At the time of writing, in early May 2020, most architecture educators have passed through all five stages of the Kübler-Ross model of grief: denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance (Kübler-Ross, 1969). We spent the first two months of the year in a politically-sanctioned period of denial. When it became apparent that the virus was not contained to a specific geographic region or demographic, our governments instigated restrictions and our universities closed. At that point, we entered the phase of anger. Some made it to bargaining and then depression. Those who made it out the other side are emerging with a lukewarm glow of acceptance: we are all distance educators now.

Researchers at Imperial College London have argued that we need two different but interdependent strategies to manage the effects of the virus: mitigation (slowing epidemic spread while protecting those most at risk) and suppression (reversing epidemic growth and maintaining that situation indefinitely) (Ferguson et al, 2020). If followed, the Imperial College model is sobering for teachers. We can expect at least three, perhaps four, periods of social distancing during the northern hemisphere’s 2020/21 academic year – and that’s assuming we return to campus at all.

As we approach the busiest days of the academic year in the northern hemisphere, we have to recognise a fundamental fact: “we’re not going back to normal” (Lichfield, 2020).

The shift to distance education presents a particular challenge for architecture education. Our discipline has been one of the most resistant to fundamental pedagogical change. With fairly dramatic change now imposed upon us, and as our focus shifts from just surviving this year to actively planning next year, there is an opportunity to critically engage with the widely held assumptions of how we teach design in architecture.

Our signature pedagogy

In the United Kingdom, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Architects Registration Board (ARB) administer the discipline’s professional accreditation. The RIBA Procedures for Validation and Validation Criteria have, since their revision in 2011, explicitly prescribed that the assessed work of undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses in architecture “should consist of at least 50% design studio projects” (RIBA, 2014, p. 5). Not design projects, but design studio projects. The gatekeepers of the profession in the UK specify not only a minimum quota of design education but also an inconsistently interpreted method of delivery.

A survey of the 63 validation reports of UK architecture schools published by RIBA between 2014 and 2019 finds 25 instances of references to “studio culture”, either in the commendations by the board that visited the school of the academic position statements written by the heads of schools.[1]

These academic position statements include phrases such as “central to our programmes is a strong and vibrant studio culture,” (RIBA, 2017a, p.4) and “in our studio culture we experiment playfully, analyse thoughtfully, apply rigorously and reflect critically… Studio culture provides the safe, inclusive environment in which students can take risks and increase in confidence.” (RIBA, 2020, p.4)

Another statement reads that “central to the ethos of the school is the vibrant studio culture, which is the foundation of the student experience and emphasises a culture of the craft of making integrated with digital design … Design studio is seen as a place for the exchange of ideas where students learn from each other as well as staff and visiting scholars and practitioners.” (RIBA, 2016, p.3)

The design studio is clearly a pervasive learning environment. It is also one that absorbs students far beyond their scheduled contact hours. One school writes how “the 24-hour access to these studios plus the open kitchens has engendered a strong connection between students on all programmes.” (RIBA, 2017b, p.4) Likewise, the commendations of another report congratulate a programme team for inculcating students to treat the studio not just as a place of study, but a place of continuous occupation, where (with my emphasis) “students in the school had unselfconsciously created a genuine live-in studio culture in their main building.” (RIBA, 2017c, p.6)

In these documents we can see how the design studio can be variously celebrated as “a place to study and work in a highly creative multi-disciplinary environment alongside dance, art, design and music studios” (RIBA, 2018, p.3) or criticised as a dangerous site of intermingling with non-architects. The action point of a report observes (with my emphasis) “that the social and cultural environment of architecture in the studios needed to be carefully nurtured, and that too much diffusion of the subject area across the campus might have unintended consequences.” (RIBA, 2017c, p.6)

The design studio is architecture’s signature pedagogy. Lee Shulman defined the concept of signature pedagogy as “types of teaching that organize the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions.” The design studio in the architecture school is a perfect example of how, Shulman writes, signature pedagogies “even determine the architectural design of educational institutions, which in turn serves to perpetuate these approaches.” (Shulman, 2005, p.54)

Yet the design studio is a complex and multi-dimensional thing. It is the site of both innovation and uncritical replication. It is home to both critical pedagogies that liberate students and uncritical teaching methods which demand their submission to old fashioned ways.

The four dimensions of the design studio

One way to understand the design studio, it is necessary to comprehend what I call its four characteristic dimensions. These dimensions are related to but distinct from the four learning constructs of studio education that Donald Schön described in Educating the Reflective Practitioner (1987): a physical space or constructed environment for learning and teaching; a mode of teaching and learning; a program of activity; and a culture, created by students and studio teachers working together. Schön writes how the design studio is defined by any one-or-more of these constructs, but I would argue that the four cannot be considered in isolation.

Firstly, the design studio is a physical space in the now-shuttered campuses of higher education. How many other disciplines continue to defend the right of an undergraduate student to be provided with their own desk and a working environment on campus, twenty-four-seven for the duration of their studies? In many institutions, therefore, it is the site of a conflict between the traditions of the discipline and the economic pressures of the contemporary university.

Many recent reactions to the shutdown of higher education have come from those educators who regard the space of the architecture design studio as fundamental to the “slightly odd” teaching methods of architecture education. Published in the weeks immediately following the lockdown, one architecture educator writes that “our students rely on having physical and intellectual spaces on campus in which to work. They need access to a well-lit, well-resourced model-making workshop. They require computers they cannot afford themselves. They need each other — students need to be able to rely on their peers if their home environments don’t support our much-loved but slightly odd pedagogical methods.” (Lappin in Sadler et al, 2020)

Secondly, the design studio is a period of time in the teaching calendar. With continuous access to their own learning space, the timetable of an architecture student before the coronavirus pandemic will have also included one or maybe two days per week that were simply ascribed to “studio” – the indeterminate catchall for the time when a student is expected to be present and engaging in either self-directed or directed learning. Many schools of architecture have interpreted the RIBA validation condition of fifty per cent of the curriculum being delivered through design studio to mean that fifty per cent of a student’s schedule must be designated as “studio” time.

In recent weeks, architecture educators who have described their adaptation to “pandemic teaching” have mourned the loss of this collective time. Despite invoking Jeremy Bentham’s eighteenth-century prison one educator writes:

The design studio, however panoptical, offers more than a physical infrastructure that allocates equal desktop space. It offers common hours through which skills sets, expertise, energy, motivation and/or inspiration are in constant flux and are thereby permanently redistributed. A shared studio impedes sorting into the haves and have nots … The very physicality of studio space enables regulation of common standards against the logic of competition … just as the fixed parameter of 12 studio-hours per week can help level the ground between those rich in hours and those disadvantaged by day-jobs or dependents. (Roddier in Pries et al, 2020) [2]

Thirdly, the design studio can be understood as a large field of both teaching method and pedagogies. These are not the same thing. Within the indeterminate time ascribed to “studio” in the calendar, anything goes. The more creative and critical architecture educators deliver radical pedagogical activities, teaching that is informed by educational theory and political agenda. These include collaborative workshops, peer-to-peer learning, blends of asynchronous and synchronous teaching, flipped classroom exercises, experiential learning or live projects with real clients to name just a few. Yet in the darker corners survives the studio where students endure the same old corrupt banking model of education that the tutor learned about as a student. This approach relies on repetition, replication and duplication, and I would argue this distinguishes it as a teaching method rather than a pedagogical approach.

