An Evaluation of Applying Blended Practices to Employ Studio-Based Learning in a Large-Enrollment Design Thinking Course

Abstract

DSGN110 was a multidisciplinary course teaching first year students enrolled in in a variety of majors about design thinking. The course is offered for the majors of architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, community and regional planning, along with computer science and business students. By blending face-to-face and online instructional strategies, desired practices and learning outcomes associated with the more intimate nature of studio-based learning and learning through action were scaled and achieved in the large enrollment course. The quantitative analysis of the pre and post survey revealed significant change across all constructs and the qualitative data analysis supported these findings, demonstrating that a blended course design utilizing collaborative technology platforms offered an innovative solution to teaching and learning in a manner reflective of a studio-based pedagogy.

Keywords

• Blended learning, Studio-based learning, Design thinking, Mixed methods, Technology and learning, Educational technology

Kaynakça

1. Allen, E. (1980). Things learned in lab. Journal of Architectural Education, 34(2), 22-25.
2. Ash, S. L. & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137-154.
3. Boyer, E. L. & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice. A Special Report. California Princeton Fulfillment Services. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED396659
4. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
5. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? In J. W. Creswell & V. Plano Clark (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 253-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

9. Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Design thinking boot camp: From insights to innovation. (2015). Retrieved on 3 April 2015 from http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/exed/dtbc/
11. DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Sage.
12. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.
13. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
14. Fain, J. A. (2005). Is there a difference between evaluation and research? The Diabetes Educator, 31(2), 150-155.
15. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing
16. college courses (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
17. Fricke, G. (1999). Successful approaches in dealing with differently precise design problems. Design Studies, 20(5), 417-429. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00018-6
18. Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19. Glazer, F. S. (2012). Blended learning: Across the disciplines, across the academy. New pedagogies and practices for teaching in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
20. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1096751612000607
21. Guillaume, D. W. & Khachikian, C. S. (2011). The effect of time-on-task on student grades and grade expectations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(3), 251-261.
22. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. New York: State University of New York Press.
23. IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 22.0) [Windows]. Armonk NY: IBM Corp.
24. Jarmon, C. (2009, December). Transitioning to blended and online learning. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from http://www.slideshare.net/PearsonLearningSolutions/transitioning-to-blended- and-online-learning-with-carolyn-jarmon-ncat-2693360
25. Lackney, J. (1999). A history of the studio-based learning model. Retrieved on 8 March 2012 from https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=i2InVpGwFq6z8wfH6J-IDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q= a+history+of+the+studio-based+learning+model
26. MAXQDA. (2011). MAXQDA 10: Software for qualitative data analysis. Berlin, Germany: 1989- 2012, VERBI Software-Consult-Sozialforschung GmbH. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from http://www.maxqda.com/
27. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
28. Morris, S. B. & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105.
29. Moskal, P. & Cavanagh, T. B. (2013). Scaling blended learning evaluation beyond the university. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2). London, UK: Routledge.
30. Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15-23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001
31. Nagai, Y. & Noguchi, H. (2003). An experimental study on the design thinking process started from difficult keywords: modeling the thinking process of creative design. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(4), 429-437. http://doi.org/10.1080/09544820310001606911
32. Picciano, A. G. (2013). Introduction to blended learning: Research perspectives II. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2). London, UK: Routledge.
33. Pombo, L. & Moreira, A. (2012). Evaluation framework for blended learning courses: A puzzle piece for the evaluation process. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(3), 201-211.
34. Qualtrics. (2013). Provo, UT. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from http://www.qualtrics.com/
35. Ralph, P. & Wand, Y. (2009). A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In K. Lyytinen, P. Loucopoulos, J. Mylopoulos, & B. Robinson (Eds.), Design requirements engineering: A ten-year perspective (pp. 103-136). Berlin: Springer.
36. Razzouk, R. & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
37. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
38. Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
39. Teddlie, C. & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
40. TrueCrypt. (2014). Gibson Research Corporation. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from https://www. grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm
41. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving quality and reducing cost: Designs for effective learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(4), 22-29.
42. Vickers, R., Field, J., Melakoski, C., & others. (2015). Media Culture 2020: Collaborative teaching and blended learning using social media and cloud-based technologies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(1), 62-73.
43. Yocom, K., Proksch, G., Born, B., & Tyman, S. K. (2012). The built environments laboratory: An Interdisciplinary framework for studio education in the planning and design disciplines. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 7(2), 8-25.
44. Zehner, R., Forsyth, G., de la Harpe, B., Peterson, F., Musgrave, E., Neale, D., & Frankham, N. (2010). Optimising studio outcomes: Guidelines for curriculum development from the Australian studio teaching project. In ConnectED2010–2nd International Conference on Design Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, June 28th-July 1st. Retrieved on 25 April 2015 from http://connected2010.eproceedings.com.au/papers/436.pdf
45. Correspondence: Sydney E. Brown, Assistant Director for Innovative Instructional Design,
46. Department of Online and Distance Education, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States