COMPARING ACADEMICS AND PRACTITIONERS Q & A TUTORING IN THE ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIO

A. Hurst, Shirley Lin, Claire Treacy, O. Nespoli, J. Gero
{"title":"COMPARING ACADEMICS AND PRACTITIONERS Q & A TUTORING IN THE ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIO","authors":"A. Hurst, Shirley Lin, Claire Treacy, O. Nespoli, J. Gero","doi":"10.1017/pds.2023.100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the design studio, academic (professor) and practitioner tutors provide individual mentoring to students as they progress in their design projects. Prior studies suggest that design practitioners may follow a different design process compared to academics, but little is known about how this difference relates to their design tutoring. This study explores the similarities and differences in tutoring by academics and practitioners. We use a question-asking lens to characterize the tutoring styles of four tutors - two academics and two practitioners - over a five-week design project in an engineering design studio. We find that academic tutors ask questions at a significantly higher rate than practitioner tutors, suggesting a more question-centred tutoring style. We also find that proportionally more of practitioner tutors’ questions are generative in nature, while the academic tutors employ more convergent thinking in their questioning. This may be an indicator of the practitioners' own design thinking, which might be more solution-focused than that of academics. These preliminary findings motivate future investigations of the relationship between differences in tutoring and impact on student design learning.","PeriodicalId":319189,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Design Society","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Design Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In the design studio, academic (professor) and practitioner tutors provide individual mentoring to students as they progress in their design projects. Prior studies suggest that design practitioners may follow a different design process compared to academics, but little is known about how this difference relates to their design tutoring. This study explores the similarities and differences in tutoring by academics and practitioners. We use a question-asking lens to characterize the tutoring styles of four tutors - two academics and two practitioners - over a five-week design project in an engineering design studio. We find that academic tutors ask questions at a significantly higher rate than practitioner tutors, suggesting a more question-centred tutoring style. We also find that proportionally more of practitioner tutors’ questions are generative in nature, while the academic tutors employ more convergent thinking in their questioning. This may be an indicator of the practitioners' own design thinking, which might be more solution-focused than that of academics. These preliminary findings motivate future investigations of the relationship between differences in tutoring and impact on student design learning.
比较学者与实践者在工程设计工作室的问答辅导
在设计工作室中,学术(教授)和实践导师在学生的设计项目中为他们提供个人指导。先前的研究表明,与学者相比,设计从业者可能遵循不同的设计过程,但很少有人知道这种差异与他们的设计辅导有什么关系。本研究探讨了学术界和实践者在辅导方面的异同。我们使用提问镜头来描述四位导师的辅导风格——两位学者和两位从业者——在一个工程设计工作室进行了为期五周的设计项目。我们发现,学术导师问问题的比率明显高于执业导师,这表明一种更以问题为中心的辅导风格。我们还发现实践性导师的提问更多地是生成性的,而学术性导师的提问更多地采用收敛性思维。这可能是实践者自己的设计思维的一个指标,他们可能比学者更注重解决方案。这些初步发现激发了未来对辅导差异与学生设计学习影响之间关系的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书