HOW DESIGNERS USE THE WEB IN TEACHING
A Case Study
Ilpo Koskinen
School of Design, University of Art and Design Helisnki
Keywords: Design, Web, Design process, Pedagogy.
Abstract: This paper looks at how experienced design teachers use the Web in teaching students in studio
environment in the Bauhaus tradition. It develops a framework for understanding possible functions of the
Web over the design process, and examines Web use practices in one of Europe’s largest design programs,
situated in Helsinki. In the absence of department policy, instructors have developed various ways to
integrate the Web to teaching. In particular, the Web is used at the more industrial end of education,
reflecting changes in design over the last few decades.
1 FROM STUDIO TO THE WEB
Teaching designers at universities largely takes its
cue from traditional crafts enriched with a dash of
art following principles crystallized in Bauhaus.
Essential to teaching is that it takes place in the
studio rather than the classroom (Blashki 2002;
Hummels & Frens 2008). This paper is a case study
of how designers have integrated the Web to
teaching in one of Europe’s largest design programs.
With the exception of classes in philosophy, art
history, and computer science, in which learning is
based on models stemming from the mother
disciplines, in such traditional design disciplines as
ceramics and furniture design, knowledge is
transmitted from one generation to the next mostly
using a traditional master-apprentice model. A
typical design class begins with an intensive
classroom period, and continues through concept
design to prototyping, which is done in studios.
Throughout, crucial to the success to this creative,
constructivist, and multi-sensorial process is a close
connection between teachers and students.
However, even though the basis of design
education has not changed much over the last 70
years, globalizing economy and changes in student
population have brought about a few changes. In
particular, design education stresses
multidisciplinary teamwork, multiculturalism, new
technology, and research. Most design tasks today
are “wicked” (Rittel and Webber 1984) and require a
multidisciplinary team. Multiculturalism is based on
two trends: the increasingly global nature of
academic teaching, and to the fact that globalizing
economy requires people who are able to negotiate
their way through multiple cultures. Designers have
been in the forefront in adapting new technologies to
their work, and new working methods such as user
studies and system analysis are a routine part of
design (see Valtonen 2007).
For many reasons, then, intensive
communication is at the heart of the educational
process. It is necessary for success in master-
apprentice relationship, but also in today’s complex
teamwork processes. Obviously, it is also at the
heart of many other processes, including the key
process of socialization into the design profession,
reflection (Schön 1983), and the creation of dialogue
necessary for creating and maintaining a community
of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Fischer et al.
2007; Stahl & Hesse 2006). On one hand, design
education has many “affordances” – like
communication – that favor adopting the Web; on
the other, it has many affordances – like multi-
sensoriality – that work against the Web (for
affordances in design, see Norman 1998).
How, then, is the Web integrated to this
environment? This paper analyzes design education
in one of Europe’s leading design schools, and looks
at how the Web is actually used in the classroom to
support education. Specifically, it probes two
questions: (1) how experienced design teachers use
the Web in their work; and (2) what explains these
variations. However, this paper focuses on
193
Koskinen I. (2009).
HOW DESIGNERS USE THE WEB IN TEACHING - A Case Study.
In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pages 192-198
DOI: 10.5220/0001965601920198
Copyright
c
SciTePress
traditional designers, who build chairs, spaces,
products, and interactive systems, not media
designers or software engineers. This paper focuses
on designers trained in art rather than technology.
2 INTEGRATING THE WEB INTO
DESIGN PROCESSES
Despite changes described above, design pedagogy
still largely follows traditional master-apprenticeship
model. In preparing for classes, teachers typically
construct the design task often with companies,
organize funding, materials, find and schedule
expert lecturers, book studio and machine time, and
organize access to possible equipment outside
university studios from universities’ outside
networks. From the student standpoint, a typical
design class starts with an introduction, which
consists of lectures, readings, and other knowledge
content that guide students to the topic of the class
(i.e. issues like sustainability or banking services).
