








































Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, pp.117-126. 
doi: 10.14434/jotlt.v9i2.31580 

Emergency Remote Studio Teaching: Notes From the Field

Tara Winters 
The University of Auckland 
t.winters@auckland.ac.nz

Abstract: The creative arts use primarily visual, kinesthetic, and somatic modes of teaching that depend 
on face-to-face communication in contrast to many other university subjects that rely more heavily on 
the written word. The hands-on, practice-based nature of art education makes it perhaps one of the 
least transferrable subjects to a fully online model. What can be learnt, then, from the forced situation 
of teaching and supervising studio-based learning in a higher education context under the 2019 
coronavirus disease lockdown conditions? This reflective essay draws on the writer’s experience as a 
fine arts lecturer involved in emergency remote teaching of studio-based visual arts courses during the 
first half of the 2020 academic year. Organized as a series of “fieldnotes,” it aims to capture those 
fleeting, yet significant, thoughts and reflections so easily lost once things quickly reach a level of “new 
normal.” Notes from the field include the effects of the shifted social dynamic of online communications 
in a teaching and learning context; the challenges of the video call as a dialogic space for the studio 
critique; the impact of the more structured nature of online systems with regard to documenting and 
recording creative work in progress; and the affordances of the dynamic, multimodal nature of the 
digital medium for working with contextual research material for creative practice. Developed as a 
pedagogical perspective combining reflection in action and reflection on action, this essay offers firsthand 
observations and discussion, in the context of relevant literature, as a contribution to urgent 
conversations on the shape of the future learning environment. 

Keywords: emergency remote studio teaching, education during COVID-19, studio education, art and 
design education, online teaching and learning. 

On March 25, 2020, the university at which I teach moved into full online delivery of courses following 
a government announcement that Aotearoa, New Zealand was shifting to a “Level 4 lockdown” to 
combat the spread of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Like many educators, prior to this I 
had had no significant experience with online teaching. Familiarity with a digital learning management 
system (LMS), used largely to post course information, offer asynchronous discussion forums, and 
provide access to lecture recordings represented the extent of my “online” experience. We shifted 
from an on-campus, in-person teaching and learning environment to a fully online, remote learning 
situation under urgency and with little time for preparation. 

The following notes are based on my own experience as a fine arts lecturer at the University 
of Auckland, Aotearoa, New Zealand. Our practice-based studio programs are, under normal 
circumstances, taught in small student groups, on campus, and with access to dedicated physical studio 
spaces and specialist workshops. My observations here are offered in the context of emergency remote 
teaching (ERT). ERT has emerged as a term to differentiate between courses designed in advance to 
be delivered online and those that would normally be delivered on campus but have been shifted 
online due to unforeseen circumstances so that students can continue their learning. ERT has been 
described as: 

A temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis 
circumstances. It involves the use of fully remote teaching solutions for instruction or 
education that would otherwise be delivered face-to-face or as blended courses and 

mailto:t.winters@auckland.ac.nz


Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

that will return to that format once the crisis or emergency has abated. (Hodges, 
Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond, 2020, para. 13) 

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, universities worldwide shifted to using digital 
technologies to continue teaching in early 2020. What we experienced was remote learning, not online 
learning. It is important not to equate ERT with online learning with respect to evaluations of our 
teaching in 2020 (Hodges et al., 2020). Furthermore, Greene (2020) suggest a shift from an evaluative 
approach to assessing ERT to a documentary one, proposing a move toward narrative and reflection: 
“Curiosity rather than critique might be the most appropriate, and informative, response” (p. 4). 
Mindful of this, my approach here is searching and speculative rather than critical and evaluative. 

