Insights from studio teaching practices in a Creative Industries Faculty in Australia

Abstract

Studio teaching is a long standing tradition and a signature pedagogy across a broad range of art and creative disciplines, from arts to architecture and design. However, the practice of studio teaching varies across disciplines and practitioners. Do these variances indicate different signature pedagogies in the creative disciplines? An exploratory study was conducted to examine how studio teaching is practised at a Faculty of Creative Industries in Australia, and whether those studio practices suggest distinctive signature pedagogies and creative transfer. In this article, we describe the study and offer insights into studio teaching practices in the creative industries disciplines. We argue that nuances and differences among studio practices in creative industries reveal different signature pedagogies. Our findings offer a unique lens on current approaches to creative disciplines education, where interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to teaching are encouraged in order to support and prepare a highly educated and flexible future workforce.

Keywords

Studio teaching higher education signature pedagogies creative industries

Introduction

Studios have long been recognized as the signature pedagogy for the creative disciplines. A signature pedagogy is defined broadly as the ‘classroom moments reflecting the discipline’s ways of thinking, knowing, doing, and feeling’ (Motley et al., 2016: 224), and the studio is traditionally conceived to be a ‘place of learning’ (Crowther, 2013: 19). In Australian higher education, studios play a central, traditional, role in creative industries courses. All creative disciplines have unique ways of delivering studio practices, observable in student creative processes and creative outputs. While in architecture and design disciplines, studio teaching reflects a traditional problem-based learning approach, in which students work on design projects, while lecturers offer formative feedback, other creative disciplines bring into their studio teaching practice different habits and ways of learning and doing that are infused by the lecturers’ own experiences. For example, the ‘making’ experience is different across disciplines due to the medium that they interact with; however, the design thinking process behind it is always influenced by the lecturer’s expertise, not necessarily their discipline affiliation. The lecturer in Industrial Design guided this process from their expertise in technology exploration, while the lecturer in Fashion guided this process from their expertise in fabrication. Although the literature identifies the different ways in which studio teaching is applied in traditional (e.g. Architecture) and non-design related disciplines (e.g. Information Technology) (Boiling et al., 2016), little exists on studio teaching practices and delivery in the creative industries disciplines. To address this gap, we ask: In the creative industries, do discipline-based differences indicate different signature pedagogies? To answer this question, we engaged in a faculty funded exploratory study that examined how studio-based classes are delivered as signature pedagogy in a Creative Industry Faculty in Australia. This study involved focus groups with 34 lecturers, observations of 24 design studio sessions at different times of the semester, and interviews with eight lecturers from six creative industries disciplines about their studio-teaching delivery.

Studio teaching as signature pedagogy of the creative disciplines

We adopt Shulman’s definition of signature pedagogies to refer to “the types of teaching that organize the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions” (2005: 52) for its emphasis on learning for real-world application. Shulman (2005) discusses the tacit practices embedded in a disciplinary community and distinguishes distinctive practices among the professions and therefore the teaching of such professions. We argue that nuances and differences among studio practices in creative industries reveal different signature pedagogies. As captured by our exploratory study, in creative industries, disciplines signature pedagogies and creative transfer are observable as they are practised in the studio, in lecturer comments and in student work from each discipline observed: each of these clearly shows discipline-based differences.

Recent literature on studio teaching demonstrates that the term ‘studio’ in non-traditional arts and design disciplines is a vague construct (Cennamo, 2016). However, regarding the creative industries disciplines, Crowther (2013) asserts that in design education, the notion of studio describes both a physical space where learning and teaching activities take place, and also a mode of engagement or pedagogical strategy. Such pedagogical strategies in design studios are based on semi-structured experiential learning around a project and on problem-based learning. Studio teaching has been commonly seen as the operation of tacit knowledge and individual expertise (the studio lecturer or creative artist) in a space for creative activity. While studio-teaching is common to most disciplines in the creative industries, its practice has been studied predominantly from a pedagogical perspective, rather than unpacking the concept of ‘studio practices’, or influences on the way studios are conducted by lecturers, tutors and students. Borrowing from social theory, we adopt the concept of ‘practice’ as a routinised behaviour involving interconnected elements of bodily and mental activities, objects/materials and shared competencies, knowledge and skills (Reckwitz, 2002). Therefore, in this study, we focus on lecturer habits and behaviours embedded in delivery of their studio teaching.

