The learningscape of a virtual
design atelier

Jennefer Hart, Theo Zamenopoulos, Steve Garner

The Open University

Abstract

The development of e-learning platforms is fundamentally changing the nature of education across all

disciplines. Art and design education has traditionally taken place within a studio environment and its model

of teaching and learning has been informed by the ‘atelier’ approach which has a distinctive educational

and cultural history. Significant pressures arise today in undergraduate art and design education and partly

these drive the need to establish an effective and viable modern studio experience. Not only must any new

studio support student learning of practice and principles, for example, by allowing students to work

alongside experts, it must foster the community and culture of the creative industries. As if this wasn’t

difficult enough, any innovation in teaching and learning must not incur the huge costs and resource

demands of our current models of art and design education and it must be scalable to provide a stimulating

experience for large numbers of students with diverse backgrounds, abilities and needs. This paper reports

on a suite of studies that were carried out as part of a JISCfunded project titled ATELIER-D. The aim of the

project was to create an online virtual design learning environment that replicates and improves the

features of traditional face-to-face studio education. The paper makes reference to new curricula at the

Open University, particularly a new FHEQ level 4 online design course fi rst presented in February 2010 to

350 students.

Tradition and opportunity

One of the traditional drawbacks to distance education is that student learning has largely taken place in

isolation. The peer community is widely distributed and, save a few day-school experiences, students have

lacked the opportunity to interact with each other. Tutors have been limited to one-to-one exchanges. But

new technologies have given rise to new opportunities. Through ICT it has, for example, become possible

to offer students and tutors shared virtual spaces that go some way towards simulating the shared spaces

found in traditional face-to-face undergraduate education. This is particularly significant for art and design

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

education. The opportunity for distance learning institutions, such as the Open University, concerns the

ability to create an effective model of online design education. But there is a second and much broader

possibility for those universities providing a more traditional face-to-face education service. There exists a

major opportunity to create an effective hybrid model that combines appropriate face-to-face interaction

whilst taking advantage of new tools for online collaborative learning.Not only would the new model be

more sustainable, but the work reported here suggests there are opportunities for qualitative improvements

in art and design learning.

The teaching of art and design at university level is an activity-based process that taps into the expertise of

skilled practitioners. Studio design teaching, using problem-based learning (PBL), predominates. This

model, widely documented by Kvan, 2001, Broadfoot & Bennett, 2003, etc., involves students addressing

ill-defi ned problems and communicating and justifying their outputs under the guidance of expert

practitioners. Over the past two decades the professional creative process has become more collaborative

involving various specialists working together. More recently, advancements in Web 2.0 technologies have

provided opportunities for those engaged in professional practice and education to communicate and share

their ideas online. The adoption of new technologies for creative collaboration has changed the landscape

of the design professions and thus the learningscape of design education. The merging of traditional design

skills and new digital working practices within new social networking structures is giving rise to a new

design pedagogy and impacting on the teacher and student dynamic (Shao et al. 2007). It is within this

context that the ATELIER-D project was devised and conducted.

The ATELIER-D project

This paper focuses on fi ndings and observations that have emerged from a two-year JISC-funded project

titled ‘Achieving Transformation, Enhanced Learning and Innovation through Educational Resources in

Design’ (ATELIER-D). The project is one of fi fteen addressing the theme ‘transforming curriculum delivery

through technology’. ATELIER-D sought to explore and develop new models of fl exible distance learning

by drawing on the design studio model of teaching and learning. There have been earlier online design

studios, for example the Omnium project from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Australia

(Bennett & Dziekan, 2005), and the ICON project from Strathclyde University (Sclater, et al. 2001). Some of

these have been domain-specifi c such as those aimed at supporting architectural practice (Broadfoot and

Bennett, 2003). ATELIER-D sought to go beyond the creation of a studio to explore, as its title suggests,

innovation and enhanced learning. Here there are many fewer published studies.

