Learning in vivo

What competences; which experiences; and feasibility?

For teaching and learning, the central—“constituting something from which other related things proceed or upon which they depend”—issue, is the expected/stated outcomes (such as knowledge, skills, and attitudes), and/or competencies.

Once the expected outcomes and/or competencies are known, careful consideration must be given to which learning experiences are most likely to accomplish those; and the feasibility of providing such.

Certain learning is best acquired (or accomplished) through contextual experience/s, application, and reflection. A number of conditions are of significance pertaining contextual experiences, such as:

• The degree of authenticity (or genuineness) for learning that is provided
• The degree of fidelity (or proximity) with regard to reality
• The extent of interactivity (and immersivity) made feasible

The extent to which the occupational-field/the profession/the community-of-practice/vocational representatives were involved in determining the learning outcomes; and in particular the expression of willingness to support the teaching, by providing real-life learning opportunities, is a major deciding factor. Without adequate support, and the provision of access to contextual learning experiences, the options are reduced; and workplace-learning placements become a substantial challenge.

Workplace/clinical-field/professional/vocational realities, however, do not always permit actual exposure. This could be due to for example security/confidentiality/safety/sensitivity. In such circumstances, the realities could be simulated in a variety of ways in order to provide alternative experiences with the objective of achieving the stated learning outcomes.

The aforesaid highlight some of the teaching-design considerations, however, there are many other issues to consider, and a range of options and possibilities. Some of the potential modes of teaching include:

• Work-integrated/workplace/work-based learning, clinical training/professional practice/placement
• Project- and problem-based learning, work-based project, and live projects
• Case-based learning, case studies, case methods, life course/experience, and story telling
• Studio-based learning, studio-work, studios, and problem solving
• Service learning, community engagement, and role plays
• Virtual learning environments, virtual reality, and a range of potential simulations
• Non-placement work-integrated learning
• Work-directed theoretical learning, and projects

Relationships between student and supervisor, within studio-based learning, have an effect on student learning

“With each ‘singular emotional episode’ the student learns about the supervisor and themselves” and with “repeated exposure these singular events can develop into ‘emotional stances’, which influence the student’s approach to learning”, say Belluigi (2016: 21) and adds that “such stances may be productive, reproductive or counter-productive depending on how power dynamics, affective concerns and discourses position and manage those involved”. She states (p. 22) that it “is important in education to recognise that teachers’ conceptions of their roles have an impact on student learning”, in that it may either undermine or support. Drawing from her art education research, she portrays constructions of the roles of supervisors and of students respectively, as well as resulting relationships.

Six constructions of the studio-supervisor (p. 23)	Four constructions of the student (p. 29)
The master (p. 23) Master–apprentice mimetic model, originated from the medieval guild workshop; apprentice making the master’s art; now obsolete and inappropriate for contemporary studio	The apprentice (p. 29) Hierarchical, ‘earning your stripes’, becoming a journeyman and then master; marked absence of student voice; in some cases a lack of concern for students’ aspirations
The atelier coach One-to-one ‘studio conversations’, arose from the 19th century Romantic French academy; constructive criticism of the student’s artwork as medium of learning; not sustainable under production and educational pressures	The emotional/intuitive artist-student Romantic artist genius and humanist notions of the artist as the ideal of fulfilled selfhood; believing morally superior and emotionally more sensitive than non-artists, and ‘pitted against a cold and corrupt society’
The reflective practitioner (p. 24) Observation and formative feedback; requires ‘sensitive, trusting and responsive teacher–student relationships; dependency because continually respond adapt to what emerges; reflection-both in and outside-action	The reflexive practitioner (p. 30) Reflexivity is essential to contemporary artmaking; fluidity between formal learning spaces and everyday life, theory and practice; fluidity between formal learning spaces and everyday life, theory and practice
The critical friend Students often intentionally use for alternative interpretations, and to situate themselves in community; model require caring, mutually engaging, partnership openness	The collaborator Postmodernist ‘co-constructivist’ concept ‘artist as collaborator’; interconnected with various different ‘knowledges’, experiences and communities; critical adult learning
The liminal servant (p. 25) Relating to the threshold (or point) beyond; both cognitive and social scaffolding; enthusiastic engagement and openness; empathy; and shared learning management
The analyst (and patient) Similar phenomena with therapy, within trust environment and sense of security, for student to explore widely and freely without constraints; play, awareness, mirroring, and transference; growth-promoting symbiosis

