Year 2020, Volume 2 , Issue 1, Pages 25 - 36 2020-07-20

Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions

Derya YORGANCIOĞLU [1]


This study aims to make a critical reading on the constraints and potentials that emerge through the transition from face-to-face to screen-to-screen teaching and learning experiences in design education during the COVID-19 pandemic. By making a critical reading of current discussions, mostly in narrative surveys, on architectural design education, it is attempted to re-contextualize the emerging concepts of the remote teaching and learning to the broader context of design studio pedagogy literature. The theoretical framework of the study is based on the model developed by Shaffer (2003) regarding the three main elements of the design studio pedagogy as (1) “surface structures”, (2) “pedagogical forms” and (3) “epistemological principles.” The study revealed that the current situation, on the one hand, opened the ways for us to test “new” tools, methods and experiences of teaching and learning, and on the other hand, allowed us to better understand the potentials and well-functioning aspects of the “existing” pedagogical models. Rather than reducing the discussions on remote teaching and learning to a ‘technology-driven’ paradigm change in design education, future research should focus on the effects of changing pedagogical tools and practices on the manifold dimensions of ‘human learning’, which in turn will have implications for the epistemology of design pedagogy.
COVID-19, architectural design education, design studio pedagogy, remote teaching, new normal, human element
  • Abdullaha, N. A. G., Behb, S. C., Tahirb, M. M., Che Anib, A. I., & Tawilb, N. M. (2011). Architecture design studio culture and learning spaces: a holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 27-32. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.044
  • Acar, A. (2020). Birinci sınıf mimarlık eğitimi için çevirimiçi izdüşümler. XXI, 1-18. Retrieved from: https://xxi.com.tr/i/birinci-sinif-mimarlik-egitimi-icin-cevrimici
  • Akalın, A., & Sezal, I. (2009). The importance of conceptual and concrete modelling in architectural design education. JADE, 28(1), 14-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01589.x
  • Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  • Archer, B. (1992). As complex as ABC. In P. Roberts, B. Archer, & K. Baynes (Eds.). Design: Occasional Paper No. 1, Modeling: The language of designing (pp. 7–11). Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., & Wyse, D. (Eds.). (2010, fist published in 1977). A Guide to teaching practice (5th ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
  • Cowan, J. (2005), ‘Evaluation and feedback in architectural education’, in D. Nicol and S. Pilling (eds.) Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 236-244). London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), Special Issue: Design Education, 18-28. doi: 10.5204/jld.v6i3.155
  • Crysler, C. G. (1995). Critical pedagogy and architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4), 208-217.
  • Davies, T., & Elmer, R. (2001). Learning in design and technology: the impact of social and cultural influences on modeling. Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 163–80.
  • Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16-25.
  • Dutton, T. A. (1991). The hidden curriculum and the design studio. Voices in Architectural Education: cultural politics and pedagogy. (pp. 165-194), New York: Bergin and Garvey.
  • Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 1. (April 2020). Reinhold Martin, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, Brent Sturlaugson, Barbara Penner, Harriet Harriss, Judith Rodenbeck, Sandy Isenstadt, Anna Livia Brand, Iman Ansari, Hélène Frichot, Brett Milligan, Places Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-1/)
  • Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 2. (April 2020). Simon Sadler, Patricia Morton, Richard J. Williams, Fred Scharmen, Clare Lyster, Marshall Brown, Jeffrey Hou, Sarah Lappin, Jonathan Massey, David Heymann, Frances Richard, Places Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-2/)
  • Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 3. (April 2020). Johan Pries, Andrew Herscher, Hugh Campbell, Shannon Mattern, Erin Moore, Rasmus Hansen, Frederick Steiner, Mireille Roddier, Mira Schor, Shelly Silver, Charles Davis, Philip Ursprung, Places Journal. Retrieved from May 12, 2020, from https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-3/)
  • Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 4. (April 2020). David Smiley, Alison Hirsch, Iñaki Alday, Kim Anno, Greg Lindquist, Keith Eggener, Linda C. Samuels, Arda İnceoğlu, Lori Brown, Marc J. Neveu, Kristi Cheramie, Sharon Haar, Places Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-4/>
  • Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 5. (April 2020). Orla Murphy & Emmett Scanlon, Liska Chan, Derek Hoeferlin, Peggy Deamer, Yuko Uchikawa, Hugh Raffles, Manuel Shvartzberg Carrió, Sarah Rottenberg, Germane Barnes, Jesse LeCavalier, Susannah Drake, Annmarie Adams, Carolina Dayer, Places Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-5/>
  • Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 6. (April 2020). Kadambari Baxi, Matias del Campo, Fadi Masoud, Renée Cheng, Elizabeth Donovan, Carl Smith, Dana Tomlin, Aaron Cayer, Delia Mellis, Huda Tayob, G. Pelin Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, Nicholas Pevzner, Robin Tremblay-McGaw, Billy Fleming, Places Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-6/>
  • Gray, C. M. (May 2013). ‘Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio’, in J. B. Reitan, P. Lloyd, E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, I. Digranes and E. Lutnæs (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS // CUMULUS 2013, 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers Oslo, 14–17 May 2013, pp. 702-714.
  • Gray, C. M. (2016). Emergent views of studio. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith & K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education (pp. 271-280). New York and London: Routledge Press.
  • Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125-149.
  • How architecture students and educators are optimizing their work environments at home. (2020, April 3). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://archinect.com/news/article/150192041/how-architecture-students-and-educators-are-optimizing-their-work-environments-at-home
  • How architecture students and educators are handling the transition to online coursework. (2020, March 26). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://archinect.com/news/article/150190812/how-architecture-students-and-educators-are-handling-the-transition-to-online-coursework
  • How COVID-19 is affecting architecture students and educators on an emotional level. (2020, March 31). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://archinect.com/news/article/150191482/how-covid-19-is-affecting-architecture-students-and-educators-on-an-emotional-level
  • Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge, C, & Parsons, M. (Eds.). (2007, first published in 2000). The crit. An architecture student’s handbook (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
  • Parkinson, E. (2007). Practical modeling and hypothesis testing in primary design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3), 233–51.
  • Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford Design Studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–11). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
  • Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
  • The New Normal: Educating in times of Corona. An interview with Carlo D’Alesio. (2020, April 30). Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://warm-white.com/an-interview-with-carlo-dalesio/
  • The Coming Disruption. (2020, May 11). Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/scott-galloway-future-of-college.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR0vVLDG2KEDa5fot7V56YIYQXQVbQ7U56vciziOISNpSxWYi3--7--aNU0
  • Yorgancıoğlu, D., & Tunalı, S. (April 2020). Changing pedagogic identities of tutors and students in the design studio: Case study of desk and peer critiques. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education (ADCHE), 19 (1), 19-32. doi: 10.1386/adch_00011_1
Primary Language en
Subjects Architecture
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-5583-3515
Author: Derya YORGANCIOĞLU (Primary Author)
Institution: Özyeğin University
Country: Turkey


Supporting Institution -
Project Number -
Thanks -
Dates

Publication Date : July 20, 2020

APA Yorgancıoğlu, D . (2020). Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions . Journal of Design Studio , 2 (1) , 25-36 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/journalofdesignstudio/issue/55805/744577