Everyday Routines and Material Practices in the Design Studio: Why Informal Pedagogy Matters

Critical Analysis

Formal pedagogy in a design studio often focuses on two things: the use of critique as a prompt for iterative design, and the idea of “reflection in action”, which is the unique way in which designers solve problems through a back-and-forth with the problem itself. The entire process is cyclical, in the context of a project, course, and a student’s entire academic experience. In addition to improving the work, these cycles “remind students that work is never complete,” which in turn supports the fundamental principle that ideas are free, and separate from the person ideating. This is critical, because, as Shaffer explains, “students were not merely solving problems; they were engaged in an iterative process of expressing—and thus shaping—their identities.”

That identity development extends far beyond the formal aspects of studio teaching and learning, into what Corazzo and Gharib view as the seemingly mundane things that happen in the studio space itself. In their research, they work to identify the everyday routines and informal pedagogy that occur in a studio context, how those routines support design learning, and how this informal pedagogy has been impacted by online learning.

Informal pedagogy is not without structure. It includes informal critique that might occur between students during a social situation, and social comparison (as a fundamental part of the above creative identity development.) The studio is a “situated practice—a place where knowledge, material and practice come together,” and the researchers question if too much emphasis has been placed on formal student/teacher pedagogy and not enough on the student social and material practices.

To research this informal pedagogy, the authors note the challenges in conducting in-person ethnography, and instead leverage “ethnographic mapping”—asking students to visualize their use of the studio space (and later, their homes) and to use the resulting visualization as a centerpiece for interview and discussion. This form of visualization presents a “multiplicity of experiences not easily expressed in spoken or written language.” Focus groups were used to supplement the artifact-based discussion, and the participants—undergraduate graphic design students—mapped and described their studio experiences.

The authors present a model of informal pedagogy in the design studio made up of five functions; they describe these functions and how they may have changed as a result of online, at-home learning.

A social studio is one that is owned by the students who use it, and that ownership leads to a feeling of comfort. Students clean and organize the space, and through these social activities they create a feeling of safety and familiarity. The studio is fun and light-hearted. That safety can be forced, though, as a large part of the space is centered around the public sharing of design work. Some students feel this public sharing is intimidating. Online learning, sacrificing these shared-home-qualities for private-home-realities, becomes a barrier for students and adds a “layer of uncertainty.”

A comparative studio is “used by students to benchmark themselves against their peers and observe each other’s workings.” This is viewed as much lower-risk than comparison in the context of formal critique, as the professor-as-judge is not present during student-only comparison. Some students find this comparison to be discouraging, related again to the public nature of their work and to a potential for losing social standing or status. In an online environment, this informal comparative learning is essentially eliminated. Some students viewed this as a form of confidence-building, although students simultaneously lose the chance for the benefits of informal peer critique.

An organizational studio is a project management space, and acts as a delineation of professional and productive time from personal, non-design time. Distance learning removes this externalized sense of progress, leading to a lack of time management.

A processual studio is viewed as “a basecamp, a place where [students] bring and leave things, a place where they will set up camp.” There are different areas in the studio that are “for” different types of work, such as facing a wall or sitting in an open kitchen. Distance, of course, removes these and creates only a single place, which is not shared.

The performative studio is how students learn “designerly talk” which contributes directly to the professional, design-focused identity that students are developing. The studio is “a stage for students to behave like professionals” and is an indicator to others that they are serious about their work. This performative nature is all but eliminated in an online setting, which then impacts the ability for a student to build a designerly identity.

These five studio functions make up an informal pedagogy of studio learning, and the authors argue that these “cannot be orchestrated,” as students take control over the space. This is not entirely accurate, as the simple provision of the space to students is a meaningful form of orchestration, and one that takes a great deal of administrative effort on the part of educators. The resources provided to students are controlled, and the abdication of top-down control itself is orchestrated. However, informal pedagogy is much less restrictive in its orchestration, and the authors term this “regulated freedom.” Studio is “simultaneously regulated by powerful norms and expectations while constituted of openness and a sense of possibility inherent in creative practice.” This is lost in online environments, which are entirely unregulated: students have control over their learning space, and often revert back to the space as a living space rather than a studio space.

This research has developed a structure for conversation of informal studio pedagogy, which is at the heart of studio culture. The researchers propose the studio is where formal and informal pedagogy meet, and that enables “a range of functions that serve the process of learning to design.”

Research Value

The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:

• Presents a base framework for understanding informal design pedagogy, which is directly related to (or perhaps synonymous with) studio culture
• Emphasizes the connection between studio use and identity formation
• Substantiates studio culture as a scholarly space of investigation