Managing the Complexity of Design Problems through Studio-based Learning

Main Article Content

Katherine Cennamo
Carol Brandt
Brigitte Scott
Sarah Douglas
Margarita McGrath
Yolanda Reimer
Mitzi Vernon

Abstract

The ill-structured nature of design problems makes them particularly challenging for problem-based learning. Studio-based learning (SBL), however, has much in common with problem-based learning and indeed has a long history of use in teaching students to solve design problems. The purpose of this ethnographic study of an industrial design class, an architecture class, and three human-computer-interaction classes was to develop a cross-disciplinary understanding of the goals and expectations for students in a SBL environment and the ways in which experienced facilitators assist students in solving complex design problems. The expectations that students are to iteratively generate and refine design solutions, communicate effectively, and collaborate with others establishes the studio as a dynamic place where students learn to experiment on their own, to teach and to use all studio members as resources in that search. Instructors support students as they grapple with complexity of design problem-solving through pedagogical practices that include assignments, associated meta-discussions, explicit prompts, reminders, modeling, and coaching. Using sample illustrations from our cross-case analysis, we present the studio method as a legitimate constituent of problem-based learning methods.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

Bayer, H. (1975). Bauhaus 1919-1928. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E. & McNeal, B. (1992). Characteristics of classroom mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 573-604.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of the mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2-33.

Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136-160.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1 (1), 21-39.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development Journal, 48(4), 63-85.

Jonassen, D. H. & Hung. W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2 (2) 6-28.

Kurtz, S., Wylie, M., & Gold, N. (1990). Problem-based learning: An alternative approach to legal education. Dalhousie Law Journal, 13, 787-816.

LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 49(3), 146-154.

Lopez, L. M. & Allal, L. (2007). Sociomathematical norms and the regulation of problem solving in classroom microcultures. International Journal of Educational Research, 6, 252-265.

Merchand, J. E. (1995). Problem-based learning in the business curriculum: An alternative to traditional approaches. In W. Gijselaers, D. Tempelaar, P. Keizer, E. Bernard, & H. Kasper(Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case of problem-based learning (pp. 261-267). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Monson, C. (2008) Studio-based learning as pedagogic research: A case study of inquiry between architecture and education. 2008 annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Retrieved January 23, 2010 from https://www.acsa arch. org/files/conferences/teachers/2008/monson.pdf

Reimer, Y. J. and Douglas, S.A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education Journal, 13(3), 191-205.

Root, D., Rosso-Llopart, M. & Taran, G. (2008). Exporting studio: Critical issue to successfully adopt the software studio concept. Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. IEEE

Savery, J. S. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Inter- disciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. (WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In R. A. Lesh, J. J. Kaput & E. Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the future In mathematics education (pp. 99-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research: Perspectives on practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-471.

Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390-408.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.