Daylighting design in the architectural design studio

This paper discusses two different approaches to teaching design and their modes of delivery and reflects upon their successes and failures. Two small groups of third year design students have been given projects focussing on incorporation of daylighting to architectural design in studios having different design themes. In association with the curriculum, the themes were Digital Tools and Sustainability. Although both studios had the topic of daylighting, the aim and methodology used were different. Digital Tool studio’s aim was to teach how to design daylighting by using a digital tool, where as, Sustainability studio aimed at using scale modelling as a tool to learn about daylighting and integrating it into design. Positive results for providing student learning success within the University context were the students’ chance to learn and practice some new skills –using a new tool for designing; integration of the tutors’ extensive research expertise to their teaching practice; and the students’ construction of their own understanding of knowledge in a student-centred educational environment. This environment created a very positive attitude in the form of exchanging ideas and collaboration among the students of Digital Tools students at the discussion forum. Sustainability group students were enthusiastic about designing and testing various proposals. Problems that both studios experienced were mainly related to timing. Synchronizing with other groups of their studios and learning of a new skill on top of an already complicated process of design learning were the setbacks.

Crossing the cultural divide : a contemporary holistic framework for conceptualising design studio education

While the studio is widely accepted as the learning environment where architecture students most effectively learn how to design (Mahgoub, 2007:195), there are surprisingly few studies that attempt to identify in a qualitative way the interrelated factors that contribute to and support design studio learning (Bose, 2007:131). Such a situation seems problematic given the changes and challenges facing education including design education. Overall, there is growing support for re-examining (perhaps redefining) the design studio particularly in response to the impact of new technologies but as this paper argues this should not occur independently of the other elements and qualities comprising the design studio. In this respect, this paper describes a framework developed for a doctoral project concerned with capturing and more holistically understanding the complexity and potential of the design studio to operate within an increasingly and largely unpredictable global context. Integral to this is a comparative analysis of selected cases underpinned by grounded theory methodology of the traditional design studio and the virtual design studio informed by emerging pedagogical theory and the experiences of those most intimately involved – students and lecturers. In addition to providing a conceptual model for future research, the framework is of value to educators currently interested in developing as well as evaluating learning environments for design.

Changing relationships: activating student and staff engagement in a design studio

In the design studio learning environment, traditional student and staff expectations are of close contact teaching and learning. In recent years at QUT students have experienced reduced personal staff attention, and have increasingly felt “anonymous” and correspondingly disengaged, to the detriment of quality learning (Carbone 1998: 8; Biggs 2003). Concurrently, there has been a necessary increase in teaching by sessional staff at QUT with varied levels of experience and assurance. This paper outlines the first iteration of an action research project exploring whether changing the current QUT design studio student and staff relationships may lead to more engaged, dynamic learning environments. “Engagement” is understood as a primarily emotional, rather than operational student concern (Solomonides and Martin 2008; Austerlitz and Aravot 2007). The project inverted the standard QUT design studio teaching structure, and evaluated the new structure and activation of student engagement across four identified markers: attendance, participation, learning and performance (ACER 2009; NSSE 2005; Chapman 2003). Student and staff surveys and focus groups, corporate data, and informal feedback informed these evaluations. Overall, the results support the premise that when students and staff feel part of a reasonably-sized studio class with a dedicated lecturer and self-selected project, the majority are inclined to value these relationships, to feel actively engaged, and to experience some improvement in their learning and teaching performances.