The fourth and final characteristic dimension of the design studio is its culture. When he proposed at is a learning construct, Schön was referring to the ideas, customs and behaviour that occurs in design studio. We should not forget the other meaning of culture: the cultivation of things like bacteria or cells in an artificial medium. Things grow, both good and bad.

The prejudices of architecture education

Architecture education has long been criticised for the ways in which the design studio is the site par excellence for the perpetuation of a hidden curriculum that prejudices certain individuals and groups, inculcating behaviours, attitudes and value systems (Dutton, 1987; Ward, 1990; Banham, 1996; Groat and Ahrentzen, 1996; Stevens, 1998; Webster, 2006 & 2008; Datta, 2007; Salama, 2010; Brown, 2012; Stratigakos, 2016). Jeremy Till writes that “the world of architectural education is obsessed with what it produces, and in this forgets to examine how it produces.” (Till, 2005, p.166)

More than 30 years ago, Karen Kingsley identified the tendencies of bias against women and exclusion of women’s contribution in the popular architectural history texts (Kingsley, 1988). Around the same time, Sherry Ahrentzen and Linda Groat published the findings of a nationwide survey of architecture educators in the USA. Ahrentzen and Groat identified three characteristics of the climate which was prejudiced against female teachers: the dominance of the star system and gendering of genius; the hidden curriculum of rituals that supported power and hierarchy; the isolationism engendered by the myopic attitude of the architectural act (Ahrentzen and Groat, 1992). Design studios have long been known to “exhibit a well-known academic syndrome, in which students believe that mystery – or the neglect of rational teaching methods – is an indication of the mastery of the instructor.” (Fowler and Wilson, 2004, p. 106)

For many architecture educators the path to revealing and subverting the mechanisms of reproduction of architecture education has been to adopt the philosophies and methods of critical pedagogy, including theorists of educational resistance. Architectural education routinely privileges that which Bourdieu and Passeron first christened cultural capital: the educational or intellectual assets which promote social mobility (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990 [1973]). Peter McLaren explains:

Students from the dominant culture inherit substantially different cultural capital than do economically disadvantaged students, and schools generally value and reward those who exhibit that dominant cultural capital (which is also usually exhibited by the teacher). Schools systematically devalue the cultural capital of students who occupy subordinate class positions. (McLaren, 2009, p. 81)

Acceptance

In the weeks and months after the closure of the physical spaces of higher education, architecture educators are expressing nostalgia for our signature pedagogy. One writes: “Our experiences with remote learning may prove to be a positive experiment, and we may gain new appreciation for digital tools which can support our regular pedagogies. But there is no place like studio” (Donovan in Baxi et al, 2020).

Comparing how a postgraduate seminar course and an undergraduate design studio had transitioned to online teaching, another writes that “the pivot to online teaching was pretty smooth for the seminar… dare I say, it’s actually working quite well. But for the design studio, the transition has been trickier; for students and faculty it can feel challenging and lonely. We all miss the collective camaraderie, the companionship of the shared space.” (Lyster in Sadler et al, 2020).

We should not presume that just by moving the space of architecture education online it will become more egalitarian. Harriet Harriss warns us that:

If [Massive Online Open Courses] have taught us anything, it’s that online learning environments are not democratic spaces by default. These platforms may allocate each user equal inches of screen space, but simultaneously surrender a window into our otherwise private domestic interiors, revealing often staggering economic differentials between students, while also rendering them vulnerable to racist and other discriminatory attacks (Harriss in Martin et al, 2020).

Frank Weine observed that “traditionally, design has been taught in a studio setting and history has been taught in a lecture room. If we accept that this approach has become ineffectual, how could one conceptualize a new model that is more efficacious? One could propose a reversal, so that history is taught in the studio and design in the lecture room.” (Weiner, 2005, 31). Until now, such opinions have been peripheral to the discourse around architecture education. The idea that we might do it differently have been purely speculative. But today, the world over, architecture educators are actively planning curricula without the design studio.

What the four characteristic dimensions of the design studio in architecture education described above have in common is that none of them are consistently defined. Our discipline has, at its heart, a multi-dimensional thing that is defined in space, time, pedagogy and culture. The physical space of the design studio is generally an open-plan room or sequence of rooms, into which independent study, formal teaching, informal teaching, socialising, eating, drinking, bullying, and even harassment or abuse occurs. The temporal dimension of the studio is likewise a curtain behind which lurks a panoply of teaching and learning: sometimes it’s ground-breaking and creative, often it is derivative and even destructive. The pedagogical dimension of the design studio is equally wide and diverse. The cultural dimension of the design studio is something that is often celebrated but rarely defined, and when it is, it is usually in terms that are as exclusive (of women, minorities, mature students, people of different abilities) as they are inclusive.

The question for the coming autumn is resolutely not how can we recreate the architecture studio online. It is how we can liberate our discipline from the assumption that an ill-defined space, time, pedagogy and culture is the only way to teach design. It is an opportunity to re-construct architecture education in a more critical, inclusive and democratic way.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to James Corazzo, Sarah Kettley, Peter Lloyd, Amanda Monfrooe and Ruth Morrow for their suggestions and guidance.

Notes

[1] Accessed via https://www.architecture.com/education-cpd-and-careers/riba-validation/riba-validated-schools-uk on 5 May 2020.

[2] I note here my strong objection to the presumption that scheduling 12 studio-hours per week is all it takes to correct the academic prejudices faced by students ”disadvantaged by day-jobs or dependents.”

References

• Ahrentzen, S. and Anthony, K.H., 1993. Sex, stars, and studios: A look at gendered educational practices in architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 47(1), pp.11-29.
• Ahrentzen, Sherry, and Linda N. Groat, 1992. “Rethinking architectural education: Patriarchal conventions & alternative visions from the perspectives of women faculty.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research: 95-111.
• Anthony, K.H., 2001. Designing for diversity: Gender, race, and ethnicity in the architectural profession. University of Illinois press.
• Banham, R., 1996. “A black box: the secret profession of architecture,” in Mary Banham (ed.) A Critic Writes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Kadambari Baxi, Matias del Campo, Fadi Masoud, Renée Cheng, Elizabeth Donovan, Carl Smith, Dana Tomlin, Aaron Cayer, Delia Mellis, Huda Tayob, G. Pelin Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, Nicholas Pevzner, Robin Tremblay-McGaw, Billy Fleming, “Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 6,” Places Journal, April 2020. Accessed 05 May 2020. <https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-6/&gt;
• Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C., 1990 [1973]. Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA
• Crysler, C.G., 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4), pp. pp. 208-217.
• Datta, A., 2007. Gender and learning in the design studio. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2(2), pp.21-35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.11120/jebe.2007.02020021
• Dutton, T.A. (1987), “Design and studio pedagogy”, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 16-25, doi: 10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461.
• Ferguson, N., Laydon, D., Nedjati Gilani, G., Imai, N., Ainslie, K., Baguelin, M., Bhatia, S., Boonyasiri, A., Cucunuba Perez, Z.U.L.M.A., Cuomo-Dannenburg, G. and Dighe, A., 2020. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77482
• Fowler, B. and Wilson, F., 2004. Women architects and their discontents. Sociology, 38(1), pp.101-119. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0038038504039363?casa_token=dXY0ENBo3c0AAAAA:Ya5mBxdEXUUg8NHshMu6E0MRsHhTd16Xbg4d1yxjQebL89yjEVUhHva9kDn0QaCWHdzbYMjugmHzpQ
• Groat, L.N. and Ahrentzen, S., 1996. Reconceptualizing architectural education for a more diverse future: Perceptions and visions of architectural students. Journal of Architectural Education, 49(3), pp.166-183. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1425326.pdf?casa_token=8nvxumxwwlcAAAAA:Y-OyMymJrHgEBY9zew1dh_Hdhe5_r52GD6N_xQTIXWJsll9E3NbzHxlUfLaAufUl8N8GdK-wNEE8Mt-cu0CGFaQhngWvv42KOknXE4t6Smn9rbIR3bHl
• Kingsley, Karen. “Gender issues in teaching architectural history.” Journal of architectural education 41.2 (1988): 21-25.
• Kübler-Ross E (1969). On Death and Dying. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Lichfield https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/17/905264/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/
• Reinhold Martin, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, Brent Sturlaugson, Barbara Penner, Harriet Harriss, Judith Rodenbeck, Sandy Isenstadt, Anna Livia Brand, Iman Ansari, Hélène Frichot, Brett Milligan, “Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 1,” Places Journal, April 2020. Accessed 22 Apr 2020. <https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-1/>
• McLaren, P., 2009. Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts. In: A. DARDER, M.P. BALTODANO and R.D. TORRES, eds, The Critical Pedagogy Reader. Second Edition edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 61-83.
• Olweny, M.R., 2013. Socialisation in Architecture Education. Olweny, M., 2017. Socialisation in architectural education: a view from East Africa. Education+ Training.
• Johan Pries, Andrew Herscher, Hugh Campbell, Shannon Mattern, Erin Moore, Rasmus Hansen, Frederick Steiner, Mireille Roddier, Mira Schor, Shelly Silver, Charles Davis, Philip Ursprung, “Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 3,” Places Journal, April 2020. Accessed 22 Apr 2020. <https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-3/>
• RIBA, 2014. RIBA procedures for validation and validation criteria for UK and international courses and examinations in architecture. RIBA. Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Validation-Procedures-and-Criteria/Additional-Documents/ValidationProcedures2011SECONDREVISION2MAY2014pdf.pdf> (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• RIBA, 2016. Report of the RIBA visiting board to the Leicester School of Architecture, De Montfort University. RIBA. Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Governance/Board-reports/De-Montfort-University-Report_confirmed-2016.pdf?la=en> (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• RIBA, 2017a. Report of the RIBA visiting board to the University of Sheffield. RIBA. Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Governance/Board-reports/University-of-Sheffield-2017.pdf?la=en> (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• RIBA, 2017b. Report of the RIBA visiting board to Oxford Brookes University. RIBA Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Governance/Board-reports/Oxford-Brookes-Confirmed-Report-2017.pdf?la=en>   (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• RIBA, 2017c. Report of the RIBA visiting board to Newcastle University. RIBA Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Governance/Board-reports/Newcastle-report-Nov2016_for-publishing.pdf?la=en> (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• RIBA, 2018. Report of the RIBA visiting board to the University of Salford. RIBA Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Governance/Board-reports/Salford-BSc-Part-1-2017.pdf?la=en> (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• RIBA, 2020. Report of the RIBA Full Visiting Board to the Arts University Bournemouth. RIBA. Available online <https://www.architecture.com/-/media/26F903ACCC2F4558BBCDD6BBC5051756.pdf?la=en> (Accessed 6 May 2020)
• Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Shulman, L.S., 2005. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), pp.52-59. https://www-jstor-org.proxy.ub.umu.se/stable/20027998 
• Simon Sadler, Patricia Morton, Richard J. Williams, Fred Scharmen, Clare Lyster, Marshall Brown, Jeffrey Hou, Sarah Lappin, Jonathan Massey, David Heymann, Frances Richard, “Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 2,” Places Journal, April 2020. Accessed 22 Apr 2020. <https://placesjournal.org/article/field-notes-on-pandemic-teaching-2/>
• Stratigakos, D., 2016. Where Are the Women Architects?. Princeton University Press.
• Salama, A.M. and El-Attar, M.S., 2010. Student perceptions of the architectural design jury. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2-3), pp.174-200.
• Till, J., 2003. Lost judgement. EAAE prize 2003–2005, Writings in Architectural Education, 2005, pp.164-181.
• Webster, H., 2006. A Foucauldian look at the Design Jury. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5(1), pp.5-19.
• Webster, H., 2008. Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), pp.63-74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.11120/jebe.2008.03020063
• Weiner, F., 2005. Five critical horizons for architectural educators in an age of distraction. EAAE prize 2003–2005, Writings in Architectural Education, pp.21-46.

This recipe comes from working with video in design research, participatory design and education for many years. While video is a powerful medium for documentation and communication of material practices of design, it can be extremely time-consuming to work with and the editing process gives the editor the last word on the content, rather than people in the video. 

The one-shot video format changes the role of video-making and its productive value in collaborative activities, as well as when working collaboratively over distance. The technique has become an excellent medium for tutoring over a distance, allowing a student or student team to present their tutor an up close look at their work-in-progress, whether rough sketches, physical materials or a combination.

One-Shot Video is a technique where participants use a smartphone to create a short video that illustrates their work in detail. The participant(s) are challenged to present their thinking as the video rolls over the supporting content in a limited time frame. One-Shot Video not only captures scripted performances, but it can also push participants to produce their best thinking constrained by a specific timeframe.

Ingredients

• A subject you need to communicate over distance
• Material you wish to show   
• A cameraphone or digital camera (quality doesn’t matter)
• A video hosting service or site
• (Optional) A learning or assessment activity that would benefit from a dialogic presentation

Method

You can watch and One Shot Video of the method here: One-Shot Video. There’s an example One-Shot Video and further support materials at the end of this recipe.

1. Prepare: Choose your material, identify who will speak about what, and what path the camera should take.  
   • Have an outline script or core message
   • Have something you will film as you talk about it
   • Think about where the camera will go 
2.  Film in one shot while describing what you are showing: 
   • Overview: Outline the topic and the purpose of the video
   • The details: Talk through the specifics you wish to share. Give examples! Point to the material! 
   • Conclude: Repeat the most important point(s) to remember. Describe what happens next? 
   • As you film:
     • Hold the camera horizontally for best viewing 
     • Get close to the content
     • Point at what you are talking about
     • Keep it rough
     • Dare to rehearse
3. Upload & send: Upload as an “unlisted” file on Youtube or similar platform or to your online learning system and share the link. 