How the inherent differences of the respective roles and models are understood from within the constructions, is of significance and should not be overlooked.

Belluigi, D.Z. (2016). Constructions of Roles in Studio Teaching and Learning. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 21-35. Electronically available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12042

Key determinants in achieving an optimum studio-based learning experience

“Studio-based learning (SBL) is a teaching and learning methodology that combines different learning pedagogies such as social constructivist, problem-based, and active learning to mimic real-world working experience.” say Kumar, Silva and Prelath (2020: 611). As result of the successes in providing a real-world industry experience through studio-based learning, the application has been extended as pedagogical approach to many fields, such as engineering, programming, communication, entrepreneurship and non-arts programs.

Technological advancements changed the way we live and learn. “The 21st century has seen the move to an era in which information, innovation, creativity and imagination are important attributes”, which “are seen to be the backbone of the new economic world” say Fung (2015: 71). Entrepreneurial and creative industries are triggers for economic development and therefore of increasing importance, indicate Fung (2015: 72), because such “provides job opportunities, creates wealth, produces consumer goods and services for local and overseas markets, and enables growth in overall consumption”. Studio-based learning is deemed a means to stimulate creativity and entrepreneurship development.

The essence of studio-based learning lies in providing students the opportunity to actively apply their knowledge by developing “projects through an iterative cycle that involves problem-solving, collaboration, and autonomous learning”, say Kumar, et al. (2020: 612). An authentic learning experience is enabled through critical review of projects, while going through the iterative cycle, by fellow team members, peers, instructors/lecturers, and potentially industry professionals, and real clients. This provides students with a glimpse to real workplace issues and motivation to resolve problems critically. Problems are deemed essential, because students are prepared to face obstacles by learning and adapting. Kumar, et al. (2020: 613) identify six fundamentals steps to implement studio-based learning:

1. Identifying projects that can be executed through different methods
2. Project implementation individually or through teamwork
3. Project presentation
4. Constructive feedback from peers or mentors (critique session) which may be done face-to-face or online
5. Alteration for resubmission or presentation
6. Repeat of steps 1 to 5

Fung (2015: 73-74) group the studio-based learning process into parts, illustrated in Figure 1 (p. 74):

1. The project brief, which is set out by the teachers according to the skills required to be learnt by students at different stages of their study. Often the project brief is the stimulus for creative ideas, strategies and a holistic view of the planning for creative outcomes, and should be interesting, motivating, realistic, mindful, clearly defined, and giving freedom of design deliverables.
2. Features of studio-based learning, including the studio, participants (teachers and students) and critique.
3. Learning process by students, via learning-by-doing and problem-solving skills; these involve the reiteration of ideas during the critique from teacher to student until the maturity of the idea and/or the approach of the deadline.
4. Learning outcomes, which include the presentation and determination of final ideas and portfolio respectively.

Fung (2015: 74) emphasises the role of the lecturer (teachers) and students, as important informants; but focusses on the project brief, features of studio-based learning, learning process and learning outcomes act as the framework, as illustrated in Figure 2. She undertook research to identify the key contributing factors to optimise studio-based learning practice. Five key determinants were identified that are influencing optimum studio-based learning, namely the behaviour of the teacher, management of expectations, exposure to industry, the design of the project brief, and the communication channels (pp. 82-83). Fung (2015: 90) superimposed these to her studio-based learning model, thereby indicating that “teachers’ behaviours, expectation management and industry exposure are interconnected in affecting students’ motivation to learn”. Furthermore communication channels and project brief designs are deemed important determinants towards optimisation of the studio-based learning process.