Spatial stimulus : Model making in the architectural design studio

This action research examines the enhancement of visual communication within the architectural design studio through physical model making. „It is through physical model making that designers explore their conceptual ideas and develop the creation and understanding of space,‟ (Salama & Wilkinson 2007:126). This research supplements Crowther‟s findings extending the understanding of visual dialogue to include physical models. „Architecture Design 8‟ is the final core design unit at QUT in the fourth year of the Bachelor of Design Architecture. At this stage it is essential that students have the ability to communicate their ideas in a comprehensive manner, relying on a combination of skill sets including drawing, physical model making, and computer modeling. Observations within this research indicates that students did not integrate the combination of the skill sets in the design process through the first half of the semester by focusing primarily on drawing and computer modeling. The challenge was to promote deeper learning through physical model making. This research addresses one of the primary reasons for the lack of physical model making, which was the limited assessment emphasis on the physical models. The unit was modified midway through the semester to better correlate the lecture theory with studio activities by incorporating a series of model making exercises conducted during the studio time. The outcome of each exercise was assessed. Tutors were surveyed regarding the model making activities and a focus group was conducted to obtain formal feedback from students. Students and tutors recognised the added value in communicating design ideas through physical forms and model making. The studio environment was invigorated by the enhanced learning outcomes of the students who participated in the model making exercises. The conclusions of this research will guide the structure of the upcoming iteration of the fourth year design unit.

Dichotomy in the design studio : adapting to new blended learning environments

In a study aimed at better understanding how staff and students adapt to new blended studio learning environments (BSLE’s), a group of 165 second year architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia were separated into two different design studio learning environments. 70% of students were allocated to a traditional studio design learning environment (TSLE) and 30% to a new, high technology embedded, prototype digital learning laboratory. The digital learning laboratory was purpose designed for the case-study users, adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) principles, and built as part of a larger university research project. The architecture students attended the same lectures, followed the same studio curriculum and completed the same pieces of assessment; the only major differences were the teaching staff and physical environment within which the studios were conducted. At the end of the semester, the staff and students were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and preferences within the two respective learning environments. Following this, participants were invited to participate in focus groups, where a synergistic approach was effected. Using a dual method qualitative approach, the questionnaire and survey data were coded and extrapolated using both thematic analysis and grounded theory methodology. The results from these two different approaches were compared, contrasted and finally merged, to reveal six distinct emerging themes, which were instrumental in offering resistance or influencing adaptation to, the new BLSE. This paper reports on the study, discusses the major contributors to negative resistance and proposes points for consideration, when transitioning from a TSLE to a BLSE.

Perceptions of physical versus virtual design studio education

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines associated with the art and design, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way, with even fewer giving emphasis to the teachers and students and how they feel about changing their environment. This situation is problematic given the changes and challenges facing higher education, including those associated with new technologies such as online learning. In response, this paper describes a comparative study employing grounded theory to identify and describe teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the physical design studio (PDS) as well as the virtual design studio (VDS) of architectural students in an Australian university. The findings give significance to aspects of design education activities and their role in the development of integrated hybrid learning environments.

A holistic blended design studio model : a basis for exploring and expanding learning opportunities

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way (Bose, 2007). This study responds to this need by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative approach. The research aims to explore the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face (f2f) design studio as well as a virtual design studio (VDS) as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to maximize learning. The main outcome is a holistic multidimensional blended model being sufficiently flexible to adapt to various setting, in the process, facilitating constructivist learning through self-determination, self-management, and personalization of the learning environment.

Holistic blended design studio model : potential implication in education of Iran

Iran as a developing country faces many considerable shortages of both physical learning environment and inefficient budget to resolve this shortage. Today, Iran needs a $28 billion budget to add 23,000 schools to the existing 120,000 schools to be able to omit two shifts schools [1], [2]. Moreover, the standard learning space is 6-8 square meter per student, while this rate for big cities in Iran is about one square meter per student [1]. This decrease the time students spend in schools. In addition, the education approach in k-12 and higher education is still teacher-centered based and needs to be contemporized with educational, cultural, and technological changes.

