Studio pedagogy has been studied only recently as a method of teaching art and design disciplines. Most of the previous studies are related to field of architecture, but during past decade advantages of this type of teaching practice has increasingly attained interest also in other design disciplines. Characteristic of the studio pedagogy are methods, that are based on learning-by-doing and reflection-in-action, which are practiced through the projects, ending to public presentation for critique.

In the present study, I approach studio pedagogy as a central method in educating future designers especially to the professional field of textile and Textile design. The context of my research is taking place at The Department of Textile, Clothing and Textile Design, as a programme of Pakistan Institute of Fashion & Textile Design(PIFD). Design students’ original collections has achieved notable success at international competitions and trade fairs recent years and teaching methods concerning especially innovative and holistic approach to design interest me the most. Studio teaching is easily associated with creativity. At the core of that method, there is an intentional aim to foster creativity through an intensive working process. Importance of creativity is taken seriously at many professional fields in society, and for example in the latest renewing of the curriculum at the Finnish elementary school -level, creativity is very often mentioned as a learning target. It is seen as an essential 21st century skill in order to solve – or putting efforts to solve – complex problems of our world.

Another aim of the study is to describe pedagogical views behind the teaching practices chosen. Theoretical approach to this study is based on R. Keith Sawyer’s  research results concerning teaching and learning creativity in schools of art and design. His concept of the studio model is a ground also for my theme interview questions. I approach my research task with ethnographic method, and in addition to four interviews, I conducted two observation sessions; one in the Woven Fabric Studio and another in the Fabric Printing Studio. The main research data consists of the information from Associate Professor in Design, especially Textile Research, Adjunct Professor in 3D Surface Design, especially Textile Materials, University Teacher of Textile design and two Workshop Masters of the Soft Studios. Theme interview questions  were  equal  for  the two lecturers, and tailored for Workshop Masters and Associate Professor, also Head of Textile, Clothing and Textile MA and Textile BA –programmes, in order to get their point of view concerning studio practices and the operational system in general.

In present study, materiality gets some special attention because it has a fundamental role in designing. Material explorations are central processes when developing and designing the textile collections, whether for interior or Textile purposes. Studio pedagogy enables inquiry-based actions and embodied practices, and thus combines learning by doing and learning with the help of the instructor as expert coach.  In this study, I approach studio practices in the context of teaching and learning at the university level education. First, however, I present a few conceptions of the studios, mostly based on the recent studio studies. Further I take a compact look on the epistemology of the studios, as it is important to recognize some of the complex relations of studio practices as valued cultural actions.

Farias and Wilkie [1] points out, that there are several different forms of studios to explore and that we should not see studios as a tightly demarcated place. Studio sites represented in latest studies, are multifaceted workplaces; in addition to the field of visual arts studios (ateliers) they are known in advertising and many other genres of design. Engaging with the studio means “closely studying the situations in and through which distributed creation processes take place [2].”  Studio is usually approached as a key site for the production of cultural artifacts. By researching studios, we can also find out how creativity operates as a situated practice or process. Many micro-level case studies reported in literature offer also a view to many other studio formats. Studios as a learning environment are examined mostly through the context of architecture education. For example, Shaffer has had ethnographic studies of architecture studies at MIT. He describes the studio as a unique learning environment, where surface structures (i.e. 'the physical, temporal, material and social context of action and interaction), pedagogical activities (i.e. 'the recurrent participant structures of roles and actions that organize activity in the studio') and epistemology interact.

Roots of the studio are found in apprenticeship-driven artisan training. Model of the master craftsman and their student developed into the atelier-based system in France during the early nineteenth century. The french model was refined then through influences of German Bauhaus in the early-twentieth century. Several decades ago studio-based teaching was introduced in U.S. and since 1990s studio method has been used in many disciplines suchas chemistry, mathematics, physics and computer science. Studio is described the 'signature pedagogy' in many disciplines [3].

Design process can be seen as iterative cycle; thus students continue refining their work to direction they gained from the feedback of critique session. Student’s representational modes of their work include drawings, sketches, prototypes etc. Self-reflection of the process is seen important as well.  Schön proposed studios to be places providing ”freedom to learn by doing in a setting relatively low in risk, with access to coaches who initiate students into the ’traditions of the calling’ and help them, by ’the right kind of telling’ to see on their own behalf and in their own way what they need most to see.”