Developed from a tradition of learning by doing (Green and Bonollo, 2003; Salama and Wilkinson, 2007; Zehner, 2008), studios continue to play a central role in the tertiary education experience for a broad range of creative disciplines; they are the main forum for knowledge acquisition, collaboration and creativity. In the studio environment, students are encouraged to think widely and deeply, with emphasis placed on student focused outcomes including problem solving, critical thinking, reflection on action, collaboration, teamwork, creativity, imagination and experimentation. From this perspective, studio is the place where a class (or cohort of students) meet one or more times a week, are presented with a design challenge or open-ended design brief, and through critiques with the lecturer and peers, develop their designs iteratively and acquire discipline frameworks and identities (Cennamo, 2016: 248). These learning outcomes are crucial to student ability to succeed in their chosen creative profession (Green and Bonollo, 2003; Zehner, 2008).

The studio also provides the necessary context for social and collaborative acquisition of tacit knowledge based on a peer learning model (Habraken, 2007; Holt, 1997; Vickers, 1984). Tacit knowledge deals with ‘know-how’ and is learned through doing and collaborating with others (Brown, 2001; Collins, 2010; Kvan, 2001). This knowledge is shared through a socially constructed understanding that evolves from collaboration (Brown, 2001). This literature shows that studios provide students with an essential social context and a peer environment that fuels the creative process and learning and builds tacit knowledge by doing.

One of the most important characteristics of the studio is this peer environment, with the studio being a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas between lecturer and/or tutor and student and also between students themselves (Green and Bonollo, 2003; Kvan, 2001). A tutor, in studio teaching, is an instructor who guides students in their journey through a design project. Under the guidance of the lecturer, tutors work in tutorial groups of around 20 students. The peer environment is considered a major benefit of studio pedagogy. Learning is considered a social process, with knowledge acquisition being reliant not only on the physical environment but also on the social context in which it is imparted. In the studio setting, students learn from each other through a variety of approaches to a problem and from each other’s mistakes and successes (Brown, 2006). Peer learning in a studio changes the typical teaching model used from one-to-many (lecturer to the whole class) or one-to-one (lecturer to student) to many-to-many (students to students). Working together permits students to examine problems and test ideas in a less formal context (Carey et al., 2013; Kvan, 2001). This model allows students to learn far more than working on a problem in isolation.

From this perspective, we see lecturer pedagogies as creative knowledge transfer, as the lecturers in the disciplines observed are (or have been) practitioners in creative industries. Creative transfer has been defined as transferring knowledge from one situation to another (Heskell, 2001), knowledge that is built to use, apply to other contexts and to acquire further knowledge. It is referred to as the habits of thought and practice, in which creative knowledge transfer is not just the application of prior knowledge to a situation, but a transformation into new knowledge. By engaging in creative project work in a studio context, student learning-by-doing is guided by discussions and exchange of ideas with peers and with tutors who are themselves creative practitioners. This is a form of creative knowledge transfer and is significant in preparing students for their future work experiences in the creative industries.

Studio characteristics therefore influence studio teaching practice across disciplines and reveal the signature pedagogy of the study area and lecturers. In our study, we examined the different ways in which pedagogies are communicated in order to understand those ways as signature pedagogies and as forms of creative transfer. This approach offers a significant contribution to understanding of how studio teaching may provide a meaningful transition into communities of practice in the future creative industries workforce.

Observing studio practices in a Creative Industries Faculty

This pilot study focused on studio-based teaching practices in the Creative Industries Faculty (CIF) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), in Brisbane, Australia. CIF offers a unique context in which 19 distinct study areas that have traditionally been separated by a historical institutional structure are now joined under the same faculty based on a common inquiry into creativity. These creative study areas are organised into three schools, the School of Design, School of Creative Practice, and School of Communication. Although these study areas have very different professional education requirements, in QUT’s context, they are united by their ‘Real World’ focus and industry collaborations. Some of these disciplines would not necessarily be considered studio practice fields, for example journalism and creative writing. However, in this project, we included such non-traditional creative studio practices in order to extend our understanding of approaches to studio teaching. QUT creative industries course curricula include minors and second majors in study areas that incorporate studio teaching approaches from contrasting fields, so this study was positioned as necessary in order to understand how CIF students are learning and shaping their studio-based experiences.