This phase typically takes place in the classroom.
This phase is followed by the design phase, which
consists of:
Concept design: students create concepts, often
through a user-centered process. This typically
takes place in meeting rooms and open spaces
with a lot of wall space that becomes a
knowledge environment (Nugent et al. 2008).
Studio phase: often called prototyping, the focus
is next on constructing the ideas. This typically
takes place in studios and workshops.
Presentations. During the class, there are gates
for feedback, and at the end of the class is
critique. Students typically prepare
presentations of their work and rehearse
pitching their ideas in front of the teachers,
fellow students, and sometimes also experts
who come from the outside.
After the class, disseminating design work
usually borrows its methods from art and industry
rather than science. Thus, its main “centers of
coordination” (Latour 1990) are not only articles and
books, but also exhibitions and expos. With fashion
schools leading the trend, design work is
increasingly exhibited on the Web (see fashion
shows of Central St. Martin’s, London at
http://www.csm.arts.ac.uk/37495.htm).
Given this background, the Web may have
several functions in design classes, if integrated to
the process. At the heart is the design process, which
provides for the structuring of Web use.
Knowledge content. Most design classes inject
knowledge that has its origins outside the design
world. This knowledge can be communicated
early on in the process, but also later using the
Web.
Teamwork. More often than not, design requires
teamwork. The Web can assist in
communication beyond just e-mail.
Design work. Web tool may be used to support
design work provided that it supports design
methods that are typically visual and tangible,
requiring a multimedia-based rather than a
textual-only environment. (See Dreyfus 2001).
Reflection. Modern pedagogy sets a separate set
of requirements. The aim of design education is
to raise professionals capable of analyzing
problems and solving them in a reflective
dialogue with materials, equipment, mentors,
and customers. To these ends, design classes
typically utilize tools that encourage dialogue
and reflection, including blog and studio diaries
(see Enyedy and Hoadley 2008; for example,
see Tisch School of the Arts at NYU at
http://itp.nyu.edu/itp/).
Communication. Finally, for any design work to
have any impact, it has to be communicated to
outsiders, which sets another set of
requirements for using the Web. Typically,
designers prepare interactive multimedia
presentations and videos to communicate their
work.
Combining the process and these functions of the
Web gives the following framework for integrating
the Web into teaching. (Table 1).
Table 1: Framework: The Web in Design Education,
Phase by Function.
There are many things that ease integration of
the Web to design education. Designers are typically
agile with technology and even if not technically
CSEDU 2009 - International Conference on Computer Supported Education
194
agile, they are typically favorably predisposed to
technology and interested in investing time in
learning it. They learn complex 3D modeling
programs like Ideas, Rhino, or CATIA. Designers
are well versed in 2D graphic programs such as
Photoshop, Illustrator, and layout programs like
InDesign, and although design is not a visual form
of art, a good deal of design works with visual
representations such as sketches, technical drawings,
and prototypes that can only be communicated with
photographs, animations, and videos. Most designers
are taught far more complex e-communication skills
than most university students, including knowledge
of multimedia programs and even programming,
sometimes databases, elementary Web skills
(elementary HTML and scripting language (typically
JavaScript and ActionScript)).
However, a set of other reasons makes the
integration slower, some of which are familiar from
other fields of e-learning. To mention only a few,
personal reasons and tradition consist of issues like
IT skills, interest in developing teaching, and
teachers’ preference to traditional studio-based
teaching methods. For example, knowing 3D
software does not make one an expert in designing
for the Web, and especially among older designer
generations, Web skills may be wanting, and many
things important in design are difficult to deal with
on the Web, including the tangible feel of shapes
and materials, and the interplay of the hand and the
eye. Organizational reasons consist of issues like
the encouragement and support from management,
IT security policies, and access to resources outside
one’s immediate work real, like virtual teaching
platforms and CSCL support staff. Work-related
reasons affect whether Web can be used or not. For
example, some classes require extensive teamwork
and media use, and some classes are taught from the
distance, which makes Web use almost necessary,
while studio-based classes in, say, glass design, have
qualities the Web can support only in a limited
sense. Depending on the particularities of the design
program, these factors play out either for or against
using the Web extensively. For example, traditional
design schools typically work mostly in studios, and
place stress on the skills of the hand rather than
teamwork, communication and presentation skills.
