The studio as a learning space and as a site for learning

As outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, the studio as a site for learning has changed since its initial inception and therefore, research of contemporary approaches to design education continues to produce new perspectives on studio learning. Salama and Wilkinson (2007) consider the idea of emotions as influencing many educational aspects of studio. They suggest that the quality of the learning environment is strongly associated with, and affected by, the emotions the students feels towards the instructor and those emotions that arise throughout the student–instructor dialogue. However, although I contend that this idea is relevant to this study it goes much further than a consideration of relational emotions. Cennamo and Brandt (2012) argue for the importance of reflective dialogue in the studio, an idea that is embraced in this study, as participants attribute meaning to their studio experiences. Reflective dialogues are intimately linked with particular social interactions and studio practices, and because the educator–student dialogue frequently facilitates problem-solving, educators can support students in exploring the different ways in which they can qualitatively interpret a range of sensory experiences in their studio learning. In my situation, such an approach provides opportunities for the participants and me to learn from each other within the studio. In addition, the Participatory Design (PD) research methods, developed to understand and capture sensory affect as a means to help participants experience studio, are similar in terms of goals and context, yet offer opportunities for variation in the educator–student and student–student dialogue.

An individual’s experiential, environmental, and functional working relationship with the studio and its community also need deliberation. In consideration of this, Saghafi et al. (2012) placed greater emphasis on the physical design studio to promote communication and interaction. Degrees of participation in studio learning can depend on the quality of the relationships between the students as well as the quality of the physical environment. However, Pektas (2012) claims that delivery modes in studio teaching have not evolved as a response to changing physical environments and developing technology. My own investigation clearly

physical and blended Communication Design studio education and within differing cultural contexts.

Although a blended design studio can combine the strengths of traditional and online learning methods, Vyas et al. (2013) argue that a typical design studio has a high material character in the sense that it is full of material objects and design artefacts. They continue to emphasise the importance of artefacts as a visible externalisation of thoughts, ideas, and concepts on a range of studio surfaces, such as designers’ desks, office walls, and notice-boards (Vyas, et al., 2013). For this reason, the methodologies used in this investigation have produced a repertoire of artefacts to support the externalisation of the participants’ developing awareness of studio as they make meaning; place value judgements on these newly acquired insights, and then evaluate the impact of sensory affect on their present practice. The methodological approach in this investigation evidences that this newly acquired knowledge has potential in terms of the future development of the students’ creative practice in studio learning. Additionally, when artifacts are made visible on shared studio surfaces they may play an important role in encouraging and supporting collaboration between co-workers (Vyas, et al., 2013). In further consideration of innovative research methods, Güler (2015) argues that the pedagogic

implementation of social media as a communication tool in contemporary design studios might help improve the efficiency of studio critiques and peer interactions in these learning spaces.

The field of research of this study is broadly in line with those researchers who examine learning spaces, among them Melhuish (2010), Scott-Webber (2012), Boys (2014), and Harrison and Hutton (2014). This group of researchers examine perceptions of learning spaces and their impact on the learning and teaching process. In particular, Boys (2008; 2010; 2014; 2015) explores space in varying forms: conceptual, formal to informal, physical and virtual space. Boys (2008) and Temple (2008) argue that the complex relationships within learning spaces in higher education today are an under-researched area. My study certainly addresses the gap in terms of investigating the impact of sensory affect on student engagement within a

learning spaces further than this investigation does, as he discusses student movement, noise, and pedagogical delivery. My study examines the sensory impact of mainly physical learning spaces, and, as an example, identifies the elevated sound levels within these spaces as resulting from teaching larger student numbers.

Ellis and Goodyear (2016) examine learning spaces in a variety of arenas, including

architecture, the learning sciences, environmental psychology, and elsewhere to identify the relationships and gaps in this field. I concur with their assessment that learning space research is a relatively new field of study aimed towards understanding and managing pedagogical environments and that there may never be a singular model to serve all needs (Ellis and Goodyear, 2016). Positioning itself within this new field, this research investigation explores the experiential impact of sensory affect on social interaction and community, in physical learning spaces, and in tools, methods and strategies employed to cope with sensory affect and

engaged studio learning. Ellis and Goodyears’ (2016) study is compatible with my investigation as I seek to understand the impact of the shifting boundaries of physical learning spaces from a ground-up perspective and to engage directly with the stakeholders from an insider viewpoint e.g. within the learners’ community of practice. Although many studies support this field of research in several ways, my investigation is (to some extent) at odds with that of Knaub, et al. (2016). In contrast, Knaub et al (2016), argue for a studio-style instruction within classroom- based environments with a frequent emphasis on instructional technology, such as laptops and whiteboards, to support active learning. Many other studies also chart the studio-to-classroom education model in various forms for architecture, interior, and art-based disciplines. Yet none, to my knowledge, focus on Communication Design. There is no direct study that specifically argues for sensory affect to be taken into account in Communication Design or indeed within a broader studio education.