Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we describe a holistic, ecological framework that takes into account the surface structures and pedagogical approaches in the studio and how these elements are connected to the construction of design knowledge: epistemology. In our development of this framework, we came to understand how disciplinary underpinnings and academic culture shape the ways that studio is enacted. Using practice theory, we illustrate our framework with two examples—one in Industrial Design and another in Human Computer Interaction—that demonstrate the ways in which the studio can act as a bridge between academic and professional communities. We came to see the studio as a unique practice community that connects academic and professional contexts. We argue that successful implementation of studio-based learning involves an awareness of disciplinary canons, ontological approaches to knowledge, and the academic constraints on studio-based approaches to learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ankiewicz, P., & De Swardt, E. (2006). Some implications of the philosophy of technology for science, technology and society (STS) studies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Johassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowledge from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, H. (1975). Bauhaus 1919–1928. New York: Museum of Modern Art.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12(4–5), 311–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boylan, M. (2010). Ecologies of participation in school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocato, K. (2009). Studio based learning: Proposing, critiquing, iterating our way to person-centeredness for better classroom management. Theory into Practice, 48, 138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiment by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, J., & Dong, A. (2009). Legitimating design: A sociology of knowledge account of the field. Design Studies, 30, 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, B. (1992a). Characteristics of classroom mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 573–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992b). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of the mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, T., & Elmer, R. (2001). Learning in design and technology: The impact of social and cultural influences on modeling. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (2005). From reflective practitioners to reflective communities. Proceedings of the HCI International Conference (HCII), Las Vegas, July 22–27.

  • Gottfried, A. C., Sweeder, R. D., Bartolin, J. M., Hessler, J. A., Reynolds, B. P., Stewart, I. C., et al. (2007). Design and implementation of a studio-based general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(2), 265–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it? In C. DiGiano, S. Goldman, & M. Chorost (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35). NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 49(3), 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (Eds.). (1997). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, a subsidiary of Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education Journal, 13(3), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. (WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Studio mathematics: The epistemology and practice of design pedagogy as a model for mathematics learning (WCER Working Paper Series No. 2005-3). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In R. A. Lesh, J. J. Kaput, & E. Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 99–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments offered by anonymous reviewers. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant Award No. 0725290, 0725145, and 0725215. The ideas presented in this paper were developed by the first and second authors in conversations with the other four authors. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum, Instruction, & Technology Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    Carol B. Brandt

  2. Department of Learning Sciences and Technology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Katherine Cennamo

  3. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA

    Sarah Douglas

  4. School of Architecture + Design, Industrial Design Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Mitzi Vernon

  5. School of Architecture + Design, Architecture Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Margarita McGrath

  6. Department of Computer Science, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA

    Yolanda Reimer

Authors
  1. Carol B. Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Cennamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mitzi Vernon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Margarita McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yolanda Reimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol B. Brandt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brandt, C.B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S. et al. A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. Int J Technol Des Educ 23, 329–348 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation