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 ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".