Variants of Design Studio: A Phenomenographic Research on Students’ Conceptions of Design Studio Environment

Year 2023, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 5 - 20, 20.07.2023

Önen Günöz Belkıs Uluoğlu

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1234644

Abstract

Especially in the last two decades, there has been a call for change in design studio education. Today, a growing body of unconventional studio teaching approaches is challenging the traditional design studio setting. Given the central role of the instructor in the design studio, each instructor adopts an approach according to their disposition on design and architecture, as well as to their view on education, and to some extent, they reflect their view in the design of their studio course. This also enables students to explore different approaches to design and architecture while exposing them to different pedagogical positions. This scenario, viewed from the students’ perspectives, raises two intriguing questions concerning studio education and the range of studio environments: (1) What is the range of studio teaching approaches embodied in design studios? (2) In what dimensions do they differ regarding students’ learning experiences? This paper is a phenomenographic research aiming to map the range of current studio environments from a pedagogical standpoint through students’ conceptions. For this purpose, we interviewed ten graduates from three architectural schools about their studio experiences. Through a phenomenographic analysis, we elicited four qualitatively different conceptions of studio environments. Further cross-category analysis revealed that the conceptions varied in several dimensional themes. The results provide insight from the student’s perspective on how studio environments are experienced. This information may contribute to our understanding of the studio environment, its underlying pedagogy, and how students experience learning.

Keywords

Architectural design studio education, Design studio pedagogy, Design studio experience, Student perspective, Phenomenography