To clarify the terminology employed in this article, at QUT and in most universities across Australia, a unit denotes a course providing credit points toward a degree. Studio teaching at CIF is delivered by a unit coordinator, lecturer(s) and tutors. The unit coordinator organizes the unit, administers the assessments and monitors Blackboard, the on-line teaching site. The lecturer researches, writes and delivers weekly lectures. In different units, this role is shared or is performed by the unit coordinator. Alongside the lecturers, tutors run weekly class groups or tutorial groups, guide student learning, and grade assessments. Tutors are typically design practitioners with substantial industry experience, or they are PhD students.

This study emerged from an initial CIF consultation at a Teaching and Learning Symposium. This initial consultation suggested that an investigation of studio teaching practices was appropriate and timely in a newly structured Faculty, with a focus on cataloguing and understanding the differences and similarities of diverse studio teaching practices in CIF at QUT.

The project addressed a gap in the CIF evaluation of its studio-based teaching practices. To this end, we set out to observe and photograph studio teaching practices, and to interview lecturers regarding their studio practice. We examined how studio teaching is practiced in order to understand the characteristics and nature, similarities and differences in CIF delivery of studio teaching. Our exploratory study was based on the observation of eight distinct units within the faculty. These included architectural design, fashion design, interior design and industrial design studios from the School of Design; advanced writing and creative writing from the School of Communication; and dance project and studio art practices from the School of Creative Practices. Our observations focused on identifying the unique aspects of studio practices, including modes of delivery and conceptual frameworks in order to inform ongoing discussion in CIF of successful teaching practices. The hallmark of CIF studio practices is the learning-by-doing approach.

The literature shows that earlier research on studio-based teaching does not address questions of discipline-specific requirements. Our study objective was to gain a nuanced understanding of studio-based practices through an investigation of established practices as signature pedagogies—and the identification of both common and divergent approaches across different creative disciplines within the Faculty.

Project approach

We used a qualitative fieldwork approach to the collection of data in order to understand the distinctive studio practices from the lecturer perspective. The study was conducted in three stages: Stage 1 focus group discussions; Stage 2 document analysis and direct observation of studio practices, processes and techniques; and Stage 3 interviews with studio lecturers. The following describes how each stage was conducted.

Stage 1: Focus groups: Concepts of studio teaching in the creative disciplines

Subsequent to the CIF Teaching & Learning Symposium, we offered a workshop titled Studio Teaching in CIF. Thirty five academic staff self-nominated and attended. We organised focus group discussions around three questions: How do you define studio-based learning? How do you practise studio teaching in your subjects; and What is the creative outcome of your studio?

These questions were presented to staff in three focus group sessions of 2 hours each. Each session consisted of 12 staff members organised into groups of 4, representing 19 discipline areas. Responses were initially collated using post-it stickers on large paper sheets. Cloud diagrams were then employed to visualise word frequency and to identify salient keywords. Keywords encapsulated staff experience of studio-based practices and were later used as prompts during studio observations and interviews.

This approach allowed us to capture the terminology used by our colleagues when referring to their studio concepts and practices, and to identify the key aspects that were significant to their notions of studio. Insights gained from focus groups reveal lecturers’ views of:

studio as ‘place’ not only as ‘activity’;

studios as conducted through demonstrations (how); and

studios as performing, making and embedding activities (what)

These insights were then further explored in Stage 2 through observation of the distinctive studio practices of the eight selected subjects.

Stage 2: Observing the studio practices

This stage consisted of (i) critical document analysis, and (ii) observations of studio practices. We selected eight units for this study. Document analysis of the aims and focus, learning outcomes, assessments, and teaching approaches in the eight unit outlines was carried out. This analysis included a description the studio delivery logistics for each unit, covering number of students and staff, studio schedule and expected creative outcomes of the unit.

