Difference between revisions of "Design studio"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Design-Based Learning Sequences == | == Design-Based Learning Sequences == | ||
| − | <p>Design-based learning is characterized by open-ended, hands-on, authentic, and multi-disciplinary design tasks resembling professional communities of practice. <ref>Puente, S. M. G., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732.</ref> <ref name="sas" />The design-based learning environment stresses the notion of students “making meaning” through design, and having teachers that facilitate such a process through formative and summative assessment of both individuals and teams. Communication and peer-to-peer interaction are critical aspects of a design-based learning environment. Indeed, communication as “making meaning” is conceptually close to design, which is seen as a way to configure social interaction and communicative resources.<ref name="selander /> In this light, a user-centered design process – where emphasis is put on transparency, communication, user control, and participation<ref>Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology: Mit Press.</ref> – is a promising candidate for not only a rigorous design process <ref>Garrett, J. J. (2010). Elements of User Experience, The: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond: Pearson Education.</ref> , but also a highly suitable process for learning and making meaning | + | <p>Design-based learning is characterized by open-ended, hands-on, authentic, and multi-disciplinary design tasks resembling professional communities of practice. <ref>Puente, S. M. G., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732.</ref> <ref name="sas" />The design-based learning environment stresses the notion of students “making meaning” through design, and having teachers that facilitate such a process through formative and summative assessment of both individuals and teams. Communication and peer-to-peer interaction are critical aspects of a design-based learning environment. Indeed, communication as “making meaning” is conceptually close to design, which is seen as a way to configure social interaction and communicative resources.<ref name="selander /> In this light, a user-centered design process – where emphasis is put on transparency, communication, user control, and participation<ref>Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology: Mit Press.</ref> – is a promising candidate for not only a rigorous design process <ref>Garrett, J. J. (2010). Elements of User Experience, The: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond: Pearson Education.</ref> , but also a highly suitable process for learning and making meaning. <ref name="selander" /></p> |
<p>Selander<ref name="selander /> presents a theoretical map that formalizes stages of a creative learning process. In short, the model describes a learning process starting with the teacher “staging” the course, including setting a theme for the course, making an inventory of available resources, and considering the curriculum of both the course and the program. As depicted in Figure 2, there are two transformational cycles following the staging. The primary cycle is focused on transforming and forming of knowledge where available media and modes are utilized. By the end of the primary cycle, students have formed a representation that mediates the transfer to the secondary transformational cycle, where reflection and meta-reflection comes into focus. The teacher’s role in the primary cycle is mainly formative and facilitating (along the lines of design studio practice), whereas the role changes to summative assessment of the work. By setting up the learning sequence in this manner, both teachers and students can use the model as an evaluation and reflection tool at the end of the course.</p> | <p>Selander<ref name="selander /> presents a theoretical map that formalizes stages of a creative learning process. In short, the model describes a learning process starting with the teacher “staging” the course, including setting a theme for the course, making an inventory of available resources, and considering the curriculum of both the course and the program. As depicted in Figure 2, there are two transformational cycles following the staging. The primary cycle is focused on transforming and forming of knowledge where available media and modes are utilized. By the end of the primary cycle, students have formed a representation that mediates the transfer to the secondary transformational cycle, where reflection and meta-reflection comes into focus. The teacher’s role in the primary cycle is mainly formative and facilitating (along the lines of design studio practice), whereas the role changes to summative assessment of the work. By setting up the learning sequence in this manner, both teachers and students can use the model as an evaluation and reflection tool at the end of the course.</p> | ||
