Files
Abstract
The landscape architecture design studio has seen little change in its 120 years in academe in the United States, and limited research on its pedagogic processes has been conducted. This study was intended to explore the relationship between studio-based learning, as manifested in the landscape architecture design studio, and active learning. How does active learning influence studio-based learning, and can active learning gain any insight from studio-based pedagogy?
Building on the existing historical descriptions of the landscape architecture design studio in the literature, advancements were studied through the decades, along with descriptions of contemporary design studios from allied disciplines. The literature also provided precise descriptions of both studio-based learning and active learning. Instructor surveys and interviews, plus live studio observations, provide data on the meanings that instructors ascribed to active learning and studio-based learning pedagogies. The data illuminated the lived experiences of instructors in the undergraduate landscape architecture design studio. The findings show that landscape architecture instructors offered varied definitions of active learning. Additionally, studio-based learning was largely regarded as implicit. Both pedagogies rely heavily on learning through doing in the classroom. However, the vital concept of reflection, as promoted by the literature of both pedagogies, was not always evident in the interviews and observations of the studio practice. On this basis, it is reasoned that there are similarities between active learning and studio-based learning and that active learning could find value in design studio pedagogy. Moreover, the design studio should look to active learning’s inclusion of reflection. Further research is needed with a larger and more diverse population to determine what role, if any, reflection plays in the contemporary landscape architecture design studio in the furtherance of professional education.
Building on the existing historical descriptions of the landscape architecture design studio in the literature, advancements were studied through the decades, along with descriptions of contemporary design studios from allied disciplines. The literature also provided precise descriptions of both studio-based learning and active learning. Instructor surveys and interviews, plus live studio observations, provide data on the meanings that instructors ascribed to active learning and studio-based learning pedagogies. The data illuminated the lived experiences of instructors in the undergraduate landscape architecture design studio. The findings show that landscape architecture instructors offered varied definitions of active learning. Additionally, studio-based learning was largely regarded as implicit. Both pedagogies rely heavily on learning through doing in the classroom. However, the vital concept of reflection, as promoted by the literature of both pedagogies, was not always evident in the interviews and observations of the studio practice. On this basis, it is reasoned that there are similarities between active learning and studio-based learning and that active learning could find value in design studio pedagogy. Moreover, the design studio should look to active learning’s inclusion of reflection. Further research is needed with a larger and more diverse population to determine what role, if any, reflection plays in the contemporary landscape architecture design studio in the furtherance of professional education.