With this background information, we then conducted observations of studio sessions in each of the eight selected units. The process involved photographic observations of studio teaching carried out by the research team. In addition, we made video recordings of student presentations of their studio projects in three different units, Architectural Design 3, Fashion Design studio 4, and Dance Studio. Architectural design students exhibited designs for a wearable architecture project in cat walk style; dance studio students performed at the QUT theatre; and fashion students exhibited final designs using professional fashion models. All these demonstrations were part of final design assessments.

The studio observations of all subjects included in this project expanded our understanding of what studio practices are in CIF, while reconfirming some aspects addressed in current literature on studio teaching. Our observations revealed varying approaches to creative transfer, and diversity in studio practices, although all practices are strongly based on collaborative exercises involving lecturers, tutors, the students and their peers. Our observations showed that studio practices in the eight selected units in CIF were student centred, with a focus on learning-by-doing. They were collaborative, demonstrated, and mentored, characteristics consistent with a creative transfer process according to the literature (Bridgestock, 2012; Crowther, 2013; Heskell, 2001). From discussions and critiques involved in students’ final presentations, we understood that by achieving intended learning outcomes through problem-solving, students acquired new knowledge, extended their skills and built confidence in their professional development. Interviews were conducted in Stage 3 to gain further understanding of our observations from the lecturers’ perspectives.

Stage 3: Interviewing our lecturers

Interviews were conducted with eight lecturers in order to gain an insight into their studio teaching practices. All interviews were video recorded. Through these interviews, we aimed to further our understanding of lecturers’ concepts of studio teaching, their practices in a studio context, and the creative outcomes they expect from their studio teaching. To achieve these aims, we asked lecturers to describe the main focus and aims of their units; how they used studio time to achieve those aims; examples of the kind of activities they used in their studio teaching; and what these activities achieved in terms of learning outcomes.

Findings: Signature pedagogies in studio teaching of creative disciplines

The following are the findings collated from all three stages of data collection (focus groups, observations and interviews):

Collaborative experiences: Most lecturers defined their studio practices as predominantly collaborative experiences in which a majority of learning activities take place in group situations with tutor and student, and students and their peers. This learning involves a design thinking process and exchanges between peers and tutors that is contextualised by a design activity often expressed through research, creative brainstorming, drawing and/or model making.

Studio teaching is about coaching the students – working with their strengths and helping them develop methods and practices that develop their weaknesses. While each student might be different, there are problematic traits of a second year that can be overcome collectively

Applied theory: Studio teaching was described as including both theoretical and practical components. Most studios consist of a 1-hour lecture followed by 3 to 4 hours of studio time. The theoretical aspects, presented in lectures, provide students with an understanding of the discourse, important characteristics and connections with history and practice. The studio time involves the application of theory to a design solution under the guidance of tutors. It may also include short talks by visiting design practitioners. The collegial nature of studio helps student progress while listening to or participating in reviews of other students’ work as well as group problem-solving exercises.

Perhaps I can generalise that lectures are about providing students with an understanding of the discourse and the important characteristics and connections of its history and practice, then the studio is focused on supporting and empowering the students as they experiment within the discourse and ultimately position themselves in a productive relationship with it

Creative outcomes: The studio includes a diversity of tasks, methods, approaches, dialogues, and forums that gives the students the chance to realise a creative outcome. These outcomes could range from a physical model, a design of a building, a piece of furniture, a product, a garment, a dance performance, or a creative piece of writing.

I’d argue that the studio teaching is all about driving creative outcomes – their manifestation is a different question. Yes – there are creative outcomes every week. The challenge here is that they come at different times for different students and through the different exercises. Admittedly in the early years, there are students that fail to develop beyond a limited or prescriptive response to the content/project/challenge, however for the most part there are moments for the students of invention and intensive production that yield unexpected and delightful results – accelerating their learning

Lecturers’ responses revealed a collective aspect to their experiences and thinking on their studio teaching practices, specifically collaborative experiences, applied theory and creative outcomes, in addition to a design brief with real-world focus. These classroom moments reflecting the discipline’s ways of thinking, knowing, doing, and feeling are the three dominant aspects of in CIF lecturer accounts of their studio teaching practice. They inform our understanding of studio teaching practice as habits + behaviours + interconnections shaping individual lecturer practices.

