Content uploaded by Elivio Bonollo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elivio Bonollo on Feb 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education
2003 UICEE
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003
STUDIO-BASED TEACHING,
HISTORY AND ADVANTAGES IN THE TEACHING OF DESIGN
L.N. Green
The University of New South Wales
E. Bonollo
The University of Canberra
ABSTRACT: The teaching of industrial design and product design is usually conducted in an Industrial
Design studio, a place that has developed traditions of learning-by-doing within the traditions of project-based
and problem-based education. However the design studio has been and still is an anachronism within the
university context, perceived by some as craft-like and imprecise, lacking rigour, when compared to the
intellectual arts and objective credibility when compared to the methods used by the natural sciences. This
paper will describe the historical background of the architectural studio and how the studio evolved to better
facilitate industrial design thinking and learning. It will discuss the educational advantages of the studio
together with certain shortcomings and suggest ways that it could be enhanced to enable it to be more effective
for the teaching of both product designers and design engineers.
INTRODUCTION
The design studio is the heart of most industrial design
curricula and is a place where students learn to visualise and
represent aspects of a problem graphically and to “think as a
designer”. In the studio, emphasis is place on creativity,
drawing, problem solving and communication. Industrial and
product designers are coached to think widely and deeply,
formulating the problem using the right side of the brain, in
contrast to the left-brain approaches of other disciples such as
engineering and science where thought processes associated
with learning draw upon established principles and
methodologies. Discussion, conjecture, imagining, stretching
the boundaries of issues, are tenants of design thinking and the
nature of the way projects are executed in the studio. Maitland
(1991) writing of studio teaching comments that: the studio,
however, is not just a space marked "studio". It is a way of
thinking and learning.
The industrial design studio has evolved from the studio-based
teaching of architecture and the more rigorous aspects
associated with manufacturing and engineering have been
introduced to meet the evolving requirements of industry.
Thus the modern-day studio includes not only a principal
focus on the aesthetic but also upon usability, sustainability
and design for manufacture. And because this model of
teaching has evolved over time it is useful to briefly review
historical developments and the context of the role of the
studio in industrial design teaching.
THE DESIGN STUDIO, HISTORY
The nature of the modern-day design studio is consistent with
the model of teaching exemplified by Plato who encouraged the
free, unfettered exchange of knowledge. He brought disparate
thinking into a forum of discussion much like that experienced
in a modern-day studio. His model of teaching became known
as Platonism and his community of scholars referred to as
Academy (Pevsner, 1940). In Italy, during the latter part of the
fifteenth century, a large number of schools flourished based on
humanistic discourse; a free, sociable and informal means of
discussion so vastly different in nature to the scholastic
pedantry of the universities of that time. These schools later
came to be known as “Accademia Platonism”.
The Academie Royale d’Architecture was established in 1671
to standardise French architectural education. By the early part
of the eighteenth century the Acadamie had become entrenched
and unfashionable and as a result Blondels’s Ecole des Arts
was established in 1743. This school together with many others
across France was a deliberate strategy to ensure a steady
stream of skilled pattern designers who were responsible for the
establishment of French design (Heskett, 1997). The Ecole,
offering full-time studies, was open six days a week, the
mornings given over to discussions with the professors, while
in the afternoon there were lectures on fortification,
mathematics, geometry, mechanics, perspective, water supply
and drainage.
The architectural studio emerged as a special form of education
within the Ecole des Beaux Arts and concurrent with the
program offered by the Ecole was part-time study of individual
subjects, supplemented by employment, in the manner of the
old atelier system of indentures and articles (Bingham, 1993).
Many practitioners believed that this system of architectural
training produced superior architects. The “masters” of the
modern architectural movement, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le
Corbusier, were both trained in this way (Proudfoot, 1989).