The notion of a “fieldnote” provides a positive archetype for the content and organization of 
my searching, speculative thinking. Fieldnotes are qualitative notes recorded during or shortly after 
observation of the phenomenon under study. They can be descriptive and reflective (Bogdan & Biklen, 
2007). Reflective fieldnotes capture the impressions and ongoing analytic processes of the researcher 
(Brodsky, 2008). In qualitative education research, fieldnotes are an aid to documenting observations, 
descriptions, and interpretations and can also “provoke critical processes for facilitating reflexivity and 
situating researcher positionality and subjectivity” (Burkholder & Thompson, 2020, p. 1). The 
vignettes that follow are offered in this spirit. They offer descriptions, observations, and reflections 
that may inspire further conversation and critical inquiry.  

Reflection in Action and Reflection on Action 

This work engages an autoethnographic method in the sense of using a researcher’s personal 
experience to describe and reflect on practice and experience (Adams, Holman Jones, & Ellis, 2015). 
More specifically, it uses a first-person approach—a method that relies on the experiences of the 
researcher. The first stage of learning from and through a first-person method requires an 
unprejudiced openness to the details of experience (Roth, 2012). This level of openness provides 
insight into the taken-for-granted everyday activities and experiences that may go unreported (Patton, 
2015) yet contain rich and meaningful potential—material that raises new questions and drives further 
research.  

My fieldnotes combine reflection in action and reflection on action (Schön, 2016). Reflection 
in action suggests that we can think not only about doing, but also about doing something while doing 
it. Descriptive, narrative content notates reflection in action: looking to our experiences, connecting 
with our feelings, and building new understandings that inform our actions as a situation unfolds 
(Smith, 2001). This approach is in line with warnings about “evaluating” our teaching under the tumult 
of pandemic conditions. Greene (2020) suggested “a cautious and compassionate evaluation of 
what—if anything—we have learned about specific technological tools and flexible teaching 
practices” (p. 2).  

Reflection on action (Schön, 2016) is done later, after the encounter, allowing us time to 
explore what we did and how/why things turned out the way they did. By doing this we develop sets 
of questions and ideas about our activities and practice (Smith, 2001). Interwoven throughout my 
fieldnotes is material from the surrounding literature that extends first interpretations, prompts 
questions, and points to sites for the further works of analysis and inquiry. 

Fieldnote 1: A First Response 

As announcements of a pending nationwide lockdown were broadcast, our university quickly made 
plans for a teacher-only week that would involve planning for remote teaching, including a rapid 

118



Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

upskilling of technical know-how to enable staff to operate in a fully digital teaching environment. We 
managed 2.5 days working collectively on site before we found ourselves working from home, full 
time. Each of us swiftly prepared new learning planners, updated course outlines, prepared new project 
briefs, and adjusted project requirements so that teaching and learning could simply continue in some 
form, a form we had no idea would work at all for our studio-based subjects. We were 3 weeks into a 
12-week semester when we shifted to online delivery.

I came away from my 1st week of emergency online teaching exhausted, but also thinking 
“this is not too bad, in fact, this seems to be working OK!” Many of my colleagues felt the same way. 
We may have just been relieved that we made something work at all. The students turned up, the tech 
didn’t break, and we could see and hear each other live in the Zoom-sphere, the online video 
conferencing space we used. We worked through our updated studio project plans with our 1st- and 
2nd-year students, explaining our thinking and decisions for their adjusted first-semester course. 
Attendance was high, goodwill was high, and a new at-a-distance collective connectedness was taking 
shape. A heightened sense of community was apparent and our efforts were immediately 
acknowledged by students. Things seemed OK in our emergency online-studio bubble. We learned 
that we could be together, and get things done, at a distance. 