The lecturers’ reflective practice: Creative transfer in studio teaching

Our observations and interviews with lecturers indicated that the role of studio teaching as signature pedagogy in the creative disciplines remains a vital part of the way lecturers and students communicate, learn, and form professional relationships. It is a form of knowledge and creative transfer, contributing to creative industry communities of practice. Lecturer responses are consistent in that studios are a shared space of great trust and exchange, where individual inspiration and creative goals can be understood and developed collaboratively. The process of observation and discussion that occurred during this study has revealed a number of key findings around how creative transfer takes place in CIF:

Learning through making: The classical definition of a studio as ‘learning through making’ applies to all the observed units, even where ‘making’ appears as a more abstract activity, such as in the creation of a text. In this sense, the studio is a place where theory forms an element of creative practice.

There is a percentage of lecture material delivered, but, the predominant emphasis is based on the idea of ‘learning through doing’. The emphasis is on ‘experimentation. (Unit Coordinator, Furniture Design Studio – Interior Design)

Project-based learning: The idea of ‘project-based’ learning as an integral part of studio teaching is a flexible concept that reflects the wide range of creative work achievable in a multi-disciplinary faculty. Project-based learning in the studio can result in a performance, or a physical object, or a portfolio of tangible work reflecting a particular area of investigation.

The project brief is provided with a technical difficulty and around a particular topic that students need to research about. Students learn technical skills (industrial sewing) by doing the work with the experienced tutors from industry, they learn about the material properties and through this (sic) hands-on experiences, they explore the project subject through a number of design solutions that are then presented for peer feedback and then for a critique by a panel of experts. (Lecturer: Fashion design studio)

Face-to-face delivery: An enhanced learning activity is experienced in a studio environment through face-to-face delivery mode. The ability of lecturers and tutors to develop rapport with students is crucial to creating an environment of openness and trust in which students can express ideas with more confidence. In the case of fashion design, we observed that students were able to build confidence through the personal relationships developed in the studio.

The nature of the studio is extremely collaborative. Face-to-face interaction between not only staff, but also between the students themselves is crucial to the success of studio Learning. (Unit Coordinator: Fashion)

Tutor input as creative knowledge transfer: Tutors in the units observed are practitioners from the respective creative industries disciplines. In addition to the knowledge gained through their studies at tertiary institutions, they bring to the studios the knowledge they acquired at work places. Their guidance and mentoring during the problem-solving activity of the design or creative brief help students’ access embedded knowledge. This creative knowledge transfer is significant in preparing students for their future work experiences in the creative industries. Through this knowledge transfer, students gain exposure to industry expectations and the culture of the community of practice in their disciplines.

Two things assist in the students’ understanding – one is the basic observations and discussion with the tutor. The gaps become evident in the discussion about the work, how it has come about and where to go next. The second is in the collegial nature of the studio – often students have enlightening moments while listening or participating in the review of other students’ work or in group problem solving exercises. They see patterns, methods and habits in the process of others and are able to apply them into their own project. (Unit Coordinator: Interior Design)

Collaboration: All of the unit coordinators interviewed emphasized the collaborative nature of studio learning, even if the way of collaboration differed across study areas. For example, in creative writing, peer-to-peer and teacher-to-student collaborations took place mainly through critiques, while in dance, the collaboration comprised both live performance and observation. In furniture studies, the collaboration occurred in a team environment first, followed by collaboration with the whole class, which assist the team to elect a project on which to work together and finally construct a piece of furniture as a group in the School of Design workshop.

Folio writing exercises and group critiques encourage students to relate and integrate different aspects of the unit and to work collaboratively on creative works. (Unit Coordinator: Creative Writing)

Real-world context: In many units, studio teaching creates a simulation of the professional environment. For example, in visual arts, the learning environment is a direct parallel of the community of practice in which they will be involved after graduation. In industrial design, the real-world context is often provided by an industry sponsored design project that is informed by input from industry colleagues. This provides opportunity for the industrial design studio unit to be run in a manner similar to a design consultancy firm.

