Abstract:

While the majority of students enrolled in design programs represent traditional university students, a significant minority of enrollees are non-traditional students. These students are typically older, have worked in a profession, may be completing a second college degree, and are often married. The number of these students enrolled in design programs increased following the economic crisis of 2009, and numbers have remained elevated (The UK Architectural Education Review Group, 2013). While there has been a substantial amount of research done on the experiences of non-traditional students at universities, there has been very little research done on these students in design fields (Bowl, Marion, 2001; Gilardi and Guglielmetti, 2011). This is an important distinction because the nature of studio learning places a unique set of conditions upon students, and the existent research on non-traditional university students may not accurately describe the experience of non-traditional design students (Schön, 1985).

This research looks at the experience and preferences of non-traditional students in landscape architecture programs in the United States. As part of this research, a national survey was conducted of students enrolled in accredited landscape architecture programs. The survey questions were developed through focus groups held at multiple universities. The survey identified critical factors that impacted a student’s decision to utilize the design studio and, from these responses, several important distinctions emerged between traditional and non-traditional students in their attitude towards the design studio.

The results found statistically significant differences in attitudes regarding social interaction factors. Non-traditional students preferred to spend less time in the studio with their peers and, when in studio, they preferred being able to work in isolation, eschewing the open-layout that is associated with a traditional design studio. Non-traditional students also exhibited markedly different opinions on nearly all other social factors related to design studio pedagogy.

The implications of these findings suggest that traditional design studio pedagogy may be at odds with the attitudes and needs of non-traditional students. While it is unrealistic to dramatically alter design studio pedagogy to meet the needs of non-traditional students, there are several adjustments that could improve the experience for non-traditional students. These factors include holding studio courses earlier in the day, providing a variety of study and work spaces within the studio, and encouraging social interaction via new technologies, such as social media, to facilitate building rapport with their peers outside of the studio.

References:
[1] Bowl, M. (2001). Experiencing the barriers: non-traditional students entering higher education. Research papers in Education. 16(2), 141-160.
[2] Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education. 82(1), 33-53.
[3] Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials (pp. 1–48). London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
[4] The UK Architectural Education Review Group. (2013). Pathways and gateways: the structure and regulation of architectural education (pp. 1–72). The UK Architectural Education Review Group.

Keywords:

Design education, design studio pedagogy, non-traditional student, higher education, landscape architecture.