Résumés
Résumé
L’enseignement dans les ateliers de projet fait face à des défis d’innovation pédagogique. L’approche pédagogique la plus commune jusqu’à maintenant est la critique, laquelle se réalise dans un environnement basé sur l’apprentissage par projet. Or l’approche que nous proposons comme stratégie pédagogique innovante se base sur le codesign actif et se positionne à l’opposée d’une approche traditionnelle basée sur la revue des projets. Elle a été appliquée à un atelier de design industriel en vue d’étudier son apport et ses caractéristiques, tel qu’ils ont été perçus par les étudiants, en comparaison avec la critique traditionnelle. Des éléments clés se distinguent tels que les nouveaux rôles de l’enseignant qui changent selon la situation (manager, designer-expert, consultant, « chalengeur »), le ressenti des étudiants (moins de stress, plus de confiance à s’exprimer et à réfléchir à haute voix, meilleure génération d’idées, environnement collaboratif) et la contribution des participants.
Mots-clés :
- Innovation pédagogique,
- approche codesign,
- co-idéation,
- atelier de projet,
- critique
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Achten, H. (2002). Requirements for collaborative design in architecture. Dans H. Timmermans (Éd.), Sixth design & decision support systems in architecture & urban planning conference (pp. 1-13). Repéré à http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?ddssar0201
- Adams, R. S., Cardella, M., & Purzer, Ş. (2016). Analyzing design review conversations : Connecting design knowing, being and coaching. Design Studies, (45), 1-8.
- Adams, R. S., Forin, T., Chua, M., & Radcliffe, D. (2016). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. Design Studies, (45), 30-67.
- Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge : Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management studies, 38(6), 811-829.
- Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial : The renaissance of the design studio (1re éd.). New York, NY : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
- Appleton, J. V. (1995). Analysing qualitative interview data : Addressing issues of validity andreliability. Journal of advanced nursing, 22(5), 993-997.
- Basa, I., & Şenyapili, B. (2005). The (in)secure position of the design jury towards computer generated presentations. Design Studies, 26(3), 257-270.
- Baudrit, A. (2007). L’apprentissage collaboratif : plus qu’une méthode collective? Bruxelles : De Boeck Université.
- Beaudry-Marchand, E., Dorta, T., & Pierini, D. (2018). Influence of immersive contextual environments on collaborative ideation cognition. Through design conversations, gestures and sketches. Dans A. Kepczynska-Walczak, & S. Bialkowski (Éds), Computing for a better tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th eCAADe Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 795-804). Lodz : Lodz University of Technology.
- Beaudry-Marchand, E., Han, X., & Dorta, T. (2017). Immersive retrospection by video-photogrammetry : UX assessment tool of interactions in museums, a case study. Dans A. Fioravanti, S. Cursi, S. Elahmar, S. Gargaro, G. Loffreda, G. Novembri, & A. Trento (Éds), ShoCK! – Sharing computational knowledge!Proceedings of the 35th eCAADe Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 729-738), Rome : Sapienza University of Rome.
- Boudhrâa, S., Dorta, T., Milovanovic, J., & Pierini, D. (2019). Co-ideation critique unfolded : An exploratory study of a co-design studio ‘crit’based on the students’ experience. CoDesign. DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2019.1572765
- Boulée, N. (2011). La méthode de l’auto-confrontation : une méthode bien adaptée à l’investigation de l’activité de recherche d’information? Études de communication, 35(2), 47-60.
- Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies, 9(3), 159-168.
- Cardoso, C., Eriş, Ö., Badke-Schaub, P., & Aurisicchio, M. (2014). Question asking in design reviews : How does inquiry facilitate the learning interaction? Communication présentée au DTRS 10 : Design Thinking Research Symposium, Université Purdue, États-Unis.
- Carver, R. (1996). Theory for practice : A framework for thinking about experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(1), 8-13.
- Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition : Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. Dans C. Eastman, W. Newstatter, & M. McCracken (Éds), Design knowing and learning : Cognition in design education (pp. 79-103). Oxford : Elsevier. Repéré à http://oro.open.ac.uk/3285/1/Design%20Cognition.pdf
- Curry, T. (2014). A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies, 35(6), 632-646.
- Daly, S. R., & Yilmaz, S. (2015). Directing convergent and divergent activity through design feedback. Dans R. S. Adams & J. A. Saddiqui (Éds), Analyzing design review conversations (Vol. 21, pp. 413-429). West Lafayette, IN : Purdue University Press.
- Dannels, D. P., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Critiquing critiques : A genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 135-159.
- Darses, F. (1997). L’ingénierie concourante : un modèle en meilleure adéquation avec les processus cognitifs de conception. Dans P. Brossard, C. Chanchevrier, & P. Leclair (Éds), Ingénierie concourante : de la technique au social (pp. 39-55). Paris : Economica.
- Darses, F. (2006). Analyse du processus d’argumentation dans une situation de reconception collective d’outillages. Le travail humain, 69(4), 317-347.
- Dinham, S. M. (1989). Teaching as design : Theory, research and implications for design teaching. Design Studies, 10(2), 80-88.
- Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process : Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
- Dorta, T., Kalay, Y., Lesage, A., & Pérez, E. (2011). First steps of the augmented design studio : The interconnected hybrid ideation space and the CI loop. Dans C. M. Herr, N. Gu, S. Roudavsky, & M. A. Schnabel (Éds), Circuit bending, breaking and mending : Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia CAADRIA 2011 (pp. 271-280). Repéré à http://www.hybridlab.umontreal.ca/documents/27-caadria2011.pdf
- Dorta, T., & Kinayoglu, G. (2014). Towards a new representational ecosystem for the design studio. Dans N. Gu, S. Watanabe, H. Erhan, H. Haeusler, W. Huang, & R. Sosa (Éds), Rethinking comprehensive design : Speculative counterculture. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Association of Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia CAADRIA 2014 (pp. 699-708). Repéré à http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2014_022.content.pdf
- Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., & Boudhraâ, S. (2016). A new representational ecosystem for design teaching in the studio. Design Studies, (47), 164-186.
- Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., & Hoffmann, M. (2015). Hyve-3D and rethinking the “3D cursor”: unfolding a natural interaction model for remote and local co-design in VR. Repéré à http://www.hybridlab.umontreal.ca/documents/40-siggraph2015.pdf
- Drăgan, A., & Ganea, A. (2013). Approche pragmatique de la relation enseignant-apprenant. Les actes de langage dans le contexte didactique. Synergies Roumanie, (8), 31-41.
- Dutton, T. A. (1991). The hidden curriculum and the design studio. Dans T. A. Dutton (Éd.), Voices in architectural education. Cultural politics and pedagogy (pp. 165-194). New York, NY : Bergin and Garvey.
- Esnault, L., Zeiliger, R., & Vermeulin, F. (2006). On the use of actor-network theory for developing web services dedicated to communities of practice. Dans E. Tomadaki, & P. Scott (Éds), Innovative approaches for learning and knowledge sharing, EC-TEL 2006 Workshops Proceedings, ISSN 1613-0073 (pp. 298-306). Repéré à http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-213/paper42.pdf
- Ferreira, J., Christiaans, H., & Almendra, R. (2014). Design grammar - a pedagogical approach for observing teacher and student interaction. Communication présentée au DTRS 10 : Design Thinking Research Symposium, Université Purdue, États-Unis.
- Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century : Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design issues, 17(1), 5-17.
- Goffin, K., & Koners, U. (2011). Tacit knowledge, lessons learnt, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 300-318.
- Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity research journal, 4(2), 123-143.
- Goldschmidt, G. (2002). “One-on-one” : A pedagogic base for design instruction in the studio. Dans D. Durling, & J. Shackleton (Éds), Proceedings of “Common Ground”,Design Research Society International Conference (pp. 430-437). Stoke-on-Trent : Staffordshire University Press.