This paper is presented in four parts. First, it outlines the context of the study, identifying some of the core

features of a virtual environment for design teaching and learning. Second, it discusses some of the

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

technologies studied in the project in relation to three core requirements: (a) the creation of a social

environment for teaching and learning, (b) the facilitation of reflective practice through collaboration, and (c)

the development of a platform for communication and learning across different courses. The third part

reports on some key findings and observations and the final part reflects on issues emerging from the

project.

Design learning and the legacy of the atelier

As noted above, the origin of design studio-based learning lies in the art atelier model and dates back at

least three centuries. In this, young apprentices worked alongside a master craftsperson or artist (Broadfoot

& Bennett ,2003). The model is founded on the principle of ‘learning-by-doing’ where students master a

variety of technical skills and gain aesthetic training while working on tasks within a community. It is a type

of learning that has much interested scholars in recent years (e.g. Schön, 1983). This traditional studio-

based learning model proved effective in centres around the world up to the 1990s when new pressures

emerged. Art and design found itself having to justify space for displays, meeting spaces, studios and

workshops. In comparison to other subjects, staff-student ratios were viewed by senior management as

generous. Costs of resources such as academic staff, technical staff, capital equipment and materials

compounded the problem. There have been many moves towards rationalisation and efficiency, for

example class sizes have increased, contact time between students and staff has decreased and new

technologies such as virtual learning environments have been rolled out, but there have been no significant

attempts to combine the best of the old model with the potential of the new. There has been little progress

in combining the proven capacity of the atelier model with the broad range of computer-based tools

available today.

Each year universities teach a myriad of design courses to classes of students who typically work in a

shared environment. These design students work alongside their peers in a space where they interact,

display work-in-progress and engage in private or parallel pursuits of common design tasks. Students work

under the supervision of a design tutor who is, even today, likely to be a practitioner as well as an

academic. Design projects present design problems that enable students to refine their knowledge through

the reflective act of designing. Skills and knowledge are developed and demonstrated through students’

design work. The design process is iterative, involving regular individual or group critiques where all

participants provide feedback on each student’s work. These critiques, or ‘crits’, are a distinctive

component of studio-based learning. They facilitate the discreet transfer of tacit knowledge where design

strategies, values and behaviours are played out through verbal and graphic communication, often

supplemented with 3D constructions (Kvan, 2001). The use of peer-to-peer assessment can be very

effective in stimulating progression and placing learning outcomes in practical contexts. The studio setting,

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

which is both a work and a social environment, is seen as vital to facilitating the type of camaraderie

required for creative learning.

ATELIER-D technologies

Within the ATELIER-D project a number of Web 2.0 technologies were evaluated in order to explore their

potential in supporting a virtual design atelier. These studies took place across three design courses

offered at the Open University which form the backbone of the bachelor degree in Design and Innovation.

At the beginning of each course (in February 2009 and 2010), the course team invited students and tutors

to participate in a number of studies. The participation in each study ranged from 8 to approximately 350

people. The age and educational background of students varied considerably as is the case with most

Open University courses. Adopting an action research methodology, data were gathered and analysed

using a mixed method approach. Qualitative data were gained from observations, questionnaires and

interviews, and quantitative data were gained from technology data logs and analysed using statistical and

social networking analysis (SNA) methods.

The ATELIER-D project took place over two years and is currently in its fi nal stages of evaluation. In the

first year six small studies were conducted using a mix of Web 2.0 technologies. These included two social

websites (Facebook and Flickr), a video conferencing tool (Elluminate), a knowledge mapping tool

(Compendium), immersion in a virtual world (Second Life) and a bespoke studio tool developed at The

Open University (OpenDesignStudio). Findings from these six studies informed the creation of three larger

studies that took place within year two. The project process is illustrated in Figure 1.

In year two, technologies were selected to support both students and tutors across the design programme

in order to explore three core aspects of the virtual design studio: (1) the formation of a social environment

for learning and teaching (Ning), (2) the facilitation of refl ective process through designing and sharing

experiences (OpenDesignStudio), and (3) the formation of a platform for communication between tutors

across the degree programme (Google Wave). Discussion now turns to these three core studies.

