Searching for Personal Territory in a Human-Computer Interaction Design Studio

References

• Barak M., Harward J. & Lerman S. (2007). Studio-based learning via wireless notebooks: A case of a Java programming course. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1 (1), 15-29. URL: http://inderscience.metapress.com/index/exvkjgrm1e176u22.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Blevis E., Lim Y.-K., Stolterman E., Wolf T. V. & Sato K. (2007). Supporting design studio culture in HCI. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’07 extended abstracts. San Jose, CA, USA, April 28-May 03 2007, pp. 2821-2824.
   Google Scholar
• Boling E. (2010a). Design sketching. Raleigh, NC: Lulu/Noel Wheeler Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boling E. (2010b). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1 (1), 1-8. URL: http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/index
   Google Scholar
• Brandt C., Cennamo K. C., Douglas S., McGrath M., Reimer Y. & Vernon M. (2008). (de) coding the studio method to teach the design of human-computer interaction. Proceedings of 24th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student. Atlanta, March. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1853/29133
   Google Scholar
• Brandt C., Cennamo K. C., McGrath M., Vernon M., Douglas S. & Reimer Y. (2010). DIY ethic of the design studio — past, present & future. IDSA Education White Papers. URL: http://www.idsa.org/diy-ethic-design-studio-past-present-future
   Google Scholar
• Brown G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: Measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (1), 44-52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G. & Robinson S. L. (2007). The dysfunction of territoriality in organizations. In: Langan-Fox J., Cooper C. L. & Klimoski R. (Eds.). Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., pp. 252-267.
   Google Scholar
• Buxton B. (2007). Sketching user experiences. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Cai H. & Khan S. (2010). The common first year studio in a hot-desking age: An explorative study on the studio environment and learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5 (2), 39-64. URL: http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/jebe/pdf/HuiCai5(2).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Carbone A. & Sheard J. (2002). A studio-based teaching and learning model in IT: What do first year students think?ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34 (3), 217. ACM. URL: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=637610.544485
   Google Scholar
• Cennamo K. C. & Vernon M. (2008). Fostering creativity in the classroom: A case study of a multidisciplinary design project. Paper presented at Success Factors in Fostering Creativity in IT Research and Education. Arizona State University, January 18-20 2008. URL: http://swiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/CreativeIT/uploads/245/cennamo_paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cennamo K. C., Brandt C., Douglas S., Vernon M. & McGrath M. (2010). A theoretical overview of the studio as a learning environment. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference. Denver, CO, April 2010.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cossentino J. & Shaffer D. W. (1999). The math studio: Harnessing the power of the arts to teach across disciplines. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33 (2), 99-109. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross N. (2011). Design thinking. New York, NY: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings K., Marx J., Thornton R. & Kuhl D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67 (7), 38-44. URL: http://link.aip.org/link/?AJPIAS/67/S38/1
   Google Scholar
• Demirbaş O. O. & Demirkan H. (2000). Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 (1), 53-64. URL: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0272494499901482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirbaş Ö. O. & Demirkan H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24 (5), 437-456. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X03000139
   Google Scholar
• Dori Y. J., & Belcher J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts?The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14 (2), 243-279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiss J. L., Cohen J. & Everitt B. S. (1969). Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychological Bulletin, 72 (5), 323-327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel J. R. & Wallen N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. 7th ed.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24 (6), 507-522.
   Google Scholar
• Glesne C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. 3rd ed.Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt R. & Poltrock S. E. (1999). Boeing operations fleet support: A case study in integrated workplace design. Proceedings of Second International Workshop, CoBuild’99, Cooperative Buildings. Integrating Information, Organization and Architecture, Pittsburgh, USA, 1-2 October 1999. URL: http://www.springerlink.com/index/e427378g622105w1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Indiana University. (2011). Academics: New students. URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~udiv/new-students/academics.shtml (Accessed 30 July 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Landis J. R. & Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159-174. URL: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/843571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson B. & Dorst K. (2009). Design expertise. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln Y. S. & Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson H. G. & Stolterman E. (2003). The design way. 1st ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer Y. J. & Douglas S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13 (3), 191-205.
   Google Scholar
• Schön D. A. (1985). The design studio, an exploration of its traditions and potential. London, UK: RIBA Publications Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Schön D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In: Lesh R. A., Kaput J. J. & Hamilton E. (Eds.). Foundations for the future in mathematics education. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 99-126. URL: http://epistemicgames.org/cv/papers/8089_Lesh_CH05.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Shulman L. S. (2005a). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52-59. URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0011526054622015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman L. S. (2005b). The signature pedagogies of the professions of law, medicine, engineering, and the clergy: Potential lessons for the education of teachers. Paper presented at the Teacher Education for Effective Teaching and Learning Workshop, NRC, Irving, CA. URL: http://www.taylorprograms.com/images/Shulman_Signature_Pedagogies.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tucker R. & Reynolds C. (2006). The impact of teaching models, group structures and assessment modes on cooperative learning in the student design studio. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 1 (2), 39-56.
   Google Scholar
• Wolcott H. F. (1990). On seeking — and rejecting — validity in qualitative research. In: Eisener E. & Peshkin A. (Eds.). Qualitative inquiry in education. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press, pp. 121-152.
   Google Scholar
• Yin R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed.California: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar