Is the Design Studio Dead? - An International Perspective on the Changing Shape of the Physical Studio across Design Domains

Oct 15, 2026

The shift of physical, socially grounded design studio learning into disconnected virtual environments during the Covid-19 pandemic has led design educators to reconsider what counts as traditional studio-based education. Drawing on classroom experiences from educators moving courses online, early findings suggest many students and educators adapted effectively. The study tests whether this holds across design domains and cautions against generalizing. Surveys from 90 experienced educators in seven countries analyze differing responses and support future blended or online plans.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages18

Reading Time45 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Design Studio Pedagogy and Culture

Is the Design Studio Dead? -An International Perspective on the Changing Shape of the Physical Studio across Design Domains Katja Fleischmann, Griffith University, Australia Abstract The process of moving the physical design studio experience, where social interaction is a guiding principle, into a detached virtual environment during the Covid pandemic has prompted design educators to re-evaluate what constitutes a traditional studio-based learning system. This shift is based on classroom experiences after design educators moved their courses online as physical classrooms closed. Early research findings indicate that design educators and students adapted surprisingly well to an online classroom during the pandemic. But is this equally the case across all design domains? The author argues that it is unhelpful to generalize across design domains when setting out to construct alternative digital learning and teaching environments. This study contextualises varying responses to the online design studio and offers a unique international perspective on differences in design domains impacting future plans to offer blended or online learning. The research is underpinned by the epistemology of pragmatism. The interpretation of data is based on surveys filled out by 90 highly experienced design educators representing eight design domains in seven countries. Results indicate a clear shift toward long-term acceptance of select online elements even in design domains focused on physical studio skills. It is clear that design domains will differ in their adoption and development of blending face-to-face and online teaching in the future. Keywords design studio transformation, online design education, blended design studio, design domains, COVID-19 pandemic Introduction It has been something of a sink-or-swim situation implementing online design teaching during the global Covid-19 pandemic. For many design educators this transition, now well into its second year, is a new experience that raises important pedagogical issues about how to teach design online. These issues center on collaboration, critiques and hands-on design practices; the very definition of studio practice in its many forms has been the subject of experimentation and integration of online elements to cope with the closure of face-to-face studio classes, workshops and physical spaces. Early research findings indicate that design educators and students adapted surprisingly well to an online classroom during the pandemic (e.g., Ahmad, Sosa & Musfy, 2020; Fleischmann, 2020c; Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020; Yorgancıoğlu, 2020) . Initial feedback from students and design educators from research conducted during the pandemic has demonstrated both positive and challenging experiences with digital delivery tools applied to studio practice. On a fundamental level these experiences teaching design online have a direct bearing on the future of design education. There are ongoing misgivings about online design courses interfering with the creative process. Yorgancıoğlu (2020, p. 34), for example, observed during the pandemic that digital tools can limit “potentials of the intuitive, spontaneous or experimental dimensions of design learning that are embedded in design education”. Even before the pandemic, design educators were sceptical about online courses because of design’s face-to-face interactions, feedback and iterative processes (Bender, 2005; Fleischmann, 2015; Park, 2011; Wood, 2018) . Conversely, there have also been strong advocates for pushing design pedagogy further into the online future. Petkas (2012), for example, argued that design courses are not moving fast enough to evolve with emerging technologies while Dreamson (2020, p. 495) declares that“online design education is not the next best alternative but an emergent design studio”. Overshadowing this debate are clear differences in design domains and their particular studio pedagogies that might influence

FAQs

What prompted design educators to re-evaluate studio-based learning during Covid-19?

Educators moved courses online when face-to-face studio classes, workshops, and physical spaces were closed, prompting reconsideration of what constitutes traditional studio learning.

How does the study address whether online studio education works across design domains?

It argues against generalizing across design domains and instead contextualizes varying responses to online design studio teaching, focusing on differences that shape future blended or online plans.

What evidence does the study use to analyze online teaching experiences?

It relies on survey responses completed by 90 highly experienced design educators representing eight design domains in seven countries.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by RuangKosong