Fung, M.S.K. (2015). Studio-based learning experiences in vocational design education in Hong Kong. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), 71-96. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.219519164808585

Kumar, J.A., Silva, P.A. & Prelath, R. (2020). Implementing studio‑based learning for design education: a study on the perception and challenges of Malaysian undergraduates. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 611–631. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10798-020-09566-1.pdf

Doing, problem-solving, interacting, experimenting, and reflecting are significant elements of studio-based learning

The essential elements of studio-based learning entail learning by doing; interacting in a creative and reflective process with other students, lecturers, and external stakeholders; and re-doing with the aim of resolving real-world problems, in an effort to positively contribute to local communities, say Brown, Karle and Kelly (2015: 260-1). Studio-based learning evolved from the socio-cultural constructivism thread of constructivist learning theory. The intent of studio-based learning is to foster learning behaviours towards “discovery, integration, application and sharing of knowledge” (Brown, et al. 2015: 262). The practice of peer reviews, called ‘desk critiques’, facilitates development of problem solving abilities with regard to identification, iterative generation, exploration, assessment, comparison, and selection of best-fit solutions.

The use of studio-based pedagogy is relatively rare at universities, in that it involves smallish student to lecturer ratios, and permanent working spaces. Large registration groups are perceived prohibitive to enacting studio-based pedagogies. However, blended learning practices supported by collaborative technologies may provide the framework for scaling studio-based pedagogy to the pressures for increased provision, say (Brown, et al. 2015: 263). The gold standard key characteristics of studio-based learning, namely small groups, direct interaction, dedicated space, and learning through action, must be retained. The nature of studio-based learning were scaled and accomplished by dividing the students registered into sections and teams in order to enable direct interaction. Google Hangouts, a G+ community, Google Drive, Google Docs, and Blackboard Learn were used to manage the course.

Shraiky and Lamb (2013) report that an exploration of teaching strategies for inter-professional education (IPE) in healthcare, found that studio-based learning (SBL) embodies many features that are integral to effective IPE. Medical and nursing schools are pursuing IPE to facilitate students from two or more professions learn about, from and with each other. It is believed that IPE would transform the way to resolve complex problems through an integrative and more comprehensive approach. Studio-based learning offers a variety of ways to work together and resolve problems.

The studio-based learning notion originated from the École des Beaux-Arts, in Paris (source of image below), in 1648 (Murray, 2016), from the apprentice model, philosophically grounded in the notion that an art ‘master’ would pass artistic abilities and technical skills on. Students were assigned a design problem, which they would work through a rigorous learning-by-doing process. Their final product, known as ‘sketch problem’ was presented to and evaluated by the master.

Studio-based learning since abandoned the master-apprentice model in favour of student-directed frameworks, which emphasize creative problem-solving and experimentation. The lecturer or facilitator would pose either a hypothetical (grounded in likely scenarios) or actual problem as starting point. Students there after undertake in-depth data collection and review relevant literature. Students are encouraged to gather first-hand data through observation and interviews; team-work and sharing of responsibilities emphasised. Active and ongoing feedback is provided through charettes, crits, and pin-ups (Shraiky & Lamb, 2013: 462):

• Charettes are highly interactive workshops that bring stakeholders together to generate ideas to improve the solution. Students may design exercises for participants to try out or react to their proposed solutions, Charettes are fast-paced and dynamic and allow students to hear directly from their key customers.
• Crits (short for critiques) are informal feedback sessions held during each studio meeting. Instructors rotate among the student teams, engage with students about their progress, and offer suggestions, Crits are deeply embedded in the studio culture and provide a casual and non-threatening way for instructors to guide students, offer positive feedback, and catch problems early. External experts and consultants are readily integrated into the crit format and often rotate with instructors
• Crits are integrated with ‘pin-ups’ in which students display their documents and illustrations around the studio. Faculty and students rotate among the pin-ups while each team formally presents drafts of their design solutions.