3 DATA AND METHOD
This study is conducted at the School of Design in
the University of Art and Design Helsinki. By
European standards, the School of Design is large. It
has about 800 students, and annually, on average
160 students graduate from its programs. This paper
focuses on its MA programs rather than BA and
doctoral students. At that level, it has five programs:
industrial design, applied arts (glass, ceramics, and
exhibition design), furniture and space design, and
textile art. Approximately 40-50% of students
admitted to the School are not native Finnish or
Swedish speakers, making English the language of
choice in teaching.
The curriculum is organized into three on
average nine-week “modules,” the first one starting
in mid-October, the second in early January, and the
third in mid-March. In addition, there are joint
studies from early September to mid October. At
each module, there are typically 5-7 alternatives
from which students can choose, in principle freely,
but in practice following their selected specialty.
Thus, a textile design student typically takes classes
in textiles rather than in glass design.
Figure 1 and 2: Up: Studio Space, with Students Building
an Embedded System into a Car. Down: The Structure of a
Module (Module 3/08, March to May).
In 2008-2009, the School offers 22 modules.
With the exception of two modules that are based on
HOW DESIGNERS USE THE WEB IN TEACHING - A Case Study
195
lectures, all other modules have a significant
practical component that takes place in studio
environment. Picture 1 is from a studio and Picture 2
describes one module in Spring 2008.
Teaching staff can be categorized into three main
groups. Professors coordinate and often teach
modules. Currently, there are 12 professors who
teach. The School’s 18 lecturers and 2 assistant
professors focus on BA education, but also
participate in MA modules. The most numerous
group consists of part-time teachers, who are
typically either practicing designers, visitors from
local universities, or foreign guests. They typically
run shorter than a-week-long workshops, and deliver
lectures and lecture series on knowledge-based
contents.
Data for this paper was collected from three
sources. First, I went through the Web page of the
School, and other documentation on paper for the
academic years 2007-2009. Second, I sent a question
to secretaries responsible for coordinating teaching,
as well as computer staff responsible for running the
Web (N=6). Third, I interviewed deans and those
teachers who have integrated the Web to teaching
more closely to analyze how they have used the Web
(N=7). Since the number of cases was low (the
maximum number of modules was 22), analysis was
qualitative, following Miles and Huberman’s (1994)
suggestions for analyzing qualitative data.
With one exception, no integrated e-leaning
platforms (for example, Scardamalia & Bereiter
1996) have been used in the School. This exception
was one part of the joint module in September,
between 2001-2004, which used a learning
environment developed in Media Lab, a sister
School in the University. The program is not used
anymore, for it proved to be unreliable, its usability
was wanting, and its pedagogic model proved not to
be suitable for design education. The university
offered Virtual University services between 2003-
2006, when the service closed.
For ethical reasons, I will refer to modules using
numbers rather than their names.
4 DESCRIPTION: HOW
DESIGNERS USE THE WEB IN
TEACHING
Currently, there is no School-wide strategy for
adopting the Web, and currently, no support or
incentive to integrate the Web to teaching exists.
Thus, the current structures stems from the teachers’
interests and independent actions. At the moment, 6
BA classes and 9 MA modules have a Web page.
Another observation is that there is a clear dividing
line between BA and MA education what comes to
education on the Web. At BA level, all six classes
are integrated to the Virtual University; at MA level,
none of the classes uses this service. Only a handful
of the School’s more than 40 teachers have training
in higher education and didactics. Perhaps not
unsurprisingly for a design school, at higher levels
of education, classes reflect teachers’ interests and
personalities not only what comes to the main
contents, but also to adopting teaching methods and
tools.
