Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education - Volume 2, Issue 3, 2004

Architecture was one of the first professions to use project-based learning as the central pedagogic tool in the education of its trainees and the modern architectural curriculum continues to place project-based learning, as represented by the design project, at its core. Critical reflection, understood as a key element of project-based learning, is normally built into the process of student learning in the design studio through requiring students to continually reflect on their work both alone and with others, most significantly with design tutors in the one-to-one tutorial.Yet, given the theoretical importance placed on the one-to-one tutorial and the ‘Januslike’ nature of student experiences, i.e. extremely rewarding for some students and profoundly unsatisfactory for others, there has been surprisingly little research focused on the tutor-student relationship in the design tutorial. This paper reports on the results of a small qualitative crosssectional study that attempted to excavate and understand student experiences of the tutor’s role in one-to-one design tutorials. The study employed ethnographic-type research tools and methods of analysis in an attempt to reveal students’ ‘lived’ experiences. The research findings suggested that students experienced three principal types of tutor behaviour; ‘the entertainer’, ‘the hegemonic overlord’ and ‘the liminal servant’ and that they believed that that only the ‘liminal servant’ increased their motivation and supported their learning. The implications of these findings for architectural educators are discussed.

This study investigates the qualitatively different ways in which students approach the ‘research’ component within the design project. The study was undertaken with students in their first or second year of an honours degree course in fashion design at four UK universities. In a previous study, students were interviewed to discover the qualitative differences in approach to study in fashion design (Drew, Bailey and Shreeve, 2001; Bailey, 2002). The data set was interrogated again to specifically investigate the approaches students had to the research element of the project method in the original study. A phenomenographic methodology was used to look at the relationship of differences within the student experiences described in the transcripts. Four qualitatively different ways to approach research were construed which indicated an increasing complexity of strategies used. The study indicates that students approach research in different ways, and that the simplest way is undertaken to reproduce visual elements of the found material in a final product. More complex approaches build a personal conceptual response to the project through research. These differences have implications for teaching, learning and assessment in the design project.

If one accepts the premise that intelligences are ‘distributed across minds, persons and the symbolic and physical environment’ (Pea, 1993), what significance does this have for assessing an arts practice that exists in an intangible realm between disciplines, between minds, and between relations of human beings to environments? How do tutors and students assess interdisciplinarity? How do they assess interactive artwork where the artwork is transmorphing through active co-participation of the spectator. The article reflects on these questions, drawing on pedagogic experiences with undergraduate students undertaking a course in interdisciplinary, multimedia and site-specific arts practice. The creation of the course and its methodology of teaching have also endeavoured to address cultural plurality not only in terms of recognition of the demographic make-up of a student body but also in terms of methodology and ethos. The article discusses the significance of this approach.

This article describes a study which sets out to examine how changes in student patterns of learning, in particular the demise of the design ‘baseroom’ and the growth of online learning, might have on the crit. The study found that the crit constitutes a heightened moment of exchange between staff and students in the new landscape of learning. The crit, in this context, becomes a powerful vehicle for the induction and inculturation of students into the dominant mores and beliefs of a programme and its discipline. Paradoxically the research found that the crit was a poor vehicle for students to demonstrate their understanding of the context of their practice. The article argues for a reconsideration of the role and function of the crit in design pedagogy so that it might become a more effective vehicle for students to articulate their critical disposition to their discipline.

Within the United Kingdom 19 million people, nearly half the electorate, are aged over 50 years, constituting a significant consumer group with a combined annual income of £166 billion (Nicholson, 2001). However, ‘everyday products and services are designed in a way that ignores the needs of older people ... excluding them from a society that is youth obsessed’ (Design and Innovation, 2000). Whilst designers have access to marketing and ergonomic data, personal perceptions based on negative stereotypes may prejudice the design process. Building on research into professional design practice and the ageing population, this paper proposes an inclusive design methodology to challenge ageist assumptions and contribute to curriculum developments in learning and teaching design in higher education. The research is timely as age discrimination legislation was agreed within the European Union in 2000 (European Union Directive, 2000) and is anticipated to be implemented within the United Kingdom by 2006 (Age Concern, 2002).

Supporting Student Learning: Case Studies, Experience and Practice from Higher Education, Glenda Grosling and Graham Webb (eds.), (2002) London: Kogan Page, 195 pp., ISBN 07494 3535 6, Paperback, £19.99