Design studio discourse in architecture in Australia: The role of formative feedback in assessment

Abstract

Studio-based teaching is a central component of the curriculum in architecture where designs are discussed, critiqued and challenged in the assessment of students’ creative works. Drawing on Dannels’ genre framework and a holistic approach to assessment, this article presents an analysis of design studio discourse based on non-participant records of observations of design studio presentations/crits and audio recordings of student focus groups and interviews with design studio tutors. Aspects of design studio pedagogy explored are the studio as context of learning and the discourse of guidance and feedback. Findings reveal the tension between providing explicit guidance that may constrain the freedom required for creative works, the difficulty of providing transparent feedback and the centrality of the subjective in design assessment. The studio as context of learning remains a challenging forum, in which the subjective nature of design is openly negotiated in discourse based, to a considerable extent, on tacit discipline understandings.

Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: a narrative literature review

“…164-165), within the conventional design studio context, students engage in a single open-ended, projectbased problem, allowing students to solve the problem in their own way. The design solutions are generated through an iterative process, and the design solutions are continuously reviewed, judged and open for comments by the jury and the peer (Ardington & Drury, 2017). Another practice that is generated through students' engagements with projects is Interaction and engagement.…”

“…The CDS context is featured as a safe and ideal place for problem-based learning in literature. Furthermore, it generates the feeling of a laboratory where many experiments and testing with the involvement of many parties in an open, less formal and less hierarchical workplace environment (Ardington & Drury, 2017). Furthermore, the conventional design studio context comprises high material character with sketches, notes, artifacts, paper mock-ups, physical models and pinup presentation facilities (Vyas, 2013).…”

Self-advocacy for first-year students in interior architecture design studios

“…Unlike other problem-solving activities, design problem-solving is concerned with ill-defined problems, and it searches for an adequate solution within a large space of alternatives by developing a set of two-dimensional or three-dimensional conceptual ideas. The creative process balances purposeful analysis, imaginative idea generation and critical evaluation (Afacan, 2012, 2013; Ardington and Drury, 2017; Chandler and Ward, 2019). The design process in design studios is defined as a series of preparations for projects based on a reflective learning environment (Gunday Gul and Afacan, 2018; Schön, 1985; Sipahioglu, 2012).…”

Teaching risk-taking to engineering design students needs risk-taking

“…Visser et al (2017) evaluate the impact of feedback to support confidence and creativity from a graphic design perspective and they highlight the importance of informal class discussions and one-on-one feedback for effective learning. Ardington and Drury (2017) also underline the importance and positive impact of formative feedback and proper guidance in helping students learning their creative process in a design studio. In an engineering design subject, where students are expected to come up with a creative work is no different.…”