Cultivating the next generation designers: group work in urban and regional design education

Abstract

This article contributes to the discussion about learning from group methods in design education. Based on action research results, it presents and reflects on teaching activities related to urban and regional design in TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, conducted and coordinated by the authors. Constructive alignment of the teaching triangle and feedbacks from students and teachers are used to assess the effectiveness of learning from group methods in these courses from the perspective of teaching quality. The evaluation does not aim for revealing missing components or links in theory on design education. Instead, it is using existing theories to analyse education practices, for a better understanding and performance of group work in a specific field of design education. The conclusions of the article focus on pros and cons of group work in urban and regional design education, with highlighted common challenges for teaching, such as assessment on individual performance, as well as specific ones, such as stimulating ‘out of the box thinking’ and supervising interdisciplinary groups.

Designerly Ways of Transforming Design Education: A Review of Design Curricula Reforms Worldwide

“…Traditionally curriculum change is discussed by a select group of lectures within the department [5], however, as recent technological changes call for a fundamentally different way of educating [1], it is suggested that conventional approaches might not be sufficient. Four journal articles (n=4) call for a systemic method for curricula reforms on different levels [4], [19], [29], [30]. Mitchell et al illustrate this approach through a faculty-wide curriculum change which was enabled by a top-down drive for innovation and a bottom-up support for change.…”

“…They developed a conceptual framework for systemic response strategies that links back to the add-on strategy, the integration strategy, and the rebuilding strategy as well as incorporating systemic change on a micro, meso, and macro level. Two articles report on the use of Bloom's taxonomy [4], [19], of knowledge dimensions which consists of a ladder with the following cognitive levels: remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, create (from the bottom to top). In their study Truong et al [4] prototype new types of design education following this framework and make informed decisions based on the percentage of students that achieves better results, and the total time students spent on studying for the class.…”

Is group work beneficial for producing creative designs in STEM design education?

“…Cronin and McCabe (2017) showed that students working individually in laboratory-based science classes have significantly improved laboratory techniques in comparison with students working in groups. Lin (2019) In design education, group work is employed to support students in experiencing and understanding collaborative design processes (Qu et al, 2019). The ability to work in a group is highly demanded by design practice (Thompson, 2002).…”

“…Tucker (2017) proposed a framework for understanding the effectiveness of group work in design assignments, which supports educators to better integrate group work into their modules and evaluate learning outcomes. Qu et al (2019) indicated that design educators are positive about the students' results and effort in group work. However, the learning outcomes of each individual in group work varies greatly, depending on the course set up, cognitive levels, commitments, and group role-related knowledge.…”

“…An increasing number of firms are also seeking employees with collaborative group working skills (Algashaam, 2015;Almond, 2009;Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). A number of researchers have explored the use of group work in design education, such as Lee et al (2017), Tucker (2017) and Qu et al (2019), but few have compared group work and individual work in terms of teaching design creativity.…”