dc.description.abstract |
One of the enduring and memorable, properties and qualities of the 'unique situational
laboratory' of design studio as a learning environment (Travar and Radford, 2003) is its ability to
<
support and foster social interaction. As such, together with the opportunity for collaboration
and sharing, socialisation serves as a significant contributory component and stimulant of
learning (Parnell, 2001), at leas| informally. Indeed it is argued that the most significant attribute
of design studio is the culture that it develops, as it is this, propagated by the learning
environment, that acquires lasting significance (Koch et a I, 2002). From a pedagogic perspective,
therefore, the social dynamic of studio is deemed crucial. Additionally, interaction in studio
facilitates the development of mutual emotional and morale support, and in the face of duress or
adversity the social mechanisms appear to act as support structures founded on interdependence
and camaraderie between students. The developing culture, which Thomas Fisher describes as a
'fraternity' culture (1999) cultivates bonds between individuals that can be very powerful and
frequently endure over the course of a lifetime.
However, a considerable body of literature has developed over the last 20 years that challenges
some of the habituated behaviours and rituals that are commonly associated with studio, and
which can inadvertently run counter to educational theory. For example, despite its inherent
social properties and reliance on discourse, the learning process typically introduces 'power
asymmetries' that suppress the individual (Dutton, 1999), and offers limited recognition of the
individual in terms of experience and perspective (Webster, 2003). Instead, the collective
educational model has traditionally been more of a tool of normalisation and professional
acculturation in relation to values, beliefs, and behaviours, as well as skills.
With a few exceptions such as the 'review' or 'crit' process, interdependent or peer learning has
tended to occur through informal interaction, enabled by studio but remaining relatively
unstructured. However, a number of educators have begun to explore methods for the
structured incorporation of socialised learning into formal pedagogical constructs. Taking Piaget's
constructivism and Vygotsky's socio-cultural notion of 'proximal development' as the theoretical
underpinnings of studio enables the development of pedagogical frameworks for formalised
interdependent learning. The aim is primarily to release latent potential within studio, thereby
further enhancing its potency as a learning environment. This paper presents pedagogic
development being undertaken at the School of Architecture in Aberdeen, Scotland, that seeks to
enhance discourse through use of peer learning as the principal pedagogic structure, as well as
introducing methods of learning that embrace the diversity represented by the student body as a
rich and hitherto under-exploited resource for learning. |
|