This document discusses critical pedagogy and its application to design education. It notes that studio pedagogy is built on apprenticeship models and incorporates elements of critique that can normalize oppression. Critical framings have been rare in design education. The document presents a case study of students in a design classroom struggling over how to represent their identity and process. There were tensions between the students' emphasis on physical prototyping and the faculty prioritization of completed artifacts. This highlighted different discourses between the proto-professional students oriented toward practice, and the academic focus on legitimizing certain representations over others.

1. C O L I N M . G R A Y
I O WA S TA T E U N I V E R S I T Y
S T R U G G L E O V E R R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
C R I T I C A L P E D A G O G Y
I N D E S I G N E D U C A T I O N
I N T H E S T U D I O

2. I N T R O D U C T I O N
• Studio pedagogy is built on the apprenticeship or atelier model of
education (Cuff, 1991)
• Elements of the studio pedagogy are being incorporated into
disciplines without an established history as a design discipline
(Brandt et al., 2011; Fallman, 2003; Winograd, 1990)
• It is vital to understand the patterns of hegemony built into the
pedagogy (Anthony, 1991; Blythman, Orr, & Blair, 2007) before it becomes
institutionalized and unquestioned, as in most art and design
disciplines (Gray, 2014; Shaffer, 2003)

3. C R I T I C A L P E D A G O G Y
• Broadly applied within educational research, focusing on issues of
institutionalized (and social) oppression (e.g., Darder, Baltodano,
& Torres, 2003; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2011)
• Freire’s (1970) description of traditional education as operating on
the “banking” model, calling for a shift to “problem-posing” which
affirms all individuals in the process of becoming
• Accounts for power relations and norms communicated through the
hidden curriculum (Freire, 1970)

4. C R I T I C A L [ D E S I G N ] P E D A G O G Y ?
• The studio model extends back into 18th century Europe (Cuff,
1991), and significant evidence of patriarchy and institutionalized
oppression has been documented in this model of education (e.g.,
Anthony, 1991; Koch, 2002; Willenbrock, 1991)
• Common themes include socialization into design (Webster, 2008),
harshness of critique (Anthony, 1991; Webster, 2006), and the
often oppressive hidden curriculum of the studio (Dutton, 1991)
Critical framings of pedagogy have been rare in art
and design education, & have not been documented
in emergent design disciplines

5. C L A S S R O O M S T U D I O

7. V YA S & N I J H O LT, 2 0 1 2 , P. 1 7 6
“Studio surfaces are not just the carriers of
information but importantly they are sites of
methodic design practices, i.e. they indicate, to an
extent, how design is being carried out.”

8. R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
OF IDENTITY OF PROCESS

9. R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
OF IDENTITY OF PROCESS
How am I able to
represent my
design work in a
public way
How am I able to
perform my
identity as a
proto-professional

10. T W O D I S C O U R S E S O F D E S I G N
A C A S E

11. D ATA S O U R C E S
PRIMARY
• Participant Observation
• Photos, Audio, Video
• Critical Interview
SECONDARY
• Artifact Analysis

12. P R O T O -
P R O F E S S I O N A L
D I S C O U R S E
• Transience of physical
design processes

13. P R O T O -
P R O F E S S I O N A L
D I S C O U R S E
• Transience of physical
design processes
• Tensions over marking the
space v. “showing off”

14. P R O T O -
P R O F E S S I O N A L
D I S C O U R S E
• Transience of physical
design processes
• Tensions over marking the
space v. “showing off”
• Rhythms of representation
that paralleled class
projects

17. • Prioritization of completed
artifacts over process
• Reification of capstone
poster as the students’
“best work”
FA C U LT Y /
A C A D E M I C
D I S C O U R S E

18. FA C U LT Y /
A C A D E M I C
D I S C O U R S E
• Prioritization of completed
artifacts over process
• Reification of capstone
poster as the students’
“best work”
• Tension between physical
prototyping and keeping a
“clean” space

19. L E G I T I M AT I N G A R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
S T U D I O T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

20. M A R G I N A L I Z I N G A R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
S T U D I O T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

21. P R O C E S S V. F I N A L P R O D U C T

23. W H AT D O E S T H I S C A S E
T E L L U S A B O U T T H E
S T R U G G L E F O R
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N ?

24. D I S C U S S I O N
S T U D E N T S T R I E D T O L E AV E T H E I R M A R K , E V E N
W H E N T H E O D D S W E R E N O T I N T H E I R FAV O R
S T U D E N T S O R I E N T E D T O WA R D S P R A C T I C E , W H I L E
A C A D E M I A T E N D E D T O G H E T T O I Z E T H E I R W O R K

25. Hegemony of media and format quite clearly
communicates to students what a faculty
member or program at large values
(e.g., Dineen & Collins, 2005)
The value of specific forms of
representation were not shared, but
rather a point of contention

26. C O L I N G R AY. M E
T H A N K Y O U