A design brief which is collaboratively developed with industry partners provide the real-world constraints to a product design project. In addition to industry direct feedback at key project milestones, the inclusion of real stakeholders in the design process (industry and end users) adds layers of complexity to the design problem. The studio then becomes a safe learning environment that mimics real design practice experience. (Lecturer: Industrial Design studio)

Student engagement: This is an outcome common to design studios observed in this project. Students appear to identify with the studio learning environment perhaps because of the similarity of studio environments to future work contexts. All the interviewees saw the studio as a place where their passion could be communicated to their students.

Studio teaching is collegial, cooperative and supportive. In this unit, students’ learning is encouraged through a friendly environment, which is fostered by the unit coordinator’s teaching style. (Unit Coordinator, Fashion Design studio)

Dynamic teaching: All of the studios strategically integrate digital and online resources to best suit their studio teaching model. These include the use of online teaching sites (Blackboard at QUT), the use of third-party websites and applications for both product and display work. We believe that this demonstrates that the studio is a dynamic form of teaching that changes in response to technological changes.

In keeping with QUT’s emphasis on innovation, the dance studio makes use of digital technology wherever appropriate. In this unit (in 2013), it was the use of performance documentation as a choreographic teaching tool that enabled the work to be rehearsed without the constant presence of the choreographer/s. (excerpt from Dance Studio unit summary)

These aspects of studio teaching practices are not unique to QUT. However, CIF is unusual in the way it brings together a wide range of creative disciplines that use studios as a fundamental part of their teaching practice. Despite the disparate nature of these fields, this study has highlighted the strong commonalities that exist, as well as the adaptability of the studio as a learning environment. Our findings align with studies that examine how tacit knowledge is elicited through creative activities (Mewburn, 2016). Identifying both consistencies and differences has helped to raise our critical awareness of studio teaching as signature pedagogy and creative transfer and provided points of comparison for the future development of studio pedagogies in the creative industries. This project focused only on one-third of the units that use studios as the main mode of delivery of subject contents in CIF. It is anticipated that findings of this project will have a significant impact on studio teaching at this faculty through the sharing of knowledge between the diverse disciplines, and by assisting lecturers to contextualise their own studio pedagogies within the faculty at large, which in turn will help create potential collaboration between the different disciplines.

Conclusions

This project set out to answer the question ‘Do discipline based differences indicate different signature pedagogies?’ by identifying the different studio-based teaching practices as a strategy for creative transfer employed in QUT’s CIF. We argued that nuances and differences among studio practices in creative industries reveal different signature pedagogies.

As shown in the literature (Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2009; Boiling et al., 2016; Green and Bonollo, 2003; Motley et al., 2016), the organisation of our studios align with other current studio deliveries; however, our investigation, through observations and interviews, further demonstrated that:

‘making ‘of a final product, be it a dance performance, a creative piece of writing, a design of a structure, clothing or an appliance, is an essential activity of all studio-based teaching practices;

face-to-face delivery is an integral and an irreplaceable aspect of CIF studio teaching strategies; digital and on-line resources are used strategically to enhance the teaching content and delivery;

real-time collaboration with peers and teaching staff assists learning-in action and simulating a community of practice; and

student engagement is prompted by the passion for the discipline demonstrated by teaching staff in the studio environment; and prospect of studios simulating a professional environment. The studios provide the ultimate experience in collaboration with peers and teaching staff in an invigorating environment.

Creative industries recognise that creativity is used to create value for consumers (SGS Economics & Planning, 2013). In the current context where creative industry-based activities worldwide have shown an impressive growth influencing the world economy (UNESCO, 2015), and with international statistics showing that in the future nearly one-third of the workforce will be employed in the creative workforce, the role of higher education in preparing a highly educated and flexible workforce in the creative industries drives the need for more nuanced understanding of the creative in Australia and internationally.

