Critical Success Factors for Studio-based Teaching Christabel Gonsalvez and Martin Atchison School of Information Management and Systems, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Abstract This paper summarizes recent experiences with the use of studio-based teaching in two IT-based courses. We review key aspects of our experience of implementing studios and highlight five areas, which we have found to be crucial to the success of the studio program. For each of these areas we identify the main objectives, which we hoped to achieve and briefly describe the lessons we have learned to date. Keywords: Information systems education, studio-based teaching, studios, experiential learning Studio-based teaching has been advocated as an innovative method for supporting experiential learning. The studio model has been widely used for many years in architecture and the creative arts (Schon, 1987) but has had much more limited application in the teaching of more technical professions such as computing. This paper summarizes recent experiences with the use of studios in two IT-based courses run by the School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS) at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. SIMS has based its model of studio teaching (Arnott & Atchison, 1997) on the work of Schon (1987). Studios were implemented first in the Bachelor of Multimedia (BMM) in 1998, and then in the Bachelor of Information Management and Systems (BIMS) in 2000. The design of the studio curriculum was based on the principles described by Schon, and adapted to suit the needs and constraints of the two-degree programs. The authors have been closely involved in the design and teaching of the studio curriculum. Details of its practical implementation in these programs can be found in the work of Gonsalvez and Atchison (2000). Although there have been some significant differences in the way in which the studio model has been implemented in the two degree programs, similar lessons have emerged from each. For the sake of simplicity, observations about the experiences from both programs have been combined in this paper. Studio work comprises one quarter of each year of study. In their studio work, students are required to participate regularly for extended periods of time in a range of structured and unstructured work sessions, and to carry out a variety of tasks. The work is heavily practically based, and aims to provide students with experience in developing systems and system components in conditions similar to those which they will encounter in the workplace. Formal teaching in studio sessions comprises a mixture of teaching methods, with the blend varying according to the topics being discussed. The work requirements in the studio are for the students to complete a range of tasks including small exercises and major project work. A number of factors influenced the decision to introduce studios as a new element of the academic program. First, our own experiences of the problems of other forms of experiential learning in academic programs which were based solely around traditional teaching methods (Arnott & Atchison, 1997); secondly, anecdotal evidence from industry which indicated dissatisfaction with the skills of graduates of these programs; thirdly the research work of other IS academics which indicated similar concerns elsewhere (e.g. Trauth et al., 1995). On the basis of these factors, we identified the following key objectives, which we hoped to achieve by introducing the studios into the curriculum: * To improve course integration by using the studio as the central focus for work studied in other subjects. * To give students a greater opportunity to practice the application of their theoretical knowledge to practical problems. * To familiarize student with the kinds of work environments and work practices which they will encounter as professionals. * To make the teaching program more student-centered, and improve the ability of the students to become independent learners. * To provide an environment which encourages students to learn by reflection on their own work and that of their peers. A detailed discussion of these objectives can be found in Gonsalvez and Atchison (2000). In this paper we briefly summarize key aspects of the SIMS experience of implementing studios and highlight five areas, which we have found to be crucial to the success of the studio program. Each section of the paper examines a different aspect of the operation of the studio, identifies the main objectives that it was hoped would be achieved, and briefly describes the lessons we have learned to date. 1. MANAGING THE INTEGRATION WITH CORE SUBJECTS University courses are usually designed as relatively independent modules. There may be some vertical integration between modules in terms of identifying pre-requisite knowledge and specifying logical subject sequences, but there is usually little horizontal integration. Even where connections between modules are made explicit, they are often relatively superficial and are not spelled out in detail to students. Figure 1. Conceptual course map structure showing the inter-connections between the core subjects and studio work. By contrast, our approach to studio-based teaching places the studio module as the key central core, which brings together all aspects of each year's work (See Figure 1). There is a two-way interaction between the studio and the core subjects. Studio work enables the students to bring together the theory taught in the core subjects and apply it to practical problems, while the core subjects can draw on the students' studio work to illustrate the practical application of aspects of theory. This two-way interaction enables students to see the links between their subjects in many different business contexts. Our experiences indicate that close integration between studio and core