Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Role of Personal and Pedagogical Factors in a Graduate Design Studio Environment


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Role of Personal and Pedagogical Factors in a Graduate Design Studio Environment

  1. 1. The Role of Personal and PedagogicalFactors in a Graduate Design StudioEnvironmentColin M. GrayIST ConferenceMarch 2, 2012
  2. 2. relevant literature• A core studio design pedagogy has been implemented in a variety of fields (Shulman, 2005; Brandt, et al., 2008)• Pedagogy moves the student toward mastery, linked to a change in their design thinking (Siegel & Stolterman, 2008; Cross, 2011)• The studio as ”a coherent system of activity” (Shaffer, 2007)
  3. 3. what is “design thinking”• Constructive in nature• Addresses ill-defined (or “wicked”) problems• Solution-focused• Problem solving orientation —(Cross, 1982)
  4. 4. emergent themesEnvironmental Factors Social Factors • Private & Public Space (Blevis, et al., • Willingness to give critique (Logan, 2004; Reimer & Douglas, 2003) 2008; Wang, 2010) • Contrast to traditional classroom • Willingness to receive critique space (Demirba & Demirkan, 2003) (Danvers, 2003; Siegel & Stolterman, 2008) • Unfamiliar tools and norms (Buxton, 2007; Cross, 2007; Mawson, 2003) • Complexity of technological tools (Kvan, 2001; Marx, 2000; Oxman, 2008)
  5. 5. emergent themesFormative Factors Evaluative Factors • Personal design knowledge (Cross, • Public critique and feedback (Blevis, 2011; Ledewitz, 1985) 2010; Walliss & Greig, 2009) • Personal process (Boling & Smith, • Self-reflection (Dorst, 2006; Schön, 1983) 2010; Blevis & Siegel, 2005; Notess & Blevis, 2004) • Peer and mentor support (Ochsner, 2000; Wang, 2010) • Problem solving behaviors (Breslin & Buchanan, 2008; Cross, 2007)
  6. 6. participants& context• Human-Computer Interaction design (HCI/d) program in the School of Informatics• First-year masters students• HCI/d faculty
  7. 7. data collectionStudents (6) • Longitudinal collection • Series of three one-hour semi-structured interviews • Online reflection blogFaculty (3) • A one-hour semi-structured interview
  8. 8. methodsGrounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1999) - Emergent themes through constant comparative analysis - Themes from literature reviewCritical theory analysis (Carspecken, 1996) - Interview strategies to obtain knowledge for which the interviewee has tacit awareness - Analysis of issues relating to power and identity
  9. 9. preliminary analysis• Emergent themes from literature were evident• New themes have emerged: - Interpersonal relationships in the studio environment - Cultural and experiential difference in team composition - Group work v. individual work - Importance of peer critique
  10. 10. interpersonal relationships“They keep encouraging me, instead of um blaming on me that what you’vedone wrong and they encourage me that you should do—you can do more,you can achieve more.”“... if I talk to my peers and I found some...some uh good point that I canlearn, then it’’s inspired me most, then those people I read in thebook or elsewhere.”
  11. 11. cultural/experiential difference“I don’t know why but when I worked in China, I didn’t feel there were manyconflicts or quarrels between team members. I think we cooperated likehappy discussion. But when I came here...maybe because everyone is soinvolved in it and they want to make an excellent brilliant design, and they allbelieve their ideas is quite often to get conflict...”“I’m just changing. I feel like I’m another person now. Before I come here[from China]. Um, it’s changed my personality...”“I’m seeing that [diversity is] a good thing, especially for team stuff, beingable to kind of specialize and uh, just get very diverse perspectives on stuff isreally interesting, because I mean, I see things very differently than a lot ofpeople in my teams do.”
  12. 12. group v. individual• “... it’s sort of dawning on me that like there is myself as an individual designer and then like how I play in a group. [...] I hope I’ll get to focus on myself a little bit, but um it’s starting to occur to me that like, I want to focus on that and I need to focus on that.”• “We came up with a few concepts as a group, maybe 10-15 total, like we were told for project four as a deliverable. And uh, the one the won, or the one that we all liked was the [...] one, the one I came up with.”
