Monash University

Monash University has two studios that have been published: ‘Bachelor of Inform- ation Management and Systems (BIMS)’, and ‘MUSE Studio Lab’.

Bachelor of Information Management and Systems (BIMS)

“In 2000, the School of Information Management and Systems, at Monash University, was awarded a Strategic Innovation Fund grant ($70,000) to institute an innovative teaching and learning model based on a studio approach in a core subject of the Bachelor of Informa- tion Management and Systems (BIMS).” (Carbone and Sheard, 2002, p.213)

BIMS has a“strong practical focus” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.75) and is based on the Bauhaus school of design. They state that this model is used for“the development of collaborative learning, integrated curriculum and problem-based learning”(Lynch et al., 2002, p.75). Central to the BIMS program is a compulsory“year long studio subject in each year of the program”, with other core and elective subjects running alongside (Lynch et al., 2002, p.75).

During their implementation of their studio, Lynch et al. (2002, p.75) identified that approaching a studio required a radical rethink of their:

• “layout and design of the physical teaching space”

• “teaching and learning approach used”

• “IT infrastructure”

The studio space is a transformed classroom space that was re-architected to include “the studios themselves, an Internet caf´e, a meeting room, and an area for technical support staff” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.75). The studios are where the main interactions and collaborations occur. The caf´e was hypothesized to improve student performance by allowing a break away space, to escape and get “relief from intensive studio activity” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.76).

They claim that they adopted a “mentor and apprenticeship relationship”, fol- lowing one of the Bauhaus philosophies; however they do not provide details of how this relationship was implemented or reinforced (Lynch et al., 2002, p.77).

The course identified the need to alter the assessment of the course, stating that “typically in IT courses students are required to submit specific solutions to a question” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.77), but opting to include portfolio assessments (similar to a design studio). To navigate the change in format, they combined assessment techniques of both traditional IT and design studio assessments: the main difference is the assessment of the student’s work through the “presentation of a portfolio of work or a product” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.77).

Lynch et al. (2002, p.78) performed a survey and found the responses generally positive, with the studio giving them “the opportunity to chat with peers in an informal, flexible and collaborative way, but also ‘forced’ them to communicate, collaborate and learn”, which also provided the students with the “opportunity to further develop their communication and analytical skills” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.79).

Most students felt “having a number of lecturers has been beneficial” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.78). However, “some students found having a number of lecturers a little confusing and they found it difficult to develop a rapport with any one of them” (Lynch et al., 2002, p.79).

MUSE Studio Lab

This studio is part of Monash’s Bachelor of Software Engineering program, and is only used by its final year students. In this course, the studio is used in their team- based Capstone SE project, where “teams have worked in groups of four on real client projects over two semesters” (Ramakrishnan, 2003, p.22), with the other units (modules) following a“more traditional teaching approach” (Ramakrishnan, 2003, p.21).

Ramakrishnan (2003, p.21) briefly describes studios as a setting where“students learn by doing, working in teams and by seeking assistance from mentors when needed”; these mentors guide the students “in such a way as to promote reflective thinking and the abstraction of knowledge” (Ramakrishnan, 2003, p.24). They

also acknowledge virtual environments play a role in studios, “Studio is often a physical/virtual environment” (Ramakrishnan, 2003, p.21), though it is not clear if they mean a mix of physical and virtual, or potentially just virtual – however, their implementation is a physical environment that is supported by a virtual one. Ramakrishnan (2003, p.21) goes on to describe how their studio implementation differs from other units in the degree program :

• “the physical layout” of the studio facility.

• “the hardware and software resources required”

• “the teaching approach used in terms of content and method”

• “the development of strategies for integrating the formal and pragmatic as- pects of SE, by getting students to reflect (muse over) and see links between the formal aspects of SE, critical thinking and research methods in the thesis component”

• “the Studio project and the software tools used to support the SE life cycle.”

Their studio is “aimed at supporting agile SE practices” (Ramakrishnan, 2003, p.21). However, to avoid the possible deterioration of light-weight agile methods into“adhoc development”, the MUSE studio used a“tailored middle-weight process which requires students to devote enough effort in requirements and design models and move more to the agile method during implementation” (Ramakrishnan, 2003, p.22) .

Assessment in this studio is continual, with the teams building up a portfolio for their project which also includes reports and log books. Throughout the year there are two instances of peer-assessment, each team gives two presentations and perform two walk-throughs. The portfolios are also presented at the end of the project in a ‘Design Jury’.