Additional background & uses

When I worked at Interactive Institute in Sweden, I finally developed some support material for introducing one-shot video for practical purposes, both a video introduction and print material. This technique has been introduced and used by hundreds of students (Umeå Institute of Design, Konstfack, KADK, University of Southern Denmark), and professionals in a variety of projects and daily work practices over the years.  

And finally, here’s an example One-Shot Video:

References

Clark, Brendon. “Generating Publics through Design Activity.” In Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice, edited by Wendy Gunn, Ton Otto, and Rachel Charlotte Smith, 199–215. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.

Clark, Brendon, and Melissa Caldwell L. “Design Anthropology On the Fly: Performative Spontaneity in Commercial Ethnographic Research.” In Design Anthropological Futures, 169–82. London ; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016.

Lilja, Niina, Arja Piirainen-Marsh, Brendon Clark, and Nicholas B. Torretta. “The Rally Course: Learners as Co-Designers of Out-of-Classroom Language Learning Tasks.” In Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action, edited by John Hellermann, Søren W. Eskildsen, Simona Pekarek Doehler, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh, 38:219–48. Educational Linguistics.

Lawrence, Jill, and Brendon Clark. “Building Alignment and Sparking Momentum with Tangible Future Scenarios – Dimensions.” Design Management Review 29, no. 2 (2018): 20–25.

Introduction

The final design review, also known as the portfolio review or design jury, is a well-established but widely contested practice in architecture and design education (Anthony, 1991; Dannels, 2005; Lymer, 2009; Marie & Grindle, 2014; Oh et al., 2013; Webster, 2007). It is a prominent summative assessment tradition for students to showcase and defend their final design projects, for design tutors to celebrate their teaching results, to inspire and motivate fellow students and to benchmark academic standards. Grading and feedback are provided by internal and external critics or jury panel members, including local and external academics and professionals (Murphy et al., 2012). At some universities, other stakeholders like community representatives are also sometimes invited to serve on the panel of critics or the jury. 

Based on current international online conversations among architecture and design faculty, it appears that those who have access to digital platforms are coping reasonably well with the temporary transition to online learning and teaching in response to the Covid-19 crisis (Marshalsey, 2020). However, the upcoming assessment period is being met with unease and apprehension by those faculty and staff who are not accustomed to online methodologies (Salmon, 2020). Care must, therefore, be taken to properly design online alternatives to limit stress and anxiety, to allow fairness without compromising academic standards, and to promote learning. 

Many architecture and design schools in the northern hemisphere are preparing for final assessments, but few examples of online final design review models exist. This recipe is the result of three colleagues based in Africa, Europe and Australia, thinking about how to ‘whip up’ the final review online, drawing on their collective experiences of onsite and online architecture education. Curtin University offers onsite and fully online Masters in architecture programs, the Cape Peninsula University of Technology presents a blended undergraduate architecture course with a prominent online component, and Hasselt University has recently moved their onsite Bachelors, Honours and Masters in architecture programs online in response to the pandemic situation. 

Online design education relies on the use of multiple synchronous and asynchronous digital technologies and tools. These must be employed through careful consideration of their respective affordances (Salmon, 2020). For example, when moving a final design review online, we suggest that the traditional onsite experience should not be replicated, for example, in a Zoom online session. Not only will this option be data-intensive (Stanford, 2020), but also tiring and overwhelming (Degges-White, 2020). Instead, we suggest that a suitable combination of synchronous and asynchronous onsite and online modes be employed to achieve the desired experiences and required outcomes. This move towards effective and durable online solutions rather than emergency remote teaching (ERT) (Hodges et al., 2020), suggests a shift from ‘contingency to sustainability’ – creating ‘the future in a situation of uncertainty’ (Salmon, 2020). Such a future may require a certain degree of flexibility to move between onsite and online modes, as the circumstances allow. 

This recipe is for a sandwich model comprising a synchronous online Review phase in between asynchronous  Pre-review and Post-review phases. The Review session takes the form of an online discussion, Q & A or interview, focusing on clarification and feedback, rather than a design presentation. Instead, the student’s work is submitted in a presentation bundle comprising drawings, text and video, prior to the online Review session. Should circumstances allow, the Review session can still be conducted onsite. If not, it can be hosted equally well online. In this case, the Pre-review and Post-review phases remain unchanged. The digital format of student submissions allows for onsite or online Reviews.

Ingredients

1. Asynchronous communication tools: email or online forums via google docs or an LMS (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle, etc). 
2. Synchronous communication tools: webinar tools e.g. Blackboard Collaborate, Zoom, Jitsi Meet, BigBlueButton, Google Meet etc. for synchronous online discussion sessions.  When selecting the tools, consider university policies on security and intellectual property.
3. Production and media sharing tools: StoryMaps, moviemaker, screencast-o-matic, Loom, voicethread, Camtasia etc. to produce presentation videos; and Instagram, issuu, Behance etc. to publicly share students’ work.

Preparation

1. Design and plan an optimal workflow, and assign the different roles and responsibilities. The plan should include who communicates what to whom by when. Include a backup plan, for example, in case of connectivity problems, power outage or other technical problems. Assign moderators’ rights to more than one person, but make sure they know how to apply them. Involve students in the design and planning stage and encourage them to take the lead if university policy allows. 
2. Compile a critic briefing pack. This can include written invitations to critics to participate, the study guide or syllabus, project brief documents, rubrics and assessment guidelines, student grades and mark sheets, a repository of student submissions, the link to the online Review session platform, with instructions, and a Review schedule. Consider whether it is possible, or desirable, to allow students to take the lead here too.
3. Compile a student briefing pack. This can include guidelines for the online submission of work, required submission formats for the different components that form part of the presentation bundle (e.g. a thesis document, booklet or poster with high resolution renders of 300 DPI minimum, and a video), maximum file sizes, filename protocols and rubrics. It should explain how the online Review session will be conducted, explaining the roles, responsibilities and rules, as well as the online Review schedule. Students may want to set up a dry run to prepare for the online Review.
4. Teachable moments. Online sessions dedicated to the development of specific skills necessary for this assessment method can be offered to students by faculty, fellow students or invited presenters. Topics may include, for example, how to develop a powerful narrative, using drawings only to do so, how to respond to trick questions, how to behave and perform in an interview, how to use online media and platforms, and critical thinking. 

Method

Pre-review (asynchronous)

Students submit work in digital format for faculty and critics to study in preparation of the online Review session

In the absence of a live presentation, student submissions should engage multimedia to clearly convey their design intent and process. They can draw inspiration from competition submission formats, like booklets or posters, supported by short (max duration should be specified, say 5 – 7 minutes) narrated presentations or videos. Video submissions can be any suitable combination of a narrated screencast or video, including photos or video of physical models, drawings etc. 

Students should submit their work well in advance as agreed with faculty, to allow the critics adequate time to study the material. Submission information including penalties for late or non-submissions etc. should be clear, agreed up front and guided by university policy. Digital work can be submitted on the LMS, Google Drive or another digital repository. Designated faculty should collect the files, collate them and share them with the critics. 