Perhaps our initial feelings of success were a response to the fact that things didn’t appear to 
be completely falling apart? After all, we had no idea quite how this would go and very little experience, 
for the most part, with the tools and technologies we were now relying on. We relished the feeling 
that it was at least possible to do something, to get on with things albeit in a very different way. The 
short-term outlook also seemed to help. Maybe this would only be for 4 weeks, and then we would 
return to campus? That would be OK; we could do that. It wasn’t until we were told that we would 
be teaching and learning remotely for the remainder of the semester (9 weeks), and possibly into 
Semester 2, that our response started to shift a gear. We had been running on an initial burst of energy, 
an adrenaline rush, a fight or flight response. Everything had been happening at a very fast pace. It 
was crisis stuff. Once we moved a little beyond that first period, and with the knowledge that this was 
to continue for some time, things slowed down, and a deeper kind of rumination set in. I began to 
think more closely about what was happening in our online classroom.  

Fieldnote 2: Shifted Social Dynamics 

The role of the teacher as a facilitator of learning was immediately heightened in the emergency online 
learning space. The change from in-person studio classes, where students and staff are present in each 
other’s company for long periods of time and where there is extended opportunity for dialogue, 
effected a shift in emphasis away from the teacher as the first point of call for help. Students needed 
to be more resourceful without the immediate and continuous contact offered in the face-to-face 
classroom. 

Dialogue—between students and students and between students and teachers—is of central 
importance in studio education settings with the teacher holding a particular role in the group, that of 
subject expert (Ashton & Durling, 2000). This places teachers at the center of the learning experience 
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Ashton and Durling (2000) noted that this apprentice–master model, with its 
high degree of contact between individual students and staff, is quickly becoming unsustainable in 
today’s educational environment. Education technology research has noted a distinct change 
associated with online learning where the teacher becomes a secondary figure in the learning process: 

Face-to-face education is teacher centered. We are subject matter experts in the same 
physical space as students, they are our audience. This is not happening in online 
education. Here, the student is at the centre. We are promoting their active learning 

119



Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

and engagement. We are facilitating and enhancing their learning process by providing 
them all the necessary tools. (Vlachopoulos, 2020) 

In online studio environments, social interaction and peer learning are things that are actively 
constructed and sought by students depending on the usefulness of this experience as perceived by 
students: 

In the absence of immediate “expert” feedback in the studio, students make use of 
(and develop) their own expertise through their prior knowledge, the guidance and 
cues provided by the module material and prior engagement with tutors outside the 
studio. (Lotz, Jones, & Holden, 2015, p. 22). 

It was easy to notice an increased self-reliance in the online classroom. The online 
environment seemed to shift the dynamic from students being reliant, to an extent, on staff for 
responses to their questions, to students finding alternative ways to find things out and testing their 
knowledge. 

Using the breakout rooms feature in Zoom to facilitate student-to-student discussion proved 
helpful for collaborative learning and interaction, and for peer-to-peer feedback. Students regularly 
commented on how useful breakout sessions had been and routinely asked for more of these. They 
valued the possibilities for learning together in this way. There also seemed to be less distractions in a 
Zoom breakout room compared to the physical studio space. Time was precious and focus was high. 
Student survey information from our creative arts faculty revealed that 72% of students agreed they 
felt part of a community of learners during the time our course was online and 77% of students agreed 
that the online learning environment allowed effective communication between teaching staff and 
students. 

Self-directed learning and peer learning are central learning concepts in studio education. One 
of the primary goals of studio education is to help students become self-operating learners. There may 
be good potential here for a review of current studio pedagogy to take advantage of online formats in 
further stimulating self-reliant and self-directed ways of working. 

The studio critique is a signature pedagogical tool in the creative arts, characterizing the strong 
position of the dialogic approach in studio education compared with other disciplines. The critique is 
framed around the open participation of staff and students, who share different perspectives about 
the work that is being critiqued. While online video calls offered us the means to see and hear each 
other live, not being in the same physical space for our critique sessions was an immediate challenge. 
As expected, the loss of intimacy that in-person exchanges provide impacted the quality of our felt 
experience. The all-important gestures, body language, and physical interactions that communicate so 
much were missing. Research tells us that at least half of how we communicate with others is through 
nonverbal cues (Mehrabian, 2008). Without the richness of this information available to us we needed 
to work harder, which took its toll, and it was difficult to sustain the extended periods of critique time 
that we would normally manage in a face-to-face setting. 