Around the same period the education of engineers in England
was undergoing significant change. In the period immediately
following the industrial revolution many famous engineers
gained their first knowledge as millwrights or as colliery
enginemen. For those that followed, the recognised routes into
the profession became more regular, principally through an
apprenticeship of three years in the office or workshop of an
established engineer. However there was a strong movement
towards a greater level of academic training in the discipline
of engineering and as a result King’s College London
established its Department of Civil Engineering in 1838 and
soon after widened its courses to include architecture. Glasgow
University established a chair of engineering in 1840 and in
1841 a similar appointment was established at the University
College, London.
At this point of time considerable tension existed between the
philosophical approaches to the education of engineers,
namely theory based verses apprenticeship. Concern developed
about Britain’s slipping economic performance around the
time of the Paris Exhibition in 1867 and as a response greater
effort was applied to development of engineering teaching
1
Global Congress on Engineering Education
1998 UICEE
Cracow, Poland, 6 - 11 September, 1998
within academic institutions. By 1914 British university
institutions had reached a position where they provided an
ample source of scientifically trained engineers for industry
(Thorne, 1993). This emphasis on scientific rigour and its
application in professional practice assisted England
particularly to develop advanced products however the trend
towards scientific emphasis set a future pattern for engineering
education.
The Royal Academy of Arts in England, established courses in
architecture in 1736 and instruction continued until 1836.
The classes were conducted on a part-time basis with students
employed in an architect’s office and who attended classes in
the evening. However a major criticism of the architecture
courses was that the Schools did not encourage dialogue and
the courses were essentially lecture based. There was neither
written work nor organised group discussion, which was
different to the studio-based discussion that occurred at the
Ecole in Paris.
The character of most institutions now existing in
architectural education was formed during the period 1900 to
1914 and thereafter the alternative mode of education departed
from the previous tradition of pupillage and endorsed
universities as the sole provider of architectural training.
Even though there was a strong culture associated with
materials and construction architectural schools found that the
attractiveness of the programmes to potential students
depended on making design and drawing the core of the
curriculum. This established historically the culture of
communication by pictures rather than words and reinforced
the nature of the studio.
The rapid rise of mass production in the early part of the 20 th
century further established the separation of designing from
making and the role of the designer became important to
specify the nature of products so that they could be
manufactured effectively. Certain key designers created an
awareness of industrial design and the profession was more
readily accepted by many organisations. The major schools of
design that arose out of this period were the Bauhaus in
Germany and those in the United States.
The Bauhaus was a teaching institution founded at Weimer in
Germany in 1919. It amalgamated the art and craft schools
under the direction of Walter Gropius. The early years of the
Bauhaus were focused on uniting art and craft. In the
laboratories of the Bauhaus the objective was to train a new
kind of collaborator for industry and the crafts who had an
equal command of both technology and form (Heskett, 1999).
Gropius (1983) maintained that: the school should be
absorbed into the studio and that the manner of teaching
should arise from its character, that is, the studio should not
be an adjunct of the other teaching programs. On the
contrary, all the teaching programs should exist only to
support the studio and the design problems it is working on,
reflecting the reality of professional practice, which is
entirely driven by the needs of the project. He meant that the
studio should be a place where studio projects were executed
and these should reflect professional practice. The adjunct
courses such as mechanics, manufacturing and materials
science should not be isolated from the project activity in the
studio but complimentary to it.
In the United States industrial-design education formally started
at Carnegie Technical College (later to become Carnegie-Mellon
University) in 1935-36 under the direction of Don Dohner. This
was followed by the Pratt Institute of Art in New York and these
developments together with those occurring in industry served to
establish the industrial design profession. Design education, in
these years, grew from the demand for mass-produced products
and the vision of design educators to delineate industrial design
apart from architecture and engineering (Kaufman, 1999).
The trend towards more logical and systematic methods of
design became evident during the 1950s. During the same
period, the techniques of creative engineering and
brainstorming were introduced and these provided some bases
for idea generation. The design methods introduced in the
1960s and 70s were significant in that they drew attention to the
need for design to be more transparent and more substantially
based on a structure of analysis. However these failed to
achieve wide acceptance as part of the normal process of
designing and were not incorporated into the studio teaching on
a significant scale. The generation of design educators that
experienced the ill-fated introduction of design methods did not
consider their relevance to the process of design and as a
consequence did not integrate these into studio teaching.
