Supporting students’ self-directed experiences of studio learning in Communication Design: The co-creation of a participatory methods process model

Abstract

This interdisciplinary paper discusses the meaning of open, critical, communal, and discursive learning spaces in higher education. It draws on recent research (Marshalsey, 2017) that illuminates the relationship between sensory affect and learning in studio education. It focuses on the extension and development of new learning configurations in the design studio, augmented by technology enhanced learning. Sensory affect is a form of feedback that can be used by learners to analyse and interpret the impact of the learning environment around them. This study used sensory affect as a lens through which to understand students’ experiences of practice-based learning in Communication Design spaces in two distinct higher education settings in the United Kingdom and Australia.The evolution of specialist design studio learning spaces, from physical studios to a blend of virtual and online educational environments, has led to significant debate about how to design, use and evaluate learning spaces for practice-based design disciplines. The paper uses the methods process model, based on participatory design tools (Marshalsey, 2017; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). The MPM supports students and educators to qualitatively interpret and critique their learning spaces more explicitly within their design education.

Together but Apart: Creating and Supporting Online Learning Communities in an Era of Distributed Studio Education

“…Studio conveys a unique set of values, resources, objects, space, time, situations and a signature pedagogy, which is enriched by active and creative modes of experiential learning and practice (Sims & Shreeve 2012; Crowther 2013; Orr & Shreeve 2018). Studio as a site for learning is an ongoing process of observation, discovery and experimentation with project‐based briefs, critical play, making, doing, reflective thinking and critiques (Boling et al 2016; Farías & Wilkie 2016; Marshalsey & Sclater 2018). As a shared community of practice, with self‐directed ambiguity and ideas, studio is a distinct form of knowing, thinking and acting.…”

“…Several studies exist that explore studio as a learning environment and method, yet few studies examine how the specialised values of a physical studio instruction might be sustained in an era of developing technology and the subsequent changing shape of higher education (Lynas et al 2013; Nottingham 2017; Marshalsey & Sclater 2018; Rodriguez et al 2018). Research of technology‐enabled active learning environments (TE‐ALEs), large student numbers and spatial studies in the changing landscape of education are more ubiquitous (Young & Nichols 2017; Casanova et al 2018; Lee et al 2018; Shi et al 2019).…”

Impact of the Web Application for the Educational Process on the Compound Interest Considering Data Science

“…The educational institutions are modifying the curricula in order to develop the competences of students through the technological tools (Herodotou, Heiser, & Rienties, 2017;Marshalsey & Sclater, 2018). In particular, universities face the challenge of improving the teaching-learning conditions through the construction of new virtual spaces (Marcel, 2019;Wang & Wang, 2017).…”

From Engagement to Empowerment: Exploring the Potential for Pedagogical Partnerships in Design

“…Design thinking has also been applied to develop pedagogical models based on co-creation (Androutsos & Brinia, 2019;Hakio & Mattelmäki, 2019). Marshalsey and Sclater (2018) describe one of the few reported one-off instances of co-created learning and teaching research in the design fields. Whilst sustained pedagogical partnership models are far from achieving mainstream status elsewhere, their lack of adoption in design contexts is somewhat unsurprising given that SoTL in design fields tends to occupy a minor position to other modes and areas of scholarship (Tovey, 2013).…”