The critics, in turn, guided by clear rubrics, should peruse the student work in preparation for the upcoming Design Review. They may choose to assign a provisional mark or decide to leave the grading until the Review session. Whilst working through the student work, critics should record all comments and questions to direct at the students in the upcoming online design Review session. 

Review (synchronous)

Students, critics and faculty meet online to discuss the submitted work

Students meet critics and design tutors in an online webinar session (Bush, 2020) to respond to questions and comments, and to clarify where needed, using audio, screen-sharing, on-screen pointing and drawing. The use of the webcam can be limited to the start of the session when the introductions are made.

The session starts with the appointed moderator welcoming participants, explaining the timeframe and protocols. Students get, say, approximately 20 – 30 minutes each, starting with a 2-minute introduction and allowing 5-minute transitions in between. For example, a 2-hour session can accommodate five students. Short breaks in between sessions can be reserved for comfort breaks and marks discussions. Observers may use the chatbox for questions and comments and the session moderator can respond where needed. The moderator must make sure that everyone gets an equal opportunity to engage and contribute, managing permissions of participants appropriately.

This online Review session can be recorded for quality assurance, record-keeping and educational purposes, if allowed by the university and if participants agree. Critics and design tutors finalise their marks, using a clear rubric, and record notes where needed. 

Post-review (synchronous or asynchronous)

Finalisation of marks, feedback on the review process and public display of student work

Critics and design tutors meet in breakout online spaces to clarify, compare observations and to discuss marks for finalisation and sign off. This process can also be conducted via email, on completion of the design Reviews.

Critics’ and students’ feedback on the review process and organisation can be invited through short online surveys, to inform future events. The online publication of student work can be via e-book tools or social media. Here, too, students can be invited to take the lead.

Variations 

• This sandwich method allows the final design review to be switched reasonably easily between onsite and online modes, as demanded by the circumstances. A flexible approach can lead to more robust assessment design. If it is impossible for students, design tutors and critics to be in the same place at the same time, e.g. when students are based remotely, or during periods of social distancing, the final design Review can be conducted online as described above. Should it be uncertain whether an onsite final review will be possible, the same Preview stage and submission requirements as described above, can be followed. If circumstances change and a final design Review becomes possible and it is preferred onsite, students can verbally present their work bundles using projection. 
• Students can share their work with their peers (or publicly via social media) prior to the Review stage, to invite asynchronous feedback to help them prepare for the Review. Public sharing of student work is subject to university rules and policy.
• In times of crisis like the current Covid-19 pandemic, it might be necessary to adopt pass/ fail or outcomes achieved/ achieved well/ not yet achieved grading protocol instead of numerical grades. Depending on the context or circumstances, it may even be necessary to completely reconceptualise the assessment strategy and instruments.

References

Anthony, K.H. (1991) Design juries on trial: the renaissance of the design studio. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Bush, L. (2020) An Online Teaching Survival Guide. Teaching Innovations and Practices. [online] Available at: https://lccteaching.myblog.arts.ac.uk/an-online-teaching-survival-guide/

Dannels, D. P. (2005) ‘Performing Tribal Rituals: A Genre Analysis of “Crits” in Design Studios’, Communication Education, Routledge, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 136–160 [Online]. DOI: 10.1080/03634520500213165.

Degges-White, S. (2020) Zoom Fatigue: Don’t Let Video Meetings Zap Your Energy. Some ‘cheats’ to help you beat Zoom fatigue before it beats you. [Online] Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifetime-connections/202004/zoom-fatigue-dont-let-video-meetings-zap-your-energy

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond. A. 2020.  The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review. [online] Available at: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Lymer, G. (2009) Demonstrating Professional Vision: The Work of Critique in Architectural Education, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16:2, 145-171, DOI: 10.1080/10749030802590580

Marie, J. and Grindle, N. (2014) How Design Reviews Work in Architecture and Fine Art, Charrette, 1: 36-48.

Marshalsey, L. (2020) The preliminary successes and drawbacks of a turn to distance design studio learning. Distance Design Education. [online] Available at: https://distancedesigneducation.com/2020/04/24/the-preliminary-successes-and-drawbacks-of-a-turn-to-distance-design-studio-learning/

Murphy, K.M., Ivarsson, J., and Lymer, G. (2012) Embodied reasoning in architectural critique, Design Studies, Volume 33, Issue 6. Pages 530-556, ISSN 0142-694X [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005

Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D. and Yi-Luen Do, E. (2013) A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios, Design Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 302–325 [Online]. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004

Salmon, G. (2020) Covid-19 is the pivot point for online learning. Whonke. [online] Available at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/covid-19-is-the-pivot-point-for-online-learning/?fbclid=IwAR3vxMkUXrOTwqqE2aVdeJghoNb3PIyGLVT2UsqBMS4heNUs8SFY5cQAiq4

Stanford, D. (2020) Videoconferencing Alternatives: How Low-Bandwidth Teaching Will Save Us All | IDDblog: Instructional Design Tips, Advice, & Trends for Online & Distance Learning | Educational Technology and Online Course Design Help. [online] Available at: https://www.iddblog.org/videoconferencing-alternatives-how-low-bandwidth-teaching-will-save-us-all/

Webster, H. (2007) The Analytics of Power, Journal of Architectural Education 60(3), pp21-27. Doi:10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00092.x

‌ Artwork by _mariana_art_ 

The live note document is here and this also has a capture of the text chat. Please keep adding to this (resources, comments, ideas).

Thanks to all contributors so far and a huge thank you to everyone who took part in the meetup!

The recording is here:

It seems the technological campuses of tomorrow have manifested today as an essential and spontaneous response to the COVID-19 world outbreak. This article briefly discusses the current pivot from an on-campus physical design studio curriculum towards a distance learning and online delivery model in higher education. 

Many universities have quickly re-focused their learning and teaching of design education towards virtual community building, remote distance learning and teaching and alternative assessment outcomes via digital portals. As an educator who teaches physical design studio learning within a College of Art, housed within a parent university in Australia, the transition has been swift and relatively painless. Our university already has five physical campuses and one digital campus, and a highly successful learning management system (LMS) already fluently embedded. Yet, in my own creative institution, I have been surprised in our ability to quickly transition our curriculum, resources and staffing from a physical to a distance mode of studio learning. Indeed, when the severity of the COVID-19 became clear to our university, this switch occurred in a matter of days.

However, not all art schools and design institutions who deliver a conventional and valued face-to-face design studio education have been able to adapt so easily.

As a researcher of studio learning, my field of research has always championed the physical studio as a site for learning. Preceding 2020, my research investigated the shift from specialised studio educational environments to standardized and augmented digital classroom learning and how this has changed the shape of design education. I examined how networked learning continued to dominate higher education (HE) and institutional preference was for Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL). Uniform learning spaces to accommodate higher student numbers were widespread and as a result, studio education combined copious physical interactions and digital platforms.