Over the period 1980-1986 Donald Schon at MIT studied the
manner of education of a range of professions and was intrigued
by the apparent deviant nature of the architectural studio. He
argued that the schools of other professions should learn from it.
The movement towards revived studio functions led by Schon,
suggests that subjects can be taught in an academically rigorous
way without their application in the studio having to take a
similar approach. Schon rejected the established procedure in
professional education of building application upon basic science
and theory; he dismissed the notion that professional practice
was based on the rigorous application of theoretical knowledge
(Proudfoot, 1999).
The industrial design studio of the 80s did not differ
significantly from the models exemplified by the Bauhaus and
the American schools. They were essentially an amalgamation
of art and craft. However during this period concern about the
environment created a need to include considerations of
sustainability in studio projects. Similarly the trend towards
globalisation and world-competitive products demanded a
greater emphasis on usability and cultural issues. The
worldwide emphasis on Total Quality during the 80s identified
that Design was central to product quality and issues of
consideration developed including design for manufacture
(DFM), assembly (DFA) and disassembly (DFDA). Therefore
the studio of the 90s had to embrace much more than the
blending of art and craft. In many schools the studio became a
place where issues of art, design, culture, manufacture,
sustainability and usability were integrated into a design
process. In very recent times considerations of mass
customization, lean and agile manufacturing, compete for
consideration within the design studio.
THE DESIGN STUDIO, ITS NATURE
The studio is usually a large room sometimes equipped with
computer workstations but mostly consisting of drawing tables
and chairs to enable students to work independently on projects.
The design of the room contrasts the traditional teaching
classroom and whilst lectures occur within the studio their
nature is more in the form of presentations and discussions.
These presentations usually seek to explain the nature of a
project, the associated milestones and submission requirements.
The studio-teaching process is supervised by a studio director
and a number of tutors assist in guiding the students as the
project progresses. Many studios incorporate facilities that
2
2
2
World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education
2003 UICEE
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003
enable the student to experiment with the form or function of a
product and shaping tools and foam materials may be provided.
This encourages learning by “doing” and frees the student to
experiment and consolidate intangible aspects such as shape
and feel. The industrial design workshop incorporates both
woodworking and metalworking machine tools and is actually
an extension of the studio. The workshop allows students to
construct models of products made from plastic, wood or foam
and its importance to teaching and learning as a means of
realising students projects cannot be overstated. The
importance of the model is the answer or answers that are
provided as a result of the modelling process. Models, of
themselves, signify the object; modelling signifies the process.
And in the end it is the process that provides the answers
(Giard, 1999).
The studio brings together disparate thinking into a forum of
discussion and idea exchange. Students experience the transient
nature of the studio, that is, the struggle for understanding of
the requirement: the inclusion of features in a product; the
expression of cultural and regional identity; and the
appropriateness of a design solution. The nature of the work in
the studio may progress from early, vague understandings of
the product requirement and finally arrive at a superior
outcome.
The design activity called critique has been derived from
architecture and fine arts. The definition of critique is fault-
finding centred on fine arts and literature. The use of the
critique is central to the design process within the studio
however the activity is more correctly termed review,
assessment or evaluation. The theory of learning applicable in
the studio is sometimes wrongly assumed as problem-based
learning. The studio employs project-based learning and the
essence of the studio is tied up in the difference between
problem-based based and project-based learning. In problem-
based learning the student is given a problem and then proceeds
to solve it using established principles or carrying out research
in order arrive at a satisfactory solution. However in project-
based learning the students may have to “find or establish the
problem”. The studio approach to teaching and learning differs
from the dominant models of professional knowledge that apply
in science and engineering. However these models are based
on the premise that a collection of principles, rules and
methods can be applied to the solving of rational problems.
However real-world problems are not necessarily rational. In
many instances these problems may be referred to as ill-
defined.