subjects is crucial to the students gaining full benefit from their studio work. This integration must include consideration both of timing and form of presentation. The greater the gap between the coverage of theory in the core subjects and its practical application in the studios, the greater is the likelihood that students will fail to make the connections between them (Lake, 1994 & Whiddet et al., 1997). The need for tight horizontal and vertical integration between core subjects and the studio work requires more planning of the degree structure, and a greater attention to detail in advance than is usually required. Subjects can no longer run in isolation from each other; the team approach is vital to the studio's success. Excellent regular communication between the various subject leaders, year leaders and the program leader is required in case of any deviation from the planned schedule, to minimize the chance of a ripple effect of problems through all subjects. This close interaction reduces the flexibility for subject leaders to modify the timing or content of the core subjects as they progress through a semester, because changes may have significant implications for planned studio work. It also reduces the studio leader's freedom to improvise and explore topics as they arise, because of the possible impact on the 'feeder' subjects. The studio leader needs to be totally aware of all core subject content and the timing of that content to maximize learning, rather than repeating or pre-empting the content in the core subjects. Poor communication between the various parties can very easily result in a 'misalignment' of content. 3. SETTING THE RIGHT BLEND OF STUDIO ACTIVITIES Setting an appropriate blend of activities for students to complete in their studio program is a fine balancing act. A university subject usually requires all students to complete a standard set of tasks, such as assignments, unit tests, practical work and exams. In the studio we set a wide variety of tasks for students, and we do not set the same tasks for all students. Instead, students are required to submit a portfolio of work, which demonstrates their level of competence in various aspects of the practical application of the concepts covered in their core theory subjects during the year. The portfolio must include a range of elements (Berglund et al., 1997 & Grudy, 1997), and specifying the right balance between them requires difficult compromises between competing educational objectives. Some of the key compromises, which must be made in finding this balance, are: * Large projects vs. set assignment tasks: The studio program requires all students to work on large projects. This is essential for teaching them how to integrate their knowledge and apply it to real-life practical problems. However, it is not possible to find projects, which cover all the key concepts of the academic program appropriately. Therefore some traditional set assignments must also be included which require the students to produce work based around specific nominated themes. * Individual work vs. group work: Students working in groups do a significant proportion of studio work. Learning how to work in a project team is an important aspect of preparing for professional practice in information systems. However, group work requires division of labour between group members, which means that each student may be able to tackle only certain parts of a group assignment task. Therefore, each student's studio program must also include a range of individual work items to ensure that every student has the opportunity to work on all key aspects of the academic program. * Compulsory tasks vs. elective tasks: There are certain core skills which all students must practice, and in which they must demonstrate proficiency. The studio leader must decide whether to set compulsory tasks on which each student must work and demonstrate the required skills, or whether flexibility will be allowed for students to choose their own tasks. However, studio work also aims to give students some freedom to pursue independent study in areas of work in which they have a particular interest, or in which wish to develop special skills. The studio leader must decide how much freedom students will be given to follow these individual interests, and how much they will be required to devote themselves to their core studies. * Substantive course content vs. process content vs. reflective content: Broadly speaking, students must demonstrate skills across three main areas-substantive content (mastery of technical skills), process content, (group and project management), and reflective content (critical analysis, self-evaluation). Studio activities must be structured to ensure that the student's portfolio contains a blend of all three areas. Cutting across all these issues is the need to ensure equivalence of workload and comparability of performance for assessment purposes between students. Setting equitable criteria to assess a program, which can vary significantly in terms of content, process and workload is both difficult and time-consuming. Continuous monitoring of each student's portfolio is needed throughout the year. While the studio aims to provide a relatively unstructured teaching and learning environment, success is heavily dependent on a strong underlying structure governing the management and blend of studio activities chosen. 