Despite the diversity of studio practices at CIF, this project has catalogued the strong commonalities that exist, the need to find best ways to share the voice of the lecturer as a practitioner of studio-based teaching and to evaluate the experience of students in the studio. We hope that our experiences and findings will inspire other educators to conduct similar projects with a view to comparing studio practices at an international level and shaping the future of studio-based teaching in creative industries disciplines.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the unit coordinators and lecturers who participated in this project by allowing us to observe their practices and interview them: Dean Borough, Associate Professor Sarah Holland-Batt, Michael Molloy, Professor Gene Moyle, Dr Charles Robb, Dr Yasu Santo, and Adam Wigg. We also wish to thank Associate Professor Kari Gislasson, and Dr Courtney Pedersen for their significant contribution to the overall project, and to all students who allowed us to observe their work in the eight subjects selected for this project. Finally, we acknowledge Irene O’Leary for proofreading our article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Queensland University of Technology, Creative Industries Faculty – Teaching & Learning Division.

Author biographies

Marianella Chamorro-Koc is a Senior Lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology (Australia) and teaches Third Year Industrial Design. Her research on context of use, experiential knowledge, and people’s engagement with technology informs her teaching, and this is applied through diverse approaches to studio-teaching. She publishes from her design education experiences in Industrial Design studios and projects. Marianella leads the Design for Health and Wellbeing Program at QUT Design Lab research centre. She is a member of Design Research Society (DRS).

Anoma Kurimasuriyar is a Lecturer in Architecture at Queensland University of Technology (Australia). Her research interests include Asian architecture and culture, Japanese studies, architecture in non-western cultures, teaching and learning, heritage and conservation, prefabricated housing, and culturally sustainable architecture.

References

Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2009) Studio Teaching Project. Available at: www.studioteaching.org/?page=report (accessed 16 September 2016).

Boling

Schwier

Gray

, et al. (2016) Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases. London: Taylor and Francis.

Bridgestock

(2012) Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 12(2–3): 122–137.

Brown

(2001) Learning in the Digital Age. Washington, DC: Educause, pp.71–72. Available at: www.johnseelybrown.com/learning_in_digital_age-aspen.pdf (accessed 24 July 2018).

Brown

(2006) New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 38(5): 18–24.

Carey GM, Bridgstock R, Taylor P, McWilliam E and Grant C. (2013) Characterising one-to-one conservatoire teaching: Some implications of a quantitative analysis. Music Education Research 15(3): 375–368.

Cennamo

(2016) What is studio? In: Boling

Schwier

Gray

, et al. (eds) Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases. London: Taylor and Francis, pp.248–259.

Collins

(2010) Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Crowther

(2013) Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design 6(3): 18–28.

10.

Green

Bonollo

(2003) Studio-based teaching: History and advantages in the teaching of design. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 2(2): 269–272.

11.

Habraken

(2007) To tend a garden: Thoughts on the strength and limits of studio pedagogy. In: Salama

Wilkinson

(eds) Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press, pp.11–20.

12.

Heskell

(2001) Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction and Reasoning. San Diego: Academic Press.

13.

Holt

(1997) The designer's judgement. Design Studies 18(1): 113–123.

14.

Kvan

(2001) The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction 10(3): 345–353.

15.

Motley

Chick

Hipchen

(2016) A conversation about critique as a signature pedagogy in the Arts and Humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 16(3): 223–228.

16.

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

17.

Reckwitz

(2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–263.

18.

Salama

Wilkinson

(eds) (2007) Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press.

19.

SGS Economics and Planning (2013) Valuing Australia’s Creative Industries – Final Report. Brisbane: Creative Industries Innovation Centre. Available at: www.sgsep.com.au/assets/Valuing-Australias-Creative-Industries-Final-Report.pdf (accessed 24 July 2018).

20.

Shulman

(2005) Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus 134(3): 52–59.

21.

UNESCO (2015) The first global map of cultural and creative industries 2015. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002357/235710E.pdf (accessed 24 July 2018).

22.

Vickers

(1984) The Vickers Papers: London: HarperCollins.

23.

Zehner

(2008) Studio teaching in Australia, from art and architecture to urban design and planning. In: Association of collegiate schools of planning and the association of European schools of planning joint congress, Chicago, 6–11 July 2008.