Managing the Complexity of Design Problems through Studio-based Learning
Main Article Content
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
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
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.