4. MANAGING STUDIO PROJECTS As discussed in the previous section, project work is a major component of the studio portfolio. The value of industry-based projects has been widely recognized (e.g. Grundy, 1997 & Stevens, 2000). They contribute significantly to the student's understanding of the whole range of skills required of a professional: technical issues concerning the application of theory to deal with practical problems, development process issues such as project planning and resource management, and professional practice issues such as working co-operatively in a team and interacting with a client. The requirement for students to work in teams on industry-based projects throughout the studio is a key element to preparing them for professional practice. Before introducing the studio-based programs we had had extensive experience with running major industrial experience projects for final year undergraduate computing students. Our experiences with them had a significant influence on the way we approached the incorporation of projects as part of the studio programs. However we found significant variations in student response, which have caused us to make changes to the role that projects play in studio work. Some of the main changes and the factors, which led us to make them, are as follows: * Industry focus: Initially all major project work was industry-based, with the students being required to build a product or system for a client. However, for some students, too much industry-based work was frustrating because they wanted the freedom to experiment and try things, which did not fit within the parameters of the projects they were working on. Having to structure a major part of their study program around work that tied them to a client's needs left them with too little time to explore new areas. On the other hand, there are also students who thrive on industry-based projects and want to be able to direct all their studio work in this area. * Timing: Initially students were expected to undertake client-based projects throughout each year of the course. For some students, the early introduction of industry work when they are still 'feeling their way' with aspects of the technical or theoretical content causes their stress levels to rise to the point where learning is hindered. However, other students are more capable of dealing with the stresses and the technical aspects of projects right from the start of their course. For them there is no need to delay. * Duration: Initially the client-based projects were fixed at one semester long in first year and two semesters long in second and third years. We found that for many students a series of long projects become tedious, and cause them to lose interest. Also, some students become frustrated with long projects, which require them to focus too much on the peculiarities of that project when they would prefer to try something new. By contrast, there are other students who like long projects which give them a clear consistent focus, and really enable them to 'get their teeth' into something. Our experiences with several different student cohorts have shown that flexibility in adapting and modifying the project requirements to student needs and capabilities is a key to success. Of all the elements of the studio program, the project component has posed the most difficulties and required the greatest degree of monitoring and control. However it has also provided the greatest benefits to students. Careful management of the quantity, timing, duration and focus of the project workload is needed to achieve success. 5. ENSURING THE RIGHT MIX OF TEACHING SKILLS Traditional modes of university teaching-lectures, tutorials and laboratory work-tend to place the academic staff member firmly at the center of the teaching/learning process. The academic's role is usually that of the expert who presents the information, which students must absorb. By contrast, the student's role is a relatively passive one-taking notes, responding to questions, and completing set tasks as required. One of the key aims of studio-based teaching is to take the focus off the academic staff and place the students at the center of the teaching/learning process (Trigwell et al.., 1994). Students must "learn how to learn" and take an active role in organizing and running aspects of their studio work (Entwhistle & Ramsden, 1983). Encouraging and facilitating this process requires a different and more varied set of skills than are involved in the normal university lecturing and tutoring environments. Adjusting to this different style and learning these skills is difficult for some academics trained in traditional modes of presentation and instruction. Specific areas in which studio teaching imposes demands that are significantly more onerous than those of normal university teaching are: * Breadth of knowledge: The need to integrate subject content from across all core subjects means that a studio leader must have a very good broad knowledge of all aspects of the course. It is more important that a studio leader be a generalist with a good understanding of all areas, rather than a specialist who has in-depth knowledge of one area and limited knowledge of others. Needs for specialist knowledge in specific areas can be addressed by calling in other staff to participate in studio sessions as required, but the studio leader must have sufficient breadth of knowledge to be able to integrate all aspects of the academic program. A studio leader must also be able to supplement their academic knowledge with a good general understanding of the nature of industry practice and professional work environments. * Range of teaching skills: The relatively unstructured nature of the studio syllabus imposes heavy responsibilities on a studio leader to be able to adapt, innovate and improvise to respond to student needs. A studio leader's role tends to be more one of team leader, rather than academic presenter. Like any good team leader, they must be sensitive to the changing moods of the student group, and be able to adjust their approach accordingly. * Student management skills: Students vary significantly in their ability to cope with the relatively unstructured nature of studio work. Some students take to it quickly and relish the freedom it accords them, but others may find it disconcertingly different