Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy
Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy (WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2003_11.pdf
Images of pedagogy are often formed with images of practice in mind. In recent years, design and the practices of designers have been used as models for experimental learning environments and progressive curricula (see, e.g., Cossentino & Shaffer, 1999; Erickson & Lehrer, 1998; Greeno & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project, 1997; Hmelo, Holton, & Kolodner, 2000; Jacobson & Lehrer, 2000; Kolodner, Crismond, Gray, Holbrook, & Puntambekar, 1998; Loeb, 1993; Perkins & Blythe, 1994; Shaffer, 1996). As in many endeavors, though, images of design work and actual enactment of design practices are not necessarily the same: what we see on casual observation is not always the same as what we understand from closer study. Accordingly, interest in design as a pedagogical model has produced a number of studies of design practices, particularly of architectural design, which is often seen as a canonical exemplar of the design process.
The analysis in this paper looks at how design practices were enacted in one design studio, focusing on the relationships among surface structures of the studio, the activities that those surface structures supported, and the view of knowledge that those activities fostered. The study is thus a structural ethnography rather than a hypothesis-driven or micro-genetic account of learning: it attempts to describe phenomena that are local, rather than directly generalizable, but that operate at a relatively broad scale–and thus appear through observation at a more intermediate level of analysis. This is ethnography closer in spirit and practice to Geertz’ (1973a) well-known analysis of conventions for time and identity in Bali than it is to Cobb’s (1986) case study of the emergence of abstract mathematical thinking in the concrete activities of one learner.
In a field such as design, where much is already known about specific cognitive and pedagogical processes, such a structural analysis is useful in extending our understanding of the systemic nature of activity. The analysis of the Oxford Studio that follows suggests that expression and expressive activity are a significant underpinning of the design studio system. To the extent that elements of design practice are interconnected, the study also suggests key features and relationships of the studio that should ideally be preserved in any adaptation of design to the creation of learning environments in other fields.