Creativity-enhancing pedagogy can be seen as the mission of studio teaching. Academic research has been increasingly made especially during the past ten years within topics such as creativity, design thinking, collaboration and creative learning processes. There are numerous different definitions for creativity, depending on the field of discipline or knowledge. In education, there are studies for example about creativity’s social and collaborative nature [4], about creativity potential that everyone is supposed to have [5], and about creativity’s empowering effect inside social structures and schools [6]. Creativity has been considered crucial part of invention making and design practices. During the 21^st century scholarly research has been made. It focuses on context and conditions that enable creativity to flourish, because of demands of so called ‘creative industry’. Creativity has emerged as a central category when discussed about social and individual wellbeing as well as economic prosperity. There has been stabilized new vocabulary around creativity such as ‘creative class’, ‘creative cities’ and ‘creative industries’. Novelty and novel ideas are largely desired and appreciated. Studies of cultural production has been focusing on broader social, industrial and institutional contexts [7].

The point of using design thinking as a learning target, and studio teaching as a method also in field of general education, is based on the nature of design process. We need to develop constructive and also critical thinking skills. Nature of design is constructive, normative and creative, while science is comparably concidered analytic. Designer faces ill-defined (or wicked) problems, and tries to produce the solution. ”Designing is a process of pattern synstudy, rather than pattern recognition.” The development of cognitive skills and abilities can be developed to higher levels and critical thinking becomes necessary within solving particular kind of problems, further communication and nonverbal thought is developed [8]. In addition to concidering design as creative process, it is seen also a social process. Among several  scholars, design thinking is an approach to learning, involving hands-on projects, inquiry, investigations, sketching, prototyping, collaboration, feedback and reflection or possible redesigns of created products or ideas. Burnette has framed design thinking with his model ‘Design for Thinking (iDESiGN),’ introducing seven models of thinking; intending, defining, exploring, suggesting, innovating, goal-getting and knowing. Thus, design thinking can be summed as ‘a cross disciplinary creative problem-solving process’ that involves analytical and creative thinking, as well as practical skills.

The theoretical framework of my study anchors to the studio model formed by Dr. R. Keith Sawyer, one of the world’s leading experts on the creativity and educational research. His latest publication sheds light on teaching and learning creativity in schools of art and design in U.S. In this main chapter, his research is particularly referred, as it offers an encompassing overview of the conventions of studio teaching. Also conceptions of creativity will be shortly referred. Before the ethnographic study of certain schools, Sawyer made empirical studies on both fields on K-12 education and higher education, with art and design disciplines and 2017 published a systematic literature review, the meta study of the studio pedagogy. For that, he collected data from wide range of databases, further making content analysis ending up to 65 peer-reviewed journal article for the final grounded theory analysis. The majority of the articles concerned higher education, and the aim was to search for the pedagogical practices found in art and design studio classrooms.

Sawyer summarized his findings about art and design pedagogies in three clusters with including themes as following

Pedagogical practices

• The pedagogy is flexible, open- ended and improvisational 

• Students are active and independent 

• The classroom is a community of practice 

• The pedagogies of professional creatives 

• The tension between open-ended assignments and the need for structure, Learning outcomes 

• The creative process of making 

• The tension between technical skills and creativity 8 Non-academic personality outcomes 

• Student confusion about the learning outcomes and Assessment 

• Assessment through feedback and critique

• Use of rubrics

The studio model 

A cultural model of teaching and learning – has its ground in the cultural model theory. In learning sciences, there emerged the sociocultural turn in the 1980s. Sawyer's study examines the cultural models associated with professional education. Defined with the words of d' Andrade “a cultural model is cognitive schema that is intersubjectively shared by a social group.” According to Quinn & Holland,  in this type of research the aim is to find out and understand “what people must know in order to act as they do, make things they make, and interpret their experience in the distinctive way they do.” For a full understanding of tacit beliefs and practices, ethnographic method is commonly used to observe situated social practices. Thus, fuller understanding in this study focuses on creative teaching and learning.

By using grounded theory methodology, the researcher had then a tool to “elicit both the explicit and the tacit aspects of the cultural model people use, and to interpret participants' tacit meanings.” From those meaning units (two- to five-sentence groupings of talk on the same topic) made of interviews and observations, was then identified the themes by four stages, that ended up to 45 emergent themes, and were then gathered in three clusters:

• Learning outcomes

• Project assignments 

• Classroom practices. In the end, these three clusters formulate the studio model.