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

Figure 1 The ATELIER-D project process

1. Creating a social environment for teaching and learning

In year one a small Facebook study took place which provided clear indication that the use of social

networking tools can have a positive impact in the building of a social community of designers. Creating a

space for both students and tutors to participate across the design programme provides huge opportunities

for informal learning. It facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge, not just for design learning, but also for

information and resources about the wider design profession. Social networking sites offer tools that allow

students to personalise their own space and provide a shared virtual space where they can socialise, share

resources, comment and discuss with each other.

A larger study took place in the second year involving volunteer students and tutors across the three Open

University design courses. A Ning website was created (www.oudesig.ning.com), to provide a programme-

centred network and facilitate communication across levels of study. The move from Facebook to the Ning

platform was chosen for a number of reasons. Ning allowed both asynchronous and synchronous

communication to take place thus providing an active space for live chat. Similar to Facebook, it promotes

the sharing of pictures and video and allows users to create their own groups. But the ability to customize

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

the website enabled the creation of a more personalised private space dedicated to the design community

within the Open University. A screenshot is shown in Figure 2. The desigNing website was created in

February 2010 and now has over 150 members across all three course programmes. The site provides

three main functions. First it acts as a living repository of design resources based around videos, pictures

and web-links uploaded by its members. Second, the uploaded artefacts (pictures, videos, links etc)

provide the basis for communication within the network and third, the site provides a space for both

synchronous and asynchronous events to take place, for example collaborative games, competitions and

live events.

Figure 2 The Open University desigNing network

2. Facilitating reflective practice through collaboration

Traditional face-to-face design education allows for both formal and informal exchanges of design ideas

through design artefacts (sketches, photos, models and prototypes). Sharing design ideas and engaging in

reflective interaction is seen as a crucial part of the design process (Schön, 1983). These can take place in

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

both formal and informal interactions. Formal exchanges typically take place during design critiques or

reviews between students and tutors. Informal exchanges take place throughout the academic year and

include student-to-student and student-to-tutor conversations, but also communication through pin-board or

notice board displays.

As outlined above, in year one of the ATELIER-D project a number of technologies were explored with

regards to their potential to facilitate reflective practice through collaboration between small numbers of

students. Flickr was used for organizing design critiques, Elluminate for tutor-student communication, and

Second Life for supporting collaboration in small projects. For year two, we assessed the technologies

according to three criteria: a) the scalability of these platforms for use by a very large number of students,

b) the effort required by students and tutors in order to familiarise themselves with the new technologies

and be able to effectively use them, and c) the possibility of customising the technologies so that they are

tightly integrated with the main structure and learning objectives of the individual courses. Second Life

requires significant training before students and tutors are able to use it effectively in design and it is

difficult to implement for large cohorts. Flickr was found to be quite complex to use and it lacked

customization tools. Elluminate was found to be very beneficial as a tool for organising synchronous

meetings, tutorials and online workshops, yet took time for its users to overcome the technical issues and

become confident users. However, Elluminate offers potential to be used with other technologies, but was

not considered core as it lacks the ability to sustain an off-line collaborative space.

Given these drawbacks the team decided to continue with the bespoke e-portfolio tool OpenDesignStudio

developed by The Open University’s Learning and Teaching Solutions unit. This was created in parallel

with the new FHEQ level 4 course: U101 ‘Design Thinking: Creativity for the 21st Century’, first presented

in February 2010. OpenDesignStudio is an image-sharing interface that allows students to share photos,

scans and information with their peers and tutors as well as submit work for formal assessment. Students

are encouraged to upload their ideas, comment on the work of others, and share their learning experience

with the community of designers (tutors) and design learners.

