Studio teaching for the property discipline

Studio teaching has formed the major mode of teaching and learning activities in Built Environment schools around the world – especially for the design disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture and urban design. This study investigates studio teaching for a final year undergraduate property subject at a time of significant change being part of the Australian university education reform ‘pilot tested’ at the University of Melbourne. This research uses a modified version of Brookfield’s (1995) “critically reflective lenses” and Scho n’s (1985) education model towards the “reflexive practitioner” to investigate and develop studio teaching mode for a real estate subject that is regarded as “non-design based” subject. We identified that the studio teaching model, through the purposeful application of its ‘model of interaction’ and ‘model of space’, provides the tools that can address the pertinent challenge at the particular juncture of the university reform in Australia. We found that the ‘model of interaction’ at least has significant parallels with the Assessment of Professional Competences (APC) of professional bodies such as the RICS. We also found that the success of the application of the studio model to non-design subjects will depend on the additional teaching resources and funding that are required. The study has strong theoretical relevance to university teaching and practical value in benefiting industry and professional practice.

[1]  Douglass C. North,et al.  Understanding the Process of Economic Change , 1999 .

[2]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. , 1987 .

[3]  Mark Gelernter Reconciling Lectures and Studios , 1988 .

[4]  L. Waks Reflective Practice in the Design Studio and Teacher Education. , 1999 .

[5]  Angela Carbone,et al.  Developing a Model of First Year Student Satisfaction in a Studio-based Teaching Environment , 2003, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[6]  Andrew Roberts Problem Based Learning and the Design Studio , 2004 .

[7]  Angela Carbone,et al.  A studio-based teaching and learning model in IT: what do first year students think? , 2002, ITiCSE '02.

[8]  James A. Moore,et al.  Case Method Teaching about Design Process Management , 1984 .

[9]  Hyungmin Pai,et al.  The Portfolio and the Diagram: Architecture, Discourse, and Modernity in America , 2002 .

[10]  D. Langford,et al.  Building a discipline: The story of construction management , 2009 .

[11]  Thomas A. Dutton,et al.  The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potential , 1989 .

[12]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[13]  Thomas A. Dutton Design and Studio Pedagogy , 1987 .

[14]  Ulrich Pfammatter,et al.  The making of the modern architect and engineer : the origins and development of a scientific and industrially oriented education , 2000 .

[15]  Kim Watty,et al.  Developing capstone experiences , 2009 .

[16]  D. Schoen Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[17]  Jens Beckert Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations , 1999 .

[18]  Donald A. Schön Toward a Marriage of Artistry & Applied Science in the Architectural Design Studio , 1988 .

[19]  J. Biggs,et al.  Teaching For Quality Learning At University , 1999 .

[20]  B. Lawson Design in mind , 1994 .