No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The instructional design studio as an example of model-centered instruction
Abstract
This study describes how instructional design (ID) educators can better understand and implement design studio pedagogy, by comparing the approach to the principles of model-centered instruction (MCI). I studied this issue through a focused literature review of recent cases of ID studio implementations, comparing features and activities in each case to the conceptual principles of MCI. In aggregate, this analysis provides seventeen individual options for how educators can structure the ID studio. Additionally, comparing studio practice to MCI may also help ID educators experiment with their own studio improvements in a more systematic manner.
... Dynamic simply refers to the constantly changing nature of the content that then necessitates adaptation (Gibbons, 2008). The purpose of MCI is to take these complex and dynamic situations and simplify them into consumable interactions that allow the learner to investigate, experiment, and practice skills (McDonald, 2018). Gibbons defined the process of MCI through seven principles (Gibbons, 2001). ...
... In this case study, experience with models refers to the modeling of a real-world design studio with clients, products, and feedback from instructors and graduate students (McDonald, 2018). Problem solving refers to being presented with a problem or observing a problem that requires solving. ...
... Denaturing is the modification of a model or scenario to facilitate learning. Sequence refers to the ordering of problems by task, size, or another hierarchy to facilitate learning (McDonald, 2018). Goal orientation is achieved by selecting problems that support specific learning goals or outcomes. ...
This case study describes a combined graduate and undergraduate instructional design studio that introduced undergraduate students to instructional design in a multifaceted, holistic, and applied way. Reviewing the experience of the undergraduates in the course, this design case describes four learning interventions used to create this applied experience: (1) instructional design team projects-one non-profit and the other in higher education, (2) weekly seminars and biweekly training sessions from field experts, (3) an experiential out-of-state trip, and (4) weekly reflection journals. These studio-based learning interventions are presented within the context of the Experiential Learning Theory and Model-Centered Instruction. Overall, the course introduced the undergraduate students to the field of instructional design in an applied and experiential format.
Studio pedagogy has been used broadly in traditional design disciplines for over a century, functioning as a signature pedagogy. This pedagogical approach is increasingly being adopted in non-traditional design disciplines, often without an understanding of why this pedagogy is effective from an instructional design perspective, or how its theoretical structures may function in disciplines outside of the design tradition. In this dissertation, I investigated a Master’s program at a large Midwestern university in human-computer interaction (HCI), one of these emergent design disciplines, capturing the occurrence and underlying structures of communication as they emerged in informal dimensions of the pedagogy as experienced and enacted by students.
To produce a critical ethnography of this site, I collected data as a participant observer for two academic semesters, compiling over 450 contact hours, thousands of photographs, hundreds of hours of audio, and 30 critical interviews that were semi-structured, focused on specific topic domains. Almost two-thirds of the contact hours were located in a non-classroom studio space, where I interacted with students as they worked and socialized. The remaining contact hours were spent in classroom observations during the second semester of data collection, in order to compare and enrich my understanding of the student experience of the formal pedagogy.
Through an analysis of the structures of informal communication between students, I identified system relations that allowed for the constitution of student-led interactions in the studio space and encouraged reproduction of these interactions. Beneath these system relations, I discovered that students worked within two different fields of action: one oriented towards the academic community and related typifications of classroom and professor behavior; and a second oriented towards the professional community. The structure-system relations led by students took place within the proto-professional field, indicating a relationship with the professional community, even while the pedagogy placed students in the student role.
Implications of this relationship between students and the professional and academic communities are explored through the lenses of studio education in HCI and instructional design, indicating a need for more research on adaptation of the studio model in new disciplines, and the evolving identity of students in relation to the professional practice of design.
In this article we describe a holistic, ecological framework that takes into account the surface structures and pedagogical approaches in the studio and how these elements are connected to the construction of design knowledge: epistemology. In our development of this framework, we came to understand how disciplinary underpinnings and academic culture shape the ways that studio is enacted. Using practice theory, we illustrate our framework with two examples—one in Industrial Design and another in Human Computer Interaction—that demonstrate the ways in which the studio can act as a bridge between academic and professional communities. We came to see the studio as a unique practice community that connects academic and professional contexts. We argue that successful implementation of studio-based learning involves an awareness of disciplinary canons, ontological approaches to knowledge, and the academic constraints on studio-based approaches to learning.
Architects are educated through a process that revolves around thèstudio course', and an attempt to apply the studio method of teaching to the education of software designers reveals much about education and practice in both professions. Characteristics of the architecture studio include: project-based work on complex and open-ended problems, very rapid iteration of design solutions, frequent formal and informal critique, consideration of a heterogeneous range of issues, the use of precedent and thinking about the whole, the creative use of constraints, and the central importance of design media. Experience from a studio course in software design provokes creative reflection on engineering design education, and on how it might be improved. THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO STUDIO EDUCATION, central to architectural training in the US for most of the twentieth century, is a provocative and fruitful model for engineering and software design education. The architecture studio, an American adaptation of the atelier-based training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in 19 th Century Paris [1], offers us a teaching model from a design discipline in which the functional and the structural, the social and the technical, must be successfully blended [2, 3]. A look at the central features of the architecture design studio indicate some interesting possibilities for design education in other technical fields.
