meetings, and students constructed several models about their design
project, developed a digital prototype and conducted a remote usability
evaluation. (Vosinakis and Koutsabisis, 2013, p. 59)
However, in interior design education the traditional studio is not fully investigated, and it may be too early to start investigating the virtual studio. Additionally, the traditional studio remains the cornerstone in current educational programs, therefore, my research focuses on the traditional studio only.
The traditional design studio is primarily a physical space where a group has a certain pedagogical dynamic. It is where the critique of work by educators is the main formative feedback students receive (Blair,B., 2007). Hill defines the studio as “an educational setting where students are physically located together in a common area utilizing manual or digital production methods” (Hill, 2007 p. 38). However, social interaction and the conventions of the critique are not part of his definition. Therefore, I will discuss the criticism process in the design studio literature from the social influence perspective, after giving a brief overview of the studio.
Historically, the beginning of studio-based education started in 1648 when Cardinal Mazarin built the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, with an aim to gather talented people in drawing and painting under one roof (Clausen, 2010). His concept of the studio was a large space where all art students work in the art discipline they like best, resulting in a wide range of forms and huge potential for inspirations (Schon, 1985).
Later, King Louis XIV asked graduates from to decorate and furnish his palace at
Versailles (Ministère de la Culture, 2015), which added to the value of the arts institution socially and educationally. The successful work of decorating and constructing Versailles and other buildings and palaces contributed to the revival and merging in 1816 of the
34
Royal Academy of Arctiecture that suppressed in 1793 to become a part of the Academy des Beaux Arts. They become the École des Beaux-Arts and the École d’Architecture. The latter specialised in Architecture and landscape design, (Clausen, 2010). There were distinguished features between creative arts studio and architecture studio, and the educational differences applied in each studio highlighted the different learning outcomes needed.
Socially, the studio is a place that hosts a culture where artists can; express their thoughts and emotions in any form of the creative arts, feel accepted and appreciated as a creative individual far from social norms and restrictions, and receive reflections and constructive feedback to develop their abilities from peers or educators (Poldma, 2003). In another words, the concept behind the studio is to provide a social space that encourages individuals to reveal their creative potential without fear or hesitation of being rejected, criticised or evaluated. It is meant to be a safe hub where creativity has free rein. From a pedagogical perspective, the design studio developed and continues to flourish as it supports teaching methods where modern pedagogical theories convert from traditional to progressive education (Deamer, 1999). “Learning by Doing,” a theory discussed earlier in relation to John Dewey, Donald Schon, and Daived Kolb in section 3, is a key factor in the learning dynamic of the studio.
Practically, more recent attention has focused on the provision of the studio as a physical environment, social culture, and pedagogical dynamic. In fact, the most comprehensive discussion in this prospect can found in the architecture literature (Ormecioglu and Ucar, 2012; Kucko and Caldwell, 1994). It is justifying and proving that the physical environment of a design studio has a significant impact on the student and education practices in general. Thus, scholars started thinking and investigating other factors’ influences. Regarding the social cultural of the interior design studio, a significant study was
conducted by Caroline C. Hill in 2007. “Climate in the Interior Design Studio: Implications for Design Education” focused on the relationship between the interior design studio environment and students’ performance in relation to the instruction dynamic (Hill, 2007).
35
The study used an empirical approach, inviting 41 students from three levels (third, fourth and fifth year students) to respond to a questionnaire. The results of this study show wide agreement that the social environment of the classroom (or studio) has significant
influence on students’ performance. More precisely, students highlighted several vital factors in the studio environment, including; multi-cultural and ethnic differences, a wide variety of individual personalities, and gender differences, all of which require further examination for better understanding and utilisation of the studio environment (Hill, 2007). Hill concluded, when there was a lack of understanding which led educators and students to abandon the basic concept of the studio, the learning outcomes in these environments was negatively influenced (Hill, 2007).
In today’s programs, students feel that they are under pressure from assessment by educators or social judgements by their peers (Smith, K.M., 2013). For some cultures or some personality types this continued sense of being assessed restricts their tendency to express themselves. Moreover, this kind of overly judgemental environment constrains the potential to express creative ideas, which is a critical hinderance for creativity (McCoy and Evans, 2002; Meneely and Portillo, 2005; Heinrich and Malkewitz, 2012).
Another aspect about the culture and interior design studio is the gender issue. In interior design studios students are often females, whereas in architecture and landscape studios males have the greater proportion (Pable, 2009; Konkel, 2014). Consequently, educators need to apply different learning styles sympathetic to gender differences in order to enhance the learning outcomes. For instance, when instructors increase the level of competitiveness in an architecture studio the expected outcomes may be different than they would be in an interior design studio, as males work better in a competitive
environment, whereas females work better in a cooperative environment (Kohn, 1992). This raises a research area worthy of further study: pedagogical dynamics in student and educator interactions in the interior design studio. Consideration of these various factors need to be tackled to further understand and develop the learning and pedagogical process within the interior design studio. My research focuses on students’ personalities
36
as a variable that influences the pedagogical dynamic in the interior design studio. This investigation into educator and student interactions during their studio time and in design project critiques reveals significant elements that can improve the studio experience to maximise learning outcomes and student creativity. To support this call for further research in this area, Kohn states: