Design Studio Experience Research Articles

The Education of Instructional Designers: Reflections on the Tripp Paper

In a recent issue of this journal, Steven D. Tripp proposed some innovations in the education of instructional designers based on his analysis of education practices in other design professions. His principal proposals were that students should analyze great instructional designs of the past and that instructional design studios should form part of the educational preparation of students entering the profession. This paper proposes some extensions and modifications to Tripp's original ideas. These include extending his concept of the analysis of great lessons of the past to the analysis of current examples of expert work, the use of an expanded jury system to incorporate peer and practitioner evaluation of students' work, and the criticality of students developing solutions to actual performance problems during the instructional design studio experience. Finally, it is proposed that opportunities for critical reflection on the process of instructional design be built into the studio experience.

Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio

Design studio is routinely referred to as the center of architectural education, yet surprisingly little has been published about the nature of the interaction between instructors and students in the studio environment. This article draws upon ideas such as Donald Schön's description of design as “reflection-in-action” and D. W. Winnicott's discovery of the foundations of creativity in the “transitional phenomena” of early childhood to provide a basis for understanding the emotional power of the design studio experience and the ways in which phenomena identified by psychoanalysis can emerge in the interaction of studio instructors and students.

Marker Items for a Single-Factor Scale for Appraisal of Teaching in Architecture Courses

The School of Architecture's faculty posed the methodological problem: to construct a brief scale to evaluate instruction. Guidelines were: (a) brevity, i.e., 10 items or fewer, (b ) high reliability, (c) minimum word redundancy (single psychological elements), and (d ) applicability to different levels . of technical and artistic instruction. Subjects were 3227 students enrolled in 196 courses offered over seven consecutive semesters (Fall 1978 through Fall 1981). The architecture evaluation scale had 28 5-point ratings (scaled strongly disagree vs strongly agree) applicable to design theory and studio experiences. Scores were intercorrelated and yielded a positive R matrix; average r = .43 (9 < .001) for 378 r-pairs. A single eigenvalue was greater than 1.0; matrix was factored for one iterative principal axis component without rotation. The 28 items ranged in loading from .86 to .27, and the factor mas labeled, Instructor/Course Impact. The first 10 ordered item markers and loadings were: (a) all things considered, the instructor did a good job (.86); (b ) all things considered, the course was worthwhile ( .82 ) ; ( c ) instructor created a desire to learn through interesting and challenging development of subject or project (.79); ( d ) instructor prepared and organized the course effectively (.79); (e) instructor presented class material clearly and concisely (.77) ; ( f ) instructor presented the course with enthusiasm (.74) ; (g ) instructor used class time effectively and constructively ( .73 ) ; ( h ) instructor demonstrated genuine interest in students and their progress (.72); ( i ) instructor was innovative; open to new ideas, techniques and approaches (.71); and ( j ) instructor has good rapport with students; easy to talk to (.69). Average correlation between items and corrected split-half reliability were computed for scales of different lengths: 2 items (.72, .84); 4 items (.67, .89) ; 6 items (.66, .91) ; 8 items (.64, .92) ; 10 items (.60, 9 4 ) . Adding items to the single-factor scale was associated with a decrease in the average r between items and an incredse in S-B reliability. A minimum required reliability of .90 suggests that the scale have at least six items ( 2 ) . During the 198283 academic year, the School of Architecture will use these marker items and expand the evaluation of design studio experiences ( 1 ) .