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

Figure 3 Screenshot of OpenDesignStudio portfolio page

When users join OpenDesignStudio they are encouraged to create a personal profile where they can add

information about themselves and upload a profi le picture, similar to other social networking websites. The

screenshot in Figure 3 shows a user’s portfolio page with images that have been uploaded. Against each

image a small red balloon indicates if they have received any comments from other members within the

network. At the top right of the page there is a green indication bar that reveals the user’s progress within

the course. This technology is embedded within the learning objectives of the course and students are

encouraged to actively engage with their community by sharing their design ideas and commenting on the

postings of others.

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

3. Communication and learning across levels

There are over 50 tutors (associate lecturers) involved in the tutoring of students across the three design

courses, coordinated through 13 regional Open University offi ces around the UK. Although some associate

lectures meet occasionally to run day schools they have limited opportunity to communicate across the

programme and rely on the course tutor forums or private emails for communication. This study began with

the intention to create opportunities for the sharing of knowledge and resources to take place within a

virtual environment, through the use of Google Wave, a content sharing tool. Google Wave was chosen as

it provides a private space for members to communicate and to share documents, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Screenshot of a Google Wave for tutors

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

Findings and observations

The discussion is presented under six headings that represent some of the key attributes of a virtual design

studio: social spaces, social roles, visual object sharing, personalisation, refl ective practice and cross-level

communication.

Social spaces

In traditional face-to-face institutions, students and tutors have the benefi t of sharing the same physical

space. There are social spaces such as ‘the corridor’ or the ‘café’ that provide the opportunity to chat or to

share problems and experiences. Participants get the opportunity to peer over pinboards to view ‘work-in-

progress’ of students at higher and lower levels. Also, there are spaces for ‘exhibitions’ and ‘events’ where

organised activities bring people together allowing them to share experiences, formally showcase their

work and communicate with the wider design community. The sharing of ideas through social interaction is

viewed as essential to the development of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998).

Web 2.0 technologies provide opportunities to re-create these social spaces where informal learning can

take place. Technologies that create virtual environments such as Second Life can augment the design

studio space allowing actual design activities to occur within either a private or shared collaborative space.

Social networks such as Ning can provide social spaces that facilitate communication across a network.

Providing a networked learning environment can facilitate knowledge building and support collaborative

designing (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al. 2004). This study provides a better understanding of how both

informal and formal spaces can be created and developed within a future design atelier, but also illustrates

how online social spaces can provide benefits across other subject disciplines. This is applicable not only to

distance learning education, but can also be hugely beneficial for traditional face-to- face education which,

as noted earlier, is moving towards a blended mode of teaching.

Social roles

The ATELIER-D team adopted a grounded theory approach in order to analyse the activity within the social

networking sites (Facebook and Ning). Content analysis and social network analysis revealed the

emergence of particular social structures and social roles. In this study social networking facilitated three

kinds of learners: ‘Content-focused Learners’, who focus their discussion on concrete aspects, artefacts or

methods of the design course; ‘Content-orientated Socialisers’, who focus their discourse on their personal

experience within the course without explicit examples; and ‘Brokers’ who are actively engaged in

transferring information between the two aforementioned kinds of learners (Schadewitz & Zamenopoulos,

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

2009). The evidence suggests that future online design studios need to support social networking but

appropriate conditions and motivations for sharing information within the network still need to be defi ned.

Visual object sharing

Effective learning in design requires a rich visual environment. Verbal communication is enhanced where

visual cues are present and act to promote a collaborative discourse. This study revealed the positive role

that visual object sharing plays in the formation of a community of learners. Many of the technologies

employed within this study support a wide range of visual objects (photos, images, videos). The sharing of

visual media in face-to-face design education is an essential element of teaching and learning. In keeping

with the atelier model, a studio master can demonstrate ‘knowing-in-action’ through a variety of visual 33

objects backed up with verbal discourse. This is seen as essential to developing students’ tacit knowledge

as promoted by scholars such as Kvan (2001) and Schön (1983). The inclusion of visual object sharing is

seen as a fundamental element of a design studio and further research into understanding the nature of an

online visual object sharing would prove valuable in the development of a virtual design atelier.

