Lawson and Dorst ( 2009 ) do raise questions regarding the assumption that traditional design pedagogy is the best or only way to teach design. Others also entertain questions about the limitations of studio pedagogy (Habraken, 2007 ) , about speci fi c practices in the studio ( Anthony, 1991 ) , and about power relationships enacted in the studio (Dutton,
1987 ) . Clinton and Rieber ( 2010 ) also report that the Studio experience is not the ideal method to prepare every student. As the faculty state, “The studio curriculum is best suited to those who bring some background knowledge of multimedia development into the program with them” (p. 775). For novice students with no prior background, this preparation approach may be most bene fi cial after successful completion of other design experiences providing students with the background necessary for the studio. In an earlier report on their studio experience, Boling and Smith ( 2009 ) discuss the design tensions accompanying the incorporation of studio experiences into a traditional curriculum, including the problems of securing appropriate space, shifting perspectives as an instructor, and managing student expectations in a setting unusual for them.