A great deal of previous research into learning spaces and student engagement has focused on self-regulated design learning, the physical environments that impede or support learning, designing and making creative spaces, creating authentic learning encounters and the studio as a setting for production (Davies and Gannon, 2009; Doorley and Witthoft, 2012; Thornburg, 2013; Farías and Wilkie, 2016; Marshalsey 2017; Powers, 2017; Nair and Doctori, 2019). In recent years, the notion of the sticky campus emerged with the aim of encouraging students to stay, study, work, create and socialise actively on university-governed grounds, in buildings and with faculty (Warren and Mahony Architects, 2017; Orr and Shreeve, 2018). Orr and Shreeve (2018) presented the idea of the sticky curriculum for contemporary art and design education. They argue a complex ‘stickiness’ is the posing of uncertain, diverse and thought-provoking opportunities for learners, which may be found external to formal, assessed curriculum (Marshalsey et al. 2020).

Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, my research examined the relationship between space and learning in higher design education, and specifically, in the use of specialised ‘sticky studio’ learning spaces located within a wider university context. I attempt to address the pedagogical gap that exists between broader university learning structures and spaces, and the requirements of specialist design education. Wider university systems place pressure on space and time for exploratory learning and practice across the creative disciplines. Often there is no space or time for the necessary self-directed ‘diverse wanderings’ of messy, creative experimentation in studio learning today. Austerlitz et al. (2008, p.6) refers to this “ability to operate in the complexities of uncertainty” as the core of art and design studio education. If educators lose power over a practical curriculum then students may fail to perform, and to the depth and rigour required for creative design practice (Giroux and Aronowitz, 1986). 

It is clear moving assessment and engagement online has consequences and repercussions for practice-based art and design courses in higher education today. For these reasons, and as a reflective design educator and researcher, I was reluctant to fully embrace online studio delivery. Surely, the distinct signature style and values of a hands-on, dynamic studio education would be lost?

Yet, I and my colleagues rode the wave of the physical-to-distance/online delivery shift with little argument or obstacle. I now find myself in a position of being compelled to address what a distance and online ‘sticky studio’ delivery might comprise of and what that might mean as an educator of design students and as a researcher of physical, blended and virtual studio learning. I am now duty-bound to confront and address my assumptions of a non-physical studio delivery much quicker than I had anticipated.

Distance learning in design changes how, what and why we teach and how our students learn. What are the practical implications of design studio education in a time of distance learning? What are the drawbacks and successes of the technological platforms, digital tools and techniques essential for student engagement in distance studio education? Many have embraced this shift so far, yet I am still in the initial stages of understanding the enormous range and diversity of the platforms, workspaces and tools available online to support my teaching practice. I believe we, as creative educators, are situated at the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding distance and online delivery for studio education.

The preliminary successes and drawbacks of a turn to distance studio learning

In terms of preliminary successes in my institution, students seem to have greater contact with educators via the university-supported online platforms teaching staff now use in our institution (BlackBoard Collaborate and Microsoft Teams). The feedback from students is positive – they feel they have more one-on-one time with key staff and peers. Voting polls, breakout tasks, interactive hand raising features, chat rooms and shared screen access supports the teaching and learning approach. In relation to the drawbacks, block learning does not work online.

For my own 4th year Honours students, the previously timetabled 4-hour seminar is not feasible to sustain online. It is exhausting for educators to maintain online presence and a challenge for students to stay engaged for so long. Instead, I find myself dispersing the 4-hour block over the entire week. I host the main class on BlackBoard Collaborate for a 2-hour block, where we reflect work to each other, discuss design thinking and strategies for the students’ individual projects with peer feedback. I then set them tasks as homework, and we stay in contact frequently via Teams and email during the rest of the week.

My colleagues also say Miro and Padlet are key platforms for creative engagement and collaboration online, and as a means to display creative work-in-progress. Despite the absence of the daily commute to university, the students (particularly the first-year students who only began their academic experience here in Australia at the end of February) do struggle to remain motivated when isolated at home with little resources other than a computer and internet connection. They miss the evolving interactions with staff and peers in a shared, physical environment. 

As a design educator, I do miss using the floors and walls of my educational environment as a blank canvas to draw ideas and connections with my students, to visually explain concepts and to teach face-to-face. I find it difficult to measure the students’ comprehension via body language and facial expressions as they are essentially invisible to me online and vice versa. Digital Post-it notes are no match for the real thing.

Yet, my attitude as an advocate of studio learning is softening, although I am not entirely convinced the key values and properties of studio can exist online – the creative messiness, the situational responsiveness to student engagement, the visibility of critical play, materiality and the support of the community of practice and discovery. Virtual breakout rooms do not have the same appeal as a group table or studio sofa and demonstrating hands-on drawing, techniques and prototyping via webcam does not have the same attraction.

Yet, in these early days of a changed studio delivery, it is forecast art and design institutions will not fully return to the way we taught the design curriculum before. There are many points for consideration and discussion as we move forward to embrace the future of design studio learning within an emerging, blended sticky studio model in higher education. Who knows what that will look like?

As many Universities need to quickly move their learning online during the current coronavirus crisis, we have received many questions about our remote and virtual laboratories. This blog collects together useful information about our OpenSTEM Labs and provides links to online resources.

This blog post is a working document – check back here for updates.

What are the OpenSTEM Labs?

The OpenSTEM Labs are the Open University’s remote and virtual laboratories that we use to deliver practical, hands-on learning to our distance learning students.  The mission of the OpenSTEM Labs is to give students access to real experiments, using real data and in real time, wherever they are. We provide a mix of remote experiments that allow students to control real equipment remotely, and onscreen (or virtual) experiments where students engage with real data in a simulated environment. Students interact with the all experiments via a web browser. The OpenSTEM Labs have been developed over the last 10 years with support from the Wolfson Foundation and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We have developed more than 100 experiments in subjects from life sciences and chemistry, to physics, astronomy and engineering.

You can read more about the OpenSTEM Labs here.

Can I use OpenSTEM Labs activities with my students?

Onscreen activities:

We provide free access to some of our onscreen activities. These activities allow students to engage with real data, but do not rely on physical equipment and are scalable to large numbers of users. Click on this link to register for a free account that will allow you to try the activities.

Free activities include:

• virtual microscopes (with slide collections for histology and histopathology, earth sciences, ‘A’ level students, and a variety of slides available at virtualmicroscope.org).
• Flame test – a simple demonstration of the characteristic colours produced by metallic salts in flames
• Spirometer –  investigate the impact of smoking on lung function
• Hominoid Skull Evolution – explore the features of a collection of hominoid skulls
• Variations in vegetation – part of a virtual environmental field trip to the River Teign
• iSpot – identify anything in nature – a guide to help you develop your skills and interest in nature
• treezilla – map and record Britain’s trees using Citizen Science

Remote Laboratories:

We are currently offering free access to some of our remote laboratory experiments.  These experiments use real equipment located in our labs, and therefore have limited capacity that is managed using a booking system. You can visit a showcase page to access our free remote laboratory experiments here. The showcase page provides short taster exercises and instructions on how to register for a free account to try the experiments for yourself.  The experiments available on the showcase page are:

• Pendulum exercise – take control of a pendulum and capture its motion on a graph
• Fourier exercise – switch on a “light beam chopper” and analyse the rectangular wave it produces
• Radio telescope – scan the galaxy

Access to these experiments is currently free, but is subject to availability. Access will be reviewed after 31^st July 2020.