Personalisation

In traditional face-to-face teaching, art and design students have access to dedicated studio space in which

to work. However, this is increasingly under threat and hot-desking is becoming the norm. Where space is

provided, students often personalise their space with current work, artefacts and images of inspiration.

These spaces are often configured and reconfigured over time and become highly personalised

workspaces expressing the students’ identity. As noted by Binder et al. (2004), they also provide a place for

students to showcase selected work to the wider design community. The ability of students to personalise

their own design studio space encourages a sense of ownership and it facilitates the formation of what

Wenger (1998) refers to as a ‘community of practice’. Digital technologies that provide opportunities for

personalisation and facilitate users to re-configure their learning space can therefore assist in providing a

sense of ownership, which ultimately should lead to a sense of community. Technologies used within this

study were chosen for their ability to provide personalisation of space (e.g. Ning). However, more research

is needed to understand how users can be encouraged to take ownership of the technologies made

available by education institutions.

Reflective practice

Design studio learning is dynamic with the convergence of knowledge and action. It exploits a particular

cognitive capacity for evaluation – what Schön (1983) referred to as ‘reflection-in-action’; the reflective

dialogue that takes place within individuals and across a community through exchanges between

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

participants (Broadfoot & Bennett, 2003). Virtual environments (e.g. Second Life) can provide an immersive

environment for creative and reflective thinking, while knowledge mapping tools (e.g. Compendium) can

assist designers to reflect on their own creative process and communicate this process to others. The

ability to record students’ activity, artefact creation and related conversations can be enhanced with new

technologies. For example, e-portfolios (e.g. OpenDesignStudio) keep track of students’ design process

and make development available for re-examination at any time. It seems that in documenting process,

OpenDesignStudio might be superior to traditional techniques for facilitating reflective practice.

Cross-level communication

Within a traditional face-to-face design institution community awareness embraces both senior and junior

students and their tutors. There is also a wider enculturation involving external stakeholders such as

employers. Such cross-level and multi-participant communication enhances a learning environment and

particularly those that seek to develop design skills and knowledge. It offers the opportunity to transfer tacit

knowledge about, for example, the curriculum, assessment, the institution, employment opportunities or the

wider profession. Traditionally the mechanisms for fostering such community building and enculturation

have been many and various involving formal and informal means. Exhibitions, shared spaces,

opportunities for interaction, committees etc all can play a vital role.

The mechanisms for achieving meaningful dialogue across levels of a virtual community are less clear. It

seems likely that supporting the sharing of visual images, text and verbal discourses plays an important

role. Bringing students and tutors from different levels is a worthy but diffi cult challenge – particularly the

issues of motivation and reward for participation. Mechanisms for programme-wide communication can

provide opportunities for users to socialise, communicate ideas, share resources and support each other.

Key issues

Despite the availability of some simple and easy to use Web 2.0 technologies today, combinations of tools

are poorly researched and the creation of an online design studio still very much relies on a practical

exploratory approach. The ATELIER-D study examined the use of a variety of digital technologies and the

combination of selected tools to support design learning and teaching. Clearly such work makes demands

on the digital literacy of both teachers and learners and, as with much design work, this is an area of skill

and knowledge where teachers and learners journey together. A number of key issues emerged from

ATELIER-D.

The issue of scalability and technology robustness was seen as a key challenge for the Open University as

student populations frequently exceed 500 per module. This limits the application of certain technologies

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

because of the level of support, training and expertise needed to successfully implement these

technologies. Some Web 2.0 technologies would therefore be difficult to adopt with large student cohorts

while others would require unrealistic levels of support. For example, the use of Second Life offers huge

potential for design but would be problematic to implement such technology at a distance.

The technologies employed within this research were chosen for their potential to promote design thinking,

aid communication and social collaboration. However, participants faced significant frustrations and

difficulties, and reported feeling overwhelmed at the number of tools available to use. Both students and

tutors reported on the challenges of having to overcome a steep learning curve when first encountering

some of the tools, which resulted in low levels of engagement by some of the studies. The aspect of

usability and appropriate use of any digital technology needs to be carefully considered and we therefore

need to learn to adopt a digital wisdom when developing future learning technologies.