Sawyer's first research question was: Is creativity an intended learning outcome in art and design programs, and if so, what conception of creativity? Cluster one is about learning outcomes, with specific 14 themes from the interviews [4]. The study showed, that the most important learning outcome in art and design schools was the creativity conceived of as a process. The creative process is iterative and nonlinear, and ideas are emerged from working with the materials. Predetermined conception of the final outcome should not be the target, but the final work should emerge from the process. The process is open-ended, and students have to make decisions and focus when discovering their own way of doing the project. Discipline-specific learning outcomes are best learned within the creative process and students’ need also to learn how to do research in their discipline; to evaluate what has been done before, but that takes place after they have followed their own path first. Learning how to see was thought important. It is based on  the knowledge of how and why certain decisions were made in the process of generating the work. Students are taught, for example, to see also the negative space. If it is not taught intentionally, students can not be consciously aware of how those negative spaces impact them. In the same way professors want students to learn how to think. It is seen very intentional and very important, and as the sculptor put it: "the point of the class is not to build a thing, but how you think when you are building." [4] Many examples of techniques were introduced opportunistically. Prerequisite lower-level technical skills were not concidered the starting point of a learning process. Creativity, problem solving and critical thinking should be with the process from the very beginning. The research of the own discipline should be taught so, that first there is work, problem solving and own path, then, if needed, looking at precedents.

Sawyer’s second research question was: “What pedagogical beliefs and practices are found in art and design schools?” He found that project assignments and classroom practices are designed to lead to creativity, conceived of as mastery of the creative process. Mastery of the creative process can be seen the primary goal of art and design education [4].

Classroom practices

By observing interactional formats in studio classes, there arose ten themes in classroom practices, which guide students toward mastery of the creative process. Students were encouraged to be more concious and deliberate with their processes. Professors and peers were discussing about the work in progress presented shortly during class sessions. Students are pushed to be very detailed and specific in their reflections about their aims and work done by that. This method enables students to be more deliberate, to learn making decisions, to learn how to see, and generally foster their metacognitive and reflective abilities, experiment in the presence of ambiguity.

There is also the PIFD, that experiments lead to dead ends, the idea is not working, so a new way forward should be found. The initial intent of the final work often fails, and those mismatches are used as a guide to see, and to use them to continue toward other ideas, and directions. The essential thing is, that the articulation and reflection is constant, and it has to be like that, since that “leads to a more advanced ability to see and think about creative work.” Students are helped to discover their own aesthetic. Therefore professors abstains from telling if they liked the student’s work or not. The focus should not be on the final work’s looks, but driving the process forward [4]. Modern creativity research began approximately 65 years ago and the conception of creativity was restricted to show it as a personality trait. In 1970s, a few researchers suggested that creativity could be taught and creativity training programs were developed. Recently, many extracurricular activities have been particularly arranged to emphasize students' creativity. Some evidence of success is found but only in programs that continued for a long time. 

Sawyer [4] described four different conceptions of creativity, from which the first one is creativity seen as a personality trait. The conception leading from the 1950s believes that creativity is relatively fixed, and from the educator’s point of view, students should be taught to realize their pre-existing creative potential. Another concept is creativity as self- expression, that is associated with Romanticism and Freudian psychoanalysis. Believing in that conception means that creativity can be released from possible blocks, by discovering his or her inner voice. The third conception explains creativity as a moment of insight. Pedagogically it can be exercised with enhancing cognitive processes associated with idea generation, for example divergent thinking and analogy. This conception is created by the Gestalt psychologist, who suggested that an insight comes from a sudden restructuring of the mind. The fourth conception of creativity suggests that creativity is a process. Only this conception arose strongly from the grounded theory analysis made from the collected data. Recent empirical studies shows strongly, that an artist or a designer should be engaged in an iterative process and small ideas occurring frequently within the process, is the core of creativity [4].

The third research question of the study described above was: “To what extent are creativity conceptions, and creativity pedagogies, common across art and design disciplines, and across different schools?” The question was further answered by the result that all 15 disciplines and all 8 institutions share the same conception of creativity and the same pedagogical beliefs and practices [4].

Research Questions

In my study, the aim is to examine studio pedagogy as a central teaching method when educating future design professionals to the field of textile and Textile. This research is taking place in Department of Textile, Clothing and Textile Design, as a one major program of Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Textile Design. The studio is common name for learning environment designs within which creative work is practiced under the guidance of an instructor (Sawyer 2017, 100). Hands-on studio practices have used to be part of Finnish design education for a long time, but within past few years, efforts have been put to open studios available for all students interested, regardless of their different major study programs. As there are always beliefs and visions counting behind every pedagogical decision made, they also are examined in this research. The main research question is

• What kind of pedagogical elements and views are found behind the studio practices at the Department of Textile, Clothing and Textile?

