The current challenges affecting studio learning

To elaborate on the multifarious dialogues on Communication Design studio education further, the various components challenging the discipline today must be understood. It is

acknowledged that contemporary Communication Design education produces fields of representation distinct from other branches of design as the “operating system of the 21st century”, impacting profoundly on culture, finance, globalisation, localisation, politics,

policymaking, socio-economic development, sustainability, and beyond (University of the Arts London Central St Martins, 2014).Communication Design education also encourages face-to- face and online global-market and industry collaboration (University of the Arts London Central St Martins, 2014; Brody, 2014; Glasgow School Of Art, 2014; Parsons The New School for Design, 2014; School Of Visual Arts, 2014).

To reiterate, as Communication Design practice-led processes, learning, and terminology have all evolved, so too has the pattern of studio use within higher education. Art and Design education, more generally, appears to have seen a shift from closed classrooms to open-plan, live-in to drop-in, and, to some extent, physical to digital teaching and learning. In recent

itself, with students attending the studio space solely for necessary critiques, group work, project launches, or assessment purposes (Boddington and Boys, 2011; Scott-Webber, et al., 2014; Boling, et al., 2016). Today, Communication Design practice and learning often spans the formal educational (studio) environment of institutions, informal environments of home and non- owned spaces, such as museums and cafés, and physical and digital forms of learning space.

Therefore, because studio pedagogy is perceived and practiced in various formal and informal spaces and embedded in a wide range of curriculum programmes, the character and delivery of studio activities can vary. Depending upon the preferences of the institution delivering

Communication Design education, students are now experiencing the studio without a

consistent sharing of studio features or attributes in an irregular landscape of provision (Boling, et al., 2016). Evidencing this, the two case study higher education institutions in this

investigation deliver very different Communication Design curriculum programmes. The

programme requirements being taught within these two different organisations dictate the use of the studio space and the specific practices of the students in each case study. Therefore, an outline of the two different curriculum design and delivery approaches is sketched below.

In the art school in the UK (Case Study 1), the participants are located within one large inter- connected, open-plan, physical studio environment designed to accommodate three

Communication Design specialist areas (Photography, Illustration, and Graphic Design) and with a mix of year groups. The location specific terminology used by this institution for this learning space is ‘studio’, and refers to active, experiential pedagogy. Each student has one small desk assigned to them with many other students in close proximity. Desk dividers allow a small amount of privacy between each workstation. Wall space is a highly sought-after

commodity and priority is given to students in years three and four. However, this curriculum encourages a more fluid use of space within studio learning. Group and individual critiques can occur at communal sofa areas, in-situ at desks, within the many workshop spaces, or in corridors, with the workflow expressed in each context. Students are expected to attend this

made aware of the value of studio through curriculum activities (for example, formally and informally working together). The studio component is an assessable part of the degree course. The students are not defined by their specialisation within this Communication Design

curriculum, but through their creative interpretations and articulation of the project briefs

delivered to them. There are no medium-specific briefs. Instead, diverse interests are dispersed across the Communication Design programme, with overlapping interests, sub-communities, and activities, such as film screenings and speaker events, bringing students with common interests together. This art school facilitates and encourages the students and tutors to socialise together in one fluid, informal studio setting.

The college of art in Australia (Case Study 2) is more formal in its approach to a Communication Design curriculum. The students attend short, fixed timetabled tutorials dictated within studio- based classroom spaces and in one lecture theatre. The location specific terminology used by this institution for these learning spaces is also ‘studio’, and refers to active, experiential pedagogy. Students are not assigned an individual desk space, as they do not inhabit one studio. Instead, hot-desking or no-desking is common practice. Group and individual critiques occur within timetabled tutorial sessions in the classroom and the workflow is not expressed in variable physical contexts. This curriculum encourages a fixed use of formal space within studio learning. Students are expected to attend classes only for the duration of the timetabled

session. However, they do engage with activities constituting studio practice, such as working together in groups on project briefs. They are not bound by a physical space, but by common interests, and individuals cluster accordingly. The studio component is not an assessable part of the course, as it does not appear in the students’ learning outcomes. The students are defined by their specialisation and they work on centralised, medium-specific set briefs in this

Communication Design curriculum. This college of art facilitates the students’ and tutors’ formal socialisation through the allocated timetable sessions in the studio setting. To a lesser degree, overlapping interests, sub-communities, and activities bring students with commonalities together.