Formal reviews further take place, which may serve as midterm and formal examinations. Student teams present their completed designs, in a public forum, to a preselected review panel of experts and academics, who identify strengths and areas for improvement. Feedback is typically direct and fast-paced.

There are several shared features in common between studio-based learning and inter-professional education, such as resolving realistic and complex problems. In both, process and product are important. Both are highly interactive and involves extensive exchange of ideas among students and faculty. Both combines problem-based and practice-based learning, and both observation and simulation learning are naturally evolving components

Brown, S.E., Karle, S.T. & Kelly, B. (2015). An evaluation of applying blended practices to employ studio-based learning in a large-enrollment design thinking course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(4), 260-280. Available at: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6154

Murray, C. (2016). A brief history of the École Des Beaux-Arts, First, there was the Academy. In Culture Trip. Electronically accessed from https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/paris/articles/a-brief-history-of-the-ecole-des-beaux-arts/

Shraiky, J.R. & Lamb, G. (2013). Studio-based learning in interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(6), 461-468. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2013.816273

Technology enabled online feedback and assessment to enhance studio-based learning

“Assessment is of prime importance to education and student learning” say Eshun and Osei-Poku (2013: 1), because it supports learning. Rubrics are descriptive scoring and assessment tools; they form the foundation of academic judgements and measures about the performances, achievements, progress, and levels of proficiency; and make explicit how well the learning outcomes were achieved. The use of rubrics further ensures consistency, overcomes arbitrariness, and reduces not only subjectivity, but also administration. Rubrics provide students with specific criteria, and detail both what is expected, and what constitutes a complete response. However, there are potential down sides and pitfalls pertaining the use of rubrics, caution Eshun and Osei-Poku (2013). They recommend the participation of students in the development of rubrics, especially in studio- and project-based learning contexts. Students do appreciate an effective and usable rubric, which contains well-defined assessment criteria; is explicit; specific, and based on the intended learning outcomes.

“Feedback is a crucial component in the change and the potential for change in individual performance”, say Hamond, Himonides and Welch (2020: 34). When current performance is perceived not to match the intended level of performance, learning is enabled. They indicate that for feedback to be effective, meaningful information, self-assessment and self-regulatory skills are required. Feedback fosters learner autonomy. Hamond, et al. (2020) differentiate (a) intrapersonal feedback—which happens inside the individual; from (b) interpersonal feedback—which happens between two or more individuals, or between one individual and one external source, such as technology. Intrapersonal feedback includes internal processes such as conscious–awareness state, metacognitive knowledge, self-regulatory skills, emotional state, and a sense of self. They further differentiate verbal feedback (for example providing information, or asking questions), and non-verbal feedback (for example modelling, imitating, body and head movements, pointing, hand gestures, and behaviours such as smiling, laughing, nodding, shaking and facial expression. Hamond, et al. (2020) also allude to the use of technology-mediated feedback, which may augment intrapersonal feedback.

Hamond, et al. (2020) propose the use of synchronous or asynchronous online video and audio recordings and digital technology systems in distance teaching and learning environments. Such technology system may enable lecturers and students to share performance-related data through the internet (online), and to discuss the visual feedback to augment the teaching and learning experiences. It has the potential to enhance the online learning experiences by exploiting available technologies.

