In recent years, there has been increasing focus on aesthetic learning experiences. We propose expanding this focus to account for the felt learner experience, including a deeper understanding of how learners build learning spaces surrounding the formal curriculum. This study is based on a one-year ethnography of a design studio, documenting how students actively engaged in informal learning in support and reaction to the formal pedagogy. Implications for the design of learning experiences are discussed.

1. exploring the
lived experience
of learners
broadening our understanding of
aesthetic learning experiences
colin m. gray
NOV 5 2014

2. research focus
HCI
DESIGN
ISD

3. what is HCI?
❖ Human-Computer Interaction (design)
❖ Roots in cognitive psychology
❖ Recent “turn to design” and approaches from the humanities
❖ All around us—from web sites to smartphone apps to wearable computing
and beyond
❖ Careers include: interaction design, experience design, user research
HCI
DESIGN

4. JAN 2013—DEC 2013

5. JAN 2013—DEC 2013
451 hours of field work
53 critical interviews
111 survey responses
3525 photos
556 audio segments (276+ hours)
19 faculty reflections

6. JAN 2013—DEC 2013
Student-created Facebook groups with
8,000+ status updates and 20,000+ comments
from late 2010 through 2013

7. why does identity matter in IDT?
❖ Current state of design in IDT
❖ Universal and linear (Smith & Boling, 2009)
❖ Decontextualized from specific learners or environments of use
(Boling & Smith, 2012)
❖ We are not taking our own advice (Schön, 1987; Lawson & Dorst, 2009)
❖ Rethinking design in IDT
❖ Returning our focus to the designer (Schwier, Campbell, & Kenny, 2007)
❖ Moving beyond tools, processes, and techniques (Boling & Smith, 2012)
❖ Identity shapes design practice (Schwier, Campbell, & Kenny, 2007;
Osguthorpe & Osguthorpe, 2007)

8. STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FORMAL
PEDAGOGY
(Carspecken, 1996; Crysler, 1995; Dutton, 1991; Gray, 2013b)

9. STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FORMAL
PEDAGOGY
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE
COMMUNITY
(Brandt, et al. 2011; Dannels & Martin, 2008;
Gray, 2014; Shaffer, 2003)

10. the design studio
❖ The design studio as a signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005).
❖ This pedagogy is the core of traditional design fields, and is increasingly
being adopted in fields without a design pedigree (Boling 2010; Brandt, et al.,
2008; Clinton & Rieber, 2010)
❖ Viewing the design studio as “a coherent system of activity” (Gray, 2013c;
Shaffer, 2007)

11. identity and student experience
❖ Pedagogy moves the student toward mastery in design expertise (Lawson &
Dorst, 2009). This is linked to a change:
❖ in their design thinking (Cross, 1982, 2011; Siegel & Stolterman, 2008)
❖ through a constant movement between being and becoming a designer
(Carspecken & Cordeiro, 1995; Nelson & Stolterman, 2012)
❖ forming the identity of the individual designer (Gray, 2013b; Nelson &
Stolterman, 2012).

12. research site
❖ Human-Computer Interaction MS
program taught with a design
emphasis
❖ Situated within a school of
informatics in a large midwestern
university
❖ Students come with virtually no
design experience
❖ Wide range of access to formal
and informal spaces
❖ Non-classroom studio space

14. navigating the student experience
Gray, C. M. (2013). Emergent
critique in informal design talk:
Reflections of surface, pedagogical,
and epistemological features in an
HCI studio. In Critique 2013: An
international conference reflecting
on creative practice in art,
architecture, and design (pp.
341-355). Adelaide, South Australia:
University of South Australia.
Gray, C. M. & Howard, C. D. (2014).
Designerly Talk in Non-Pedagogical
Social Spaces. Journal of Learning
Design, 7(1), 40-58.

15. DESIGN STUDIO FACEBOOK GROUPS

16. DESIGN STUDIO FACEBOOK GROUPS
1 year ethnography
participant observation
audio recordings
photographs
critical interviews
artifact analysis
5 student-created groups
4,558 status updates
15,273 comments

17. DESIGN STUDIO FACEBOOK GROUPS
analysis of critical
discussions about design,
termed designerly talk
analysis of how critique
emerged between peers

18. DESIGN STUDIO FACEBOOK GROUPS
instances of designerly talk
that occur outside of the
formal curriculum:
professional tools
creating a portfolio
sharing skills
being an ethical designer
instigating interactions
included:
overheard/seen
smalltalk/social talk
showing off
planned/scheduled
request for advice

20. building an independent identity
❖ Students built a proto-professional community of practice in the studio and
online space.
❖ They actively engaged with other students in a role that was distinct from
the pedagogy and linked to future professional practice. This highlights the
possibilities for learning in both formal and informal learning spaces.
❖ The students’ increasingly independent identity includes:
❖ a fuller realization of personal agency and responsibility as designers,
❖ while also developing an individual understanding and practice
of design.

21. identity construction
NAVIGATING THE
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
building an
independent
identity
INSIDE THE
FORMAL PEDAGOGY
breaking down &
reconstructing
identity
LOCATING PEDAGOGY
IN PRACTICE
co-constructing
identity with
future practice

22. implications
❖ STUDENT EXPERIENCE
❖ Pedagogy is non-deterministic
❖ Informal construction of learning spaces by students is occurring
❖ INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN EDUCATION
❖ Value and seek out the felt experience of a pedagogy
❖ Focus on the development of learning experiences
❖ Understand and legitimate informal learning spaces where they exist

23. future work
❖ Understanding how students informally construct their own learning spaces
and learning opportunities that are shaped by, but not determined by the
formal pedagogy.
❖ Documenting how the the formal pedagogy can legitimate informal
structures in the learner experience, and how this fits into a broader
understanding of instructional design.
❖ How can we create learning experiences that lead to this kind of iterative
identity construction? And what impact does this have on the
reproduction of disciplinary identities and norms?

24. thank you
colingray.me

25. references
Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2010). Intensive studio experience in a non-studio
masters program: Student activities and thinking across levels of
design. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society International
Conference, Montréal, Canada.
Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design
and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358-366). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., &
Reimer, Y. (2011). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning
environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A
theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carspecken, P. F., & Cordeiro, P. A. (1995). Being, doing, and becoming:
Textual interpretations of social identity and a case study. Qualitative
Inquiry, 1(1), 87-109.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4),
221-227.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think
and work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Crysler, C. G. (1995). Critical pedagogy and architectural education.
Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4), 208-217.
Dannels, D. P., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Critiquing critiques: A genre
analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 135-159. doi:
10.1177/105065190731192
Dutton, T. A. (1991). The hidden curriculum and the design studio:
Toward a critical studio pedagogy . In T. A. Dutton (Ed.), Voices in
architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy (pp. 165-194).
New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey.
Gray, C. M. (in press). Evolution of design competence in UX practice. In
CHI’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems. New York, NY: ACM Press.
Gray, C. M. (2013a). Emergent critique in informal design talk:
Reflections of surface, pedagogical, and epistemological features in an
HCI studio. In Critique 2013: An international conference reflecting on
creative practice in art, architecture, and design (pp. 341-355). Adelaide,
South Australia: University of South Australia.
Gray, C. M. (2013b). Factors that shape design thinking. Design and
Technology Education, 18(3), 8-20.
Gray, C. M. (2013c). Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus
in a design studio. In DRS // CUMULUS 2013: 2nd international
conference for design education researchers (pp. 702-714). Oslo,
Norway: HiOA.
Gray, C. M. & Howard, C. D. (2014). Designerly talk in non-pedagogical
social spaces. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1).
Gray, C. M., & Siegel, M. A. (in press). Sketching design thinking:
Representations of design in education and practice. Design and
Technology Education, 19(1).
Gray, C. M., & Siegel, M. A. (2013). Sketching design thinking:
Representations of design in education and practice . In DRS //
CUMULUS 2013. 2nd international conference for design education
researchers (pp. 2008-2031). Oslo, Norway: HiOA.

26. references
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK:
Architectural Press
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional
change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Osguthorpe, R.R. and Osguthorpe, R.D. (2007). Instructional design as a
living practice: Toward a conscience of craft. Educational Technology,
47(4), 13-23.
Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the
studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191-205.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new
design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schwier, R., Campbell, K. and Kenny, R. (2007). Instructional designers’
perceptions of their agency: Tales of change and community. In M. J.
Keppell (Ed.), Instructional Design: Case Studies in Communities of
Practice. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the oxford design studio: An
ethnography of design pedagogy. WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for
Educational Research.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions.
Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.
Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design
as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4),
3-17