A holistic blended design studio model : Exploring and expanding learning opportunities

This book involves a comprehensive study of the learning environment by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative way.It explores the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face and a virtual design studio as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to enhance the students’ experience. The main outcome:holistic multidimensional blended learning model,that through the various modalities,provides adaptive capacity in a range of settings.The model facilitates learning through self-determination,self-management,and the personalisation of the learning environment. Another outcome:a conceptual design education framework,provides a basic tool for educators to evaluate existing learning environments and to develop new learning environments with enough flexibility to respond effectively to a highly dynamic and increasingly technological world.The provision of a practical framework to assist design schools to improve their educational settings according to a suitable pedagogy that meets today’s needs and accommodates tomorrow’s changes.

Dichotomy in the design studio 2.0 : adapting to new blended learning environments

In a study aimed at better understanding how students adapt to new blended studio learning environments, all undergraduate and masters of architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia, learned a semester of architectural design in newly renovated, technology embedded, design studio environments. The renovations addressed the lessons learned from a 2011 pilot study of a second year architectural design studio learned in a high technology embedded prototype digital laboratory. The new design studios were purpose designed for the architecture students and adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs design principles. At the end of the semester, the students completed a questionnaire about their experiences of learning in the new design studio environments. Using a dual method qualitative approach, the questionnaire data were coded and extrapolated using both thematic analysis and grounded theory methodology. The results from these two approaches were compared, contrasted and finally merged, to reveal five distinct emerging themes, which were instrumental in offering resistance or influencing adaptation to, the new blended studio learning environments. This paper reports on the study, discusses the major contributors to resistance and adaptation, and proposes points for consideration when renovating or designing new blended studio learning environments. This research extends the 2011 pilot study by the same authors: ‘Dichotomy in the design studio: Adapting to new blended learning environments’.

First year industrial design studio-based teaching pedagogies and students’ engagement

Student engagement tends to be viewed as a reflection of learning processes, and in the context of first year university studies, it is a crucial means of an educational process that establishes the foundations for successful later year studies (Krausse and Coates, 2008). In the context of first year design studio teaching in higher education, fostering students’ positive engagement poses challenges to design educators as current trends set these design studios to be large size classes that makes difficult to manage and follow up students’ individual learning experiences. At QUT’s first year industrial design studio classes we engage in a variety of teaching pedagogies from which we identify two of them as instrumental vehicles to foster positive student engagement. Concept bombs and the field trip experience provide such platform as shown in student responses through a learning experience survey.

Dichotomy in the design studio : adapting to new blended learning environments

Since the architectural design studio learning environment was first established in the early 19th century at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, there has been a complete transformation in how the discipline of architecture is practiced and how students of architecture acquire information. Digital technologies allow students to access information instantly and learning is no longer confined to the rigid boundaries of a physical campus environment. In many schools of architecture in Australia, the physical design studio learning environments however, remain largely unchanged. Many learning environments could be mistaken for those last refurbished 30 years ago, being devoid of any significant technological intervention. While some teaching staff are eagerly embracing new digital technologies and attempting to modify their pedagogical approaches, the physical design studio learning environment is resistant to such efforts. In a study aimed at better understanding how staff and students adapt to new blended learning environments, a group of 165 second year architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia were separated into two different design studio learning environments. 70% of students were allocated to a traditional design studio setting and 30% to a new, high technology embedded, prototype digital learning laboratory. The digital learning laboratory was purpose designed for the case-study users, adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs [SCALE-UP] principles, and built as part of a larger university research project. The architecture students attended the same lectures, followed the same studio curriculum and completed the same pieces of assessment; the only major differences were the teaching staff and physical environment within which the studios were conducted. At the end of the semester, all staff and students were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and preferences within the two respective learning environments. The questionnaire response rate represented the opinions of 100% of the 10 teaching staff and over 70% of the students. Using a qualitative grounded theory approach, data were coded, extrapolated and compared, to reveal emerging key themes. The key themes formed the basis for in-depth interviews and focus groups of teaching staff and students, allowing the researchers to understand the data in more detail. The results of the data verified what had become increasingly evident during the course of the semester: an underlying negative resistance to the new digital studio learning environment, by both staff and students. Many participants openly exhibited a yearning for a return to the traditional design studio learning environments, particularly when the new technology caused frustration, by being unreliable or failing altogether. This paper reports on the study, discusses the negative resistance and explores the major contributors to resistance. The researchers are not aware of any similar previous studies across these particular settings and believe that it offers a necessary and important contribution to emergent research about adaptation to new digital learning environments.

