An Attempt to Understand the Design Studio as a Distinctive Pedagogical Setting (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Design Studio, 2020
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.
Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, Volume 1, Issue 3, PP. 194-206, 2007
Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future, Ashraf M. Salama and Nicholas Wilkinson (Editors), Review by Halina Dunin Woyseth, 2007 ___________________ The book in question is an extensive work, which assembles essays by twenty-six authors. The structuring concept of the book builds upon the following thematic parts: 1. Theoretical Perspectives; 2. Critical Thinking and Decision Making in Studio Pedagogy; 3. Addressing Cognitive Style in Studio Pedagogy; 4. Community, Place and the Studio; 5. Digital Technologies and the Studio. Each part has its own introduction written by the editors. The subject of the book is a field of expertise for the editors. Ashraf Salama has published numerous works on the matter since his influential book “New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio” (1995). Nicholas Wilkinson has been a studio educator for over 20 years and has written extensively on education and housing in addition to his experience and sustained effort as chief editor of Open House International. Their introduction to the book is followed by two invited essays by N. John Habraken and Henry Sanoff, both internationally renowned education practitioners and scholars. The message of the book appears to be a unanimous criticism of the dominating design studio practices. The book offers a broad picture of the current transformation of these practices. ______________________________ See more by downloading the full article Architectural Education, Design Pedagogy, Community Design, Social Architecture, Place Making
Pedagogical Infrastructures of Design Studio Learning
Journal of Textile Design Research and Practice, 2016
In the design studio, within educational contexts, sketching, model-making and prototyping of tangible objects are parts of the design process that support students in achieving final design solutions. This paper presents research in which three design experiments involving design studio settings, using a Learning by Collaborative Designing model for supporting knowledge-creating learning for university-level craft teacher education, were undertaken. The design studios aimed at guiding first-year students to appropriate professional processes and practices of design. The Pedagogical Infrastructure Framework was applied to analyse the social, epistemic, cognitive and material-technical aspects of three design-studio settings. Through meta-analysis of the three experiments we asked: What can we learn from these design studio experiments about the pedagogical infrastructure that supports creative design practices of working with design knowledge, tools and technologies in a real learning setting? As a result of the experiments we discuss the limitations and opportunities of these pedagogical settings, as well as considerations for future development of studio-based settings as pedagogic innovations emerging for integrating material-technical and socio-digital technologies, practices and spaces for learning.
Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future, 2007
Salama, A. M. and Wilkinson, N. (2007). Introduction: Legacies for the Future of Design Studio Pedagogy. In A. Salama and N. Wilkinson (eds.), Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Urban International Press, Gateshead, United Kingdom, PP. 153-166. ISBN # 1-872811-09-04. Emerging concerns about undergraduate pedagogy in universities present new opportunities for us as academics to strengthen our programs, to enhance our role in shaping education, and to improve the quality of that education. These concerns are not new; they have emerged in one form or another, from early reform efforts by John Dewey, Alfred Whitehead, and Jean Piaget, to the experimental colleges of the 1960s and the work of Benjamin Bloom and more recently David Kolb. However, in the last few years, the level of concern has intensified and the flood of reports and position papers has crested at an alarmingly high level. On the contrary, for many decades design studio pedagogy continued to be a taboo, un-debatable and untouchable. Only in the late 1970s few scholars started to discuss design education. Such discussions culminated in a comprehensive report titled Architectural Education Study by the Consortium of East Coast Schools of Architecture, published by MIT School of Architecture and Planning in 1981. Since then few efforts have emerged to explore the rituals of design pedagogy and the ills of studio teaching practices in a systematic, visionary, and research based manner. While efforts on discussing design pedagogy and on developing constructive criticisms on its underlying teaching practices are really few, those that have emerged over the past fifteen years generated some lively discussions in the literature. Currently, emphasis is placed on issues central to our own mission, as design educators, which simply involves the development of skills and critical thinking abilities for future shapers of the built environment that, in turn, respond to demands placed on design professions by society.
