Abstract
Design education has quickly evolved from product-focused to interaction-focused outcomes. As the technical skills needed for success become increasingly unstable, a holistic means of instruction is needed to prepare students for the realities of practice. In this chapter, we describe the creation of a novel undergraduate user experience (UX) design program that focuses on learning strands that weave throughout a studio-based program. Instead of relying upon content-delineated coursework, where strands of competence necessary for practice are often siloed, the integrated studio encourages students to build a flexible design identity, relating multiple strands of content to one another in a systematic way throughout their program.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
“Answering the Call”. (n.d.). Purdue polytechnic institute. Retrieved from https://polytechnic.purdue.edu/answering-the-call on May 14, 2018.
Beane, J. (Ed.). (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Boling, E., Siegel, M. A., Smith, K. M., & Parrish, P. (2013). Student goes on a journey; stranger rides into the classroom: Narratives and the instructor in the design studio. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 12(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.179_1
Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5
Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism and design. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 23–66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cennamo, K. S. (2016). What is studio? In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 248–259). New York: Routledge.
Churchill, E. F., Bowser, A., & Preece, J. (2016). The future of HCI education. Interactions, 23(2), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/2888574
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Diefenbach, S., Kolb, N., & Hassenzahl, M. (2014). The“hedonic” in human-computer interaction: History, contributions, and future research directions. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 305–314). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598549
Erickson, H. L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Faiola, A. (2007). The design enterprise: Rethinking the HCI education paradigm. Design Issues, 23(3), 30–45.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gray, C. M. (2014a). Living in two worlds: A critical ethnography of academic and proto-professional interactions in a human–computer interaction design studio. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Gray, C. M. (2014b). Locating the emerging design identity of students through visual and textual reflection. In Proceedings of the Design research society. Umeå, Sweden: Design Research Society.
Gray, C. M. (2015). Critiquing the role of the learner and context in aesthetic learning experiences. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp. 199–213). Basel, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_14
Gray, C. M. (2019). Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 929–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9471-2
Kou, Y., & Gray, C. M. (2018, January). Towards professionalization in an online community of emerging occupation: Discourses among UX practitioners. In GROUP’18: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 322–334). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3148352
Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., & Koenig, V. (2015). User experience: A concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 35–48.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Liu, L., & Hinds, P. (2012). The designer identity, identity evolution, and implications on design practice. In H. Plattner (Ed.), Design thinking research (pp. 185–196). Berlin, DE: Springer Verlag.
Martin, J. R. (1976). What should we do with a hidden curriculum when we find one? Curriculum Inquiry, 6(2), 135–151.
McCarthy, J., & Wright, J. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7
Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development. Design Studies, 42, 86–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.10.004
Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9380-1
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vorvoreanu, M., Gray, C. M., Parsons, P., & Rasche, N. (2017). Advancing UX education: A model for integrated studio pedagogy. In CHI’17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1441–1446). New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025726
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gray, C.M., Parsons, P., Toombs, A.L. (2020). Building a Holistic Design Identity Through Integrated Studio Education. In: Hokanson, B., Clinton, G., Tawfik, A.A., Grincewicz, A., Schmidt, M. (eds) Educational Technology Beyond Content. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37254-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37254-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37253-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37254-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)