  13. 13. peer critique• “Just sort of totally different sides when it comes to mentor critique. So, we take it with a grain of salt. Almost all of it. At least I do. [...] So, when you think about things in that way, and you start to understand like how people think, then you can exploit their opinion to help you work best. I think that’s a big message.”• “I think it comes up a lot in terms of like critiquing other group members or our own process, or just kind of saying pros and cons of what we’ve done are and kind of—I feel like I’m usually good at giving critique...”
  14. 14. remaining analysis• Third round of interview transcripts• Verification of interview coding using student blog reflections• Analysis of faculty interviews through the lens of student interview emergent codes
  15. 15. referencesBlevis, E. (2010). Design challenge based learning (DCBL) and sustainable Buxton, Bill (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Rightpedagogical practice. Interactions, 17(3), 64-69. doi: and the Right Design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.10.1145/1744161.1744176 Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: ABlevis, E., & Siegel, M. (2005). The explanation for design explanations. In theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.11th international conference on human-computer interaction: Interactiondesign education and research: Current and future trends. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.Blevis, E., Rogers, Y., Siegel, M., Hazlewood, W., & Stephano, A. (2004).Integrating HCI and design: HCI/d at IUB, a design education case story. In Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Switzerland:Zimmerman, J., Evenson, S., Baumann, K., & Purgathofer, P. Workshop on Birkhäuser.the relationship between design and HCI. ACM CHI 2004 conference onhuman factors and computing systems. Vienna, Austria. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2010). Intensive studio experience in a non-studio masters program: Student activities and thinking across levels ofdesign. Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes onConference, Montréal, Canada. Retrieved from http:// learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Education, 22(1), 47-57.Brandt, C., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., & Vernon, Demirba, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural designM. (2008, March). (De) coding the studio method to teach the design of process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24(5), 437-456.human-computer interaction. Paper presented at the 24th NationalConference on the Beginning Design Student, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4-17.PB.pdf?sequence=2. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation inBreslin, M., & Buchanan, R. (2008). On the case study method of research Construction, 10(3), 345-353.and teaching in design. Design Issues, 24(1), 36-40.
  16. 16. referencesLedewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In Foundations for the future inArchitectural Education, 38(2), 2-8. mathematics education. (pp. 99-125). Lawrence Erlbaum.Logan, C. (2008). Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91(2),International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 1-17. doi: 18-26.10.1007/s10798-006-9009-x Siegel, M. A., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Metamorphosis: Transforming non-Marx, J. (2000). A proposal for alternative methods for teaching digital designers into designers. In Undisciplined! Proceedings of the designdesign. Automation in Construction, 9(1), 19-35. Mawson, B. (2003). research society conference 2008. (pp. 378:1-13). Sheffield, UK: SheffieldBeyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology Hallam International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2),117-128. Walliss, J., & Greig, J. (2009). Graduate design education: The case for an accretive model. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(3),Notess, M., & Blevis, E. (2004). Integrating human-centered design 287-295. doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01624.xmethods from different disciplines: Contextual design and principles. InProceedings of the design research society futureground 2004 conference. Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. InternationalMelbourne, Australia: Design Research Society. Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 173-183. doi:10.1111/j. 1476-8070.2010.01647.xOchsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective oninteraction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4),194-206.Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy:Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99-120.Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studioapproach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191-205.Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a newdesign for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  17. 17. questions
  18. 18. interview protocol• How would you define the term “design”? How has your perception of design changed since our last interview?• What external or internal factors affect the design process for you?• Tell me about a design project you have worked on so far this semester. What frustrations and/or successes can you recall?• What role has teamwork played in your design education this semester, if any? How did the team affect the design process?• Have you had the opportunity to participate in critique, or have you had your design work critiqued? Tell me about that process.• What factors have influenced you the most in your design process or as a designer so far this semester?
  19. 19. interview protocol (faculty)• How would you define the term “design” in a general sense? In your specific discipline?• What elements of your Master’s program contribute the most to educating effective design practitioners? Why?• What specific things do you do in educating design students in your discipline, compared to the broader view of design education, if any?• Is there an intended course sequence for first-year students? And if so, what role it that sequence intended to play in acculturating and/or developing first-year Master’s students?• From your perspective, what internal and external factors influence your students as they develop as a design practitioner in the context of your Master’s program?• Tell me about a project that you have used for first-year Master’s students in the past, and the planned role it plays in developing student design thinking. [Prompt from known student- referenced projects, if possible.]