We quickly learned that shorter sessions with more breaks were necessary. What we had 
attempted to do was transfer, wholesale, the structure and time frame of a regular, in-class critique 
session to an online setting. In hindsight this was problematic. Digital learning expert Dimitrios 
Vlachopoulos pointed out the importance of not comparing, and not trying to imitate online and face-
to-face teaching:  

They are different. They are two, autonomous, high quality pedagogical models that 
can provide equally high quality education if they are implemented correctly. The 

120



Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

traditional strategies of face-to-face teaching probably won’t work as well as we would 
like in an online environment. (Vlachopoulos, 2020) 

Dimensions of sensory affect and social interaction are fundamental to practice-based studio 
learning. The social interchange of ideas in the physical space of the studio, whether as part of 
organized class events or just from being on site in the studio, is a critical part of the pedagogy. Sensory 
experiences of space affect the people working in them, how they feel about their learning (the social-
emotional aspects of learning), and what meaning they are able to make of it (Marshalsey, 2015). Orr 
and Shreeve (2018) noted that: 

A space may not seem like pedagogy, but in its widest sense the studio helps structure 
what can and does take place when students learn, and it has been a central part of 
organised learning in visual arts for more than a century. (p. 90)  

Emulating the real-world artist’s studio, the physical environment of the on-campus studio 
provides students and staff with social and intellectual cues for working and thinking like an artist. 
Daniels (2011) described the studio as “a canonical site of creativity, ‘imagination's chamber’” (137). 
The studio space is a physical and conceptual laboratory for making, testing, exploring, risk taking, 
reflecting, evaluating, and critiquing. Entering the studio space, we are transported to a particular 
geographical venue for knowledge and imagination (Daniels, 2011). Relationships are set for particular 
types of knowledge to come into focus, including somatic, tacit, and embodied knowing. On-site, in-
person studio critique dialogues make full use of these physical-social dimensions. 

At the same time, there were some interesting outcomes of the altered social space of the 
online studio and the equalizing plane of the Zoom screen in our critique sessions. There seemed to 
be a different social dynamic in the more anonymous space of the online classroom, a less public 
space, perhaps a less exposing one. The option to turn one’s computer camera off seemed to help 
reduce the anxiety of public speaking for some students. Students seemed to find this situation more 
amenable to contributing to critique discussion with many more, and otherwise usually quiet, students 
speaking up more often. This offered a distinct advantage over face-to-face formats where often the 
same voices are regularly heard and it can be difficult for some students to find ways to contribute. 
The online format seemed to offer a more balanced and even space for participation in this regard. 
Studies of the practice of critique as a form of feedback and assessment for learning in fully online art 
and design courses have revealed that online critique can lead to higher levels of participation and 
collaboration from students (see McIntyre, 2007). 

Feedback from our student surveys also indicated that many students felt more comfortable 
asking questions during live, online classes, especially during small group sessions. They also found 
the chat facilities useful, offering a relatively low risk way to participate in class discussion. Social media 
conventions influence peer interaction and learning when studio pedagogies move from proximate to 
online worlds (Lotz et al., 2015). Students were able to bring their online communication skills into 
the online studio, which seemed to further energize critique dialogue. 

E-learning research has regularly turned to the topic of the social context in studio education
as one of the biggest challenges to online education (Ashton & Durling, 2000; Lotz et al., 2015; 
Marshalsey & Sclater, 2018; Wragg, 2020). Wragg (2020) observed that “the barriers to online design 
education relate to interaction and the social environment” (p. 2295) and concluded that while online 
studio education should not try to replicate the on-campus educational experience, it is possible to 
create an equivalent experience conducive to experiential learning and iterative development by 
recognizing and reprioritizing the social component of the studio. This is said to be achieved through 
creating inherently social activities that build a community of practice (Wragg, 2020). Interestingly, the 

121



Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

author reviewed the history of the studio education model still used by most departments of art and 
design, based as it has been for almost 100 years on the Bauhaus model, commenting that “the social 
aspect of the university that was once taken for granted is no longer guaranteed” (p. 2296). With 
increased and competing demands on students time it has become harder to spend long hours in the 
studio, a situation that used to be more common and contributed to the social aspect of the art school 
learning culture. 