Changing relationships : Re-activating student and staff engagement in the design studio learning environment

QUT Teaching and Learning Support Services 'Revisiting University Teaching’program for mid-career academics. 'Innovations in Teaching at QUT' presentations. Presentations were part of a 2 day program that provides opportunities for experienced academic staff with responsibilities for teaching to review their current teaching practices and explore innovations in teaching that will assist them to enhance student learning and develop their own scholarship of teaching. The presenter responded to the following: 1.What is the innovation you have incorporated into your teaching? - give a brief overview/ description/ demonstration of the innovation 2.What challenges/issues prompted you to make changes in your approach? Were they discipline specific? Operational? Opportunistic? 3.What factors did you need to consider in implementing these changes? Which factors enabled success or hindered? 4.What has this innovation achieved so far? How have learners responded? How have the broader teaching team and academic staff from other units in your course responded? 5.How could this innovation be used by other academics in their teaching? What do you see as the possibilities for further expansion of this innovation? (NB. This question could be answered as part of a final sharing of group discussion). Presenter: Shannon Satherley

Changing relationships : engaging students and staff in the design studio

QUT Learning and Teaching Unit Seminar Making a Real Difference: Learning and Teaching Grants Showcase This event recognised and shared teaching innovations, including those from faculty learning and teaching grants. The Showcase featured four ALTC Grant project leaders (Helen Partridge, Sylvia Edwards, Robyn Nash and Mary Ryan) who had recently completed or were about to complete their grants. Each QUT faculty nominated two 2010 faculty teaching and learning grant recipients to showcase grant outcomes via a poster. Poster: Shannon Satherley & Abbe Winter Changing Relationships: Engaging Students and Staff in the Design Studio 'In the design studio learning environment, traditional student and staff expectations are of close contact teaching and learning. However, in recent years increasing class sizes have meant students experiencing reduced personal staff attention, and increasingly feeling “anonymous” and correspondingly disengaged, to the detriment of quality learning (Carbone 1998: 8; Biggs 2003). Concurrently, there has been a necessary increase in teaching by sessional (casual) teaching staff at QUT, with varied levels of experience and assurance. While teachers primarily regard engagement as “cognitive and conative,” for students it is emotional: “... an essential need to feel that they were engaged with the context of their learning and that it was meaningful in some way” (Solomonides and Martin 2008: 18). As a response to these conditions, the Changing Relationships action-research project was run within a QUT School of Design studio unit in 2009 and 2010, based on the premise that engaged teaching can encourage emotionally engaged learning. The project inverted the structure of the traditional QUT studio unit, empowering both students and sessional staff with a sense of increased autonomy: literally changing the relationships within the studio learning environment.'

Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement

This paper presents an analysis of the studio as the signature pedagogy of design education. A number of theoretical models of learning, pedagogy, and education are used to interrogate the studio for its advantages and shortcomings, and to identify opportunities for the integration of new technologies and to explore the affordances that they might offer. In particular the theoretical ideas of signature pedagogies, conversational frameworks, and pedagogical patterns are used to justify the ‘unique’ status of the studio as a dominant learning environment and mode of delivery within design education. Such analysis identifies the opportunities for technological intervention and enhancement of the design studio through a re-examining of its fundamental pedagogical signature. This paper maps the dimensions and qualities that define the signature pedagogy against a range of delivery modes and technological media forms. Through such investigation it seeks to identify appropriate opportunities for technology; in essence offering a structure or framework for the analysis of future enquiry and experimentation.