This case study describes how a postgraduate degree in cross-disciplinary art and design can be conducted in a fully online studio environment. The program comprises a structured sequence of core-courses which contextualise a wide variety of elective choices by illuminating their theoretical, practical and disciplinary connections. Electives include subjects such as creative thinking processes, drawing, sculpture, digital illustration, art curation, textiles, photography, understanding and experiencing art, hologram design, digital animation and graphic design. Students and teachers are represented from across the world and Australia.

In 2008 COFA School of Design wished to implement a more flexible blended learning option to its program. It was decided to conduct a pilot study using its First Year Program before introducing a wider implementation of blended learning strategies across the school. The existing first year program was being taught in a face to face studio environment and included 5 separate but integrated courses.

This case study describes how gaming technology can assist architectural students design a 3D environment. The process allows students to be immersed in their designs while making decisions that affect that space. It encourages students to experiment more rigorously with light, materials, colour, etc when compared to the more traditional 3D model making materials such as balsa and card. Furthermore, the speed of this process maximises the design development phase of architectural design by eliminating time-consuming standard drawing conventions

The main essence of this case study is to do with the question: How can the idea of graduate attribute development become engaging and explicit for both staff and students in the practicalities of a studio-based subject? It is all very well to say to students (and include in documentation) that the aim of the studio subject they are engaging with is to develop the graduate attributes that we believe are essential for a professional designer. However, saying it and writing it down do not amount to an engagement for students or staff in understanding how this can be made explicit in the design and assessment of the subject.rnrnThe example given is fairly complex to describe. The specific studio subject described is a core third year Community Project subject from the four-year BDesign Visual Communication (honours) course at UTS.rnrnAn important aspect of the School of Design context was that a list of approximately 25 attributes that staff wanted students to gain had been grouped into 5 categories: rnCreativity and Innovation, rnCommunication and Interpersonal Skills, rnAttitudes and Values, rnPractical and Professional Skills, rnCritical Thinking and Research Skills.rnrnAn online system called ReView that was used as the main assessment method in this subject was originally developed to engage staff in rethinking their assessment criteria and colour-coding them in relation to these meta categories (see the ReView pdf attached). The majority of assessment criteria for tasks in the School of Design are now coded in this way, and students can see a progressive development chart across subject boundaries in the 5 categories of attributes they are developing

This case study describes how Web 2.0 is used to improve critical thinking and analysis of the image and to ensure timely feedback and meaningful peer review processes. Students' photographic images are critiqued by staff or students from the wider cohort rather than just from their own studio class. Part of the peer feedback is incorporated into the assessment as well as students' interaction in discussion boards. Student surveys have clearly identified the importance of the feedback on their learning and creativity.

One of the key tools used to assess studio learning in architecture is the critique. Typically, the critique process requires students to present their designs and receive feedback from an assessment panel. In 2005, we became concerned that this process, in the context of second year learning was becoming less effective as students were not engaged in the process beyond their role to present. In addition, the critique process, which is considered pivotal and sacrosanct to studio learning and assessment, drew greatly on our staff and monetary resources. This case study reports on a project that began in 2005: to critically reflect on the role of the critique process and student learning. It outlines how the critique process was modified to a collaborative model, making the critique explicit in its teaching and learning role. The key concerns and learning outcomes from the students� experience are explored and conclusions drawn for further discussion.

The critique, or spoken feedback, in art and design education is critical to the knowledge construction associated with creative project outcomes. It has been suggested that the traditional model of the spoken face-to-face design critique has become stuck with historical boundaries. Students and teachers report that spoken design feedback remains a weak component and a strong dissatisfaction within art, architecture and design education. This case study reports perceptions by graphic design students and their lecturers of the advantages and disadvantages of recorded spoken feedback emailed to students as a digital voice file.

CSTR (pronounced sister) is a compulsory part of study in the third year studios of E-Media, Furniture, Graphic Design, Painting, Printmaking, Photography and Sculpture. CSTR is not a stand alone unit but a component that interfaces with all third year minor/major studio units.Through providing a platform through which to develop context, methodology and conceptual approach, CSTR is designed to complement students studio practice. This case study will focus on the development and delivery of the semester 1 CSTR program and reference some key points related to the semester 2 program (currently in progress).In semester 1, CSTR lectures cover a broad spectrum of art/design practice and research. Each lecture is followed by either a panel discussion (Big CSTR) or a workshop session (Little CSTRs) that involves undertaking set tasks leading to two assessable outcomes. The semester 1 CSTR program was first delivered in semester 1 2009 and is divided into 3 key areas: Developing a working proposal2. Understanding and articulating the context of your practicern3. Presenting and evaluating your studio outcomesIt is worth noting that in semester 2 the CSTR Lecture Program focuses on professional practice. A series of guest speakers provide information on: avenues for the support, promotion and presentation of your work; potential career pathways; and relevant postgraduate study for emerging artists and designers. In semester 2 the Little CSTR�s will run Cross Media Group Critique Sessions where students expand their capacity to articulate ideas to a broader audience and gain valuable feedback on the resolution and presentation of their studio project/s.