Similarly Lotz et al. (2015) pointed to the potential of developing online tools and technologies 
for social interaction and peer learning. From their detailed analysis of social engagement in online 
design pedagogies, the authors concluded that “social learning mechanisms represent one of the oldest 
and most natural pedagogies, and online studios, one of the newest forms of human interaction, offer 
novel opportunities in which such learning can take place” (p. 22). These opportunities make use of 
the way the online environment facilitates sharing and discussion of work asynchronously with peers 
at a distance. The authors identified a number of themes that were found to have a positive effect on 
student outcomes, including time on task, listening in, quick social engagement, comment on 
conversation, a core stable network, and spectrum of engagement (see Lotz et al., 2015). These themes 
offer interesting potential for integrating online features into studio courses and programs. 

Fieldnote 3: Documenting Creative Work in Progress 

Students are encouraged, and usually expected, to keep a record of their thinking and making as part 
of active documentation of their creative work in art and design courses. Workbooks, journals, 
notebooks, and visual diaries serve an important function in the life of the artist and their creative 
practice and are a key part of studio pedagogy. They are often required to be presented at assessment 
points, regularly accounting for a percentage of a student’s grade. A workbook (or other record) 
typically contains all kinds of notations as a record of influence and inspiration, reflection, and 
evaluation. These involve visual, textural, and other kinds of documentation of work in progress, as 
well as notes from critiques, responses to advice, collections of research material, and so on. A range 
of modalities is used—writing, drawing, photography, collage, detritus, and video, in analogue and 
digital formats. Students typically use a mix of physical notebooks and digital systems for this purpose. 

The definition of a workbook is left purposefully broad in the art school setting, allowing 
students to create and curate these personal workspaces with few restrictions. This freedom allows 
the necessary room for students to develop their own working methods and ways of recording 
developments. They are remarkable in their diversity, deeply personal, and rich in content. Continued 
access to this material is important in a studio teaching context. Workbooks function as a central 
resource for conversations between students and staff, a practice at the center of studio-based 
pedagogy. 

We worked with this component of studio learning differently in the emergency online 
classroom. I noticed shifts in the way that the workbook component was structured and made use 
of—they played an even more critical role than usual. Used as part of establishing a routine and as a 
means for checking in (which seemed more necessary than usual in the online teaching space), the 
presentation of workbook material by students was set as a regular requirement of our Zoom 
classroom. It was a way of encouraging continued engagement in projects, used for goal setting, and 
centered studio teaching around what the students did between classes in a more direct and focused 
way. 

Ordinarily, workbooks are often kept relatively private and can sit in the background for long 
periods of time before students reveal their existence at assessment time. The more structured nature 
of online learning obliged students to more consciously present their material for discussion and 
review at each class. Seeing workbook content more regularly and presented in a considered way 

122



Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

helped with providing frequent and directed feedback on student work. The digital format was also 
an advantage in terms of collating everything in one place. Students maintained a variety of ways of 
working, including working hands-on with physical materials, but ultimately everything was collected 
together and documented in a single format that could be accessed at any time. 

Fieldnote 4: Contextual Research 

A subset of workbook or support material is the documentation of verbal, visual, and written resources 
students use to locate and understand the field or context they are working in. This is often referred 
to as “contextual research” or “artist model research.” Contextual research includes the gathering and 
analysis of material from a variety of sources (books, websites, artist talks, films, gallery visits, etc.), 
though increasingly, the internet is used for the majority of this kind of work. Learning outcomes 
related to contextual research include being able to identify, locate, and record contextual information 
(basic research skills) and to engage critically with information gathered (development of critical and 
analytical skills). 