New Trends in Architectural Education presents a wide range of innovative concepts and practical methods for teaching architectural design, together with examples of different studio teaching. It traces the roots of architectural education, several disparate ideas, and strategies of design teaching practices including the Ecole Des Beaux-Arts and the Bauhaus. This book offers a comparative analysis of contemporary trends that are committed to shaping and identifying studio objectives and processes. It explores different aspects of studio teaching and what impact they have on attitudes, skills, methods, and tools of designers. New Trends in Architectural Education calls for a fresh look at design education in architecture, where the author proposes an approach within which architectural educators can envision and evaluate the needs of future architects and the type of education that satisfies those needs.
The book includes five chapters: 1) Introduction: Problems in the Practice of Architecture; 2) The Architect and Society; 3) Design Education and Studio Work in the Conventional Approach; 4) Revolutionary Concepts for Teaching Architectural Design - Design Studio Teaching Models; and 5) Expanding the Knowledge Base in the Architectural Design Studio.
Review by Jon T. Lang, University of New South Wales, Australia
This is an invaluable guide to architectural educators because Dr. Salama has not only captured the body of knowledge about architectural designing and studio teaching and put it in a pithy form but he has also developed a typology of kinds of architectural studios, explaining what experiences each offers the student.
Over the past decade, a handful of researchers have studied the most important skills for becoming an effective instructional designer (Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, & Campbell, 2014; Lowenthal, Wilson, & Dunlap, 2010; Ritzhaupt, Martin, & Daniels, 2010; Sugar, Brown, Daniels, & Hoard, 2011; Sugar et al., 2012). While nearly all employers indicate the need for specific instructional design skills and knowledge (e.g., ADDIE, ID models), many of the most requested skills are neither technical nor theoretical, but instead include social skills such as creativity, teamwork, and communication. For example, collaboration was the second most requested skill of instructional design job postings in Sugar et al.’s (2012) findings, while communication skills was the third most requested ability. In a Delphi study of instructional designers in higher education, communication and social skills were the first and second most important skills, respectively (Sugar et al., 2011). In this chapter, we discuss how a studio-based approach to instruction may foster such skills.
The studio remains a cornerstone of design education in the United States and is common in a wide range of design disciplines, including graphic design, interior design, product design, studio art, and architecture, among others (Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2007; Klebesadel & Kornetsky, 2009). Studio experiences are seen in these disciplines as having critical value in providing students with authentic contexts for making complex judgments, exploring divergent paths, developing non-routine solutions to ill-structured problems, and encouraging tool mastery (Schön, 1985). The success of these approaches, coupled with the ways of thinking and acting nurtured in these settings, suggests that studio approaches might be beneficially adopted or adapted in a variety of fields that have not traditionally utilized a studio pedagogy, yet require a similar acquisition of a complex array of knowledge and skills.
While studio is ubiquitous, enjoying almost universal acceptance as a signature pedagogy in many creative fields, the acculturation encouraged through studio learning is often coupled by an inadvertent reproduction of studio norms—both positive and negative—often with little awareness on the part of students and instructors responsible (Brandt et al., 2013; Gray, 2014). In this chapter, we wish to provide a more nuanced view of studio pedagogy, exploring critical views that have emerged within traditional understandings of studio, and fostering the exploration of critical evaluations of studio as it expands into disciplines that do not have a history of studio learning.
Design studios are an innovative way to educate Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) students. This article begins by addressing literature about IDT design studios. One conclusion from this literature is that IDT studios have been theoretically conceptualized. However, much of this conceptualization is insular to the field of IDT and only narrowly considers studio pedagogy. This insularity and narrowness is odd, given both that design studios inherently are borrowed from other disciplines and pedagogy is a focus within IDT. Thus, this article identifies and analyzes the purposes of design studios as considered in other disciplines and through disparate lenses. These purposes can serve as the basis of prescriptive pedagogy.
In a 7-year study of a studio-based instructional graphics course, the authors describe its evolution from a lecture-heavy course including some studio features to a course that has much in common with traditional studio classes as we experienced them in our own architecture and fine arts education. This multi-year experience has raised questions for us regarding the way we work with students to develop their expertise in design, including the following: (1) What is “the novice”? Can we teach to the general model of a novice? (2) Is it necessary to ask students to generate many alternative concepts early in a project? (3) Can we separate tool learning from learning concepts and habits of thought? Using examples from reflective analysis of student work and field notes, we discuss experiences suggesting that assumptions brought to this course from studio experiences deserve reconsideration. At a time when discussions of design and design thinking are exploding around us with widely varying commitment to specificity and rigor, we conclude that we cannot borrow ideas like studio pedagogy from other disciplines without sufficient critical examination. We need to pay careful attention to what is actually happening in our courses rather than designing solely from theory or, worse, from our assumptions regarding studio education.