from the style of classroom instruction to which they are accustomed. Typically there is a gradual progression as students adapt to the studio approach; initially many of them continue to demand a high degree of structure and direction, but over time they learn to take more responsibility for their own learning. The studio leader must monitor class progress and adjust their approach to suit the students' needs. * Team teaching: As discussed in an earlier section, close coordination between core subjects and the studio is essential. A studio leader must be able to work cooperatively with all teaching staff involved in the academic program to ensure that the right levels of communication and co-operation are achieved. Removing the academic staff from the focus of attention does not make the job of teaching any easier. In fact, our experience suggests that running studio sessions is a more intensive and demanding activity than normal lecturing or tutorial/laboratory work. It is worth noting that the skills and attitudes required of a studio leader do not necessarily match those of the stereotype of the university academic as a specialist researcher. 6. PROVIDING THE RIGHT PHYSICAL STUDIO ENVIRONMENT The physical layout of a teaching/learning space has a significant influence on student-teacher and student-student interaction. Traditional university teaching spaces-lecture theatres, tutorial/seminar rooms and laboratories-are usually not designed in a way, which meets studio objectives. They usually favor a didactic mode of teaching, and do not encourage the degree of student participation and interaction, which is central to the studio concept (Carbone et al., 2000). There is not a lot of published literature about designing studio layouts to suit the needs of an IT-based course. We have found it necessary to design and construct our own studio spaces to provide the sort of physical environment we need to support studio teaching. A specification was drawn up of the kinds of interaction, which had to be supported, and an architect was employed to design room and furniture layouts to suit. An existing teaching space was then renovated to provide several different spaces, each with a different purpose. Implementation of the design has shown a significant improvement on the existing 'standard' university room layouts, but we believe that our design still needs further refinement for optimum results. Details of aspects of the layout can be found in Carbone et al., (2000). The key design criteria, which we have identified for the studio layout, are: * Providing a variety of spaces: The studio needs to support a range of teaching and learning environments. For example, students need quiet spaces for individual study, formal group workspaces for team meetings and discussions of project work, and informal spaces, which enable a blend of social interaction and work. Academic staff need spaces, which facilitate seminar-style presentations, group discussions, product and system demonstrations and one-on-one discussion. Therefore, rather than being a single room, the studio needs to comprise a range of spaces to accommodate these different needs. * Flexibility of layout: Given that it is probably not feasible to provide enough separate rooms for each of the types of interaction which need to be supported, room layout and furnishing needs to be kept as flexible as possible to enable re-arrangement of the space to suit different interaction needs. * Room focus: As discussed in the previous section, one of the aims of studio work is to remove the academic staff from the focus of attention. The layout and furnishing of a room is a significant factor in influencing the dynamics of the interactions, which it supports. The design of studio spaces should facilitate collaborative discussion rather than didactic modes of instruction. * Furniture: Both the overall style of furnishings and the specific items of content should cater for the need to simulate professional work environments. Items such as personal and project storage spaces, white boards, display boards, presentation media and the like should all reflect the look and feel of a professional office, rather than a traditional student teaching space. A major issue in studio design for IT-based courses is the requirements for provision of computer access in all teaching/learning spaces. Workplace safety and ergonomic regulations for the use of screen-based equipment impose significant constraints on the flexibility of room layouts. We are experimenting with a number of options, such as the use of laptop machines to reduce the logistical problems of moving computers around, wireless connections to eliminate problems with networking cables, and long-life rechargeable batteries to remove the need for power supply connections. Ideally we would like to eliminate the constraints imposed by the needs for access to network connections, power supply and peripheral devices. 7. SETTING STANDARDS AND MAINTAINING THEM The issues described in this paper have emerged as crucial to the establishment of a successful studio-based teaching program. The practical experiences, which we have had in the implementation of studio-based subjects, have given us a strong feel for what is required to address each of these issues in terms of course and subject structure. However, one of the weaknesses we have found with the studio method is that it is not readily amenable to the establishment of standards, which can be used to guide and direct teaching staff who are not familiar with it as a teaching approach. It is difficult to identify clear specific measures which can be used to set standards or rules for content integration, the spread of assessment tasks, project management and the like. Schon's own work on studios that was used as the inspiration for our approach is very broad and general in its description of the