Approaching above question, I used R. Keith Sawyer’s the studio model as a ground theory. His research refers, that creative process is generally concidered the principal learning outcome in art and design disciplines. It also shows, that project assignments and classroom practices are designed to scaffold mastery of the creative process. Creativity is commonly conceived in particular as a process, not for example a personality trait or result of self-expression. (Sawyer 2018, 140.) In this study, I use clusters of the studio model – project assignments, classroom practices and learning outcomes – as a central themes for setting the questions for the instructors interviewed.

Another research question emerged from the data collected from interviews and observations:

• What requirements are needed when operating studio pedagogy?

Studio pedagogy obviously needs special arrangements. It seems to be a rather complex puzzle of different arguments to be constructed in order to serve the learner centerness as well as follow and renew pedagogy to meet strategical and professional design field’s demands. Various collaborations and multidisciplinary course settings are offered in order to achieve new perspectives and aspects to learning practices.

Context

Pakistan Institute of Fashion and Textile Design (PIFD) is a multidisciplinary and international university in Pakistan. In its present form, school became operational in 2010 , Pakistan Institute of Textile and Design also referred to as PIFD, is a public design institution primarily located in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. It was established in 1994 as the Pakistan School of Textile and Design by the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan, a department within the Ministry of Commerce and Textile Industry. The close collaboration between the textile industry, business and arts communities is intended to foster multi-disciplinary education and research. The Pakistan government, in November 2010, set out to grant the institute a degree awarding charter enabling to provide degrees recognized by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.

Department of Textile Design

This study focuses on examining conventions of studio pedagogy operated in the department of Textile Design. This department is part of the Department of Design. The dynamic textile design program at PIFD aims to develop individual artistic skills along with meeting the industrial demands globally. The program encourages the students to explore various dimensions of textile applications for certain target groups. Students are exposed to both conceptual & technical aspects of textile design. This helps them to recognize fabric qualities, use of appropriate fibers, yarns, constructions, ornaments and special surface finishes to develop various fabrics in relating to final products. The four-year degree offers specialization in either home or apparel design.
 Students get opportunity to learn skills like weaving, knitting, printing and special finishing. They work directly in the labs on campus that are equipped with the latest tools and Industrial machinery. They are also exposed to specialized fields i.e. textile marketing & merchandizing, and textile pricing.

Research Method

The intention in my study is to gain information and describe the principles of the pedagogical elements and views operated in specific design learning environments. My research approach is qualitative and there are certain ethnographic elements in it. According to many sociologists, the qualitative research as part of the human sciences has been conceived as a method that is targeting to contextualization and interpretations and it aims to deep understanding of the subjects’ point of views. The researcher tries to get closer to those senses, that people give for certain events or phenomena’s [9]. Especially individual context can be better understood, when taking the study into the real-life environments.

It is typical in qualitative research, that there is no aim to reach the statistical generalization, but to describe the elements of the phenomena, to achieve understanding of it and give a pleasant theoretical interpretation of it. While the research setting is based on the field of education and especially practice-based learning, ethnographic approach feels like a very practical way of gaining information. Ethnography as a methodological basis can be thought as a special way to create new reconstructed cultural knowledge, mixing theoretical knowledge and dialogical interpretations of the collected data. The final research art PIFD is then a description or narrative of the phenomenon [10].

Collecting the data

Semi-structured interview leans on prefound themes, and questions are defined from them. Themes chosen in advance are practically based on framework of the study and consists of the preconception of the matter. There is also an assumption, that informants are seeing the topic – in this case studio pedagogy and creativity – mainly same way as the themes assume [11]. Since the framework of this study is based on Keith Sawyers recent study of teaching and learning creativity in art and design schools, most of the themes and questions of my interviews were formed from his own questionnaire when composing the validated studio model, the cultural model of teaching and learning in art and design schools.

Interviews

The interview is a very flexible and interactive method while participants can clarify, place their words again and explain and correct, if needed. While interviewing, the purpose of the researcher is to transmit the vision of the informants’ conceptions, interpretations, ideas, feelings and experiences. In ethnographic research it is typical to choose the informants with judgmental sampling. The crucial point is to choose the informants that are naturally involved with the topic [10]. According to Eskola & Suoranta [12] it is relevant to keep the sample rather small, but aim at in-depth and exact analyses. Thus, no matter how big is the sample, the focus should be on creating conceptual understanding of the phenomena. Choosing experts or professionals for the interviews is based on the idea of getting exact and sensible information of the current research topic. The focus is not on the peoples, but on the information, they are supposed to have. It feels likely, that all who are working together in this certain community of practice, are supposed to share more or less the same vision and commitment of the pedagogical beliefs. Further, when choosing the informants, also their role in the institution must also be recognized. The information and level of specific knowledge can be very focused, and it is common to customize the frame of the questions suitable for the person who is being interviewed. 