Table 2: Integration the Web to Design Process. Columns:
1. Preparation of the class; 2. Introduction; 3. Concept
phase; 4. Studio phase; 5. Presentations; 6. Aftermath. No
data could be found for module 6 due to non-response.
Table 2 looks more closely at Web usage at the
School through the framework exhibited in Table 1.
Table 2 shows that in terms of the design process,
teachers use the Web consistently in the early phases
of the design process (i.e. phases 1-2), but with
much less intensity later in the concept design and
studio phases of the process. Early in the process,
teachers use the Web to advertise their modules to
students, and after students have registered to
classes, to share content, materials, structures, and
news for students. In essence, the Web is an
information-sharing device. Also, there is a clear
line between heavy Web users (modules 1-5) and
other modules. It is as if the Web is either used, or
used only minimally.
Table 3 takes a closer look at the functions of the
Web. It has two important messages. First, it
elaborates Table 2 in one important respect. The
Web is mostly used for delivering knowledge
content – like sharing lectures, schedules, and other
instructions in PDF format – and only occasionally
M 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 -+++ + - 4
2 +++- + +5
3 +++- + +5
4 -++- + - 3
5 ++++ - +5
6 n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d
7 + - - - - - 1
8 + - - - - - 1
9 + - - - - - 1
CSEDU 2009 - International Conference on Computer Supported Education
196
for other purposes. Second, it elaborates the division
line observed above still holds: heavy use
concentrates on Modules 1-4, which also have
integrated the Web extensively into the design
process.
In terms of which kinds of Web techniques are
used, only two classes are currently using the Web
in an interactive way. In Module 1, the instructor has
been using a commercial served based in
Switzerland for sharing materials and for
communicating with students. The instructor of
Module 4 lives in Spain, and flies into the country
every few weeks. In her absence, students are
required to keep a blog for keeping the process
going.
Table 3: Functions of the Web. Columns. 1. Knowledge
content; 2. Teamwork support; 3. Supporting design work;
4. Supporting reflection; 5. Communicating to outsiders.
No data could be found for module 6 due to non-response.
M 1 2 3 4 5
1 + + - + - 3
2 + - + - +
3
3 + + + + - 4
4 + + + + - 4
5 + + + + - 4
6 n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d -
7 + - - - - 1
8 + - - - - 1
9 + - - - - 1
The other two modules that use the Web
throughout the process use it mostly as a bulletin
board rather than an interactive forum for, say,
sharing mid-term reports, or for doing interactive
exams. It is used to deliver information about the
class from teachers to students, and if information
from students are delivered, it is filtered through
teachers. At the School of Design, the Web is mostly
a top-down technology rather than a marketplace of
ideas, or a forum of dialogue between teachers and
students.
5 TOWARDS EXPLANATIONS
There was no rank-order correlation to how the Web
is used to any standard background variable like the
age or the gender of the instructor, nor to the
properties of the class like the number of students, or
the age of the class. It was impossible to predict the
reasons for adopting the Web using these
background variables.
However, a few recurrent things were related to
Web use. Most importantly, with one exception,
industrially oriented designers have adopted the
Web quicker than others. As Table 3 shows, at MA
level, the rift between industrial designers and others
is pronounced. At BA level, out of 6 classes using
the Web, the same division line is just as apparent.
One of these classes was in industrial design, and
three in textile and fashion design.
