Learning Environments in Design Studio Culture

The paper reports on a study of design studio culture from a student perspective. Learning in design studio culture has been theorised variously as a signature pedagogy emulating professional practice models, as a community of practice and as a form of problem-based learning, all largely based on the study of teaching events in studio. The focus of this research has extended beyond formally recognized activities to encompass the student’s experience of their social and community networks, working places and study set-ups, to examine how these have contributed to studio culture and how there have been supported by studio teaching. Semi-structured interviews with final year undergraduate students of architecture formed the basis of the study using an interpretivist approach informed by Actor-network theory, with studio culture featured as the focal actor, enrolling students and engaging with other actors, together constituting an actor-network of studio culture. The other actors included social community patterns and activities; the numerous working spaces (including but not limited to the studio space itself); the equipment, tools of trade and material pre-requisites for working; the portfolio enrolling the other actors to produce work for it; and the various formal and informal events associated with the course itself. Studio culture is a highly charged social arena: The question is how, and in particular, which aspects of it support learning? Theoretical models of situated learning and communities of practice models have informed the analysis, with Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and his interrelated concepts of habitus, field and capital providing a means of relating individually acquired habits and modes of working to social contexts. Bourdieu’s model of habitus involves the externalisation through the social realm of habits and knowledge previously internalised. It is therefore a useful model for considering whole individual learning activities; shared repertoires and practices located in the social realm. The social milieu of the studio provides a scene for the exercise and display of ‘practicing’ and the accumulation of a form of ‘practicing-capital’. This capital is a property of the social milieu rather than the space, so working or practicing in the company of others (in space and through social media) becomes a more valued aspect of studio than space or facilities alone. This practicing-capital involves the acquisition of a habitus of studio culture, with the transformation of physical practices or habits into social dispositions, acquiring social capital (driving the social milieu) and cultural capital (practicing-knowledge) in the process. The research drew on students’ experiences, and their practicing ‘getting a feel for the game’ by exploring the limits or boundaries of the field of studio culture. The research demonstrated that a notional studio community was in effect a social context for supporting learning; a range of settings to explore and test out newly internalised knowledge, demonstrate or display ideas, modes of thinking and practicing. The study presents a nuanced interpretation of how students relate to a studio culture that involves a notional community, and a developing habitus within a field of practicing that extends beyond teaching scenarios.

The design studio as liminal space

This study focuses on the efficacy of design studio as a form of teaching and learning, where traditional approaches can act to position the tutor as a defender of the knowledge community rather than a discourse guide for the student. The broad curriculum of architectural education with its divergent outcomes resulting from project based learning also makes it difficult to agree on what constitutes the fundamental elements of the curriculum. The research used an approach based on threshold concepts to assist in identifying and overcoming these shortcomings. Such approaches have been described as 'liminal': holding the learner in a supportive 'in-between' state where learning resources can be directed to that which is troublesome and conceptually difficult. The study involved the use of practices to identify troublesome knowledge in design studio and conceptualise blended learning as part of a liminal studio space.

The design studio as liminal space

The context of this research focuses on the efficacy of design studio as a form of teaching and learning. The established model of project-based teaching makes simple parallels between studio and professional practice. However, through comparison of the discourses it is clear that they are of different character. The protocols of the tutorial tradition can act to position the tutor as a defender of the knowledge community rather than a discourse guide for the student. The question arises as to what constitutes the core knowledge that would enable better self-directed study. Rather than focus on key knowledge, there has been an attempt in other fields to agree and share ‘threshold concepts’ within disciplinary knowledge. Meyer and Land describe threshold concepts as representing “a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress [1]. The tutor’s role should be to assist in transforming student’s understanding through the mastery of the ‘troublesome knowledge’ that threshold concepts may embody. Teaching and learning environments under such approaches have been described as ‘liminal’: holding the learner in an ‘in-between’ state new understanding may be difficult and involve identity shifts. Research on the consequence of pressures on facilities and studio space concur, and indicate that studio spaces can be much better used in assisting the path of learning [2]. Through an overview map of threshold concepts, the opportunities for blended learning in supporting student learning in the liminal space of the design studio become much clearer [3] Design studio needs to be recontextualised within the discourse of higher education scholarship, based on a clarified curriculum built from an understanding of what constitutes its threshold concepts. The studio needs to be reconsidered as a space quite unlike that of the practitioner, a liminal space. 1. Meyer, J.H.F. and R. Land, Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Overcoming Barriers to Student Learning: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge., 2006: p. 19. 2. Cai, H. and S. Khan, The Common First Year Studio in a Hot-desking Age: An Explorative Study on the Studio Environment and Learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment 2010. 5(2): p. 39-64. 3. Pektas, S.T., The Blended Design Studio: An Appraisal of New Delivery Modes in Design Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 51(0): p. 692-697.

Leading as designing: how educational developers in leadership and management studies can use architectural design to facilitate student learning about delivering innovation

This paper describes a qualitative observational study of how a work based learning masters leadership development programme for middle managers in health and social care in the UK introduced students to key aspects of delivering innovation, through a formative assignment on contemporary architectural design. Action learning and activity theoretical approaches were used to enable students to explore common principles of leading the delivery of innovation. Between 2001 and 2013 a total of 89 students in 7 cohorts completed the assignment. Evaluation lent support for the view that the assignment provided a powerful learning experience for many. Several students found the creativity, determination and dedication of architects, designers and structural engineers inspirational in their ability to translate a creative idea into a completed artefact, deploy resources and negotiate complex demands of stakeholders. Others expressed varying levels of self-empowerment as regards their capacity for fostering an equivalent creativity in self and others. Theoretical approaches in addition to activity theory, including Engeström’s concepts of stabilisation knowledge and possibility knowledge, are discussed to explain these differing outcomes and to clarify the challenges and opportunities for educational developers seeking to utilise cross-disciplinary, creative approaches in curriculum design.