I conducted four semi-structured theme interviews with the different  professionals of the Department of Pakistan Institute of Textile and Fashion Design. The themes of the interviews with the Workshop Masters were linked to studio practices and the questions were tailored because of their unique role in the department.

Questions were constructed from the framework of the study and the focus was kept strictly on them. I posted questions by e-mail beforehand to the informants in order to give them an opportunity to orientate to the meeting. In all interviews, there were few questions that were not asked exactly as planned, because the answer had already emerged within other questions. The questions were same for the two lecturers, but were asked a bit different order. All the interviews were in Finnish, since I wanted to make sure that every participant can express themselves properly, without any feeling of insecureness caused by language. Using the native language usually makes people more relaxed and comfortable. All interviews were recorded.

I wanted to hear about the daily practices with materials, machinery, co-operation and supportive methods with lecturers and students and things they are generally coping with. It is obvious, that these professionals have a very essential role in the studio setting. Their work and care of the studio space, machines and accessories basicly enables facilities for all those material experimentations and students’ opportunity to focus on their projects, as well as teachers’ opportunity to concentrate on guiding at design assignment and pedagogical level.

Content Analysis

Theme interviews and field observations produced rather great amount of data. In qualitative research, theory and empirical observations as PIFDs should be examined as collateral, instead of distinct processes. I accomplished qualitative content analysis with theory and data-driven method. Analyse progresses inductively from individual observations towards the compressive, theoretical form [12], [11]. However, former knowledge is recognized, and it is supposed to lead new ideas and paths of thinking [11]. The central concepts of the study are guiding the content analysis. Interviews were constructed around certain themes, defined from theory of the studio model, and related to the research question. This was done because of aim to border the phenomena as manageable entity. During the analyse process, themes were constructed again simultaneously, led from the observations discovered from the data.

I started analyzing the data with transcribing all the recorded four interviews. Total 57 pages of text was formed as word-documents. Transcribings were done exact word-for- word. This working period enabled myself to effectively familiarize with the content and topics discussed. I handled the interview-data of the lecturers at the same time, because theme questions were same for both of them, and they were lectures of the same disciplines and using same methods. Next I read through the texts and wrote down notes of the main message said about each theme. After that, I started reducing the amount of data with qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti. Before starting analyse, the unit of analysis must be defined. As the unit of analysis I used group of thoughts, that could consist of several sentences. I chose phrases in which the content was essential or relevant for my research question. I marked quotes and summarized them as codes, or compact phrases. This stage of analyse, where the coding system is created, is concidered as first-stage coding, and it works as descriptive-level analysis. The aim and purpose must be defined here for the whole process [1].

From the data of the two lecturers, my focus at this phase of coding was to ask, what kind of issues appear concerning studio teaching practices, conceptions of creativity and pedagogical arguments. By categorizing the codes according to the similarities found in their content, I made sub-categories. In the used grouping unit there was a conception or a method. There were 14 sub-categories in total as shown in Figure 1.

According to Tuomi & Sarajärvi [11], analysis is done in every phase of the research and the main purpose is to create clear and explicit description of the research phenomena. In ethnographic research, analysing during the field sessions means focusing observations toward issues, that are seen relevant for the research setting. In this study, field observations occupied a minor role, but by conducting them I gained authentic information that I used composing and interpreting the overall picture of the phenomena and studio practices.

The aim of this research was to find pedagogical elements, that are cultivated most when practicing studio-based teaching method in the Department of Textile, Clothing and Textile Design at PIFD . The study is focusing on the textile design course practices. I examined also the arguments, by which the certain pedagogical actions and practices have been chosen. These pedagogical views are described further within their contexts. I summarize the main requirements, that are demanded to operate studio pedagogy. In addition, a description of the studio masters’ essential role in enabling everyday studio work is included in the end.

The Main Pedagogical Elements and Views

Findings of this study address, that one of the most distinctive pedagogical element are the course assignments, which include a requirement to start the creative working process by thinking and constructing the visual research, and the concept of the forthcoming collection. Putting special focus on these early phase efforts are seen a key to achieve originality, and innovative results. Material explorations are in essential role, and the creative and individual approach to them is a practical consequence of the concept done at the first phase. Processes such as creative and learning processes are seen the most important learning outcomes, although successful material PIFDs are naturally an important sign of the development of the skills and thinking. Preparing students to become design professionals, project management skills are especially practiced with longer-term workshop-courses, or advanced courses, which requires lots of self-directed and independent work, planning, and decision-making. 