The industrial design studio project may include responsibility
for the design of the user interface and product function and
emotive aspects such as ‘product appeal’ (visual, tactile ‘style’)
together with perceived quality and value. In addition, the
designer is working with materials and structures that must have
appropriate engineering properties and be manufactured,
assembled, distributed, maintained, used, and responsibly
disposed of. Industrial design problems thus involve dealing
with a very large number of constraints to meet goals that may
not be clearly defined. Such design problems are usually ill-
defined (as opposed to well-defined problems that can be solved
using well understood procedures and have clearly identifiable,
correct solutions).
Rowe (1987) provides a summary of the features of ill-defined
problems and particularly those problems that are so ill-defined
that they are known as ‘wicked’ problems. Rowe notes: ‘First,
they are problems without a definitive formulation, or indeed
the very possibility of becoming fully defined. Additional
questions can always be asked, leading to continual
reformulation. Second, they are problems with no explicit basis
for the termination of the problem-solving activity – no stopping
rule. Any time a solution is proposed, it can, at least to some
significant extent, be developed still further. Third, differing
formulations of the problems of this class imply different
solutions, and vice versa. Finally, solutions that are proposed
are not necessarily correct or incorrect.’ Cross (1989) agrees
and adds: ‘that proposing of solutions is a means to
understanding ill-defined problems.’
Compounding the complexity of the studio in setting ill-defined
projects are rapid changes in technology all requiring some
change in the nature and methods of teaching employed in the
studio. Computer-aided drawing has been integrated into studio
projects and in some schools the studio is equipped with
workstations to enable a significant amount of the design work
to be done on the computer. This has led to computer modelling
of concepts and components enabling the integration of rapid
prototyping as part of the studio project. Similarly the project
may have to include considerations of culture, sustainability
(materials and disassembly), and manufacture including
assembly.
THE DESIGN STUDIO: ISSUES, ADVANTAGES AND PROBLEMS
The design studio exists within the university system but does
not sit entirely comfortably. It is a throwback to an earlier mode
of education that has long been abandoned by other disciplines.
Some view the function of the studio as craft-like, lacking in
precision and without rigour. Those that take this view support
the more methodical approach of the intellectual arts and the
methodical approaches of the natural sciences. The schools of
the modern university are premised on technical rationality and
their perception of professionalism is grounded in systematic,
preferably scientific knowledge (Schon, 2000). Thus a certain
tension exists between proponents of the studio process where
intuition and reflection, processes critical to imaginative
problem solving, are in some conflict with scientific training
which provides only a range of technical and behavioural
knowledge derived from a rapidly expanding data base.
Despite the advantages of studio teaching the outcomes can be
disappointing where many students depend on lecturing staff for
the generation of ideas and the resolution of those ideas. This is
a common problem in many design programs where the process
of idea generation, screening and resolution of concepts is
difficult for the majority of students. Frost (1992), writing of his
experience with engineering design students describes the
confusion of students when faced with many possible
alternatives of approach but these are not identifiable as clearly
right or wrong. He states that: “the path from the problem to
the solution is not clear, but paradoxically, solutions are legion
and heavily, if mysteriously contextual. None, however is
clearly right or wrong”.
It is the decision-making process that is difficult, because
decisions depend on as-yet-absent experience. It is obviously
very difficult to conceptualise and make decisions on issues such
as the market, function, usability, manufacturing methods and
cost, when these issues have not been experienced by
undergraduate students.
Many students are not able to pull-together the disparate
lectures on mechanics, materials science, manufacturing and
marketing and relate these to the design process. There is little
time for reflection in most undergraduate programs and it has to
be said that this is also a major issue in industrial design. The
3
Global Congress on Engineering Education
1998 UICEE
Cracow, Poland, 6 - 11 September, 1998
process of reflection-upon-learning is strongly advocated by
Schon, and consistent with the theories of learning advanced by
Skinner and Bruner (in Romiszowski, 1981).
The studio, despite the rapid developments in technology and the
breadth of considerations within typical projects, remains a place
where art and craft are blended in a process of intuition and
reflection. It is a place that, to a large degree, has not embraced
scientific and systematic thinking. The nature of the studio
inherently considers such approaches constraining and limiting.
