Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:46:08.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODELING DESIGN STUDIO PEDAGOGY: A MENTORED REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

J. Milovanovic  and
J. Gero
J. Milovanovic*
Affiliation:
UMR AUU-CRENAU, France
J. Gero
Affiliation:
UNC Charlotte, United States of America
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper explores the notion of mentored reflective practice to describe design studio pedagogy. Students learn how to design by doing design in the studio. Design critiques are a key element in design studio pedagogy as they capture a moment where students get feedback from their tutors on their designs. The research questions addressed concern the roles of each participant during design studio reviews and their interactions with design representations. The protocol analysis methodology and the Function Behavior Structure ontology are utilized to convey our case study analysis.

Keywords

design educationco-designdesign reviewdesign representationprotocol analysis
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1765 - 1774
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Barrett, T. (2000), “Studio Critiques of Student Art: As They Are, as They Could Be with Mentoring”, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, C. et al. (2014), “Question asking in design reviews: How does inquiry facilitate the learning interaction?”, Design Thinking Research Symposium 10, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2006), Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer, London.Google Scholar
Darke, J. (1979), “The primary generator and the design process”, Design studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defays, A., Jeunejean, A. and Giboin, A. (2014), “Impact de la médiatisation technologique sur la mobilisation des modalités non-verbales dans les références demonstratives”, Symposium COMMON’14, 89-101. Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
Dennen, V.P. and Burner, K.J. (2008), “The Cognitive Apprenticeship Model in educational Practice”, In: Spector, M.J., Merrill, D.M., van Merrienboer, J. and Driscoll, M.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 813–828.Google Scholar
Détienne, F., Visser, W. and Tabary, R. (2006), “Articulation des dimensions graphico-gestuelle et verbale dans l'analyse de la conception collaborative”, In Language et cognition : Contraintes pragmatiques. Psychologie de l'interaction, L'Harmattan, pp. 283–307.Google Scholar
Dong, A., Garbuio, M. and Lovallo, D. (2016), “Generative sensing in design evaluation”, Design Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 68–91.10.1016/j.destud.2016.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, A.H. (1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Estevez, D. (2001), Dessin d'architecture et inforgraphie: L’évolution contemporaine des pratiques graphiques (CNRS Edition).Google Scholar
Ferguson, E.S. (1992), Engineering and the Mind's Eye, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, J., Christiaans, H. and Almendra, R. (2016), “A visual tool for analysing teacher and student interactions in a design studio setting”, CoDesign, Vol. 12 No. 1-2, pp. 112–131.10.1080/15710882.2015.1135246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990), “Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. and Jiang, H. (2016), “Exploring the Design Cognition of Concept Design Reviews Using the FBS-based Protocol Analysis”, In: Adams, R. S. and Siddiqui, J. A. (Eds.), Analyzing Design Review Conversations, Purdue University Press, p. 177.10.2307/j.ctv15wxp3j.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function–behaviour–structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2008), “An ontological account of Donald Schön's reflection in designing”, International Journal of Design Sciences and Technologies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 77–90.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Milovanovic, J. (2019), “The situated function-behavior-structure co-design model”, CoDesign.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. et al. (2014), “Three studio critiquing cultures: Fun follows function or function follows fun?”, Design Thinking Research Symposium 10, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H. and Dafni, I. (2010), “The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 03, pp. 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, J. (2016), “The Components of the “Crit” in Art and Design Education”, Irish Journal of Academic Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 7.Google Scholar
Heylighen, A., Bouwen, J.E. and Neuckermans, H. (1999), “Walking on a thin line: Between passive knowledge and active knowing of components and concepts in architectural design”, Design Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H. and Yen, C.-C. (2009), “Protocol Analysis in Design Research: a Review”, Design, Rigor & Relevance, presented at the IASDR, Seoul, Korea, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
Kan, J.W.T. and Gero, J.S. (2017), Quantitative Methods for Design Protocol Analysis, Springer.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. and Dorst, K. (2009), Design Expertise, Architectural Press., Routledge.Google Scholar
Lebahar, J.-C. (1983), Le dessin d'architecte. Simulation graphique et réduction d'incertitude (Parenthèses).Google Scholar
Oh, Y. et al. (2013), “A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios”, Design Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 302–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, A.T. and Gero, J.S. (1998), “Drawings and the design process”, Design Studies, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 389–430.10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Temple Smith, London.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1992), “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1985), The Design Studio, RIBA, London.Google Scholar
Van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F. and Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994), The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Wolmarans, N. (2016), “Inferential reasoning in design: Relations between material product and specialised disciplinary knowledge”, Design Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 92–115.10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar