Assessment Design for Studio-Based Learning

© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery. Studio-based learning is not new to computing education, however as the ecosystem of available Open Educational Resources (OERs) expands, the capacity and desire for student self-directed learning is growing. However increasing student autonomy in how and when learning takes place creates challenges around assessment. This paper introduces the design of assessment tasks to support studiobased learning at undergraduate level. It describes an example of using learning contracts and portfolio-based assessment for evaluating individual and team performance. The paper presents some initial observations of the approach taken, and its transferability to other areas of the curriculum

A Thick Industrial Design Studio Curriculum

This presentation was part of the session : Pedagogy: Procedures, Scaffolds, Strategies, Tactics24th National Conference on the Beginning Design StudentThis paper describes an industrial design studio course based in a private university in Izmir, Turkey where second year industrial design students, for the first time, engage in a studio project. The design studio course emphasises three distinct areas of competence in designing that are the focus of the curriculum. They are; design process: the intellectual act of solving a design problem; design concept: the imagination and sensibility to conceive of appropriate design ideas; and presentation: the ability to clearly and evocatively communicate design concepts. The studio is 'thick' with materials, tasks and activities that are intentionally sequenced to optimise learning in a process that is known as educational 'scaffolding.' The idea of a process--a patient journey toward it's destination, is implicit in the studio that is full of opportunities for reflection-in-action. A significant feature is the importance placed on drawing and model making. An exemplary design process should show evidence of 'breadth'--meaning a wide search for solutions where a range of alternatives explored throughout; followed by an incremental refinement of the chosen solution where elements of the final design concept are developed thoroughly and in detail--called 'depth.' Learning to design is predicated on an engagement in and manipulation of the elements of the design problem. Evidence of that learning will be found by examining the physical materials and results of the design process. The assessment criteria are published with the brief at the outset of design project and outcomes are spelt out at the end. Students are remind throughout project of the criteria, which is to say they are reminded of pedagogical aims of the studio. Assessment criteria are detailed and the advantages of summative assessment are described

Examining Graphic Design Students’ Attitudes toward Participative Assessment in Studio-Based Learning

This study examines the potential impact of the development and implementation of innovative assessment practices in graphic design studio to improve teaching and learning and to foster creativity development among communication design students in a higher education. The data were collected from communication design students at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Ghana. An action research which used qualitative method to capture students’ perceptions of the use of peer assessment in various aspects of studio critique. The conclusion reached is that while the introduction of peer assessment option may be time consuming for staff to develop, the benefits of an enhanced student-centered approach to assessment may be well worth this investment in time. The results should be of interest to those academics who are concerned with assessment of creative product in art and design schools and its impact on students’ achievement. Keywords: Participative assessment, assessment, peer assessment, studio-based learning, qualitative stud

Synchronicity in the Online Design Studio: A Study of Two Cases

Traditional design education models foreground place-based learning and teaching approaches that situate educators and students together in the studio. This experience enables an engaged and participatory teaching practice in which over-the-shoulder feedback and peer-to-peer critique become essential formal and informal learning interactions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly interrupted the educational offerings of higher education institutions. Face to face learning ceased and rapidly pivoted to online and new remote models of delivery. For students studying design at the University of Sydney, this disruption significantly impacted the design studio – a space traditionally understood as a physical learning environment and a mode of learning and teaching. This paper presents a case study of two approaches to teaching design studio online delivered in early 2020. The first approach adopted an asynchronous delivery model in which students engaged with online materials at a time of their choosing, with assessments designed as individual tasks. The second approach adopted a synchronous delivery model in which students participated online in real-time, and assessment tasks were predominantly small-group tasks. In sharing the experiences of both case studies, this paper considers the role of synchronicity in delivering design studio online across four themes: interaction, assessment, feedback and design learning. Finally, the paper presents practice-based lessons that could inform pedagogical practices in design and support future models of design education

Conflating Student and Professional Identities: fostering development of professional identity in first year architecture

Students in architecture undergo a dual transition when they commence tertiary study, taking on a student identity but also assuming their professional identity as a creative practitioner. The peculiarities of pedagogical frameworks in these disciplines require tailored support mechanisms to ensure student success. Students undertake a series of inquiry and practice based formative assessment tasks in the design studio, which build to the final summative assessment the design jury and critique. As the predominant mode of studio assessment around the world, this is a daunting event for students. Facilitating students to successfully develop their professional identity from the commencement of first year, and building resilience into their learning experiences, can transform this event into a genuine learning experience. This paper outlines the interventions for transition students in the School of Architecture at University of Technology Sydney

Educational Assessment in Emerging Areas of Design: Toward the Development of a Systematic Framework Based on a Study of Rubrics

This paper presents a formative study that investigates the perceived effectiveness of rubrics as assessment tools by communication and industrial design educators and first year design students in the context of a design studio. The project is motivated by the increasing challenge of assessing subjective and intangible attributes that are associated with the teaching of emerging areas in design, and society’s growing need for measurable results. The goal of this project is to shed light on the perceived successes and failures of a specific assessment tool, known as a rubric, and use this information to improve students’ and educators’ understanding, value, and use of assessment tools. Based on the characteristics of the emerging design landscape, this paper argues the importance of assessments and the need for their improvement. It explains the construction of three assessment forms that are based on successful models used in other disciplines. This paper describes how the forms were used throughout the semester to provide an overview of course objectives and assess individual projects. It explains the contents of a questionnaire and describes how it was used at the end of the semester to evaluate students’ perceptions of the assessments forms. Feedback gained from the instructors indicated that rubrics were not more efficient than other forms of assessment but did aid the assessment of intangibles and did not reduce students’ creativity. The results of the questionnaire showed that students perceived the attributes of rubrics more positively than other forms of assessment but still favoured handwritten comments. These findings informed the proposal of a set of considerations that should be taken into account when creating assessment forms for use in classrooms that focus on emerging areas of design. They describe the importance of personal comments, clear terminology, a planned introduction of the tool, and an open-mind. Keywords: Rubrics; Assessment; Evaluation; Pedagogy; Education; Learning; Feedback.</p

Dialogue and studio space: the architectural design studio as the setting for continuous reflection

Teaching and learning in the design studio aims to continuously offer the learner opportunities to relate their individual experience to the discourses shaping the professional field through an iterative process of inquiries, reflection and actions. This paper highlights the role of level-specific dialogue in the provision of design studio teaching at the early stages of the student’s journey toward professionalization. It will be suggested that the Problem-Based Learning model enshrined in the idea of studio teaching alone does not facilitate for a sufficiently refined and truly reflective learning experience. By looking at a range of publications on the reflective practitioner, I hope to focus the discussion on the diachronic nature of dialogue in the disciplinary context of architectural education. The discussion of a number of case studies from the First Year provision at the CASS School of Architecture will illustrate a participatory approach to the dialogical scaffolding of early learning experiences and the assessment of generated outcomes as the conceptual framework of dialogical learning in the design studio. It will be argued that sustaining a dialogical process, based on multi-voiced provision, can contribute to the continuity of the learning experience at advanced levels of undergraduate studies, while critically addressing concerns raised about traditional studio teaching practices

The mirage in architecture design studio teaching

The idea introduced in this paper is culled from a wide spectrum of issues the authors have explored in design studio teaching over a period of two decades. One of the affirmations that it is possible to do with regard to the education in the Architecture studio, is the consensus of high expectations in this process. Nevertheless, this aspiration shared by tutors and tutees can end up by being a mirage. In the definition of the mirage the perception of what is seen, is determined by the ambience. This process is inserted in a place and specific time, the environmental conditions of this process of education and learning are, as in reality, determinant for a more real and useful perception. One of the pitfalls that hide a more collective reflection concerning the topic of learning in studio is the permanent urgency of the theoretical and/or professional agendas in architecture. This environmental condition determines the vision, reflection and the practice of the architecture. Nevertheless, this energy and attention tends to alienate the most permanent need of a reflection with regard to the daily action of learning in studio. The studio Culture is an extraordinary way of learning that has survived 275 years, and has been in discourse since then. This culture is created in a field of tension between reason, emotion and intuition, on both sides ‘Tutor/Student and Student/Tutor’. Schon (1981,83) has long identified three reasons why studio teaching could go wrong as the Stance adopted towards communication, the qualities of the `behavioural world they created for each other, and thirdly the theory in use. The importance of this statement, shift the attention from declared intentions (Learning outcomes) written in programmes and the expected standard, to the student’s and tutor own experiences. Concomitantly, studio teaching/learning process can go wrong today for a number of reasons and expectations, the syndrome of viewing architecture as art and only art, the syndrome of embedding an envisioned ambiguous sustainable agenda, and the syndrome of emphasizing the development of skills at the expense of knowledge. Clear guideline in objectives and standards are developed in the form of learning contract (Learning outcome, teaching methodology, assessment criteria, etc.). Special consideration has been given to the semantic of it. However, design process is a not a solving - programme mental method that operates as a recipe, neither a completely random exercise for the sake of the imaginary. Individuals make a difference with theirs own contributions. Tutors in the way they created the safe environment for risk taking and students which committed themselves for their own agendas. But it is by no doubt the tutor’s responsibility to stick to the learning outcomes, and develop it based on his/her own experience. Developing the outcome is therefore, a complete different story then operating his/her own hidden agenda that does not fulfil the requirements of the contract the tutor is eligible to fulfil for the student. However, a text and discourse analysis studied revealed that an objective defined as outcome in a particular learning contract, vary in its meaning and interpretation and within the relationship; Students-Students. / Students –Tutor / Tutor-Tutor / Tutor- External. Hidden values, circumstantial agendas are sometimes legitimised by the power the tutor have on his/her own studio.. The outcome of this procedure could have a negative effect on tutors and tutees. This in turn has a mal effect on motivation and self confidence, which are both crucial components of an optimal experience in learning. “It is about learning! and, it is about time”. A needed switch: it is not about performance, but Learning process, it is about accomplishing and improvement, but mainly about a deep review of our studio practice. In essence, this paper identifies illusions present in architecture studio teaching. It sheds the lights on hidden agendas within the studio and the effect these agendas have on the long term architects (architectural students) that such environments develop. The results of investigating this multilayered studio teaching approach offers important lessons to be learnt in our design studio teaching for both Tutors and Tutees