The Art of Studio Teaching

This project began in 2013, with the award of an internal QUT Teaching and Learning grant. The task we wished to undertake was to document and better understand the role of studio teaching practice in the Creative Industries Faculty. While it was well understood that the Faculty had long used studio pedagogies as a key part of its teaching approach, organizational and other changes made it productive and timely to consider how the various study areas within the Faculty were approaching studio teaching. Chief among these changes were innovations in the use of technology in teaching, and at an organizational level the merging of what were once two schools within different faculties into a newly-structured Creative Industries Faculty. The new faculty consists of two schools, Media, Entertainment and Creative Art (MECA) and Design. We hoped to discover more about how studio techniques were developing alongside an ever-increasing number of options for content delivery, assessment, and interaction with students. And naturally we wanted to understand such developments across the broad range of nineteen study areas now part of the Creative Industries Faculty. This e-book represents the first part of our project, which in the main consisted in observing the teaching practices used in eight units across the Faculty, and then interviews with the unit coordinators involved. In choosing units, we opted for a broad opening definition of ‘studio’ to include not only traditional studios but also workshops and tutorials in which we could identify a component of studio teaching as enumerated by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s Studio Teaching Project: • A culture, a creative community created by a group of students and studio teachers working together for periods of time • A mode of teaching and learning where students and studio teachers interact in a creative and reflective process • A program of projects and activities where content is structured to enable ‘learning in action’ • A physical space or constructed environment in which the teaching and learning can take place (Source: http://www.studioteaching.org/?page=what_is_studio) The units we chose to observe, and which we hoped would represent something of the diversity of our study areas, were: • Dance Project 1 • Furniture Studies • Wearable Architecture • Fashion Design 4 • Industrial Design 6 • Advanced Writing Practice 3 • Introduction to Creative Writing • Studio Art Practice 2 Over the course of two semesters in 2013, we attended classes, presentations, and studio time in these units, and then conducted interviews that we felt would give further insight into both individual and discipline-specific approaches to studio pedagogies. We asked the same questions in each of the interviews: • Could you describe the main focus and aims of your unit? • How do you use studio time to achieve those aims? • Can you give us an example of the kind of activities you use in your studio teaching? • What does/do these example(s) achieve in terms of learning outcomes? • What, if any, is the role of technology in your studio teaching practice? • What do you consider distinctive about your approach to studio teaching, or the approach taken in your discipline area? The unit coordinators’ responses to these questions form some of the most interesting and valuable material in this book, and point to both consistencies in approach and teaching philosophies, as well as areas of difference. We believe that both can help to raise our critical awareness of studio teaching, and provide points of comparison for the future development of studio pedagogy in the Creative Industries. In each of the following pages, the interviews are placed alongside written descriptions of the units, their aims and outcomes, assessment models, and where possible photographs and video footage, as well as additional resources that may be useful to others engaged in studio teaching.

Engineered protease inhibitors based on sunflower trypsin inhibitor-1 (SFTI-1) provide insights into the role of sequence and conformation in Laskowski mechanism inhibition

Laskowski inhibitors regulate serine proteases by an intriguing mode of action that involves deceiving the protease into synthesizing a peptide bond. Studies exploring naturally occurring Laskowski inhibitors have uncovered several structural features that convey the inhibitor's resistance to hydrolysis and exceptional binding affinity. However, in the context of Laskowski inhibitor engineering, the way that various modifications intended to fine-tune an inhibitor's potency and selectivity impact on its association and dissociation rates remains unclear. This information is important as Laskowski inhibitors are becoming increasingly used as design templates to develop new protease inhibitors for pharmaceutical applications. In this study, we used the cyclic peptide, sunflower trypsin inhibitor-1 (SFTI-1), as a model system to explore how the inhibitor's sequence and structure relate to its binding kinetics and function. Using enzyme assays, MD simulations and NMR spectroscopy to study SFTI variants with diverse sequence and backbone modifications, we show that the geometry of the binding loop mainly influences the inhibitor's potency by modulating the association rate, such that variants lacking a favourable conformation show dramatic losses in activity. Additionally, we show that the inhibitor's sequence (including both the binding loop and its scaffolding) influences its potency and selectivity by modulating both the association and the dissociation rates. These findings provide new insights into protease inhibitor function and design that we apply by engineering novel inhibitors for classical serine proteases, trypsin and chymotrypsin and two kallikrein-related peptidases (KLK5 and KLK14) that are implicated in various cancers and skin diseases.

Understanding urban rail travel for improved patronage forecasting

Improved forecasting of urban rail patronage is essential for effective policy development and efficient planning for new rail infrastructure. Past modelling and forecasting of urban rail patronage has been based on legacy modelling approaches and often conducted at the general level of public transport demand, rather than being specific to urban rail. This project canvassed current Australian practice and international best practice to develop and estimate time series and cross-sectional models of rail patronage for Australian mainland state capital cities. This involved the implementation of a large online survey of rail riders and non-riders for each of the state capital cities, thereby resulting in a comprehensive database of respondent socio-economic profiles, travel experience, attitudes to rail and other modes of travel, together with stated preference responses to a wide range of urban travel scenarios. Estimation of the models provided a demonstration of their ability to provide information on the major influences on the urban rail travel decision. Rail fares, congestion and rail service supply all have a strong influence on rail patronage, while a number of less significant factors such as fuel price and access to a motor vehicle are also influential. Of note, too, is the relative homogeneity of rail user profiles across the state capitals. Rail users tended to have higher incomes and education levels. They are also younger and more likely to be in full-time employment than non-rail users. The project analysis reported here represents only a small proportion of what could be accomplished utilising the survey database. More comprehensive investigation was beyond the scope of the project and has been left for future work.