Students are generally well skilled in collecting and shifting digital material around using a 
range of tools and systems and working with digital media in a collaborative way in online spaces. 
Though students regularly use digital tools and technologies to source and explore contextual research 
material under usual studio learning circumstances, the shift to using only digital systems revealed the 
inherent strengths of this modality for these purposes. The technology easily supported nonlinear 
ways of organizing and reorganizing large amounts of information in ways that are not always possible 
in the analogue world. Digital tools made it possible to include or link to a wide range of different 
content types in a single space. Padlet, for example, offered a digital “wall” space to make notes, add 
URLs, and import a range of different file types—text documents, images, moving images, audio, and 
video. Google Drive was useful for storing multiple documents and sharing files to be worked on 
collectively. The dynamic nature of these media spaces afforded all kinds of updating, reorganizing, 
and editing. Sharing functions allowed staff continuous access to student work. Staff could log in at 
any time and add comments, suggest new resources, and direct students to specific content by directly 
adding files or hyperlinks. While this practice was already happening to an extent in our studio courses, 
the shift to online learning forced additional productive experimentation with processing contextual 
materials by both staff and students. 

The ability to work with contextual research material in nonlinear, alternative ways facilitates 
modes of thinking and working that are important in creative learning. Often, the way one organizes 
material and has access to it allows for certain kinds of thinking to occur and connections to be made, 
and not others. “Visual contextual research,” for example, refers to collecting visual materials to be 
actively used in the generation of ideas and concepts for artworks. Playing with material in order to 
visualize different possibilities, discover unexpected connections, and engage in associative thinking 
is part of this process. Being able to easily duplicate material and re-order it, and to place different 
images beside/against each other in infinite combinations that accommodate chance, randomness, 
and intuition, supported the improvisatory modes of thinking and action used by artists (Danvers, 
2003).  

Conclusion 

In 2020 the world changed, prompting a radical rethinking of the way we do things in education. 
Experiments that are going on right now are likely to have an immediate impact on our pedagogies 
postpandemic. The online studio reflects a complex and sometimes contradictory situation of benefits 
versus challenges. Working “alone together” in the online studio misses the fullest experience of all 

123



Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

that comes with in-person, community-reliant, hands-on studio learning. Much of the highly student 
centered approach of art and design education, based on guided learning through ongoing feedback 
in cycles of action and reflection, does not easily translate into a fully online learning experience 
(Fleischmann, 2015). The fundamental materiality of practices that are based on qualities of physical 
objects, surfaces, and spaces, and those that require specialist equipment (kilns, printing presses, 
darkrooms, high-end digital equipment, etc.) cannot be replicated in an online environment. The 
continuation of the on-campus experience in the context of practice-based studio teaching and 
learning is essential. 

At the same time, some features of online learning may offer potential enhancements to the 
traditional studio. Limits to the on-site studio classroom are being exposed by alternative, digital forms 
of engagement. Artist and educator Constantina Zavitsanos explained how she has always allowed 
students to attend studio art classes using Zoom, pointing out the presence of several categories of 
existing inequity:  

When a student has a reason not to use the physical classroom to display their work, 
[because they are disabled or sick, or because the work they create is best presented 
outside of traditional classroom critique] it reveals the physical and conceptual limits 
the classroom imposes. (Dancewicz, 2020) 

The current emergency redesign and reinventing of our pedagogies is stimulating a deep 
reflection on the presumed defaults of studio education and there is value to be gained from what is 
achievable online, beyond a pandemic. E-learning is part of the new dynamic that characterizes 
educational systems at the start of the 21st century (Sangrà, Vlachopoulos, & Cabrera, 2012) and will 
impact all areas of education in time. Bender and Vredevoogd (2006) suggested studio courses could 
be enhanced with online technologies through blended learning models that involve face-to-face 
learning supplemented with asynchronous and/or synchronous communication via the internet. While 
not advocating technology as a substitute for the existing model, they suggested that “the use of digital 
media is a logical addition to the traditional design studio” (p. 114). Augmenting the on-campus studio 
learning experience with online components as part of a blended model is likely to be a critical 
proposal for studio education as we enter the latest educational paradigm. 