Eshun, E.F. & Osei-Poku, P. (2013). Design students perspectives on assessment rubric in studio-based learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1). Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/8

Hamond, L., Himonides, E. & Welch, G. (2020). The nature of feedback in higher education studio-based piano learning and teaching with the use of digital technology. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 13(1), 33-56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00015_1

Remote critique as a means towards formative assessment in NPWIL

‘Preliminary crit’ (or desk critique in face-to-face settings) is “a form of intermediate formative assessment that takes place in the studio-based learning environment” say Pradel, Sun, Oro and Nan (2015). Tuccio (n.d.) regard the ‘crit’, meant to assist students as one of the most important aspects of studio-based learning. Critique sessions, of 20 to 30 minutes each, take place at regular intervals throughout a course, as active one-on-one/panel, between student and one or more lecturers/tutors, who provide formative feedback. The student’s work in progress is reviewed and discussed informally. Proposals are made, different viewpoints offered, problems discussed and alternatives deliberated. Reflection on own work is facilitated, where after the student critically assimilates the commentary and make discretionary revisions. The tutor/lecturer “acts as a master demonstrating the appropriate behaviour, values, design strategies, and thought processes” (Pradel, et al. 2015) that professionals exhibit, as well as the language used in the community of practice. ‘Crit’ serves as a means of “bridging students into professional practice”, and is deemed a key benefit of studio-based learning pedagogy.

LeBrasseur (2021: 18) found that “students seek a more immersive and integrated digital experience in their education”. He explored the use of digital tablets with coordinated audio/video application in capturing the dynamic exchange during ‘digital review session’ (DRS) in order “to facilitate memory retention, vocabulary comprehension, clarification of design requirements, and documentation of the next steps to project outcomes” (p. 17). Students submitted submit a digital version of their work prior to the remote critique session. Crits were done by means of a digital tablet and audio-visual application, where after uploaded to ShowMe’s cloud (www.showme.com):

Discussion, critique comments, and responses are recorded and synchronized to the digital drawing’s evolving graphic feedback on the instructor’s tablet. A unique component of this DRS is the synchronicity—similar to a movie—wherein image markup and audio commentary are revealed together. This simulates an actual studio desk critique and has the potential to be revisited at a later time: the recording can be paused, images enlarged, and parts replayed numerous times to clarify ideas and concepts. Furthermore, the DRS method allows students to work from many locations—not just at their studio table—and does not require the frequent printing of drawings. (LeBrasseur, 2021: 20)

LeBrasseur, R. (2021). Digital Review Sessions: Student Perceptions of Digital Tablets in Design Studio Review and Desk Critique. Landscape Journal, 39(2), 17-30.

Pradel, P., Sun, X., Oro, B. & Nan, W. (2015). A preliminary comparison of desk and panel crit settings in the design studio. In the International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, 3 & 4 September 2015, Loughborough University, Design School, Loughborough, UK (EPDE2015/246).

Tuccio, C. (n.d.). 3 ways to prepare for a desk critique & get the most out of it. Draftscapes. Electronically accessed from https://draftscapes.com/3-ways-to-prepare-for-a-desk-critique-get-the-most-out-of-it/

Studio-based learning and online studio as forms of foundational WIL

In the framework of different categories of placement and non-placement work-integrated learning (NPWIL), ‘studios’ of ‘studio-work’ is reflected as a foundational form, potentially high in authenticity, but low in proximity.

The word ‘studio’ brings to mind a range of images, such as ‘the working place [workroom or atelier, from French—literally meaning a pile of splinters/chips (from Late Latin astella)] of a painter, sculptor, or photographer’; or a place of instruction or the practising of dancing or acting; or ‘a place where audio recordings or motion pictures are made’; or ‘a place maintained and equipped for the transmission of radio or television programs’; or a residential ‘studio apartment’. ‘Studio’ originated from the Latin stadium, literally meaning to study. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/studio and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/studio). Studio-based learning (SBL) is rooted in the apprentice model of learning, where students understudied a master trade’s person, in order to develop their craft. The intent of studio-based learning is to mirror practice within the field, within tuition, to resemble as closely as possible actual tasks the graduate will encounter in the occupational field. Fast forward to 2021 and the impact of Covid-19, studio-based learning probably entail approximating occupational (or professional) practice in an online virtual learning space or environment.