The aim of the textile studies is to develop design thinking skills, with which students are capable to create innovative and appropriate fabric collections, with Textile or interior textile viewpoint. Design assignments are defined by the course instructors in charge and they are formed in order to meet the learning targets of the course discipline. The findings of this research indicate that the assignments have a certain structure, and all demands concerning the final work – which can be for example a concept collection of fabrics represented by finished fabric samples – are described and discussed through carefully together with the students in the beginning of the course. Also learning targets, timetable and evaluation criteria is confirmed and discussed with the group. The major idea on the assignments is that students start with smaller, more ’ready-framed’ assignments, and further on, the freedom for own choices and concentration on one’s own interest-areas are strengthened and design tasks are combined together for larger entities of the studies, yet within the frames of the learning targets of the current course.

Interesting detail noted from the interview is that the mood board, as a tangible work of the visual research, is not accepted to be presented in a digital mode. As I interpret, that restriction can be seen as honoring the traditional aesthetics of representing ideas and it can be associated with importance of the tactile experiences as well as materiality. Scaffolding and discussing during the work in progress, and group reflections, are probably more practical to handle, when the concrete mood board is at hand. Constructing of the visual research is taught also in a short specific course, to offer students also from other design faculties an option to approach design tasks with the same method, which is commonly used in professional fields of textile and clothing design. Regarding the presentation of the work, both lecturers added that the students are pushed to present their collections in a professional way. Every decision student has made in the final work must be appropriately argumented. This is seen important as the school prepares design professionals, and it is necessary being able to express one’s ideas also to the different stakeholders and people from other disciplines. In addition, all design decisions should support the storytelling and the concept created for the collection.

Flexibility in Assignments

Material experimentations

Exploring and experimenting materials in the studios is the core action, when aiming at creative and interesting new combinations at textile design. Representing one of the most important part of the pedagogy, it has been discussed also with terms practice-based pedagogy or hands-on pedagogy. ”Textile design is about exploring materials and structures, surfaces and constructions [13].” With studio-based work, both visual and technical aspects of designing are improved. Through material experiments, students gain essential knowledge about different production technics, material proportions and features. Materiality is essentially involved also with generating, shaping, concretizing, testing and validating ideas [14]. Materials can work as a source of inspiration, and as a medium to convey designer’s intentions. As in crafting, material is a medium of both thinking and concretizing already at ideation phase.

Creative approach

Designing of a fabric collection needs a context (Textile, interior design, functional clothing), a creative approach and technical knowledge to craft or produce the samples. As the action theories of creativity points out, creative ideas happen during the work with discipline-specific materials, and most of the creativity emerges while working. As studied, the nature of creativity is related to certain autonomy and independence of thought. In addition to originality and usefulness, Runco widens the obvious definition of creativity with elements of authenticity, spontaneity and aesthetics. All those elements are explored through handling materials, as hands-on practices in the PIFD clearly address. Interaction with materials deepens knowledge of them, emerges feelings about them, and directs the process. Materials also connects the design to current time. With creative materiality, the maker can play with memories and images, explore cultural and historical features, or visualize futuristic scenarios. The same piece of material can also be explored at several phases, it can be constructed over and over again and tested, decorated or manipulated with numerous different methods.

Technics as servants

The study shows, that technical aspects of designing textile fabrics are in service of constructive learning and increasing creativity. There is no aim to become an expert on certain productive methods, but to achieve basic (and further on also advanced) disciplinary knowledge in order to produce concrete at PIFD, and develop own skills and ways of expression. By teaching technics, the domain knowledge is constructed.  According to Beghetto [15], domain knowledge is essential in aiming to creative solutions, and important aspects as well are, how accessible the knowledge is, and how it is beneficially put to use. Beghetto proposes that accomplished creators know how and when to use their knowledge during creative process, and further, with domain knowledge a balance between originality and feasibility can be achieved, which are considered requirements for creativity. One remarkable aspect is that starting the design process with the visual research work and continuing the ideation at the studios by hands-on working, is seen as a more effective way to assume also technical side, than for example focusing on theory lectures at the early phase. About a decade ago, before reforming the textile education, textile theory and design were taught separately, and with that method it took years to assume different woven structures, and designing was just a one distant part of the whole process. By integrating the technical and the artistic side of design in the same course and assignment, a significant amount of time is saved, and learning and teaching in general is made more learner-centered [13].

