylor, S. S. (2009). Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: Preliminary findings from two case studies. Innovation in Higher Education, 33, 217–228.
Tom, J., Voss, K., & Scheetz, C. (2008). The space is the message: First assessment of a learning studio. Educause Quarterly, 31(2), 42–52.
Wilson, J. M. (1994). The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher, 32, 518–523.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant Award no. 0725290, 0725145, and 0725215. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the entire research team or the NSF. Other project team members include Sarah Douglas, Professor in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Oregon; Margarita McGrath, Associate Professor of Architecture in the School of Architecture + Design at Virginia Tech; Yolanda Reimer, Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Montana; and Mitzi Vernon, Professor in the Industrial Design Program in the School of Architecture + Design at Virginia Tech. The authors extend a special thanks to the instructors and students who allowed us to enter the metaphorical closed doors of their studio classrooms and observe the artistry of their teaching. Brigitte Scott, doctoral student in Teaching and Learning at Virginia Tech, coded the data, reviewed literature, and provided many insights on which this analysis is based. For more information, see: http://www.studiocollaborative.soe.vt.edu.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cennamo, K., Brandt, C. The “right kind of telling”: knowledge building in the academic design studio. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 839–858 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9254-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9254-5