In some ways this feels like the start of the real studio. Probably because I am used to a format that has students working each studio day in studio mode — working in groups or individually on their projects.
We began last Wednesday’s class with some reflections. The students had completed an “early term feedback” form a few weeks ago. This is a Sauder practice which I applaud. Feedback at the end of a term is useful to the next year’s crew but of little use to the current students. So an early check-in makes a lot of sense. There were several themes that Ron and I wanted to follow-up.
The first was a sense from some of the students that they didn’t know what to expect or where the studio was headed. This isn’t surprising — partly because they are used to much more structured learning experiences and partly because Ron and I are doing this for the first time. Even we weren’t necessarily sure where the studio would end up. Next time round it will be possible to give more sense of the whole and what the journey might look and feel like. But there is also the point that a design journey sometimes doesn’t take you where you think it might.
We also talked about engagement — should we have more smaller group discussions? The answer is yes and so that was good feedback. I was feeling hemmed in by the space we are working with this year but on my own reflection that should not have been a barrier to trying out some smaller discussion groups.
I also mentioned to them that I had just read all of their critiquing assignments. This assignment involved them individually critiquing the business canvas transformation of another team. What was probably most interesting was their own reflections on what they had learned by engaging in the critiquing process: more about their own projects and certainly their own thinking processes.
As the first true studio day, we first of all heard from a team about their project planning work — what is the core question that they are addressing in their projects (I asked for it in tweet form which is a good discipline of 140 characters); what is the context; what are the deliverables; what is the time-line; and who is responsible for what. Ron, Miguel and I (more or less) then sat with each group to year about their plans to tack let the project.
Most important was: what is the question? If you get the question right, it opens so many doors to so many solutions. So they are off and running — scoping the problem is particularly challenging for some of the groups because the projects are complex and the time is short.
Another learning point — more time is needed for the project part. Either we do a 6-credit studio (2 afternoons a week) or perhaps we have the studio a 2-term course. This needs more thought.