The artistic expression and the technical work as a medium to produce the PIFD are like two sides of the same coin. All the informants agree that understanding of the technics is very important, as it associates with the professionalism, the constructive nature of learning, and proceeding with one’s studies. Designers must be capable of communicating and discussing the productional issues with appropriate vocabulary of the topic. Basic technical skills are learned through concrete day-to-day working in the studios. The aim is not to teach students to become masters of weaving (or other specific technic), but to become the designers who also understand the production processes and are able to evaluate and compare different possibilities and their consequences.

Emphasizing processes

Learning and practicing to become a professional designer is about engaging with processes. In this chapter, I describe the main elements found in creative and learning processes, which are analysed as the elementary basis of the design education. Several creativity scholars have a consensus that learning seems to always be a creative process. Guilford claimed, that learning and creativity can be even seen as the same phenomena. Later on, the concept of creative learning is suggested to describe the overlap of the both phenomena [15]. Learning also has very strong social aspect, which is described further on. Learning the complete project management is specialized as its own important learning target, which is related to assume professional skills, manners and conventions.

Creative process

The design tasks and assignments, whether given by the instructor or the client, or defined by the learner, offer a platform for creative efforts and set the frames for the becoming design process. Creativity requirements are listed as intrinsic interest, autonomy, flexibility, different perspectives, original thought, divergent thinking, problem discovery and self-expression [5]. Creative process is the core and requirement to achieve the learning targets. As Sawyer’s [4] study indicated, mastery of the creative process itself can be seen as the primary goal of art and design education. Students must be sufficiently challenged conceptually; otherwise they choose a familiar path and wouldn’t be engaged in a deliberate creative process. Thus, a good assignment means that good ideas are emerged from the process, they are not found at the beginning of it. Students are encouraged to generate many possible solutions, fostering their divergent thinking and flexibility, which are also associated with greater creativity. 

Learning process

The central thought behind learning design knowledge is that most of it is tacit and socially and materially distributed, and because of its non-transferable nature, it can be learned only through personal and joint experience with iterative cycles of activity [16]. Social and constructivist aspects are emphasized in learning processes. When related to creativity, one of the central pedagogical views are, that students working at studios as a ’good group’, are more creative. The lecturers seems to be convinced that learning is more effective when unified group of students communicate positively and supportively, being devoted with the ongoing task. Part of the process and the evaluation, is the learners’ general attitude and enthusiasm at the course. How one behaves as a group member inside the learning community is seen very important. Students are clearly encouraged to share their ideas and insights from the very beginning of the process. 

Project management

Taking responsibility of own project management is seen as a very important learning target, especially during the Master’s programs. It also enables a chance to expertise, to deepen knowledge and find ones own personal ways of expression during the studying years. Learning to handle larger collections and projects is seen very important from the professional aspect. There must be careful planning for the scheduling of own work; arranging the needed materials, dedicating with reserved studio-working time, making numerous decisions concerning the project. The multi-modal process of design involves parallel working through conceptual reflection and material implementation. Several courses can be taken simultaneously targeting for one major goal. Students often attend on an advanced workshop-courses with their own-framed ongoing project, and concentrate on developing some specific part of it. They can also reserve time for the personal tutoring with the teachers, as reflecting and feedback is considered essential part of learning process. Group critiques are conducted, just likewise as in compulsory courses.

Individual design tasks are based on the concept research as well. The idea is in learning to construct and adapt previous knowledge during the proceeding studies and being able to handle larger processes consisted of smaller blocks. Studio masters’ help is certainly available also for advanced students, but as studio masters’ put it, they are often able to work very independently as they have already gained experience and deeper understanding about the materials, processes, systems and methods.

Limitations

The main focus of this study was to search for the pedagogical elements related to studio teaching in the department of Textile design at PIFD . I also examined the pedagogical views behind those chosen practices. Another aim of the study was to look at the requirements that operating studio pedagogy demands from the administrative point of view. The qualitative and ethnographic approach to this research was chosen in order to examine conventions of the certain, specific group and community of practice. As a characteristic to qualitative research, it does not aim to generalise the results, but to understand and describe the phenomena [11]. The data was gathered mainly from semi-structured theme interviews. Interviewing is always based on language and interpretations of one’s questions and answers. Semantic meanings of the words chosen are not unambiguous, thus the researcher’s role interpreting the informants’ answers is acquires sensitivity and ability to read behind the sentences. Kananen [10] notes, that the answers for researcher’s questions consists also of nonverbal information, which is either noticed or passed without specific attention. The researcher should be aware of the small nuances of the informant’s speech.

