Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Critique is an important part of a typical design pedagogy, but is generally only discussed within formal curricular structures, which do not address informal interactions between students in the design studio. In this study, I report findings from ethnographic observations of a design studio, including occurrences of informal critique that take place outside of the planned curriculum. Types of critique that are observed are detailed, including similarities or differences to critique in typical classroom practice.
Citation preview
The Hidden Curriculum of the Design Studio: Student Engagement in Informal Critique
Colin M. Gray November 2, 2013
what is a studio?
A “signature” pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) !
Classroom/non-classroom Used for work, meetings, socialization Individual dedicated space for students Limited access to outsiders
what is a studio?
Understanding the studio on its own terms within an emergent design discipline Using this understanding of the studio through enactment of critique to conceptualize the hidden curriculum
background
research questions
What informal interactions are taking place between students in the design studio?
How are these interactions instigating critique?
review of literature
review of literature
Existing research on conceptualizing critique activity
Process model (Oh, et al., 2012)
Development of understanding (Exter, et al., 2009)
Genres (Dannels & Martin, 2008)
Types of knowledge (Uluoglu, 2000)
CLASSROOM CRITIQUE
review of literature
Oh, et al. (2012) process model of critiquing
review of literature
Shaffer’s Theoretical Model of the Studio (Shaffer, 2003)
Surface Features
Pedagogical Structures
Epistemology
context
contextHuman-Computer Interaction design (HCI/d) program in a School of Informatics
Non-classroom studio with no dedicated space
dataCritical Ethnography (Spring 2013)
Participant Observation (150 hours)
- thick field notes - audio recordings (45 hours/150 segments) - photographs (n=745)
Critical Interview (n=14)
Artifact Analysis
analysis
analysisCoding of emergent themes across audio segments
Situating these codes in the context of the studio based on Shaffer’s theoretical model
findings
Instigating Interaction # Example Interactions
overheard/seen 16 Design talk or work is overseen or overheard while working separately
smalltalk/social talk 39 Casual greetings; “what are you up to?”; “how was your weekend?”; friendly talk
showing off 12 Displaying finished or in-progress work to others without provocation
planned/scheduled 53 Request to discuss at some point in the future; planned meeting
request for advice 30 Explicit request for guidance, opinion, or interpretation
OVERHEARD/OVERSEEN
SMALLTALK/SOCIAL TALK
SHOWING OFF
PLANNED/SCHEDULED
REQUEST FOR ADVICE
Shaffer’s Theoretical Model of the Studio (Shaffer, 2003)
Surface Features
Pedagogical Structures
Epistemology
discussion
discussion
Physicality of space indicates what kinds of interactions can be supported
The space was designed for certain types of collaboration
Divide between physical and digital spaces
Surface Features
discussion
Group projects support collaboration and sharing
Shared pedagogical experience
Representations follow pedagogical structures
Pedagogical Structures
discussion
Surface and pedagogical elements of the studio indicate underlying beliefs
Projection of identity as professional designers
A studio bridge (Brandt, et al., 2011) is co-constructed between students and the formal pedagogy
Epistemology
next steps
next stepsBroader analysis of data across two semesters of data collection
Focus on instigating interactions, and how and when these interactions emerge in the studio space
questions?
