Studio portrait of the sister of Max Rieser; Krakow Portraits Women

Digital Image

Studio portrait of the sister of Max Rieser; Krakow Portraits Women

Digital Image

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.

Care for care: Studio REV's strategies of engagement

The artists at Studio REV-, along with their allies in the broader non-profit sector, address domestic workers’ rights in the United States. As a social practice art project, NannyVan works to improve how information about domestic rights is disseminated to these workers, whether nannies, elder caregivers or others. As part of a larger project named CareForce, the NannyVan project shows an ethics of care by using design traces as tactics and transversal methods as strategies.

Building Clouds Drifting Walls:Year One Design Studio: A Critical Appraisal

This is a Booklet about a first year design studio in a school of architecture. It describes and reflects on changes that happened in the course over a three year period starting September 2000. The Studio is made up of students from mainstream architecture, and dual courses with landscape and engineering. The booklet is for those who are thinking of studying architecture. It might also be for those already learning and teaching architecture who want to see how other design studios work.

Three Melodies for Solo Vibraphone Recital performed by Cory Bracken, Percussionist Brooklyn College Studio 312 in Roosevelt Hall, Bedford Ave. Brooklyn, NY Authors: Lyon, E. Publication date: 27 Oct 2011

Thursday, October 27 · 7:00pm - 8:00pm
Location
Brooklyn College
Studio 312 in Roosevelt Hall, Bedford Ave.
Brooklyn, NY
Created By
Cory Bracken

Moments of Recognition:The Four Semester Studio in QUB

It is a legitimate assertion that the common ground of work of worth in architecture, whether theoretical or built comes from a firmly held position on the part of the author. In addition to delivery key competencies architectural education should act to support the formation of such a position in the student, or to make students aware of the possibility of holding such a position.

It is with this in mind perhaps that intensive unit-based diploma and masters structures are increasingly becoming the standard structure for for schools of architecture across the UK. The strengths of such a structure are most evident when the school, either by virtue of financial strength or geographic location is able to attract a diverse range of contrasting positions to bear in the formation of these units. In effect the offering to the student is a short, intensive immersion into a clear line of thought based on the position of those running the unit. Research is channeled by those running the unit to the work of the students. A single cohort of students therefore is able to observe and understand a wide range of ways of thinking about the subject whether or not they are participants in a unit or not. It is axiomatic that where this structure is applied in the absence of these resources the result can be less helpful, individual units are differentiated not to reflect the interests of those running the unit but for the sake of difference as its own end.

In structuring the M.Arch programme in Queens University Belfast the reality of our somewhat peripheral location was placed at the forefront of our considerations. A single 4 semester studio is offered. The first three semesters are carefully structured to offer a range of directed and self directed projects to the students. By interrogation of these projects, and work undertaken at undergraduate level the aim is to assist the students to identify a personal position on architecture, which is then developed in the thesis in semester four. Research and design outputs are emergent from the interest of the student body, cultivated by staff who have the time over the four semesters to get to know all aspects of a students interests.

This paper will lay out this structure and some of the projects run within it. Now having delivered two graduating years the successes and challenges of the system will be laid out by reference to several case studies of individual student experiences of the structure.

Critical Dialogue in Architecture Studio: Peer Interaction and Feedback

Most tutors in architecture education regard studio-based learning to be rich in feedback due to is dialogic nature. Yet, student perceptions communicated via audits such as the UK National Student Survey appear to contradict this assumption and challenge the efficacy of design studio as a truly discursive learning setting. This paper presents findings from a collaborative study that was undertaken by the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, and Queen’s University Belfast that develop a deeper understanding of the role that peer interaction and dialogue plays within feedback processes, and the value that students attribute to these within the overall learning experience.

The paper adopts a broad definition of feedback, with emphasis on formative processes, and including the various kinds of dialogue that typify studio-based learning, and which constitute forms of guidance, direction, and reflection. The study adopted an ethnographic approach, gathering data on student and staff perceptions over the course of an academic year, and utilising methods embracing both quantitative and qualitative data.

The study found that the informal, socially-based peer interaction that characterises the studio is complementary to, and quite distinct from, the learning derived through tutor interaction. The findings also articulate the respective properties of informal and formally derived feedback and the contribution each makes to the quality of studio-based learning. It also identifies limitations in the use or value of peer learning, understanding of which is valuable to enhancing studio learning in architecture.