- Goldschmidt, G., Casakin, H., Avidan, Y., & Ronen, O. (2014). Three studio critiquing cultures : Fun follows function or function follows fun? Communication présentée au DTRS 10 : Design Thinking Research Symposium 2014, Université Purdue, West Lafayette, États-Unis.
- Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit” : Teacher–student communication. AI EDAM, 24(3), 285-302.
- Gravel, P. (2014). Le design participatif au sein d’entreprises : une exploration des opportunités et limites perçues par des concepteurs de produits (Thèse de doctorat inédite). Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
- Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11.
- Jin, Y., & Lu, S.-Y. (2004). Agent based negotiation for collaborative design decision making. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 53(1), 121-124.
- Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation : the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613-624.
- King, P. E., Young, M. J., & Behnke, R. R. (2000). Public speaking performance improvement as a function of information processing in immediate and delayed feedback interventions. Communication Education, 49(4), 365-374.
- Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies, 29(4), 369-386.
- Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design : What is it? Automation in construction, 9(4), 409-415.
- Maher, M. L., Cicognani, A., & Simoff, S. (1996). An experimental study of computer mediated collaborative design. Dans The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc (Éd.), Proceedings of the 5th workshop on the enabling technologies : Infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (pp. 268-273). Los Alamitos, CA : IEEE Computer Society Press.
- Mattelmäki, T., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2011). Lost in co-X. Interpretations of co-design and co-creation. Dans L.-L. C. Norbert Roozenburg (Éd.), Proceedings of IASDR’11, 4th World Conference on design research, Delft University. Repéré à https://window874.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mattelmaki_lost-in-cox_fin-1.pdf
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis : A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
- Moles, A. A., & Rohmer, E. (1986). Théorie structurale de la communication et société. Paris : Masson.
- Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302-325.
- Oxman, R. (2001). The mind in design : A conceptual framework for cognition in design education. Dans C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Éds), Design knowing and learning : Cognition in design education (pp. 105-124). Oxford : J. Elsevier Science Ltd.
- Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,4(2), 155-169.
- Sachs, A. (1999). ‘Stuckness’ in the design studio. Design Studies, 20(2), 195-209.
- Salman, H. S., Laing, R., & Conniff, A. (2014). The impact of computer aided architectural design programs on conceptual design in an educational context. Design Studies, 35(4), 412-439.
- Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.
- Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio : An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London : Riba publications.
- Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design : Principles and practices. New York, NY : CRC Press.
- Steen, M. (2011). Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign, 7(1), 45-60.
- Steen, M. (2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design issues, 29(2), 16-28.
- Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2) 2011, 53-60.
- Ştefan, L. (2012). Immersive collaborative environments for teaching and learning traditional design. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 1056-1060.
- Taylor, D. G., Magleby, S. P., Todd, R. H., & Parkinson, A. R. (2001). Training faculty to coach capstone design teams. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 353-358.
- Tomes, A., Oates, C., & Armstrong, P. (1998). Talking design : negotiating the verbal-visual translation. Design Studies, 19(2), 127-142.
- Uluoǧlu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33-58.
- Valkenburg, R. (2001). Schön revised : Describing team designing with reflection-in-action. Proceedings of DTRS, 5, 315-329.
- van Dooren, E., van Merriënboer, J., Boshuizen, H., van Dorst, M., & Asselbergs, M. (2017). Architectural design education : in varietate unitas. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 431-449.
- Visser, W. (2010). Visser : Design as construction of representations. Collection Art + Design & Psychology, (2), 29-43.
- Visser, W., & Maher, M. L. (2011). The role of gesture in designing. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM), 25(3), 213-220.
- Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 173-183.
- Yalman, Z., & Yavuzcan, H. G. (2015). Co-design practice in industrial design education in Turkey : A participatory design project. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2244-2250.
- Yanar, A. (2007). Knowledge, skills, and indoctrination in studio pedagogy. Dans M. Salama, & N. Wilkinson (Éds), Design studio pedagogy : Horizons for the future (pp. 63-73). Gateshead : The urban international press.