Everyday Routines and Material Practices in the Design Studio - Why Informal Pedagogy Matters

Oct 15, 2026

This study examines the design studio as a space where formal and informal pedagogies intersect. It argues that informal learning is essential yet under-recognized in shaping design students’ everyday routines and material practices. Using students’ accounts in physical studio settings and distance education during the pandemic, it analyzes disruptions to studio practice and identifies five functions of informal pedagogy across proximate and online environments. An axis from formal to structured and unstructured informal to social learning frames the findings.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages21

Reading Time53 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

The Design Studio

Formal and Informal

Everyday Routines and Material Practices in the Design Studio: Why Informal Pedagogy Matters James Corazzo, Sheffield Hallam University, UK Layla Gharib, Sheffield Hallam University, UK Abstract This study aims to improve understanding of the design studio as a setting where formal and informal pedagogies intersect. We argue that the informal dimension of learning has an essential but under-acknowledged role in contributing to the development of design students. Our research focuses on students' everyday routines and their associated material practices in both a proximate studio setting (physical),– such as making tea, speaking to peers, doing work – and in a distance (online) setting. We frame these activities as informal pedagogy that supports design learning and the development of designerly identities. While this study focuses on students' accounts of their everyday use of the physical studio (pre-pandemic), it is augmented with students' accounts of distance design education (during the pandemic) . The disruption to studio practices, and the subsequent use of alternative environments to learn design, provided an opportunity to reconsider everyday routines and material practices at both proximate and distance settings. Supported by the infrastructure of the physical studio, we identify five 'functions' of informal pedagogy and use this to observe how these functions operated in distance settings. To understand the intersection between formal and informal pedagogy, we argue that binary terms are unhelpful and instead argue for an axis that runs from formal to structured informal to unstructured informal to social. Keywords design studio, design education, informal pedagogy, formal pedagogy, distance education, social learning Introduction This study presents the studio as a setting where formal and informal pedagogies intersect. We explore this intersection in the physical studio (before the pandemic) and during a year of pandemic displacement to understand the role of students’ everyday studio routines and to discuss the implications for design education. The Design Studio The design studio takes many forms and encompasses a wide range of methods, environmentsand patterns of interaction across a range of disciplines and institutions (Cennamo, 2016) . While this suggests the studio is a mutable entity, the literature consistently points to studio conversations – between tutors and students – as the primary means through which learning is promoted (Logan, 2006) . Studio conversations represent the cornerstone of formal pedagogy, and while they can happen in different ways, two modes dominate. First, the desk crit, a conversation between a single tutor and student emphasising support and being non-judgemental (Shaffer, 2007) . Second, the critique, which often occurs in groups, is led by tutors and emphasises articulating decisions and making judgements. The desk crit and the critique are the most visible aspects of studio education and have typically attracted the most attention. They are also components of a broader studio system. Shaffer’s (2007, p. 116) study of an architectural studio describes a coherent system composed of ‘cycles of production and reflection’. Production refers to the design work (driven by a project), and reflection (prompted by feedback) leads to further iterations of design work. The cycles of production and reflection (See Figure 1) work at various scales; larger cycles are augmented by smaller, less formal non-judgmental ones that take the form of desk crits and are designed to encourage further reflection and iteration. These cycles remind students that work is never complete and ‘always on a pathway toward better iterations’ (Brocato, 2009, p.42) . These cycles support learning to design, but they also undertake a parallel function: for students to learn to think and act like designers. As Shaffer (2007, p. 21) notes,“students were not merely solving problems; they were e

FAQs

What does the study investigate about design studios?

It investigates how formal and informal pedagogies intersect in design studio settings, focusing on students’ everyday routines and material practices.

How does the study compare physical and distance learning?

It contrasts students’ accounts from physical studio work before the pandemic with accounts from distance design education during the pandemic, using the disruption as an opportunity to rethink routines and practices.

What role does informal pedagogy play according to the findings?

Informal pedagogy supports design learning and the development of designerly identities, and the study identifies five functions of informal pedagogy operating in distance settings.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by RuangKosong