Online Design Studios as Scaffolding for ePortfolio Development in a Capstone Course

Penny Thompson

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Context

Capstone course for Master of Arts in Education and Master of Arts in Educational Technology programs.

Requires an online portfolio containing reflective essays and samples of work from the master’s degree program.

Students have varying levels of expertise with web development; many have never created a website.

Course goals:•Prompt students to reflect on their learning in the program•Prompt students to create a professional website that will help them in their current and future careers•Satisfy the university requirements for a master’s degree comprehensive exam

Challenges

Design Studio in the Capstone Course

Students assigned to small groups (called “houses”) of 4- 5 others with shared interests

Weekly assignments require them to explore web hosting options, choose an option for their portfolios, create the site, and post required elements

Weekly discussion requirement to introduce their own work and comment on the work of their housemates

Students receive points for on-time weekly postings that make up a small portion of their final grade. The quality of their work is not graded until the end of the semester.

Focus on iterative design of the portfolio based on peer feedback in a supportive community of critical friends (Costa & Kallick, 1993)

Students must complete multiple simultaneous tasks: choosing and learning a web development platform, learning web design skills, gathering samples of work, reflecting on learning and writing thoughtful essays.

Instructors face competing responsibilities: guiding students toward appropriate professional design while encouraging ownership, creativity, and communication to an authentic audience (which may be different for each student).

The online format and the constantly changing selection of website hosting options make it difficult for instructors to provide technical support to each student while still focusing on larger course goals.

Presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy, February 8, 2012

Addressing the Challenges

The design studio approach is well suited to addressing the teaching and learning challenges of the capstone course.

The design studio approach makes the task more manageable for students.

•Emphasis on iterative design breaks the large complex project into manageable intermediate tasks. [Iterative design]•Frequent peer critique provides authentic feedback in a safe atmosphere. [Instructor and peer critique]•Informal atmosphere of discussion houses allows multiple design issues to be discussed, depending on the specific needs of each student. [Discussion of heterogeneous issues]•Design principles, past semester exemplary work, and the emerging work of housemates provide context and a vision for the end product. [Use of precedents and “big picture” thinking]•Assigned structure provides a manageable boundary for the project without imposing excessively detailed requirements. [Productive use of constraints]•Early feedback but delayed grading gives students space for playful exploration of the affordances and constraints of their chosen hosting site. [Engagement with the affordances and constraints of the media]

The design studio approach helps the instructors balance competing responsibilities of providing guidance while supporting autonomy and authentic work.

•The portfolio is a complex, open-ended task so the design studio approach is pedagogically appropriate and well-suited to the task. [Project-based work on complex, open-ended problems]•Iterative process allows instructors to assign one large complex task rather than artificially breaking it into separate components. [Iterative design]•Frequent peer critique combined with two instructor critiques per semester (mid-semester and final grading) provides regular feedback and adequate instructor guidance while still giving students room to explore. [Instructor and peer critique]•Semi-structured online discussion format allows each student to receive personalized support for their unique design challenges based on their specific goals for their portfolio. [Discussion of heterogeneous issues]•Instructors provide examples and “best practices” while discussion houses provide space for students to explore and negotiate the application of these best practices to their own work. [Use of precedents and “big picture” thinking]•Instructor and university requirements can be introduced as constraints while still allowing students flexibility on how to work within the constraints. [Productive use of constraints]•Because a bit of struggle with the affordances and constraints of media is beneficial for learning, instructors “step back” and focus on the larger goals, allowing students to learn the technical aspects of web design through independent exploration and peer assistance. (Students are encouraged to ask for technical help from instructors if other options are not sufficient.) [Engagement with the affordances and constraints of the media]

Acknowledgements

The Master’s Capstone Course in the College of Education at Michigan State University was designed and developed by Dr. Patrick Dickson (pdickson@msu.edu), a passionate believer in the value of ePortfolio as a vehicle for showcasing authentic work for an authentic audience. It is currently taught under the direction of Dr. Matthew Koehler (mkoehler@msu.edu). Sample syllabi for the capstone course can be found at http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/teaching/.

References

Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The Studio experience at the University of Georgia: an example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755-780. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2 Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49-51. Kuhn, S. (1998). Studio : An Exploration. IEEE Software, (April), 2-6.

The Design Studio ApproachKuhn (1998) defines the design studio as a teaching and learning approach that features:•Project-based work on complex, open-ended problems•Iterative design•Instructor and peer critique•Discussion of heterogeneous issues•Use of precedents and “big picture” thinking•Productive use of constraints•Engagement with the affordances and constraints of the media

Clinton and Rieber (2010) list the theoretical underpinnings of the design studio approach for teaching and learning:•Constructionism – based on the work of Seymour Papert, this application of constructivist learning theory emphasizes the construction of a personally meaningful concrete artifact as a vehicle for reflection and learning•Situated learning – learning occurs in a meaningful context and learners are gradually integrated into a community of practice through legitimate peripheral participation•Self-directed learning – learners decide for themselves what to learn and how to approach the challenge.

The type of conversation that occurs in the design studio reflects the concept of critical friends: “a trusted person who asks provocative question, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person’s work as a friend” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 49-50).

Contact Information

Address questions about this poster presentation to Penny Thompson, doctoral candidate in the College of Education at Michigan State University, thomp850@msu.edu.