application of the studio method, and lacks detail on implementation. He uses examples of studio-based instruction in a variety of disciplines to illustrate how the approach can work, but gives little in terms of specific guidance. We have had to find our own rules of thumb, sometimes through the painful process of trial and error. Our next task in terms of making the studio teaching method more user-friendly lies in converting our practical experience into specific guidelines and standards which can be passed on to other educators who wish to use this approach to teaching. We have already had some difficulties within our own institution in defining and describing the specific requirements for studio teaching in terms that can be readily understood and used by other teaching staff. We have had to maintain a strong hands-on involvement to ensure that teaching staff who have not had prior experience in studio-style teaching learn how to work in this new style. We aim to develop a written "manual of practice," which can help in this task. It should be stressed that we do not see such a manual as being overly prescriptive. Teaching staff need to be able to use a teaching method, which suits their own individual styles, and teaching techniques and a manual of practice should not constrain them in this. One of the strengths of the studio-based approach is that it actually permits a good deal more freedom than the traditional lecture theatre environment for staff to exploit their individual teaching skills. The problem remains one of ensuring that this flexibility can be exploited to advantage while still ensuring that the elements described in this paper, which we see as being critical to the success of studios, are not lost. 8. CONCLUSIONS This paper has briefly reviewed some of the key lessons we have learned about the elements, which are necessary to make our studio-based teaching program succeed. Studio teaching is very different to any other form of teaching, which the School has attempted in the past, and our implementation of the studios is still in its infancy. We are still learning about the most appropriate methods for carrying it out. The model is in a state of continuous improvement, and is likely to undergo further change as we gain experience in its use. Our approach to studio-based teaching is only one of many possible models, but our discussions with other institutions that are experimenting with this form of experiential learning indicate that the issues raised in this paper are common to many approaches. As with any significant innovation there have been teething problems. We have experimented with a wide variety of ideas, some of which have worked exceptionally well, but some of which have proved unsuccessful or too difficult to implement. In almost all cases, original ideas have had to be reconsidered and reworked in the light of practical experience. Studio teaching requires a major input of resources, not only in terms of time and physical infrastructure, but also in the investment of effort by academic staff in rethinking their approach to teaching and reworking their course materials. However, despite these difficulties, the responses of both students and staff to the model have been generally positive. Our experiences indicate that the studio offers substantial improvements to teaching and learning and has improved progress towards the teaching objectives listed earlier in this paper. Institutions that are interested in adopting studio-based teaching as a form of experiential learning should feel encouraged by our findings. We believe that our experiences provide a useful body of empirical data to assist educators who wish to experiment with this form of teaching. This paper has highlighted some of the key issues, which they need to address. 9. REFERENCES Arnott, D. and Atchison, M., (2000), Professional Engagement and Information Systems Education: Background, Critique and Directions for the Future in Proceedings of ISECON '97, (October), Orlando, Florida, USA. Berglund, A., Daniels, M. and Almstrum, V.L., (1997), A Smorgasbord of Pedagogical Dishes in Proceedings of ACSE '97, (July 1997) ACM Press, Melbourne, Australia. Carbone, A., Lynch, K. and Arnott, D., (2000), Introducing a Studio-based Learning Environment into Information Technology in Proceedings of ASET-HERDSA Conference 2000 (July), Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. Entwhistle, N. and Ramsden, P., (1983), Understanding Student Learning, London, Croom Helm Gonsalvez, C. and Atchison, M., (2000) Implementing Studios for Experiential Learning in Proceedings of Australian Computing Education Conference, ACE 2000, (December), Melbourne, Australia. Grundy, J.C., (1997), A Comparative Analysis of Design Principles for Project-based IT Courses in Proceeding of ACSE '97, (July 1997) ACM Press, Melbourne, Australia. Lake, K., (1994), Integrative Education in School Improvement Series, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratories, (May 1994), http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c016.html (accessed August 2000). Schon, D. A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, London, Jossey-Bass. Stevens, K. T. et al., (2000), Using Large Projects in a Computer Science Curriculum, Panel Discussion in Proceeding of SIGCSE 2000 (March 2000), ACM Press, Austin, Texas, USA. Trauth EM Farwell DW Lee D (1993) The IS Expectation Gap: Industry Expectations Versus Academic Preparation, MIS Quarterly, September Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Taylor, P. (1994) Qualitative Differences in Approaches to Teaching First Year University Science in Higher Education (27) Whiddett, R.J., Handy, J.A. and Pastor, J.L., (1997), Cross-Sectional Case Studies: Integrating Case Studies and Projects in I.S. Management Education in Proceeding of ACSE '97, (July 1997) ACM Press, Melbourne, Australia.