[[File:Transformation_cycles.png|950px|thumb|left]] | [[File:Transformation_cycles.png|950px|thumb|left]] | ||
Revision as of 15:13, 28 March 2022
Over the last few decades, digital technologies have driven deep and profound changes in our relationships to communication, culture, and society at large. This has caused Informatics, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Computer Science, and Digital Design to undergo a silent revolution the past two decades: human-centric innovation, user experience, and strategic device-agnostic service design do not only complement the traditional product-centric perspective – it has even been claimed to dominate it. [1][2]
Digital design in the 2010s thus rapidly and continuously puts new requirements on theory and practice. Educational initiatives aiming to teach digital design need to evolve with the field and resonate with not only declarative academic requirements, but also the procedural craftsmanship and reflective qualities of design practice.Kolko, 2011[3][4] [5] As theory and design practice are being revitalized in this context, there is room for improvement in how we prepare students to deal with these sorts of problems professionally. To this end, several suggestions have been voiced, such as arts-based learning [6] , studio-based and apprenticeship courses (e.g. [7] [8] ), and learning in authentic, off-campus contexts. [9] Despite that some criticisms have been voiced regarding studio pedagogy, some scholars have recommended that the studio should be the default learning environment for design-oriented education (cf. [10][11]) since it is suitable for creative work and for addressing wicked problems and challenges.[12]
Design-Based Learning Sequences
Design-based learning is characterized by open-ended, hands-on, authentic, and multi-disciplinary design tasks resembling professional communities of practice. [13] [7]The design-based learning environment stresses the notion of students “making meaning” through design, and having teachers that facilitate such a process through formative and summative assessment of both individuals and teams. Communication and peer-to-peer interaction are critical aspects of a design-based learning environment. Indeed, communication as “making meaning” is conceptually close to design, which is seen as a way to configure social interaction and communicative resources.[4] In this light, a user-centered design process – where emphasis is put on transparency, communication, user control, and participation[14] – is a promising candidate for not only a rigorous design process [15] , but also a highly suitable process for learning and making meaning. [4]
Selander[4] presents a theoretical map that formalizes stages of a creative learning process. In short, the model describes a learning process starting with the teacher “staging” the course, including setting a theme for the course, making an inventory of available resources, and considering the curriculum of both the course and the program. As depicted in Figure 2, there are two transformational cycles following the staging. The primary cycle is focused on transforming and forming of knowledge where available media and modes are utilized. By the end of the primary cycle, students have formed a representation that mediates the transfer to the secondary transformational cycle, where reflection and meta-reflection comes into focus. The teacher’s role in the primary cycle is mainly formative and facilitating (along the lines of design studio practice), whereas the role changes to summative assessment of the work. By setting up the learning sequence in this manner, both teachers and students can use the model as an evaluation and reflection tool at the end of the course.
Image 1: Transformation cycles in a formal learning sequence. After Selander[4].
Selander’s theoretical lens coupled with a user-centered, creative design process implemented in a design studio environment are the fundamental building blocks for the design studio learning framework.
Design-Specific Dimensions for Progression
Based on the theoretical concepts presented above regarding aspects of design, creativity, and learning, we have identified seven dimensions relevant to design-oriented studio-based learning that characterize aspects of digital design practice. Table 1 presents the dimensions and associated scales used to characterize the studio course challenges.
