MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939218063 · doi:10.21432/cjlt27849

From studio practice to online design education: Can we teach design online? | De l’enseignement pratique en studio à l’enseignement en ligne : peut-on enseigner le design en ligne ?

2019· article· en· W2939218063 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Art, Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioDesign studioLigneInstructional designPedagogyStudio artPsychologyMultimediaHumanitiesArtComputer scienceThe artsVisual artsVisual arts education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital technology is reshaping the way higher education subjects are taught, including design. Various design disciplines use studio teaching as a pedagogy to educate students for professions in art and design. Studio teaching bases a high premium on face-to-face interactions which guide learning through dialogue and feedback on individual work. Many design educators believe it is difficult or even impossible to teach design online because of studio-based interactions. Is design one of those disciplines that cannot be taught online because of the studio culture? This study explores that question by investigating the effectiveness of teaching design subjects that employ a virtual classroom to manage peer-to-peer critiques, instructor feedback, and assignments. Twenty-eight first-year students participated in two online design subjects that required them to interact with fellow students and the design instructor via a Learning Management System. The experienced benefits and challenges of students and instructors are presented, and future research is highlighted.La technologie numérique transforme la façon dont sont enseignées les disciplines de l’éducation postsecondaire, y compris le design. Différentes branches du design se servent de l’enseignement en studio comme pédagogie permettant de former les étudiants pour les métiers des arts et du design. L’enseignement en studio accorde une importance considérable aux interactions en personne qui orientent l’apprentissage par l’entremise du dialogue et de la rétroaction offerte sur le travail individuel. De nombreux enseignants de design croient qu’il est difficile, voire impossible, d’enseigner le design en ligne à cause des interactions en studio. Le design est-il l’une de ces disciplines que l’on ne peut pas enseigner en ligne à cause de la culture des studios? Cette étude explore la question en investiguant l’efficacité de sujets qui étudient le design à l’aide d’une salle de classe virtuelle, qui sert à gérer les critiques entre les pairs, les rétroactions de l’instructeur, ainsi que les travaux à effectuer. Vingt-huit étudiants de première année ont pris part à deux cours de design en ligne qui exigeaient d’eux qu’ils interagissent avec leurs camarades et avec l’instructeur par l’entremise d’un système de gestion de l'apprentissage. Les avantages et les défis dont les étudiants et les instructeurs ont fait l’expérience sont présentés, et des pistes sont proposées pour des études futures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it