2007
Salama, A. M. and Wilkinson, W. (eds.) (2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Urban International Press, Gateshead, United Kingdom. ISBN # 1-872811-09-04. This groundbreaking book is a new comprehensive round of debate developed in response to the lack of research on design pedagogy. It provides thoughts, ideas, and experiments of design educators of different generations, different academic backgrounds, who are teaching and conducting research in different cultural contexts. It probes future universal visions within which the needs of future shapers of the built environment can be conceptualized and the design pedagogy that satisfies those needs can be debated. Addressing academics, practitioners, graduate students, and those who make decisions about the educational system over twenty contributors remarkably introduce analytical reflections on their positions and experience. Two invited contributions of N. John Habraken and Henry Sanoff offer visionary thoughts on their outstanding experience in design pedagogy and research.Structured in five chapters, this book introduces theoretical perspectives on design pedagogy and outlines a number of thematic issues that pertain to critical thinking and decision making; cognitive and teaching/learning styles; community, place, and service learning; and the application of digital technologies in studio teaching practices, all articulated in a conscious endeavor toward the betterment of the built environment. ____________________ Review by Michael J. Crosbie http://archnet.org/publications/4957 _____ Review by Halina Dunin-Woyseth http://archnet.org/publications/5094 _____ Review by Research-Design Connections http://researchdesignconnections.com/pub/design-studio-pedagogy-horizons-future _____ Review by Julia W. Robinson http://archnet.org/publications/5095 _____ Review by Nikos Salingaros http://architectureurbanism.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/salingaros-review-of-design-studio.html
Design studio as method: un-grounding and re-grounding design pedagogy
Monsoon as method: Assembling monsoonal multiplicities, 2021
This an essay in the edited collection, Monsoon as method: Assembling monsoonal multiplicities (Barcelona, Actar, 2021) by the ERC funded Monsoon Assemblages project. It discusses the pedagogic methods used in the architecture design studio that was aligned with the project for three years at the University of Westminster in London.
2020
Learning how to learn is an essential part of architectural education, but relies on the confluence of a number of elements: effective teaching, knowledge construction, and active engagement with new knowledge in the design studio. It is here that collaboration between learners and educators is fostered, through socialization processes embedded in this discursive environment. Challenges in ensuring constructive engagement are twofold: for students, coming into architectural education means having to adopt new learning approaches, and adapt to teaching methods and styles they were previously unaware of; while also having to engage with instructors, whose approach to teaching are at times ritualized, making use of methods and techniques largely derived from prior experiences as students. This can create an environment that runs counter to the discursive learning environment that we believe the studio to be, and hindering effective learning. How then can architectural education help st...
Architectural Education and Design Studio Tradition: Critical Pedagogy as Praxis
Journal of research in architecture and planning, 2008
Educating an architect is as complex as any other professional. The student, apart from design itself, learns many other relevant things and composes all that knowledge in the design studio, which is the most tested pedagogical practice in architectural education. The design studio is dominated by the design tutor, and this power structure has resulted in a particular dynamics that makes the student to treat the designer-trained tutor as a mentor. This guildculture training, in which the student is not free from the biases of the mentor, silences the creativity of the student. The observation of a lack of self-styled approaches to design among the students is a result of this silenced studio tradition, which is defined as the research problem. By testing the strength of critical educational theory as a way of resurrecting the mystique of designing, we aim at contributing towards the development of comprehensive pedagogical tools for architectural education. We, taking samples of students from different years, have used observation, participatory observation and unstructured interviews as methods to collect data. The students are encouraged to perpetuate the intellectual and cultural biases of their colleagues and tutors in the learning critiques, peer critiques, design workshops, lectures, and peer discussions. Facilitating the making of a reflective practitioner, who sets own norms and objectives, is our objective, and this has proven to be a neutral process of learning in order to reform design education.