Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement

Philip Crowther


This paper presents an analysis of the studio as the signature pedagogy of design education. A number of theoretical models of learning, pedagogy, and education are used to interrogate the studio for its advantages and shortcomings, and to identify opportunities for the integration of new technologies and to explore the affordances that they might offer. In particular the theoretical ideas of signature pedagogies, conversational frameworks, and pedagogical patterns are used to justify the “unique” status of the studio as a dominant learning environment and mode of delivery within design education. Such analysis identifies the opportunities for technological intervention and enhancement of the design studio through a re-examining of its fundamental pedagogical signature. This paper maps the dimensions and qualities that define the signature pedagogy against a range of delivery modes and technological media forms. Through such investigation it seeks to identify appropriate opportunities for technology; in essence offering a structure or framework for the analysis of future enquiry and experimentation.



design; studio; signature pedagogy; learning design; pedagogical pattern; technology

Full Text:



Bendar, D.M., & Vredevoogd, J.D. (2006). Using online educational technologies to support studio instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 114-122.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-365.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham. UK: Open University Press.

Brindley, T., Doidge, C., & Willmott, R. (2000). Introducing alternative formats for the design project review. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Profession (pp. 108-115). London: E & F N Spon.

Chen, W., & You, M. (2008). Student response to an Internet-mediated industrial design studio course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 151-174.

Crowther, P. (2010). Assessing architectural design processes of divergent learners. In Proceedings of the ATN Assessment Conference 2010: Sustainability, Diversity and Innovation, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, December 2010. Australian Technology Network.

Delahaye, B. L. (2005). Human resource development: Adult learning and knowledge management. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley and Sons Australia.

Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and Studio Pedagogy. Journal or Architectural Education, 41(1), 16-25.

Horne, G., & Henkel, V. (2004). Application of multimedia in engineering design education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 87-96.

Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.

Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 706-707). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

Laiserin, J. (2002). From atelier to e-telier: virtual design studios. Architectural Record, 190(1), 141-142.

Laurillard, D. (1997). Learning formal representations through multimedia. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.). The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education (pp. 172-183). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.), London: Routledge Falmer.

Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies on Higher Education, 33(2), 139-154.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge.

Laurillard, D., & McAndrew, P. (2002). Virtual teaching tool: Bringing academics closer to the design of e-learning. In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, V. Hodgson and D. McConnell (Eds.) Network Learning 2002: A Research Based Conference on e-Learning in Higher Education and Lifelong Learning (pp. 11-16). Retrieved from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=7243

Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277-300.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.

Mason, R. (n.d.). The globalisation of education. Retrieved from http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/r.d.mason/globalbook/syncasync.html

Mason, R. (2006). The university – current challenges and opportunities. In S. D’Antoni & G. Hermes, (Eds.). The Virtual University: Models & Messages, Lessons from Case Studies. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/iiep/virtualuniversity/home.php#challenges

Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.

McInnis, C, James, R., & Hartley, R. (2000). Trends in first year experience. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs2000.htm

Mewburn, I. (2012). Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio pedagogy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(4), 363-379.

Mostafa, M., & Mostafa, H. (2010). How do architects think? Learning styles and architectural education. International Journal or Architectural Research, 4(2-3), 310-317.

Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Architectural education and the profession. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Profession (pp. 1-22). London: E & F N Spon.

Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4), 194-206.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Reffat, R. (2007). Revitalizing architectural design studio teaching using ICT: Reflections on practical implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 3(1), 39-53.

Rohse, S., & Anderson, T. (2006). Design patterns for complex learning. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), 82-91.

Saghafi, M. R., Franz, J., & Crowther, P. (2012). A holistic blended design studio model: a basis for exploring and expanding learning opportunities. In Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (SITE 2012), Austin, Texas: EdITLib.

Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2-9.

Schrand, T, & Eliason, J. (2011). Feedback practice and signature pedagogies: what can the liberal arts learn from the design critique? Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 51-62.

Shreeve, A., Sims, E. A. R., & Trowler, P. A kind of exchange: learning from art and design teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2), 125-138.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

Stevens, G. (1998). The favored circle: The social foundations of architectural distinction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Taylor, S. S. (2009). Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: Preliminary findings from two case studies. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 217-228.

Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v6i3.155
Abstract Views:

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Contact | Announcements | © Queensland University of Technology | ISSN: 1832-8342