There is a growing trend of teaching design in non-traditional environments by adapting the knowledge and approaches from within studio pedagogy, known as a ‘signature pedagogy’, to classroom-based learning (Shulman, 2005; Sims and Shreeve, 2012; Crowther, 2013; Boling, et al., 2013). Studio learning is now often synonymous with classroom learning (as discussed in Case Study 2) as the roles that these two environments assume now overlap (Boling, et al., 2013; Knaub, et al., 2016). Studio normally involves a passionate and driven investment and membership in a creative learning space where a unique set of skills and thought processes are taught. Physically, a design studio provides students access to the studio environment at irregular hours and with space to work, while work in progress remains on display in their allocated desk space. Classroom environments are timetabled, learning spaces, which are found across all educational institutions, delivering creative and non-creative learning, from early childhood to postgraduate education. A classroom is often a carpeted room in which a group of students at desks are taught, with no reference to the traditional workshop (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). In these generalised educational environments, studio lessons can be facilitated via “interactive boards and display devices in the classroom” typically seen as an attempt to plan, control, and orchestrate the studio learning experience in a non-specialised learning space (Scott-Webber, et al., 2014, p.153). In recent years, a studio-based classroom often exists as an accessible online educational content management system using software, such as Moodle, VLE (Virtual Learning Environment), Blackboard, Adobe Connect, or Google Classroom (Pektas, 2012; Güler, 2015; Google, 2016). In consideration of these changes, recent literature now points to studio learning as being dissimilar to traditional studios, with certain educators now having a “received understanding” of studio, having imagined it and read about it yet not having traditionally experienced it (Boling, et al., 2016, p.5).

Scott-Webber (2012) argues that institutions, educators, and designers must work together to address the issues relating to contemporary learning in spaces that were designed for an older, factory-education spatial model. Today, institutions should tackle the problematic density caused by large student numbers and ensure learning spaces are used more effectively in order

is at the forefront of their delivery and practice, rather than an outmoded ‘content experts’ arrangement. Designers should also recognise emerging user needs in education as well as pedagogical changes. Scott-Webber (2012) also highlights that learning spaces should be designed from the inside out. However, designers who are designing learning spaces often rarely consult educators, with designers preferring to create beautiful, technological spaces, leaving little room for creative mess and play. As a Design educator teaching within new design studio learning spaces at my current institution (also the location of Case Study 2), I was not permitted to touch or use the walls for lesson delivery. In these studio-based classroom spaces, using the walls as broader areas to display artwork or as interactive work in progress surfaces was strictly off limits. Instead, the classroom was furnished with a small whiteboard area and magnetic pin-board wall upon which to attach mobile phones. The three remaining walls in the studio display large digital screens, which continue to function intermittently (Figure 8).

Institutional rules dictate that the estates department and technical staff regulate these new spaces.

Figure 8. Classroom-based studio space. © L. Marshalsey, 2016.

Older, less valued learning spaces seem to function better as fluid, creative studios, and are generally less regulated. In addition, educators often do not know what they want or need in

a miscommunication between institutions, educators, and designers when designing

contemporary design studio environments. This is problematic particularly because the design of these learning spaces will shape the way in which we think about, experience, and manage design education for the next several decades (Rudd, et al., 2006).

Many studies (Muhammad, et al., 2014; Morrison, 2015; Perks, et al., 2016) propose that innovative and inspirational learning spaces should be decluttered and comprise mobilised furniture, air conditioning, whiteboards, amplification, and digital screens. However, these researchers have not considered sensory affect in these spaces and continue to take advantage of technological innovation in education. Instead, personalising an engaged specialist design studio education should be at the forefront of space design, so as to allow students opportunities to understand the studio as a site for learning without bias (Goldblatt, 2006, p.21).

The ensuing concept of personalisation in education suggests a need to create learning spaces that account for the needs and interests of individuals (Waldrip, et al., 2016). Accordingly, teaching staff are increasingly aware of the challenging relationship between learning space and community as they adapt their delivery, confront their own limitations, and acknowledge the need for change within physical learning spaces (Austerlitz, 2008; Scott-Webber, 2012, et al., 2014; Boling, et al., 2016). As educational funding is reduced, financial cost cutting may lead to inadequate resources and space for specialist creative disciplines, and even if dedicated learning spaces are established, they are difficult to justify and retain (Educause, 2010; Morgan, 2014a; 2014b; Boling, et al., 2016). Likewise, university administration and estate management does not always support interdisciplinary practice or shared space between departments, or the movement of Communication Design students to non-owned or non-designated learning spaces (Temple, 2014).

Reform Act. In 2012, the UK Government threatened to side-line Art and Design in favour of other subjects in the school curriculum, therefore having consequences for progression onto further education and university (Creative Review, 2013; Baynes and Norman, 2013). The long- term effects of this on studio learning remain to be seen. One might question whether these current and future challenges might prepare students for a globally dispersed design practice and if a sense of place in contemporary Communication Design studio learning might be lacking (Barker and Hall, 2010, p.9).