|
|
Dimension | Meaning |
|
D1 |
Design Problem |
The design problem ranges from well understood and closed (routine) to ambiguous, open, and loaded with internal conflicts in its sub-problems (“wicked”). |
| D2 | Theoretical Base | This dimension aims to capture how challenging the theoretical underpinnings are related to the content of the studio course. If the course theme is captured within theory that is established within e.g. HCI or Informatics it is considered less of a challenge, compared to cross-disciplinary themes where current HCI theory is lacking. The latter case may require students to contribute to the theory-building themselves. |
| D3 | Perspective | The design challenge may be tactical or strategic. A tactical design focuses on a specific product or service, and tends to measure objective product attributes, whereas strategic design takes into account long-term use, sustainability and viability, and measures effects on user experience in relation to identity, brand, and business model, etc. |
| D4 | Target Platform | The target platform (or device) can be given as part of the design problem (“Your mission is to build a website and e-shop for product X”), or it can be open-ended (“Your mission is to build a service that increases physical well-being”) and leave the choice of target platform open. |
| D5 | Design Tools | This dimension is related to D4, since the choice of platform often dictates the availability of design tools. On the less challenging end are mature and easily available tools for e.g. website prototyping. Projects residing on the more challenging end of this dimension require teams to build their own design tools for new interaction modalities. |
| D6 | Service Complexity | Most systems do not exist as isolated islands, but are part of a larger digital (and analogue) user experience context. A product or service is typically experienced through multiple touch points, across several channels, distributed in time and place. To regress the challenge in this dimension the problem can be limited to a single device and a single touch point in the service ecosystem. On the more challenging, and realistic, end of this dimension designers are expected to work on multiple devices and multiple touch points, as well as designing the user journeys between them. |
| D7 | Contractor's Digital Design Literacy | The contractor (or client) who initiates the original theme or design problem can be highly proficient in digital service design, and have a robust understanding of what the service will entail, what a user-centered design process looks like, and how to manage complexity along dimensions D1-D6 above. On the other end of the scale, the contractor can be firmly set in a completely different domain or field, and is neither skilled nor experienced in terms of digital service design and user-centered design processes. In the former case, the design team has a natural ally in the client, who can indeed function as a mentor throughout the process. In the latter case, the responsibility of managing the process and argue for design decisions becomes a heavier load on the designers. |
The design process is the structure that these dimensions are anchored to. The design process is, as noted previously, one of the most valuable assets in a designer’s toolbox. From a learning point of view, the process also ties together the studio courses, and help students confidently work even if the challenges progress along dimensions D1-D7. Though the content and theme of the courses change, the design process remains basically the same (see Figure 1). It provides a lens of understanding for problem definition, design generation, and synthesis. It is therefore important that the design process is the anchor for all studios, when other variables change in the progression between studio courses.
Using the framework
The transformation cycle and the dimensions of complexity forms the basis of a design-oriented learning cycle framework that gives instructors and industry partners a tool for tweaking the challenge and complexity of the studio project at “run-time”, in order to meet the needs and capabilities of the student group at hand. Should a student (or team of students) need a harder challenge to meet their potential, the instructor can select a dimension and progress it as a form of scaffolding. On the other hand, if the default challenge is too hard for students, or if they have chosen a particularly complex or challenging route on some of the dimensions, the instructor could coach the students to regress other dimensions so the workload can still be manageable and fruitful.[16]
References
- ↑ Kolko, J. (2010b). On experiences, people, and technology. Interactions, 17(6), 80.
- ↑ Norman, D. A. (2007). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things: Basic books.
- ↑ Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action: Basic Books.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Selander, S. (2008). Designs of Learning and the Formation and Transformation of Knowledge in an Era of Globalization. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 267-281. doi: 10.1007/s11217-007-9068-9
- ↑ Wärnestål, P., & Lindqvist, M. (2013). Designerly Ways of Teaching and Learning: A Course Structure for Interaction Design. Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 179-188.
- ↑ Snyder, J., Heckman, R., & Scialdone, M. J. (2009). Information studios: Integrating arts‐based learning into the education of information professionals. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 60(9), 1923-1932.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Sas, C. (2006). Teaching Interaction Design through Practitioners’ Praxis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Academy.
- ↑ Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 173-183.
- ↑ Wärnestål, P., & Lindqvist, M. (2012. Course structuring for procedural knowledge in interaction design education. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 35th information systems research seminar in Scandinavia.
- ↑ Cho, J., & Cho, M.-H. (2014). Student perceptions and performance in online and offline collaboration in an interior design studio. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(4), 473-491. doi: 10.1007/s10798-014-9265-0
- ↑ Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 173-183.
- ↑ Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
- ↑ Puente, S. M. G., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732.
- ↑ Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology: Mit Press.
- ↑ Garrett, J. J. (2010). Elements of User Experience, The: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond: Pearson Education.
- ↑ Wärnestål, P. (2016). Formal learning sequences and progression in the studio: A framework for digital design education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 35-52.
