Design Studio Matrix: Supporting the Decision-Making Process as Part of a Reflective Practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Design is described as a process of making decisions based on reflection in and on action (Schön, 1983). This report outlines the findings of the Design Studio Matrix: Supporting the Decision-Making Process as Part of a Reflective Practice research project, and provides recommendations for both future research and teaching. The Design Studio Matrix was funded by the grants program of the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary. The principal grant holder was Dr. Fabian Neuhaus, Associate Professor at the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, University of Calgary. The project was carried out at the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, University of Calgary, with a focus on three Masters design studio courses: the EVDS 620 Urban Design Studio/EVDA 782.01 Senior Architecture Design Studio course in fall 2019, the EVDP 644 B02 Advanced Professional Planning Studio course in winter 2020 and the EVDP 616 Planning course in fall 2020. The project ran for two years, from spring 2019 to Spring 2021. Its aim was to analyze design studio pedagogy and to further develop the Design Studio Matrix (DSM), a teaching and learning tool that was developed by Dr. Graham Livesey, Dr. Enrica Dall’Ara and Dr. Fabian Neuhaus. The hypothesis was that the DSM would help shift the focus of design education away from the product towards the process and the reflection thereof. The research was led by Sandra Abegglen and adopted a mixed or multi method approach consisting of focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, in-class observations and questionnaires. In addition, material created by the students such as diagrams and survey data were analyzed. Ethical approval for the research was sought and granted by the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Ethics Board in August 2019. A total of 100 students have worked with the DSM to date. Of those, 53 students were registered for one of the courses included in this study, with 38 students fully participating in the research and 3 students partially participating. Participation in the research project was voluntary, with students being able to opt in or out of all, or particular research elements.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».