References

• Almaç, B. (2018). The factory: An experimental studio for discovering the other. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(2), 300–311. doi:10.1111/jade.12119
• Anthony, K. H. (2012). Design juries on trial. 20th-anniversary edition: The renaissance of the design studio. Kathryn H. Anthony.
• Attoe, W., & Mugerauer, R. (1991). Excellent studio teaching in architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 16(1), 41–50. doi:10.1080/03075079112331383081
• Austerlitz, N., Aravot, I., & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2002). Emotional phenomena and the student–instructor relationships. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 105–115. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00063-4
• Bose, M., Pennypacker, E., & Yahner, T. (2006). Enhancing critical thinking through “independent design decision making” in the studio. Open House International, 31(3), 33–42. doi:10.1108/ohi-03-2006-b0005
• Bowden, J. A. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1–18). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
• Brindley, T., Doidge, C., & Willmott, R. (2000). Introducing alternative formats for the design project review: A case study. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 108–115). London, England: Spon Press.
• Cairns, G. (2012). Crossing the boundaries of film and architectural pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 2(2). Retrieved from https://www.beds.ac.uk/jpd/volume-2-issue-2/crossing-the-boundaries-of-film-and-architectural-pedagogy/
• Cenani, S., & Aksoy, Y. (2020). An Introduction to design studio experience: The process, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Design Studio, 57–69. doi:10.46474/jds.813689
• Cho, J. Y. (2009). Pedagogical examination of an award-winning instructor’s studio teaching. Design Principles and Practices An International Journal–Annual Review, 3(3), 387–406. doi:10.18848/1833-1874/cgp/v03i03/37699
• Dinham, S.M. (1987). An ongoing qualitative study of architecture studio teaching: analyzing teacher-student exchanges. Proceeding of the ASHE Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, November 21–24.
• Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and Studio Pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16–25. doi:10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461
• Farivarsadri, G., & Alsaç, Ü. (2006). Let’s play design. Open House International, 31(3), 43–50. doi:10.1108/ohi-03-2006-b0006
• Goldschmidt, G. (2002) ‘One-on-One’: a pedagogic base for design instruction in the studio. In Durling, D. and Shackleton, J. (eds.), Common Ground - DRS International Conference 2002, 5-7 September, London, United Kingdom. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2002/researchpapers/30
• Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher-student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, 24(3), 285–302. doi:10.1017/s089006041000020x
• Gordon, J. O. (2018). In the Making: Creative Thinking in the Architectural Design Studio. In S. Temple (Ed.), Developing Creative Thinking in Beginning Design (pp. 199–212). New York: Routledge.
• de la Harpe, B., Peterson, J. F., Frankham, N., Zehner, R., Neale, D., Musgrave, E., & McDermott, R. (2009). Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design? International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 37–51. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01591.x
• Hill, G. (2016). Drawn together: Student views of group work in the design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 33(4), 293–308. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44987207
• Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026
• Hou, J., & Kang, M.-J. (2006). Differences and dialogic learning in a collaborative virtual design studio. Open House International, 31(3), 85–94. doi:10.1108/ohi-03-2006-b0011
• Kandemir, O., & Ucar, O. (2011). A Constructivist Studio Enviroment for Interior Design Education. Design Principles and Practices An International Journal—Annual Review, 5(6), 65–80. doi:10.18848/1833-1874/cgp/v05i06/38225
• Khalili, H. (2023). A design studio experiment: Pedagogy, digital storytelling, and atmosphere in architectural education. The International Journal of Design Education, 17(1), 213–232. doi:10.18848/2325-128x/cgp/v17i01/213-232
• Kim, M. J., Ju, S. R., & Lee, L. (2015). A cross-cultural and interdisciplinary collaboration in a joint design studio. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 34(1), 102–120. doi:10.1111/jade.12019
• Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2002). The Redesign of Studio Culture: A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. The American Institute of Architecture Students.
• Liddicoat, S. (2017). The role of poetry in teaching architectural design. Axon: Creative Explorations, 7(2). Retrieved from https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-13/role-poetry-teaching-architectural-design
• Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. London, England: Routledge.
• Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-outcome and process. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
• McLaughlan, R., & Chatterjee, I. (2020). What works in the architecture studio? Five strategies for optimising student learning. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(3), 550–564. doi:10.1111/jade.12303
• Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Yi-Luen Do, E. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302–325. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004
• Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1–2), 71–84. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.005
• Quayle, M. (1985). Idea Book for Teaching Design. Mesa, AZ: PDA Publisher Corporation.
• Qureshi, H. (2019). Collaborative architectural design studio environment: An experiment in the studio of Architectural Design-I. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 14(2), 303–324. doi:10.1108/arch-12-2018-0049
• Salama, A. M. (2017). Spatial design education: New directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. London, England: Routledge.
• Sandri, O. (2022). What do we mean by ‘pedagogy’ in sustainability education? Teaching in Higher Education, 27(1), 114–129. doi:10.1080/13562517.2019.1699528
• Schön, D. A. (1983). Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Schön, D. A. (1985). Design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potential. London, England: RIBA Publications.
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a New Design for teaching and learning in the professions. London, England: Jossey-Bass.
• Schunk, D. (2019). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Pearson Education.
• Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499. doi:10.3102/0034654307310317
• Teymur, N. (1992). Architectural education: Issues in educational practice and policy. London, England: Question Press.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations Between Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching and Students’ Approaches to Learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70. doi:10.1023/a:1003548313194
• Turgut, H., & Cantürk, E. (2015). Design workshops as a tool for informal architectural education. Open House International, 40(2), 88–95. doi:10.1108/ohi-02-2015-b0012
• Uluoǧlu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33–58. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(99)00002-2
• Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 173–183. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01647.x
• Ward, A. (1996). The Suppression of the Social in Design: Architecture as War. In T. A. Dutton & L. H. Mann (Eds.), Reconstructing architecture: Critical discourses and social practices (pp. 27–70). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Webster, H. (2004). Facilitating critically reflective learning: excavating the role of the design tutor in architectural education. Art Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), 101–111. doi:10.1386/adch.2.3.101/0
• Webster, H. (2007). The analytics of power: Re-presenting the design jury. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(3), 21–27. doi:10.1111/j.1531-314x.2007.00092.x
• Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 63–74. doi:10.11120/jebe.2008.03020063
• Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). Nashville, TN: John Wiley & Sons.
• Whitcomb, J. A. (2003). Learning and Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Preparation. In W. M. Reynolds & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology v. 7: Volume 7: Educational psychology (pp. 533–556). Nashville, TN: John Wiley & Sons.
• Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated Cognition in Theoretical and Practical Context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Winch, C., & Gingell, J. (2008). Philosophy of education: The key concepts (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
• Yurtsever, B., & Polatoğlu, Ç. (2018). A secret component in architectural design studio: The “filtering” concept. Open House International, 43(2), 60–68. doi:10.1108/ohi-02-2018-b0009