Certain design methods, such as design-by-drawing, computer-
aided design, brainstorming, are employed in the studio but the
broader use of systematic techniques has largely been rejected.
Although the application of design methods in not new, their
application in industrial/product design programs has seldom
been encouraged in the didactic sense. Consequently, apart from
what is often a disorganised approach, many students tend to
concentrate on shallow visual outcomes without the necessary
cognitive analysis and synthesis required to achieve sustainable
and contemporary designs with justifiable features.
Therefore it is argued that the studio could be enhanced by the
adoption of systematic procedures that may assist in the
management of research findings and information and guide the
student in a more structured progression through the design
process. Earlier published papers by the authors (Green 1, 2 and
Bonollo) describe in more detail the type of methods that can be
incorporated into the studio-design process.
CONCLUSIONS:
This paper has explained briefly the origins of studio teaching
and linked the evolution of the teaching with that of
engineering. What has been revealed is that the basis of studio
teaching dates back a long time and is principally based on the
model developed at the Ecole des Arts in Paris. In the early part
of the twentieth Century developments arising from mass
production ushered in many changes that distinguished the
industrial design profession. Similarly these changes led to
educational curriculums more focused upon industrial and
product design, that is, more focussed upon ‘products for
people’. Changes in curriculum’s and approach continued,
driven by the quality management and environmental
movements and in response industrial design programs have
endeavoured to respond to the evolving needs of industrial
innovation.
The nature of the studio has been described and particular
emphasis placed upon ill-defined projects because these
distinguish the nature of the studio in comparison with projects
set in other disciplines where established principles are
employed.
Studio design projects that allow for intuition and reflection
encourage a deeper learning however the rapid developments in
technology and issues of consideration requiring inclusion in the
project mean that project activity is difficult for the student. The
paper argues that the rigour introduced by certain design
methods, as part of the design process, may lead to a better and
educationally sound project execution together with a more
professional communication of results.
REFERENCES
1. Bingham, N., ed. (1993) The Education of the Architect:
Proceedings of the 22nd annual symposium of the Society of
Architectural Historians of Great Britian.
2. Cross, N. (1989) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley
and Sons
3. Frost, R.B. (1992) The Future of Machine Element Design
Courses, Sydney: Conference on Teaching Engineering
Designers
4. Giard, J., Industrial Design Education: Incompatibility with
education in art and architecture. IDSA Design Education
Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 1999
5. Green1, L., and Bonollo, E., (2002) The Development of a
Suite of Design Methods Appropriate for Teaching Product
Design. The Global Journal of Engineering Education.
6. Green2, L., and Bonollo, E., The Application of
Methodologies to product Design Teaching Within the
Industrial Design Studio. 3rd Asia-Pacific Forum on
Engineering and Technology Education
2001 UICEE National
Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan, 8-
11th July 2001.
7. Gropius, W. (1983) The Bauhaus, in Architectural
Education 1, RIBA Magazines, London
8. Heskett, J. (1997) Industrial Design. Thames and Hudson,
London.
9. Kaufman, J. TNT ~ Industrial design curriculums. IDSA
Design Education Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 1999
10. Maitland, B. M. (1991) Problem-based Learning for an
Architecture Degree, in Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (Eds), The
Challenge of problem-based Learning, Kogan Page, London
11. Pevsner, N. (1940) Academies of Art – past and present,
Cambridge, at the university press.
12. Proudfoot, P. (1989) Phenomenology, A model for
architectural education? Architectural Science Review, Vol.
32, pp95-100
13. Romiszowski, A. (1981) Designing Instructional
Systems London Kogan Page.
14. Rowe, P. G. (1987) Design Thinking, MIT Press
15. Schon, D. A., (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner
Jossey-Bass Publishers San Franscisco
16. Thorne, P., in Bingham, N., ed. (1993) The Education of
the Architect: Proceedings of the 22nd annual symposium of
the society of architectural historians of Great Britian.
4
4
4