References 

Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. 
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Ashton, P., & Durling, D. (2000). Doing the right thing—Social processes in design learning. The 
Design Journal, 3(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069200789390123 

Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2006). Using online education technologies to support studio 
instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 114–122. 

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and 
methods (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson A & B.  

Brodsky, A. (2008). Fieldnotes. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research 
methods (pp. 342–343). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 
https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n172 

Burkholder, C., & Thompson, J. (2020). Fieldnotes in qualitative education and social science research. New 
York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429275821 

124

https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n172
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429275821


Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

Dancewicz, K. (2020, April). Can you teach art online. Art in America. Retrieved from 
https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/teaching-art-online-covid-19-professors-
strategies-1202684147/ 

Daniels, S. (2011). Art studio. In J. Agnew & D. Livingstone (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of 
geographical knowledge (pp. 137–148). London, England: SAGE Publications. 
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201091.n11 

Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & 
design. International Journal of Art and Design Education 22(1), 47–57. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5949.00338 

Fleischmann, K. (2015). The democratisation of design and design learning: How do we educate the 
next-generation designer. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(6), 101–108. 

Greene, J. (2020, April 6). How (not) to evaluate teaching during a pandemic. The Chronicle of Higher 
Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com 

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between 
emergency remote teaching and online learning. The Educause Review. Retrieved from 
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-
teaching-and-online-learning 

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: 
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 

Lotz, N., Jones, D., & Holden, G. (2015). Social engagement in online design pedagogies. In R. 
VandeZande, E. Bohemia, & I. Digranes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for 
Design Education Researchers (pp. 1645–1668). Aalto University, Finland. 

Marshalsey, L. (2015). Investigating the experiential impact of sensory affect in contemporary 
communication design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 34(3), 
336–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12086 

Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2018). Critical perspectives of technology-enhanced learning in 
relation to specialist communication design studio education within the UK and Australia. 
Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 92–116. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918761706 

McIntyre, S. (2007). Evaluating online assessment practice in art and design. UNSW Compendium of 
Good Practice in Learning and Teaching, 5, 1–32. Retrieved from 
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primoexplore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=u
nsworks_2062&context=L 

Mehrabian, A. (2008). Communication without words. In C. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory 
(2nd ed., pp. 193–200). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2018). Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in 
the creative curriculum. London, England: Routledge. 

Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Los 
Angeles, CA: Sage. 

Roth, W. M. (2012). First-person methods: Towards an empirical phenomenology of experience. Rotterdam, The 
Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 

Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: 
An approach to the conceptual framework. International Review of Research in Open and 
Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161 

Schön, D. A. (2016). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Retrieved from 
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com 

Smith, M. K. (2001). Donald Schön: Learning, reflection and change. In The encyclopedia of pedagogy and 
informal education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm 

125

https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/teaching-art-online-covid-19-professors-strategies-1202684147/
https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/teaching-art-online-covid-19-professors-strategies-1202684147/
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201091.n11
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primoexplore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_2062&context=L
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primoexplore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_2062&context=L
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm


Winters 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 10, Special Issue, jotlt.indiana.edu 

Vlachopoulas, D. (Presenter). (2020). Re-imagining higher arts education online [Webinar]. European 
League of Institutes of the Arts, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from 
https://janeckert.ch/blog/?p=485 

Wragg, N. (2020). Online communication design education: The importance of the social 
environment. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2287–2297. 
https://doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1605501 

126

https://doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1605501