The ethnographic approach requires constant reflection and the research process resembles hermeneutical cycle, in which the sediments of the phenomena are peeled and the kernel idea is tried to be achieved. The researcher is the instrument of her/his study, and makes all the decisions concerning the research setting and analyzing technique. The researcher finds and organizes the results with the process based on her/his own pre- understanding and augmentations [10]. In this study, informants were chosen to be the best possible informants who are involved with the issues related to the research problem. All the informants represent the current staff of the department. There could have been also more informants but as a Master’s study timeframes, some limits are needed to be set to arrange the research setting. Observation sessions were chosen of the available courses that were running or beginning at the time. Data from the observations concerns only that specific studio situations and settings, thus the notions can be analyzed only from that context and they cannot be transferred or generalized.

Observations in this study were conducted in two different studios, taking a rather short period of time. Beneficial data, especially about the process as whole, would have be gathered by observing the whole intensive studio course from the beginning to the final critique. Also, the possibility to observe closer the important ideation phase and scaffolding practices during concept-making process, would have offered very useful data for this present study.

1. Farias, Ignacio, and Alex Wilkie. Studio Studies: Operations, Topologies and Displacements. London: Routledge, 2016.

2. Michael, Mike. "Scenarios, supplements, scope." In Studio Studies: Operations, Topologies and Displacements, edited by Ignacio Farias and Alex Wilkie, London: Routledge, 2016.

3. Cennamo, Katherine S. "What is studio?" In Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases, London: Routledge, 2016.

4. Sawyer, R. Keith. "Teaching and learning how to create in schools of art and design." Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 27, no. 1, 2018, pp. 137–181.

5. Richardson, Carmen, and Punya Mishra. "Navigating the tensions inherent in understanding creativity: An interview with Mark Runco." TechTrends, vol. 60, no. 5, 2016, pp. 415–418.

6. Good, Jessica, and Punya Mishra. "Creativity as resistance." TechTrends, vol. 60, no. 4, 2016, pp. 309–312.

7. Hennion, Antoine, and Ignacio Farías. "For a sociology of maquettes." In Studio Studies: Operations, Topologies and Displacements, edited by Ignacio Farias and Alex Wilkie, London: Routledge, 2016.

8. Cross, Nigel. "Designerly ways of knowing." Design Studies, vol. 3, no. 4, 1982, pp. 221–227.

9. Hirsjärvi, Sirkka, and Helena Hurme. Tutkimushaastattelu. Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. 2009.

10. Kananen, Jorma. Etnografinen tutkimus: Miten kirjoitan etnografisen opinnäytetyön. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän ammattikorkeakoulun julkaisuja –sarja, 2014.

11. Tuomi, Jouni, and Anneli Sarajärvi. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy, 2002.

12. Eskola, Jari, and Juha Suoranta. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Tampere: Vastapaino, 2003.

13. Niinimäki, Kirsi, Mari Salolainen, and Pirkko Kääriäinen. "Opening up new textile futures through collaborative rethinking and remaking." In Soft Landing, edited by Nithikul Nimkulrat, Ulla Ræbild, and Anders Piper, Cumulus publication: Aalto ARTS, 2018, pp. 53–68.

14. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Pirita, Tarja-Kaisa Laamanen, Jouni Viitala, and Maarit Mäkelä. "Materiality and emotions in making." Techne Series - Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, vol. 20, no. 3, 2013.

15. Beghetto, Ronald A. "Creative learning: A fresh look." Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, vol. 15, no. 1, 2016, pp. 6–23.

16. Kangas, Kristiina, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, and Kai Hakkarainen. "Design thinking in elementary students’ collaborative lamp designing process." Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 2013, pp. 30–43.

17. Laamanen, Tarja-Kaisa. Generating and transforming representations in design ideation. Academic dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Teacher Education, Craft Studies and Craft Teacher Education, 2016.

18. Sawyer, R. Keith. "Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review." Educational Research Review, vol. 22, 2017, pp. 99–113.

19. Rastas, Anna. "Haastatteluaineistojen monet tehtävät etnografisessa tutkimuksessa." In Haastattelun analyysi, edited by Johanna Ruusuvuori, Pirjo Nikander, and Matti Hyvärinen, 2010.

20. 
    Niemelä, Salla. "Muotoilu on kuollut, eläköön uusi muotoilu." In Designin uusi aalto: Merkitystä ja menestystä tälle vuosisadalle, edited by Ville Tikka and Noora Gävert, Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Siltala, Design Forum Finland, 2018.