Studio-based instruction, as traditionally enacted in design disciplines such as architecture, product design, graphic design, and the like, consists of dedicated desk space for each student, extended time blocks allocated to studio classes, and classroom interactions characterized by independent and group work on design problems supplemented by frequent public and individual critiques. Although the surface features and pedagogy of the studio have been well-documented, relatively little attention has been paid to student and teacher participation structures through which design knowledge is co-produced among instructors and students within the studio. The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of faculty–student interactions through which students learn to think and act as designers. To that end, we have collected and analyzed ethnographic data from five studio classrooms across three design disciplines (architecture, industrial design, and human–computer interaction). Our findings provide insight as to the ways that dialogue—the “right kind of telling”—and particular social practices in the studio support students as they learn to solve ill-structured design problems while being simultaneously inducted into practices that reflect the professional world of their discipline. In each of the studio classrooms, the instructors were able to create an environment where students and faculty practiced reflection-in-action and listening-in as a form of intentional participation, design knowledge was conveyed through modeling and meta-discussions, and focused assignments and in-progress critiques enhanced opportunities for the individual and group processes through which design knowledge was co-constructed in these studio classrooms.
Students should read bits of this. Perhaps I could give them a relevant chapter each and they could report on it.
The Studio curriculum in the Learning, Design, and Technology (formerly Instructional Technology) program at a large research-extensive
university in the southeastern U.S. represents a deliberate application of contemporary theory of how adults learn complex
information in ill-structured domains. The Studio curriculum, part of a graduate program leading to a master’s degree, has
been implemented since 1998 to prepare professionals to design, develop, evaluate, and manage educational multimedia. Theoretical
considerations played a major role in shaping the design of the Studio curriculum. Prominent among these were constructionism,
situated cognition/situated learning, and self-directed learning. Important related theoretical constructs included scaffolding
and flow theory. This paper describes the Studio learning environment, presents these theoretical concepts, and discusses
the application of theory to practice in the training of adults in instructional design and development (IDD).
KeywordsConstructionism-Constructivism-Situated cognition-Situated learning-Self-directed learning-Scaffolding-Instructional design-Peer mentoring
Emotions of architecture students: A new perspective for the design studio
- N Austerlitz
- I Aravot
Austerlitz, N., & Aravot, I. (2007). Emotions of architecture students: A new perspective for the design
studio. In A. M. Salama & N. Wilkinson (Eds.),
Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future
(pp. 233-245). Gateshead, UK: Urban International
Press.
How I learned, unlearned, and learned studio again
- E Boling
Boling, E. (2016). How I learned, unlearned, and
learned studio again. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier,
C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.),
Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 88-100). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Orchestrating learning
- K Cennamo
Cennamo, K. (2016a). Orchestrating learning. In E.
Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, &
K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 152-163). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Model-centered instruction
- A S Gibbons
Gibbons, A. S. (2001). Model-centered instruction.
Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14, 511-540.
Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools
- C M Hoadley
- C Cox
Hoadley, C. M., & Cox, C. (2008). What is design
knowledge and how do we teach it? In C. DiGiano,
S. V. Goldman, & M. Choroset (Eds.), Educating
learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19-35). New York: Routledge.
The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology
- S Hooper
- M M Rook
- K Choi
Hooper, S., Rook, M. M., & Choi, K. (2015). Reconsidering the design of a learning design studio. In B.
Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The
design of learning experience: Creating the future
of educational technology (pp. 63-76). New York:
Springer.
Teaching studio exercises to help students manage distributed design
- S Kendall
Kendall, S. (2007). Teaching studio exercises to help
students manage distributed design. In A. M. Salama & N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 167-176). Gateshead, UK: Urban International Press.
The redesign of studio culture
- A Koch
- K Schwennsen
- T A Dutton
- D Smith
Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D.
(2002). The redesign of studio culture. Retrieved
from Washington, DC:
The studio approach at the University of Georgia: Always a work in progress
- L P Rieber
- G Clinton
- T J Kopcha
Rieber, L. P., Clinton, G., & Kopcha, T. J. (2016). The
studio approach at the University of Georgia: Always a work in progress. In E. Boling, R. A.
Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell
(Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 37-59). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Design thinking in action: Perspectives on teaching and redesigning a learning design studio
- M M Rook
- S Hooper
Rook, M. M., & Hooper, S. (2016). Design thinking in
action: Perspectives on teaching and redesigning a
learning design studio. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier,
C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.),
Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 235-247). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hither and yon: Learning ID in a studio-based authentic ID context
- R A Schwier
Schwier, R. A. (2016). Hither and yon: Learning ID in a
studio-based authentic ID context. In E. Boling, R.
A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education:
Selected design cases (pp. 21-36). New York, NY:
Routledge.
How I gave up ADDIE for design thinking, and so did my students
- M W Tracey
Tracey, M. W. (2016). How I gave up ADDIE for design thinking, and so did my students. In E. Boling,
R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K.
The lake course: A studio apart
- J Wilson
Wilson, J. (2016). The lake course: A studio apart. In E.
Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, &
K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 123-136). New
York, NY: Routledge.