Online Urban Design Studio Pedagogy in the Face of Uncertainty

Tayyebi, Amir; Arefi, Mahyar; Momeni, Kourosh

Online Urban Design Studio Pedagogy in the Face of Uncertainty

Document Type : Qualitative Research

Authors

A. Tayyebi ¹

M. Arefi ²

K. Momeni ³

¹ Jundi-Shapur University Of Technology

² Tehran University

³ Jundi-Shapur University of Technology

Abstract

Problem: This article unfolds a collective educational journey that while initially faced by serious doubts, ultimately received positive feedback from the students in an online urban design workshop. During a rampant global pandemic, one of the two instructors communicating from overseas, who is experienced in teaching face-to-face courses, raised initial pedagogical concerns.

Aims: To remedy these, the two instructors dedicated the first part of the workshop to theorizing urban complexity. Exposure to theory, while less common if not uncommon in design studios, removed the students’ initial misgivings. Gaining student confidence boosted their spirit in crafting idiosyncratic interpretations based on personal memories, and paved the way toward assuming agency, and subsequently integrative learning.

Methods: This technique enabled students to connect discrete structural learning domains to produce more complicated outcomes, and by doing so experienced three states of mind. Melting away initial doubts coincided with thematic arrangement. Boosting confidence through conceptual connectivity and self-discovery, then, resulted in ebullience in designing through purposeful action.

Result: This article contributes to the scanty literature on coping mechanisms in the face of looming uncertainties both for students and instructors in teaching studios.

Keywords

Urban design pedagogy

learning uncertainties

online studio

[1] Grant Long J (2011) State of the studio: revisiting the potential of studio pedagogy in U.S.-based planning programs. Journal of Planning Education & Research 32(4): 431-448.
[2] Roberts M (2016) Urban design pedagogy. Journal of Urban Design 21(5): 567-569.
[3] Leadbeatter D (2019) What is Integrative Learning? Teaching in Higher Education 26(1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1632824
[4] Madanipour A (1997) Ambiguities of Urban Design. Town Planning Review 68(3): 363-383.
[5] Banerjee T (2011) Response to Commentary: Is Urban Design Still Urban Planning? Whither Urban Design? Inside or Outside Planning? Journal of Planning Education & Research 31(2): 208-21.
[6] Myers D & Banerjee T (2005) Toward greater heights for planning: reconciling the differences between profession, practice, and academic field. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(2): 121-129.
[7] Marshall S (2012) Science, Pseudo-Science & Urban Design. Urban Design International 17(4): 257-271.
[8] Dovey K & Pafka E (2016) The science of urban design? Urban Design International 21(1): 1-10.
[9] Willson R (2000) Comparing in-class and computer-mediated discussion using a communicative action framework. Journal of Planning Education & Research 19: 409 -18.
[10] Balsas C (2012) What about Plan Evaluation? Integrating Evaluation in Urban Planning Studio’s Pedagogy. Planning Practice & Research 27(4): 475-494.
[11] Fadjar I M (2017) Open urban design: An explorative review on urban design studio UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress. http://www.uia2017seoul.org/P/assets/html/5-3-special.html
[12] Arefi M & Triantafillou, M (2005) Reflections on the pedagogy of place & urban design. Journal of Planning Education & Research 25(1): 75-88.
[13] Palazzo D (2011) Pedagogical traditions. In T Banerjee & A Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design. New York: Routledge, pp. 41-53.
[14] Neuman M (2016) Teaching collaborative and interdisciplinary service-based urban design and planning studios. Journal of Urban Design 21(5): 596-615.
[15] Inam A (2011) From dichotomy to dialectic: practicing theory in urban design. Journal of Urban Design 16(2): 257-277.
[16] Moudon A V (1992) A Catholic Approach to Organizing what Urban Designers should Know. Journal of Planning Literature 6(4): 331-349.
[17] Catanese AJ (1984) The seven golden rules: politics in planning & urban design. UD Review 7(1): 11-12.
[18] Kitchen T (2006) Skills for planning practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[19] Tokman L & Yamacli R (2007) Reality-based Design Studio in Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural & Planning Research 24(3): 245-269.
[20] Senbel M (2012) Experiential Learning and the Co-Creation of Design Artifacts: A Hybrid Urban Design Studio for Planners. Journal of Planning Education & Research 32(4): 449-464.
[21] Arefi M & Al-Douri F (2016) Exploring Pedagogical Opportunities Between Architecture & Planning: The Case of University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Planning Theory & Practice 17(1): 72-92.
[22] Arefi M & Edelman D (2013) Morrow tomorrow: Exploring the Pedagogical Experience of a Planning Studio Involving Students with Mixed Skills. Current Urban Studies 1(3): 59-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cus.2013.13007
[23] Higgins M, Aitken-Rose E & Dixon J (2009) The pedagogy of the planning studio: A view from down under. Journal of Education in the Built Environment 4(1): 8-30.
[24] Birch E L (2001) Practitioners and the Art of Planning. Journal of Planning Education & Research 20(4): 407-422.
[25] Arefi M & Ghaffari, N (2020) Five Episodes of Urban Discovery as a Student Recruitment Strategy in Planning. Journal of Planning Education & Research (Commentary). https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20903362
[26] Kreditor A (1990) The Neglect of Urban Design in the American Academic Succession. Journal of Planning Education & Research 9(3): 155-163.
[27] King A (2013) From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching 41(1): 30–35.
[28] Tucker R & Reynolds C (2006) The impact of teaching models, group structures and assessment modes on cooperative learning in the student design studio. Journal of Education in the Built Environment 1(2): 39-56.
[29] Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
[30] Bridge G (2004) Everyday rationality and the emancipatory City. In L Lees (Ed), The Emancipatory City? Paradoxes and Possibilities. New York: Routledge, pp. 123–138.
[31] Jacobs A (1985) Looking at Cities, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[32] Stevens Q (2007) The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces. London: Routledge.
[33] Raban J (1974) Soft City. New York: E. P. Dutton.
[34] Lynch K (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[35] Clay G (1973) Close-up: How to Read the American City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[36] Sandercock L (2003) Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice 4(1): 11–28.
[37] Annala J J Linden, M Makinen, & J Henriksson (2021) Understanding Academic Agency in Curriculum Change in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1881772