The most likely explanation lies in some of the
features typical to these design subspecialties. Both
of these specialties are oriented to teaching designers
capable for working in industrial settings. They put a
premium on teamwork, process, and communication
skills, and often prepare students for working in
international companies in which IT is essential in
coordinating design work. The main difference
between these specialties is that industrial design
works in 3D digital environment, while textile
design is easier to integrate to the two dimensions of
the Web. The difference is not crucial, though. In
contrast, more artistic disciplines place premium on
artistic skills and the skills of the hand that afford
integration to the Web with difficulty. Interactive
uses of the Web mainly take place in industrially
oriented modules. (Table 3).
Table 4: Breakdown of Web Usage by Design Discipline.
Sub
specialty
Modules using
the Web (%, freq)
Interactive
techniques (N)
Industrial
and textile design
50% (3/6) 2
Other
department
25% (4/16) 1
However, two qualifications are needed. First, it
is important to note that even in the more industrial
end of design, Web use is still fairly low. These
affordances do not explain Web usage as such.
Using the Web is far from a standard thing to do at
the School of Design; to understand the Web, we
have to look at variations between how individual
teachers orient to teaching and using technology in
teaching. Second, there is an interactive blog
environment created for one module (Module 4 in
Tables 2-3). This module makes an exception among
the more craft-oriented programs. The instructor’s
response to my query concerning use illustrates well
the prevailing attitude among instructors:
In this class, we got tired of the stiffness of
“official” net leaning environments, and
built an own one. We have a student tutor
who set up the system and maintains it. The
HOW DESIGNERS USE THE WEB IN TEACHING - A Case Study
197
idea has been to build on open services
people already use for other purposes that
do not require teaching. We sought an
environment for contents, not the other way
around. We use blog and Skype. (27 Nov,
11:11).
The absence of policy and managerial support,
varying programming skills, restrictive university-
wide security policy, and practically non-existent IT
support staff leaves adopting technology to personal
initiative. These reasons are mostly personal. As
already mentioned, one instructor lives in Spain,
which makes using the Web a necessity for her.
Another instructor uses the Web for sharing his
lectures to make it unnecessary to keep a physical
folder in library. The third instructor uses the web
because his classes teach teamwork, and are too big
to be handled without technical devices. The fourth
instructor uses the Web to share materials because
she brings many people from the industry to the
classroom.
6 DISCUSSION
Design as taught in art schools following tradition
crystallized in Bauhaus presents an interesting case
for those interested in using the Web to support
teaching. Design teaching is essentially learning by
doing: the crux of pedagogy is doing and integrating
knowledge to designs through a controlled process.
This process is sometimes based on a traditional
master-apprentice model, but modern design goes
beyond this model in not only bringing art to the
classroom like in Bauhaus, but also in working in
multidisciplinary and multi-cultural teams. These
processes have properties that make integrating the
Web both easy and difficult, through variously at
various phases of the design process.
This paper has looked at the Web in one of
Europe’s largest design programs at the School of
Design in Helsinki. At this department, using the
Web is not governed by policy or by pushing one
particular pedagogical philosophy (see
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/dhsiao/theori
es.html#situated). Rather, instructors at the School
are largely left to their own devices what comes to
using the Web – or any other technology – in
teaching.
The paper has built a simple framework for
analyzing the Web at the School. The framework
breaks the uses down by two dimensions, by a
typical design process and by possible functions of
the Web during the process. What we have learned
through an empirical analysis is that Web use is
unevenly distributed – that is, there are instructors
who have adopted it to teaching extensively, while
many instructors do not use it at all.
If there is one background feature that seems to
explain Web use in the School, it lies in design
subspecialties: the more industrial end of design
education has integrated the Web more readily than
the more craft and art-oriented end of design.
Reasons behind this pattern are probably related to
the way in which designers at the industrial end
work, stressing communication and team working
skills rather than skills of the hand or individual
personality. However, there are significant variations
at work behind this division line. The main
conclusion has to be that Web use mostly goes back
to the preferences and IT skills of teachers and to the
type of the class. For example, the largest classes of
the School routinely use the Web throughout the
process.
