The Common First Year Studio in a Hot-desking Age: An Explorative Study on the Studio Environment and Learning

References

• AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. (2004). The studio culture summit. University of Minnesota: AIAS (American Institute of Architecture Students)
   Google Scholar
• Allen T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R&D laboratories. R & D Management, 1 (1), 14-21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
   Google Scholar
• Becker F. D. & Sims W. (2001). Offices that work: Balancing communication, flexibility and cost. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University International Workplace Studies Program.
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Education in the Built Environment. (2003). Studio culture: Who needs it. Conference Summary: Studio Culture 1: A Conference for Teachers in Schools of Architecture and Landscape.
   Google Scholar
• Datta A. (2007). Gender and learning in the design studio. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2 (2), 21-35.
   Google Scholar
• De Croon E., Sluiter J., Kuijer P. P. & Frings-Dresen M. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48 (2), 119-134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy F. (1974). Office design and organizations: 2. The testing of a hypothetical model. Environment and Planning B, 1 (2), 217-235.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy F. & Powell K. (1997). The new office: London: Conran Octopus.
   Google Scholar
• Duggan F. (2004). The changing nature of the studio as an educational setting. CEBE Transactions, 1 (2), 70-76.
   Google Scholar
• Dutton T. (1991). Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
   Google Scholar
• Fallman D. (2007). Supporting studio culture in design research. Proceedings of IASDR 2007 International Association of Societies of Design Research, 12-15 November 2007, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
   Google Scholar
• Gorgievski M. J., van der Voordt T. J. M., van Herpen S. G. A. & van Akkeren S. (2010). After the fire: New ways of working in an academic setting. Facilities, 28 (3/4), 206-224.
   Google Scholar
• Grajewski T. (1993). The SAS Head Office: Spatial configuration and interaction patterns. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 2, 63-74.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier B. & Penn A. (1991). Visible colleges: Structure and randomness in the place of discovery. Science in Context, 4 (1), 23-49.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins E. (2001). Distributed cognition. In Neil J. S. & Paul B. B. (Eds.). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Oxford: Pergamon. pp. 2068-2072.
   Google Scholar
• Koch A., Schwennsen K., Dutton T. A. & Smith D. (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. Washington DC: AIAS (The American Institute of Architecture Students). URL: http://www.aias.org/website/download.asp?id=314 .
   Google Scholar
• Morrow R. (2007). Creative transformations: The extent and potential of a pedagogical event. In Salama A. M. A. & Wilkinson N. (Eds.). Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future. Gateshead: Urban International Press. pp. 269-284.
   Google Scholar
• Nardi B. A. & Whittaker S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In: Hinds P. & Kiesler S. (Eds.). Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 83-110.
   Google Scholar
• Newstetter W. C., Kurz-Milcke E. & Nersessian N. J. (2004). Agentive learning in engineering research labs. Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual, 23 Oct 2004, T2F.
   Google Scholar
• Penn A., Desyllas J. & Vaughan L. (1999). The space of innovation: Interaction and communication in the work environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26 (2), 193-218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peponis J., Bafna S., Bajaj R., Bromberg J., Congdon C., Rashid M., Warmels S., Zhang Y. & Zimring C. (2007). Designing space to support knowledge work. Environment and Behavior, 39 (6), 815-840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashid M., Kampschroer K., Wineman J. & Zimring C. (2006). Spatial layout and face-to-face interaction in offices — a study of the mechanisms of spatial effects on face-to-face interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33 (6), 825-844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashid M. & Zimring C. (2003). Organizational constructs and the structure of space. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium University College London, London, available from the authors.
   Google Scholar
• Reber A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6 (2), 317-327.
   Google Scholar
• Reber A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe P. (2002) Professional design education and practice. In: Salama A. M. A., OReilly W. & Noschis K. (Eds.). Architectural education today: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lausanne: Comportements, pp. 25-30.
   Google Scholar
• Ryle G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Salama A. M. (2005). A process oriented design pedagogy: KFUPM sophomore studio. CEBE-Transactions, 2 (2), 16-31.
   Google Scholar
• Schon D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Serrato M. & Wineman J. D. (1999). Spatial and communication patterns in research and development. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium University of Brasilia, Brasilia, 1, 11.11-11.18.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons J. (1994). Reflection in action: Supervising in-service lecturers’ professional practice and learning. Paper presented at the Improving student learning Symposium: Theory and practice. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
   Google Scholar
• Wineman J. & Adhya A. (2007). Enhancing workspace performance: Predicting the influence of spatial and psychosocial factors on job satisfaction. Proceedings of the 6th Space Syntax Symposium, 12th-15th June 2007, Istanbul.
   Google Scholar
• Zimring C., Khan S., Craig D., Haq S. & Guzdial M. (2001). CoOL Studio: Using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the design studio. Automation in Construction, 10 (6), 675-685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar