Studio Pedagogy

Author(s):  
Russell G. Carpenter ◽  
Leslie Valley ◽  
Trenia Napier ◽  
Shawn Apostel

This chapter establishes a studio pedagogy for space design that integrates concepts from communication, collaboration, and innovation in its approach. The model offered is derived from the experience of designing and implementing the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity that has had a campus-wide impact at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). In this chapter, the authors discuss a rationale for a studio pedagogy, the need for a studio approach, the technological implications of space design, and the value and impact of a studio model, explaining the importance of designing student-centered spaces. The authors begin by addressing the need identified by EKU administrators and explaining the process that brought multiple voices around the same table to develop an initial and sustained support unit for program development.

Author(s):  
Russell G. Carpenter

The concept of remediation, as outlined by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, offers a lens through which 21st-century partnerships might be analyzed and reinvented. Accordingly, this chapter argues that looking to the future, community-university partnerships will gain momentum as centralizing educational venues, while emerging technologies will offer mediated spaces where academic, professional, and nonprofit institutions merge to provide learning opportunities that engage both sides. This chapter situates the multiliteracy space—in this case the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity at Eastern Kentucky University—as a model for community-university partnerships that employ emerging technologies to develop communication skills.


2006 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 691
Author(s):  
Carolyn Terry Bashaw ◽  
William E. Ellis

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc J. Neveu

“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.”SocratesIntroductionStudio as a model of education is distinct from many other professionaldisciplines and although it can be quite rewarding on many levels it mayalso be an extremely unconstructive endeavor.1 The amount of time spent in studio typically far outweighs that spent for other courses and often atthe expense of such other courses. The dedication that students bring tothe studio is remarkable, yet much of the time spent in studio is not alwaysproductive. Students often complain of not knowing what is expected ofthem and as a result much of the time is spent thinking about what they think the professor wants to see as opposed to working through theirprojects. In an alternate scenario, students are crushed by the workload, tasks, demands or expectations of their instructors. In either case, the work is almost invariably driven by the students’ own creativity and imagination; unlike law, medicine, business, or engineering for example, where the interpretation and inquiry into case studies and cadaversis much less based on the personal introspection than established traditions. This extremely personal nature of the architectural studio canmake reviews either a devastating or extremely empowering process. As seen from the perspective of the larger university community, the studio is simply not an efficient way of education. The faculty to student ratio, for example, is not in accordance with other undergraduate disciplines. But this ratio, as we all know can also be a real strength. The often hermeticnature of the studio offers latitude for students to develop theirwork in relatively safe surroundings. This environment, however, may also foster the cult of personality that develops around certain professorsthat harkens back to the very roots of education but can also lead to anentourage of disciples who have no incentive to inform the Emperor that he or she is no longer wearing any clothes.Notwithstanding such issues, I do believe the studio holds the potentialto be an empowering learning experience. The intention of this article is to question the mode of instruction in an architectural studio. I’ve structured the paper in three parts. First, I will briefly describe the findingsof the study made by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancementof Teaching known as the Boyer Report.2 To develop and support the findings of the Boyer Report, I introduce the work of the educator Donald Schön. Though I see much merit in the Boyer Report, and Schön’sproposals, I argue that a more nuanced approach is required. I will recommend, therefore, in the second section of this paper that a meansof architectural education as based on the Socratic method may be amore productive approach. My reading of the Socratic method is basedprimarily on early Socratic dialogues and I will specifically use Charmidesto illustrate the issues that I believe are relevant to studio pedagogy.3 From my analysis of Charmides I will, in the third section of the essay,describe how the Socratic method is beneficial to studio pedagogy threeways: reflexive, non-propositional, and finally how Socrates’ approachmay indeed be practical. This last section will be illustrated with a studentproject. It is my conjecture that the Socratic method offers insight intocurrent discussions of educational theory, namely student-centered,project-based learning.


2021 ◽  

This talk by Katie Campbell, Eastern Kentucky University 'Childhood Anxiety Disorders: A look into Selective Mutism' is primarily aimed at students. Katie is mentored by Dr. Myra Beth Bundy, also of Eastern Kentucky University.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 262
Author(s):  
Robert Smith

Journal of Education and Training Studies (JETS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JETS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 6, Number 12Benmarrakchi Fatimaezzahra, Chouaib Doukkali University, MoroccoCagla Atmaca, Pamukkale University, TurkeyDeniz Melanlioğlu, Kırıkkale University, TurkeyEbru Uzunkol, Sakarya University, TurkeyEnisa Mede, Bahcesehir University, TurkeyFatih Kaya, Erzincan University, TurkeyFroilan D. Mobo, Philippine Merchant Marine Academy, PhilippineGözde Ersöz, Namık Kemal University, TurkeyHakan Acar, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, TurkeyHalil Tanir, Adnan Menderes University, TurkeyHayriye Gül Kuruyer, Ordu Universty, TurkeyHsiu-Fen Lin, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Taiwanİbrahim Erdemir, Balikesir University, TurkeyIntakhab Khan, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi ArabiaJohn Cowan, Edinburgh Napier University, UKLawrence R. Burns, Grand Valley State University, USALinda J. Rappel, Yorkville University/University of Calgary, CanadaLorna T. Enerva, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, PhilippinesMahmoud Radwan, Tanta University, EgyptMaria Pavlis Korres, Hellenic Open University, GreeceMary Sciaraffa, Eastern Kentucky University, USAMassimiliano Barattucci, Ecampus University, ItalyMehmet Fatih Karahüseyinoğlu, Firat University, TurkeyMehmet Inan, Marmara University, TurkeyMeral Seker, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, TurkeyMichael Baron, University of Melbourne, AustraliaNiveen M. Zayed, MENA College of Management, JordanSamad Mirza Suzani, Islamic Azad University, IranSelloane Pitikoe, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South AfricaShu-wen Lin, Sojo University, JapanStamatis Papadakis, University of Crete, GreeceVeronica Rosa, University Rome, ItalyRobert SmithEditorial AssistantOn behalf of,The Editorial Board of Journal of Education and Training StudiesRedfame Publishing9450 SW Gemini Dr. #99416Beaverton, OR 97008, USAURL: http://jets.redfame.com


Author(s):  
Jayne L. Violette ◽  
Christopher S. Daniel ◽  
Eric B. Meiners ◽  
Jennifer L. Fairchild

Faculty and professional staff members engaged in the development, implementation, and practice of the L.E.A.F. Model of Teaching and Learning at Eastern Kentucky University in the campus’ Incubator Classroom are working to define the qualities of “the ideal classroom” with the goal of addressing optimum and innovative student learning experiences. The L.E.A.F. Model, an acronym coined by Sweet & Blythe (2010), represents what is theoretically the “Learning Environment for Academia’s Future,” weaving together current research from education, instructional design, instructional communication, technology, and pedagogy to challenge outdated compartmentalized thinking about what it means to be a teacher in the 21st century. This case therefore represents a unique cross-disciplinary approach to the invention and use of “space” to accommodate this collaborative model while recognizing the complexities of teaching and learning in a fast-changing academic environment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document