An Attempt to Understand the Design Studio as a Distinctive Pedagogical Setting

What I read

In this text, the authors identify qualities of architectural design studios, and design-studio teaching, that are both good and bad.

First, the authors provide a number of different definitions of the word design, including those from well-known authors (such as Simon, Archer, and Buchanan), as well as from the dictionary, and how the word was derived from Latin. They provide a table showing the difference in these definitions, and conclude that “design is a complex word with multiple meanings,” and a difficulty emerges because the word design is both a noun and a verb. They also provide several definitions of the types of problems that design attends to, leading to the idea that the “design studio is an unpredictable environment because design is an act that takes place in a phase of uncertainty.”

Next, the authors introduce the idea of a design studio, indicating that it is a type of project and a place where that project is done. It has roots in Bauhaus learning, and is different from more traditional teaching pedagogy, where a professor has knowledge and imparts it to students. They note that “from a pedagogical standpoint, the design studio helps the transition of learning environment into a more student-centered environment.”

The authors then describe the features of a design studio. The first is the idea of reflection and iteration, where conversation between a professor and a student is an opportunity for professors to make suggestions about improving their work, or “simply inquire about the progress.” A second studio feature is a culture of critique. The authors again indicate the roots of this learning mode as in the Bauhaus. This approach is a formal delivery of feedback and support, which “provides an opportunity for a verbal explanation of the thinking process the student has gone through. In return, students are required to think about the feedback they received during the crits and reflect on it to improve their work even further.” The last characteristic of the studio is that it is a social setting, where students learn from each other and from other class levels; it creates a sense of community.

In the next portion of the text, the authors identify attributes of studio culture that positively and negatively impact students’ learning. One positive aspect of the studio is the design brief, which articulates an open-ended problem where a student must “take ownership and responsibility for their learning.” The conversations look similar to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, and improves conversation, presentation, critical thinking, and confidence. A third positive aspect of the studio is that informal learning occurs between students, and “shifts the focus to a student-centered environment and away from the tutor as the only source of knowledge.”

Next, the authors discuss factors that negatively impact student learning. One is the power dynamic of professor and student, which puts the student back into a position of receiving passive knowledge, as in a traditional classroom. Another is that the public and intense nature of the critique may lead to negative sentiment, which causes a student to shut down. Grading also may negatively impact learning, as a studio overemphasizes the end output rather than the creative process that led to it. A table is provided that summarizes a study by the American Institute of Architecture Students, that lists fourteen shortcomings of the culture of the studio, and the authors point out that six of them are related to time spent learning, which may be problematic.

The authors conclude the paper by summarizing the positive and negative aspects they have already discussed, both in text and in a table.

What I learned and what I think

I have not reflected on the dynamics of my own undergraduate experience in a long time; I seem to have romanticized it and compacted it into a single idea, that it was “good.” Most of my more recent observations and thoughts are about the studio culture that emerged at SCAD and Austin Center for Design, which I think was similar, but my perspective was as an outsider, looking in. There’s room for me to really juxtapose those experiences, as well as what studio looked like when I was studying ceramics, what it looks like in an actual consultancy, and in a corporation. In fact, there’s probably room for something more formal here, because the differences are important.

In Alec’s studio, my experience really was as close to a master/apprenticeship as I think I could get. At peak, I think I probably spent between ten and twenty hours a week there for, what, 12 years? I can’t really remember any examples of him just teaching. I remember watching him throw, loading the kiln, mixing glazes, a lot of cleaning (ironic, since he was a mess?), and absorbing his calm demeanor, the smoking and looking. I think pedagogically (he would have hated that word more than anything), it’s—being around the craft, being around the expert, being given things to do and outright assuming you can do them, having informal direction and always in the context of making something, never abstracted. Probably the trust, too, when he gave me a key, which I can’t believe is right, but maybe was when I was 10 or 11?

I feel I wrote about this already. I will see if I can find it.

What sticks out in undergrad wasalmost entirely freshman year. Here’s a giant room obviously intended for art, with sun, giant windows, big tables, stools. Go make it into a place you want to be in. I do remember formal demos, mostly in drawing, and crits that made me feel terrible but worked as a motivator for change. Tons of student-to-student comparison, in progress (How are you doing this? What did they mean? When are things due?) and during final presentation. That cardboard thing; a spectacle, all eyes on you. I’m not sure if that was a good idea, and I used it. I do remember the late nights and weekends, although for me it was mostly morning. Tons of cigarette smoking. Instructors don’t really stick out here very much. Still the autonomy, come and go when you want, and a dedicated and owned space.

At SCAD, it was a lot of in-class working time where I would walk around, and a lot of put things on the wall and talk about them. I think I “rubric-tized” everything, probably to a fault, when it became pretty clear that there was just a ton of aimlessness around what to go do. I really did have an agenda, but it was about what to do and not what to make. Maybe the benefit I had here was that, on the industrial design side, I really had no claim to output expertise, just to process expertise. That was different on the interaction side. At AC4D, there was probable more of a power dynamic, since I had such ownership over the school. I’m very, very confident I fucked up a lot there in the directness and kind of flying on that, but I suppose it worked (what does worked mean? Positive feedback from graduates?)

frog and Blackboard were “sit around and talk about work in progress,” and I think at least for me it was a way of making sure everything wasn’t going sideways, because I could see the work emerging. Really different than an educational process. Same at Narrative, where it was about improving the work through collaboration.

I think there’s a mystery going on of what happens when the teachers aren’t around, why it’s happening, and what’s good or bad about it. There’s also a mystery of what happens in a critique. And there’s another mystery around the differences in freshman to senior, and how all of these things grow.

I wonder what a 4-ish year longitudinal study of undergrads learning design would look like. There’s precedent in other fields.