DRS2012 Bangkok Proceedings Vol 4 - Design Research Society

1980 Conference Proceedings
Louise WALLIS, and Anthony WILLIAMS
dominance of some students was overcome by time restrictions in the production of
diagrams and the need for everyone to present. A salient point to consider is whether or
not the approach taken to engage students in their learning is mistaken for the
organization of energetic student activity (Ramsden, 1992:113).
Considerations and Conclusions
The review of the literature found that many long-standing practices such as the one-onone,
as legitimized by Schön’s work (1983, 1987) and small group tutoring have been
interrogated by the shift to a learner-centered perspective. It is not difficult to appreciate
why many recognize existing studio practices to favorably align with learned centered
perspective, as references to facilitation, coaching, experiential learning and reflective
dialogue seem consistent with studio teaching. However, there exists a small body of
work which compares the tutor and students’ lived experiences (Webster, 2004b; Ashton,
1997; Dinham, 1987) that show the subtlety of a constructivist’s approach has not broadly
permeated studio-teaching approaches. The differences may sound trivial, but the level of
distinction is significant when student learning is understood. The literature shows that
tutors and learners require additional preparation to generate and benefit from
collaborative and reflective dialogue processes. These recommendations were made first
in the early 1980s, illustrating the legacy of architectural education traditions, and the
emphasis on the educator having knowledge and experience in the field of architecture or
design.
The majority of recent research is born out of the pressures generated from mass higher
education and/ or the search to justify decisions from learning and teaching foundation.
This research has yet to establish the state of other regions such as the European
continent where the Beaux Arts and the Bauhaus traditions originate? It seems likely that
the employment of the one-on-one tutoring process will reduce over time or funding will
be taken from other areas with the current trends in the academies. Research shows that
there are advantages gained through small group teaching in terms of multiple
perspectives presented but still some of the problems associated with one-on-one are
relevant. The question remains whether or not a critical learning and teaching perspective
will inform such debates or provide assistance in developing modified or new ‘studio’
teaching approaches. There is no correct approach, but a number of better ways to teach
design. The ‘studio’ remains an awkward fit within the academy system.
References
Adderley, K., Ashwin, C., Bradbury, P., Freeman, J., Goodlad, S., Greene, J., et al. (1975). Project Methods in
Higher Education: Society for Research into Higher Education Ltd.
Anthony, K. (1987). Private Reactions to Public Criticism. Journal for Architectural Education, Spring, 2-12.
Anthony, K. (1991). Design Juries on Trial. The Renaissance of the Design Studio. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Argyris, C. (1981). Teaching and Learning in Design Settings. In W. Porter & M. Kilbridge (Eds.), Architecture
Education Study. Volume 1: The Papers (Vol. 1, pp. 551-660): Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Ashton, P. (1997). Learning Together - an exploration of how students use each other as a resource for
learning. In G. Gibbs & C. Rust (Eds.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning through
Course Design (pp. 52-60). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Bachman, L., & Bachman, C. (2006). Student Perceptions of Academic Workload in Architectural Education.
Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 23(4), 271-304.
Banham, R. (1996). A Black Box: The Secret Profession of Architecture. In R. Banham (Ed.), A Critic Writes (pp.
292-299). Berkeley: University of California Press.