Working with us

If you are interested in using any of our remote laboratories or associated teaching materials in your courses in the future, please get in touch at [email protected].

Remote facilities include:

• Remote Observatories
• Mars yard for mars rover testing
• Scanning electron microscopes
• Electronics experiments
• Pressure Vessel experiment
• Wind tunnels (under development)
• Thermodynamics ideal gas law (under development)

Further information

You can find more detailed information about our pedagogy and the development of some of the OpenSTEM Labs activities in the following papers:

Brodeur, Marcus; Minocha, Shailey; Kolb, Ulrich and Braithwaite, Nicholas (2015). Designing online laboratories for optimal effectiveness: undergraduate priorities for authenticity, sociability and metafunctionality. In: 15th International Conference on Technology, Policy and Innovation, 17-19 Jun 2015, The Open University, Milton Keynes.

Drysdale, Timothy D. and Braithwaite, N. St.J. (2017). An internet of laboratory things. In: 2017 4th Experiment@International Conference (exp.at’17), pp. 236–240.

Kolb, Ulrich; Brodeur, Marcus; Braithwaite, N St.J and Minocha, Shailey (2018). A robotic telescope for university-level distance teaching. Robotic Telescopes, Student Research and Education Proceedings,, 1(1) pp. 127–136.

You can find the meeting notes here (please feel free to keep adding). And you can find the presentation with prompt questions here.

As always, a huge thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion.

The live note document and text chat is here please keep adding to that document (resources, comments, ideas).

Robert O’Toole also posted some notes by Bo Kelestyn here: http://www.inspireslearning.com/journal/advice-for-teaching-online/

The recording is here:

Thanks to everyone who made it to the first meetup – we had (at one point) 75 people from all around the globe.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far; judging by the messages we are receiving it is appreciated and useful. (and apologies if we haven’t replied to you yet – we have a lot of messages to get through – will get there…).

So, we’ve decided to keep the site and activities going.

Our aim: is to support the international design education community during the COVID-19 crisis using shared, open and freely available resources in response to real challenges faced by that community .

To do this we need:

• Feedback on what you need – we are experts in distance design education but we’re not experts in your contexts and your students’ needs. So please let us know what else we can provide that might help.
• Ideas for content – questions, problems, situations, any challenges you are facing as a design educator having to change your practice. Please add these to the THE big #DistanceDesignEd FAQ 
• Recipes – if you have an example of something you are doing that’s working then please share it with the community. The recipe format works well here because it’s quick to do and easy to share.
• Articles – if you have expertise in any area of distance design education then please think about writing an article. Get in touch and we’ll add you to the contributor list.

The other critical thing is that we are able to stay in touch. We have set up a mailing list and will contact everyone who subscribed to the blog, left their details following the last meetup, and who have contacted us directly.

In the meantime, subscribe to the #DistanceDesignEd blog now to get updates:

Coming up next week

We are planning two follow up discussions:

• Tuesday 24 March at 10:00hrs GMT – https://zoom.us/j/707948987
• Friday 27 March at 16:00hrs GMT – https://zoom.us/j/387874380

The topics for these session haven’t quite been confirmed so please suggest one. The discussion on Wednesday highlighted:

• Prototyping and materiality
• Building communities at a distance
• Assessment
• Time: synchronous vs asynchronous working

We’ll also continue to add articles and recipes. Until then, please stay safe everyone.

Therefore, any design studio is far more than the physical object itself and the curriculum and support around a studio is a critical part of it. This is especially true of online and distance studios – Virtual Design Studios (VDS).

There are no clear definitions or boundaries of what a studio is or what it comprises so this is a practical Getting Started guide to VDS use in distance design education.

With that in mind, your studio should be:

• what you need it to be for you, your students, and the subject you are teaching – you will come across a lot of tech solutions and shiny products. You need to be aware of these but not driven by them.
• flexible and agile in response to student and tutor needs – as students develop, their studio needs change hence your studio needs to change. Similarly, if a bit of your studio isn’t working then dump it.
• the basics first and complex stuff later. Chances are you will end up with multiple tools and services. This is OK and quite normal – most studios are blended studios (your existing studio is already blended!)

And remember, a studio is as much an idea and concept as anything physical of digital.

Curriculum

It might seem a strange place to start but a significant driver of an online studio is your curriculum. What, how, when, and why you do things (i.e. curriculum) in a studio informs what the studio can become. Our experience and research shows that studios separated from curriculum (or vice versa) do not work in the way they are intended to. Develop your curriculum in conjunction with what your studio currently is. 

Start by sketching out what your overall plan is:

• Process-based project (e.g. a basic research>brief>ideas>test>iterate model)
• Project with outputs (e.g. project based on client deliverables (simulated or real); )
• Staged Project (e.g. Formal stage-gate process project)
• Series of design activities (e.g. precedent analysis; user studies; idea testing; etc.)
• Series of prompts with student-led work (e.g. a theme of ‘Fairness” with open-ended response)
• Large student-led project (e.g. Higher or Masters level self-directed student interest or portfolio)
• Etc

This gives you a starting point to work with, so try to keep it top-level and relatively descriptive.

Even better is if you can add to this some value or aim to be your Guiding Principle (Lawson, 2005). For example, you might set out a single thing you want students to ‘become’ at the end of it: ‘Independent designers’, ‘Creative tinkerers’, ‘Confident with uncertainty’. This can be useful when you are unsure at a later stage – you can go back and ask ‘will this decision help my guiding principle?’

Dimensions

Once you have your curriculum sketch, there are some dimensions to the studio that are worth thinking about and that you can apply to your plan.

These are:

• Public – Private (what are the levels of sharing you need? Public? Semi-public? Semi-private? Private?)
• Social – Personal (Is the focus of the studio the group and community identity? Or is it the development of individual professionals? This changes over time, by the way)
• Formative or Summative Assessment (Is the reason for the studio primarily formative or summative assessment? Do you need to see process or outputs? Learning or achievements?)
• Output – Activity (Is the focus on the design process and activity? Or what is being produced? Constructivist-Behavioural?)
• Specialist – General (how specialised or general is the curriculum and what does that require in the studio?)
• Synchronous – Asynchronous (how synchronous do the activities need to be? Is it staged? )
• Distributed – Focused (Is it for a deliberately large set of contributors or large-scale contribution (OpenIDEO)? Or for a specific group focus? Or even individual?)
• Finite – Open-ended (Do you have specific cut-off points, such as assessments? Or is it a continuous studio (such as DS106)?)

Different studios make use of these dimensions in very different ways and this is just as true in online studios as it is anywhere else (Lanig, 2019; Jones et al, 2020).

Studio Types

Now that we have some dimensions for our studio we can have a look at Types of studio, where these dimensions are prioritised in different ways to suit the studio need. The following is by no means a complete list – we simply don’t have the research and knowledge on this topic yet.

Repository type studios

A very common VDS is the online repository type where students upload material to an online space. This replicates a core Studio Property – that activity centres around artefacts (we draw, touch models, create shapes with material). The core pedagogy centres around these artefacts and what you and students do with them.

