CASE STUDIES
Studio Assignment Redesign for Instructional ClarityA set of case studies documenting collaborative experiments with faculty—using AI to co-design assignments, refine workflows, and test discipline-specific teaching use cases.
Case Study 1: Line Quality Assignment
Task / Conflict
The original Line Quality and Mark-Making assignment clearly defined technical goals (pressure, variation, control) but lacked emotional engagement and a strong sense of purpose. Students often completed it mechanically without connecting technique to expression or meaning.
Solution
We redesigned the lesson into a multi-part, experiential structure emphasizing expressive exploration and sensory engagement. Activities such as the “Line Orchestra” (translating sounds into line), “Mood Drawing Challenge” (visualizing emotions), and collaborative mark-making exercises encouraged students to embody line quality as a form of communication. We added reflection prompts linking their drawings to mood, rhythm, and storytelling.
Overall Impact
Students became more invested in the assignment, showing greater confidence in experimentation and a stronger understanding of how formal control affects tone and message. The project evolved from a technical drill into an expressive foundation for later figure and design work.
Key Learnings
Sensory translation (sound, movement, emotion) builds creative empathy.
Reflection questions turn technical exercises into meaning-making opportunities.
Collaborative activities increase motivation and reinforce visual vocabulary retention.
Case Study 2: Invented Environment & Perspective Group Project
Task / Conflict
The original perspective drawing assignment was highly technical but often isolating; students became overwhelmed by precision and spatial complexity. Engagement dropped mid-project, and compositions lacked imaginative depth.
Solution
We transformed the project into a large-scale collaborative challenge. Teams of three co-designed a 36"×60" environment with multiple vanishing points and narrative cohesion. Requirements included consistent architecture, two staircases, an animal, and believable scale. Later iterations integrated AI-assisted world-building inspired by Steve McDonald’s methods—students used generative tools for concept exploration while maintaining hand-drawn fidelity.
Overall Impact
Team-based design reintroduced energy and play into the technical process. Students developed stronger compositional logic and visual problem-solving skills. Incorporating AI visualization helped them balance realism and creativity while learning ethical use of technology.
Key Learnings
Collaborative complexity motivates higher technical standards.
AI visual aids can demystify perspective without replacing hand skill.
Large-scale, time-bound projects simulate professional studio workflows.
Case Study 3: Interactive Role-Play Walkthrough (Graphic Design & Critical Thinking)
Task / Conflict
Students designing social-issue campaigns often prioritized visual style over conceptual clarity and accessibility. Faculty sought ways to promote critical dialogue about audience, message, and ethics.
Solution
We built a 30–35 minute interactive classroom simulation where students assumed roles: Designer, Advocate, Audience Member, and Accessibility Checker. Each role guided design critique from a distinct perspective. A faculty-facing AI guide explained how ChatGPT could prompt follow-up questions (e.g., “How might color contrast affect visibility for low-vision users?”) to enhance reflective thinking.
Overall Impact
Students gained a more nuanced understanding of design as social communication. Faculty found that the role-play produced more authentic critiques and led to measurable improvements in design reasoning and inclusivity.
Key Learnings
Structured role-play activates empathy and critical literacy.
AI guidance enhances facilitation consistency across sections.
Shifting critique from “what looks good” to “who it serves” strengthens impact.
Case Study 4: Exit Through the Gift Shop — Role-Play Debate + Creative Remix Assignment
Task / Conflict
A faculty member wanted a stronger way to get every student actively engaged with Exit Through the Gift Shop—not just watching passively, but thinking critically about authenticity, hype, institutions, and value in contemporary art. The challenge was turning a film screening into something social, structured, and high-participation, while still leaving room for humor, personality, and creative agency.
Solution
We reframed the screening as a role-play viewing + debate, giving groups clear “identities” (Street Artists, Art Collectors, Museum Curators, Casual Audience, Critics/Journalists, Entrepreneurs) and role-specific prompts that force interpretation “in character.” Students then prepared three bold claims per group and carried those into a full-class share-out debate—staying in role to argue, challenge, and defend positions. After the discussion, the experience extended into a creative response homework: students produced an original “remix” artwork in the style/vibe of an artist from the film, anchored by the conceptual prompt of the title Exit Through the Gift Shop.
Overall Impact / Outcomes
Excellent outcomes: full participation, with students engaging eagerly in the revised version.
Stronger energy and ownership: the role-play format created immediate permission to speak (and disagree) because students weren’t “speaking as themselves,” they were representing a position.
Faculty experience improved: the instructor described the revised approach as “more fun,” suggesting the structure increased not only student engagement but also teaching enjoyment and classroom momentum.
Key Learnings
Role-based framing reduces fear of being “wrong.” Students take intellectual risks more readily when they’re “performing a perspective.”
Debate works best with constraints. Requiring three bold claims pushes clarity, specificity, and stakes—without needing a formal essay to generate critical thinking.
Sequencing matters: film → role notes → group sharpen → public share-out → creative remix creates a tight loop from analysis to making, reinforcing that interpretation and production are connected.
“Playful” can still be rigorous. The humor (“roast,” “banter,” “outrageous claims”) isn’t fluff—it’s a strategy for participation, memory, and critical posture.