Embedding technologies within course learning objectives proved valuable. A seamless experience is

particularly important when a number of different technologies are used. Providing tailor-made guides, that

include clear instructions for using the technology and explanations how this will benefit the user, are

essential. Additionally, it is important to allow adequate time for users to become familiar with new

technologies and to become acquainted with their online peers. Virtual interactions can lack the social cues

that take place in face-to-face interactions and users need time to get to know and trust their fellow peers

and tutors in order for a virtual design atelier to grow.

Summary

Whilst design education has unique characteristics, the findings of this project have implications for other

subjects that rely on the establishment of communities of learners and teachers. Subjects in the sciences,

arts and humanities increasingly seek to engage learners in dynamic, creative activities that involve

communication, reflection, collaboration and a sharing of skill and knowledge. The study described here

reveals pointers to the fostering of rich dialogues, often visual, between participants that allow ideas and

artefacts to receive the iteration and re-configurations they require. For the domain of design a virtual studio

needs to be flexible, allowing participants to share and test their design ideas, map their thoughts and

make connections with a variety of stakeholders.

The ATELIER-D project has begun to capture and model some of the key features that make up a

traditional studio but the project has also given rise to new questions regarding the nature of a virtual visual

object-sharing community. Through its links with curriculum development at the Open University, and

particularly the creation of the new FHEQ level 4 course ‘Design Thinking’, ATELIER-D has demonstrated

the potential for a new learningscape in design education.

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

The authors acknowledge the support of the Joint Information Systems Committee in funding the work

reported here, and the contribution of other members of the project team: Georgy Holden, Nicole

Schadewitz, Peter Lloyd, Emma Dewberry and Giselle Ferreira.

References

Bennett, R. and Dziekan, V. (2005), ‘Forming online communities of students, educators and professionals

to explore collaborative modes of creative interaction and practice’, ETD2005, 8
th
International Electronic

Theses and Dissertations Symposium Proceedings. Sydney: UNSW.

Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Gervautz, M., Jacucci, G., Matkovic, K., Psik, T. and Wagner, I. (2004),

‘Supporting confi gurability in a mixed-media environment for design students’, Personal and Ubiquitous

Computing, Vol. 8. (5), pp. 310–25.

Broadfoot, O. and Bennett, R. (2003), ‘Design Studios: Online?’ Apple University Consortium Academic

and Developers Conference Proceedings 2003, pp 9–21.

Kvan, T. (2000) ‘The Pedagogy of Virtual Design Studios’, Automation in Construction, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.

245–354.

Schadewitz, N. and Zamenopoulos, T. (2009), ‘Towards an online design studio: a study of social

networking in design distance learning’, Proceedings of International Association of Societies of Design

Research (IASDR) (CD-Rom) October 18–22, 2009, Seoul: Korea. Available at:

http://design.open.ac.uk/atelier-d/documents/IASDR_paper_web_pdf.pdf

Schön, D. (1983), The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Sclater, N., Grierson, H., Ion, W. J. and MacGregor, S. P. (2001), ‘Online collaborative design projects:

overcoming barriers to communication’, International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 17, no.2, pp

189–196.

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Lahti, H. and Hakkarainen, K. (2004), Virtual Design Studio as a Learning

Environment, A paper presented at the Scandinavian Summer Cruise at the Baltic Sea (theme: Motivation,

Learning and Knowledge Building in the 21st Century), Organized by Karoliniska Institutet, EARLI SIG

Higher Education, and IKIT, Stockholm, Sweden. Available online:

www.lime.ki.se/uploads/images/516/Seitamaa-hakkarainen_P_et_al.pdf

Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, Issue 3, 2011

Shao, Y., Daley, L. and Vaughan, L. (2007), Exploring Web 2.0 for virtual design studio teaching.In ICT:

Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore. Available online:

www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/shao.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998), ‘Communities of Practice; Learning as a Social System’, In: Systems Thinker, June

1998.