Some repository studios focus on single media modes (such as images) and this can help really focus students’ attention to particular modes of work. For example, a photography course focusing on teaching only in that medium.

Fnstagram, Pinterest, Flickr and Google Photos are relatively commonplace examples of this type of studio. Creating shared albums or using tags can bring this work together to allow sharing and critique (either synchronously or asynchronously).

Other repository studios allow a range of media to be shared (e.g. images, video, links, audio clips, etc.) and this can be particularly useful for sketchbook, research, or pinboard type design activity.

Here’s an example of a Padlet Studio – feel free to have a go and add a #DistanceDesignEd resource yourself:

Repository studio dimensions (approx only):

• Public – Private Good for public or private
• Social – Personal For social, needs to support interaction on artefacts
• Assessment – Process Good for assessment. OK for process but needs support in curriculum.
• Output – Activity Most favour outputs but activity via artefacts can work well in Padlet or Evernote
• Specialist – General Either, although particularly good for specialist and focused work
• Synchronous – Asynchronous Primarily asynchronous
• Distributed – Focused Primarily focused (on artefact, groupings, student, task etc.)

Social and social media studios

The primary focus of this type of studio is social connection, often within an identifiable community, identity or shared purpose. The purpose of this community can be primarily subject or pastorally oriented and most end up being some blend of both. The core pedagogy is a social constructivist model: students learn from proximity to other learners in a similar context. In doing so they are also supporting other learners.

Creating a social network is difficult and it’s far better to allow a number of opportunities to encourage networks to emerge. For example, social media has already augmented physical design studios and you will probably find that students have been connecting already.

But if you don’t have an existing community, a good way to start is with a social augmented studio, where the main design activity (the ‘visible’ component) is supported by a social component (that acts as informal subject and pastoral support). A simple social overlay can operate through existing social media services: Twitter, Facebook, Google, WhatsApp, WeChat, etc.

Quick Tip: It’s a good idea to stay out of some student groups. Just as teachers have (or had!) staffrooms, it’s critical that students also have places to moan about tutors too!

A well-blended studio model is one that uses both social and repository studio types to build on one another. This is the primary model we use at The Open University with OpenStudio. But this does take time to set up and design with your curriculum and even this model requires additional social overlays to make it suit student need.

Social studio dimensions (approx only):

• Public – Private Mainly public and semi-public (within a defined class/year cohort or qualification)
• Social – Personal Mainly social (but allow for degrees of engagement, including less active contributors)
• Assessment – Process Good for sharing and checking process with others. Assessment can be challenging – tip for this is to assess individual contribution; never ‘groupwork’
• Output – Activity Favours activity and can capture this very well
• Specialist – General Tends to be general, although blends with specialist well
• Synchronous – Asynchronous Primarily asynchronous
• Distributed – Focused Primarily focused (on artefact, groupings, student, task etc.)

Domain and subject specific studios

Specific domains and subject areas in design often have proprietary or professional software solutions and these are often taught in specialist studios or blended with traditional studio spaces.

These software solutions are increasingly cloud-based or distributed, offering opportunities to teach directly in shared digital models. For example, models in architecture, engineering and construction, Building Information Modelling (BIM) or Product Lifecycle Modelling (PLM) in product design.

But this does require access to hardware and software that might not be available to students.

(This is only partially my area of expertise and I know there are many other domains – so please contact me so we can add them!)

Autodesk: https://www.autodesk.co.uk/ Autodesk provide a range of software and digital tools that can be used as clients to explore a shared or hosted model (although this is technically and resource demanding for students and tutors). Autodesk also offers cloud solutions that reduce the connection loads required, such as Autodesk 360. If anyone has a recipe sharing their experience of using solutions like this then let us know!

Adobe Creative Cloud: https://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud.html – although it’s not really a studio space in itself, the suite of products and some of the tools in the suite can be used together to create a professional studio. Hence, one virtual studio model would be to take a professional studio approach if your students are at a suitable level to do so. But it is quite expensive, depending on what products are used, making it less inclusive than some other options.

• Public – Private Semi-private, usually focusing on specific groups, projects, or workflows.
• Social – Personal With a shared model, the focus is firmly on groupwork and collaboration
• Assessment – Process Better for assessment of interim or final artefacts (a lot can be gained from studying the ‘tidiness’ of a model or set of files… ). Process can be difficult to see and assess.
• Output – Activity Favours activity for formative work and output for summative.
• Specialist – General Specialist (although it can be a useful interdisciplinary learning space – albeit )
• Synchronous – Asynchronous Semi-synchronous depending on activity setup. Handling synchronisation is part of working professionally in these environments
• Distributed – Focused Primarily focused but with a groupwork and collaborative component

Finally, here are a couple of example models to show how the above goes together to create a virtual design studio.

Example Model – An Introductory, repository social design Studio

This is one of the primary models we use at the OU, where we have a high number of students (4-800) starting a course, and we need to engage and interest them quickly, and have to encourage them to act in certain ways to start their learning journey positively (without being there all the time to do this).

The recipe we use is the Quick social studio one and the model is particularly for new design students, including students who have no experience of design. The aims are:

• To: Engage students and initiate their interest and motivation (Time on Task is critical)
• To: Get students doing design (design is doing, not just reading)
• To: Induct students into distance learning and design practice (habits, behaviours, values)
• To Enculture students into design practice: viewing, commenting, responding (building up to engaging, critiquing
• To: Develop networks and social learning / practice

To achieve this we use chunks of activity and material – short activities that are designed to engage students through activity which leads to some shareable output. The shareable output is critical in initiating social learning, which can start as simply as seeing other students working; verifying their own work; comparing their work; commenting on others’ work; and so on.

We then build on these simple social mechanisms through more advanced design activities at a suitable intensity and pace. These chunks build up to design methods that students can eventually put to use in larger design processes and projects – but they will be doing so after having been inducted into habits of work in the smaller activities.

(Will post a recipe for this model soon)

Example model 2 – Completely constructionist distributed studio

This model is at the opposite end of the curriculum scale to the previous one.

Coming soon…

References

• Crowther, P. (2013) ‘Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement’, Journal of Learning Design, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 18–28.
• Jones, D., Lotz, N. and Holden, G. (2020) ‘A longitudinal study of Virtual Design Studio (VDS) use in STEM distance design education’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education [Online]. Available at http://oro.open.ac.uk/69782/.
• Kimbell, L. (2011) ‘Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I’, Design and Culture, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 285–306 [Online]. DOI: 10.2752/175470811X13071166525216.
• Lanig, A. K. (2019) ‘Educating Designers in Virtual Space: A Description of Hybrid Studios’, Proceedings of DRS Learn X Design 2019, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 247–256 [Online]. DOI: 10.21606/learnxdesign.2019.01079.
• Lawson, B. (2005) How designers think, 4th edn, Abingdon, Architectural Press.
• Schön, D. A. (1985) The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials, London, RIBA Publications.
• Shulman, L. S. (2005) ‘Signature pedagogies in the professions’, Daedalus, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 52–59 [Online]. DOI: 10.1162/0011526054622015.