Lisa LaJevic (2021), an Associate Professor of Art Education (Art and Art History) at The College of New Jersey, Ewing, share her reflection on the Covid pandemic experience of having had to switch quickly, without much support, to remote instruction. Aware that many students were temporarily living with their parents under lockdown conditions, she was challenged to teaching activities based on materials and resources available to students that are confined to their homes. Although filled with uncertainty, opportunities for experimentation, and for risk-taking resulted in taking control in relatively powerless situation. Weekly assignments became a way for students to express themselves, cope, to de-stress, and even involving family members. Students were engaged, self-motivated, and learning activities helped dealing with anxieties. LaJevic succeeded in creating individualised virtual studios for teaching contemporary-art creativity with available art materials, processes and techniques. She made use of pre-recorded imperfect narrated PowerPoint presentations on Canvas, and mini-studio assignments which typically entailed creation of two artworks per week, dedicating 60 minutes to each, and then sharing of work on a discussion board and participation in critique.

Although studio-based learning is typically used in the fields of architecture, design, software engineering, and creative - and performing arts; Heikkinen, Seppänen and Isokangas (2016) regard studio-based learning and studio model education as promising pedagogical methods for developing an entrepreneurial mindset. The LAB studio model, pre-incubator style studio education, enables connections between work-life based problems and the development of business prototypes and start-ups. Studio-based learning could be diverse in form, but focuses on learning through action. Projects, based on the given problems serve as medium for educating. Heikkinen, et al. (2016) advocate moving beyond lessons and textbook structure, by connecting more strongly with activities focused on societal use. Although their focus is entrepreneurship education, working under pressure, uncertainty and solving contradictions in the activity, are common in most workplaces. Heikkinen, et al. (2016) promote learning methods that include functional project-based learning, with sufficient level of challenge and uncertainty. Students should be active and learning self-directed; and the building bridges with societal learning networks instilled. The LAB Studio Model (LSM) is grounded on the studio-based learning. LSM is an interdisciplinary education model entailing self-directed teams, with proven business pre-incubator potential. Students engage in relevant authentic learning and reflective practice or ‘knowing- and reflecting-in-action’, as well as integration of experienced professionals and coaches from the industry, that are bringing problems or ideas directly from targeted industries to the LSM, say Heikkinen, et al. (2016).

Dreamson (2020) remark that the online design studio is the emergent form of design education, not the next best contemporary alternative. The same could possibly be said about placement-based WIL? Dreamson (2020) states that the romanticised atelier model and apprenticeship system is no longer a sound approach in the digitally networked world. He asserts the transition from masters to apprentices cannot be retained or revert to. Rapid technological advancement and the tremendous speed at which knowledge and skills are updating through the network, have forever changed the landscape of education. The worldwide Covid-19 pandemic has merely accelerated the transition to digital teaching and learning. Educators have been cast into the new learning environment, and even if the pandemic ends, the changed landscape will probably not revert, says Dreamson (2020). Although “some essential physical design activities such as rendering & animation workstation, industrial design (e.g. jewellery engraving machine), and a large format printer in graphic design, could not be replicated to online activities” (p. 495), such would not stop digitisation of education. Instead, physically distanced, digitally integrated, instruction would be implemented for required physical activity.

Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design education: meta-connective pedagogy. The International Journal of Art and Design Education (iJADE), 39(3), 483-497, published in association with the National Society for Education in Art & Design (NSEAD). Electronically accessible from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jade.12314

Heikkinen, K-P., Seppänen, U-M., & Isokangas, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship education in studio based learning practices. In the proceedings of the 11^th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Finland, 247-256. Electronically accessed from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1860088388?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

LaJevic, L. (2021). My experience with remote instruction: choices in learning and artmaking. Art Education, 74(2), 10-13. Electronically accessed from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00043125.2020.1852383