Still, this is only a propensity. The main result
has to be that even though the Web certainly has
many uses in teaching design, it is far from being the
tool of choice for design instructors. Why? Is there
something in the nature of design that makes it
difficult to use the Web? Can we bring the studio to
the Web?
Apparently, our data suggests that there are
natural limits in this transition. The affordances of
the Web are some ways highly limited what comes
to what sophisticated design requires. Issues like
touch, feeling, hand, bodily skills, and being able to
get immediate bodily feedback, are crucial for
designers. Design is not just visual, but also a
tangible and bodily. Especially in the artistic end of
design, some designers take these qualities seriously,
and see the Web as too limited a tool to be really
helpful; for them, it may actually misdirect design.
However, some other things can be externalized
easily, including dialogical issues like
communication, coordination, and instruction
(Eneydy & Hoadley 2006). Also, some design fields
work through digital means, esp. industrial design,
but also textile design; more generally, those design
fields in industrial practice is digital (Valtonen
2007). When these skills are in the center of the
profession, then the Web gives attractive options for
education. Furthermore, some features of design
education almost necessitate using Web-like tools.
In particular, modern design is increasingly
dispersed over a vast geographic area. Coordinating
a class in Helsinki while the instructor lives in Spain
would be practically impossible without the Web. It
has a place in design education, and no doubt will
CSEDU 2009 - International Conference on Computer Supported Education
198
grow in importance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank people at the School of Design
for assistance and data for this paper.
REFERENCES
Blashki, K. 2002. Educating the Multimedia Professional.
In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference
WWW/Internet 2002, ICWI 2002, Lisbon, Portugal,
November 13-15. Pp. 613-619.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. 2001. On the Internet. London:
Routledge.
Fischer, G., Rohde, M. & Wulf, V. 2007. Community-
based learning: The core competency of residential,
research-based universities. ijcscl 2 (1)
Hummels, C. & Frens, J. 2008. Designing for the
Unknown: A Design Process for the Future Generation
of Highly Interactive Systems and Products. In
Proceedings of International Conference on
Engineering and Product Design Education, 4-5
September, Barcelona, Spain. Available at:
http://w3.id.tue.nl/fileadmin/id/objects/doc/Education/
Vision/Reflective_Transformative_Design_Process.
pdf
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data
Analysis. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Enyedy, N., Hoadley, C. M. 2006. From dialogue to
monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-
mediated learning. ijcscl 1 (4)
Latour, B. 1990. Drawing Things Together. In Lynch, M.
and Woolgar, S. (eds.) Representation in Scientific
Practice. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Kimmerle, J. & Cress, U. 2008. A systemic and cognitive
view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis.
ijcscl 3 (2)
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Norman, D. A. 1998. The Psychology of Everyday Things.
Basic Books. New York.
Nugent, L., Donahue, S., Berberat, M., Chan, Y., Gier, J.,
Koskinen, I., Mattelmäki, T. 2008. How Do You Say
Nature? Opening the Design Space with a Knowledge
Environment. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 20:4.
Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M. 1984. Planning Problems
are Wicked Problems. In Cross, N. (ed.).
Developments in Design Methodology. John Wiley &
Sons. Chichester. Pp. 135-144.
Scardamalia, M.,, Bereiter, C. 1996. Computer support for
knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann
(Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging
paradigm (pp. 249-268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How
Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books. New
York.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., Suthers, D. n.d. Computer-
supported collaborative learning: An historical
perspective. Mimeo. Available at
www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/CSCL_Eng
lish.pdf
Stahl, G. and Hesse, F. 2006. Social practices of
computer-supported collaborative learning.
International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 1 (4). Available
online at
http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume1_issue4/stahl_hesse
_1_4.pdf.
Valtonen, A. 2007. Redefining Industrial Design. Changes
in the Design Practice in Finland. University of Art
and Design. Helsinki.
HOW DESIGNERS USE THE WEB IN TEACHING - A Case Study
199