Architectural research

Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Customization and Autonomy : Characteristics of the Ideal Design Studio Instructor in Design Education

  • Cho, Ji Young (College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Kent State University)
  • Received : 2013.06.11
  • Accepted : 2013.08.08
  • Published : 2013.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Design studio is a unique type of course in architecture and interior design education, in which learning is based on student-instructor interaction and learning by doing; yet little research has been conducted on student perceptions of the ideal design studio instructor. The purpose of this paper was to identify characteristics of the ideal studio instructor from student perspectives. Three award-winning design studio instructors' studio activities were observed, and the three instructors and their 40 students were interviewed. As a result, characteristics in four categories were identified. The author argues that providing customized feedback and allowing student autonomy are the two distinct characteristics that students value in design studio as compared to students in other fields or type of courses. The findings provide valuable insights to design educators who would like to strengthen their teaching studios by listening to student voices.

Keywords

References

  1. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  2. Attoe, W., and Mugerauer, R. (1991). Excellent studio teaching in architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 16(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079112331383081
  3. Austerlitz, N., Aravot, I., and Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2002). Emotional phenomena and the student-instructor relationships. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00063-4
  4. Bhatia, A. (2006). Architecture pedagogy: Psychological, social, and other emergent issues in the design studio (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
  5. Bloomberg, L., and Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  6. Boyer, E. L., and Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architectural education and practice. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  7. Broder, J. M., and Dorfman, J. H. (1994). Determinants of teaching quality: What's important to students? Research in High Education, 35(2), 235-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496703
  8. Bunch, M. A. (1993). Core curriculum in architectural education. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press.
  9. Carlhian, J. P. (1979). The Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Journal of Architectural Education, 33(2), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1979.10758615
  10. Cennamo, K., and Brandt, C. (2012). The "right kind of telling": Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-20.
  11. Cho, J. Y. (2011). Pedagogy of aesthetics: A study of three architectural design studios (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
  12. Creswell, J. C. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
  14. Das, M., El-Sabban, F., and Bener, A. (1996). Student and faculty perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal teacher in a classroom setting. Medical Teacher, 18(2), 141-146. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599609034149
  15. Forrester-Jones, R. (2003). Students' perceptions of teaching: The research is alive and well. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301688
  16. Goldschmidt, G. (2002). "One-on-one": A pedagogic base for design instruction in the studio. In D. Durling and J. Shackleton (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Common Ground Design Research Society (pp. 430-437), Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press.
  17. Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., and Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio "crit": Teacher-student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(3), 285-302.
  18. Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: Enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.
  19. Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership and Management, 18(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439869628
  20. Helterbran, V. R. (2008). The ideal professor: Student perceptions of effective instructor practices, attitudes, and skills. Education, 129(1), 125-138.
  21. ideal. (2011). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideal
  22. Jacobson, M. (1966). Effective and ineffective behavior of teachers of nursing as determined by their students, Nursing Research, 15, 218-224.
  23. Ku, B-D. (2013). A case study of architectural design education based on discovery learning, Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea, 27(7),105-114
  24. Kusto, A. R., Afful, S. E., and Mattingly, B. A. (2010). Students' perceptions of and preferences for professors. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 8(1), 47-55.
  25. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  26. Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1985.10758363
  27. Little, P., and Cardenas, M. (2001). Use of "studio" methods in the introductory engineering design curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 309-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00610.x
  28. Moore, K. (2001). The scientist, the social activist, the practitioner and the cleric: Pedagogical exploration towards a pedagogy of practice. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18(1), 59-79.
  29. Ochsner, K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on integration in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4), 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1162/104648800564608
  30. Opdenakker, M. C., and Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008
  31. Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  32. Parton, N. (2000). Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice in and for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 30(4), 449-463. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/30.4.449
  33. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York, NY: Anchor.
  34. Pozo-Munoz, C., Rebolloso-Pacheco, E., and Fernandez-Ramirez, B. (2000). The 'Ideal Teacher'. Implications for student evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930050135121
  35. Rittel, H., and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  36. Schon, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1984.10758345
  37. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  38. Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., and Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241
  39. Weatherhead, A. (1941). The history of collegiate education in architecture in the United States (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.
  40. Wilson, J., and Jennings, W. (2000). Studio courses: How information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88, 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.811603

Cited by

  1. An investigation of design studio performance in relation to creativity, spatial ability, and visual cognitive style vol.23, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.006
  2. Issues of Learner-Centered Studio Classes in Landscape Architectural Education vol.43, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2015.43.1.139