论文代写价格 STUDY OF THE CHANGING NATURE OF DESIGN STUDIOS
The design studio is integral to design education. It plays an important role in the training of future designers, representing a key space for experimentation and creative activity. In contrast to other elements of design education, the studio gives students first hand experiences of the design process and the practical aspects of designing. It introduces them to the concept of creativity and gives them experiences of and knowledge about the creative design process. This paper discusses the problems facing the contemporary design studio through an exploration of its development and its relationship to the â€žromanticâ€Ÿ notion of creativity. The paper argues that there is a paradox implicit in current educational practice which is due to the design disciplinesâ€Ÿ continual fascination with the romantic model of creativity; a model which understands creativity as an, innate, spontaneous ability that cannot be taught or assessed.
The design studio, creativity, design, romanticism, design education, assessment
During the last fifty years, architectural and design education have become increasingly focussed around the idea of the design studio. The design studio has been described as being â€žthe heart of architectural educationâ€Ÿ [5: 63], as the â€žkey place for all [design] educational activitiesâ€Ÿ [23: 65], and as â€žcentral to the pedagogy of architectural educationâ€Ÿ [19: 241]. In relation to architectural education, Mark Wigley proposes an educational model wherein â€ž[e]verything is organized around the design studio as it should beâ€Ÿ [24: 17, emphasis added]. The design studio represents a mode of teaching and learning that encourages creative endeavour, imagination and experimentation, critical thinking, contemplation and collaboration . As such, the studio provides ideal opportunities for students to develop a range of skills required by the design profession. However, the educational benefits of the studio have been repeatedly challenged in recent years. There is no consensus view as to what the design studio is and how it can best achieve its aspired learning outcomes [6, 16]. As de la Harpe et al. [6: 38] explain, the studio is scrutinised on issues such as â€žbest practice in studio; characteristics that are valued and need to be retained, as well as characteristics that need to be discarded; and strategies for change in studio culturesâ€Ÿ [see also 7, 10]. The studio has been criticised for creating an unhealthy â€žclannishnessâ€Ÿ between students [5: 65], for encouraging professional isolation , for being so internally focused that students are separated from the world in which design is produced , and for promoting a singular form of enculturation at the expense of education . The critique reflects the historical origins of the studio as a specialist education associated with distinguished masters.
This paper explores some of the challenges facing the studio through an exploration of its historical origins and its connection to the romantic model of creativity. The paper is divided into two main parts. It begins with an exploration of the historical development of the design studio as a space for teaching and learning. The paper will then trace the changing theories of creativity and discuss how historical perceptions of creativity are reflected in the studio. It is argued that some of the current problems in the design studio, especially as they relate to assessment, can be traced back to a lack of clear alignment between 132
contemporary studio practice and contemporary models of creativity.1
1 The paper forms part of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) funded project entitled Assessing Creativity: Strategies and Tools to Support Teaching and Learning in Architecture and Design, which considers the assessment of creativity in higher education in Australia. The project aims to arrive at a model of creativity and a set of strategies for assessing creativity in design education. The project is ongoing but is set to finish at the end of 2011.
2 This section is based upon the discussion â€žA historical perspectiveâ€Ÿ published by Ostwald and Williams as part of the book Understanding Architectural Education in Australasia .