Facilitating Tacit Knowledge Construction

Re-Examining Boundaries of the Design Studio Environment


  • Aruna Venkatesh Hong Kong Polytechnic University





tacit knowledge acquisition, knowledge construction, blended studio learning


Design knowledge, for its most part, is tacit. The embedded and inherent nature of tacit knowledge implies that it is a cognitive and internal construct acquired through the design act of doing. However, it is also socially constructed through shared experiences, collaborations and interactions. The design studio is a dynamic, pedagogical site that facilitates the construction of tacit knowledge through its myriad of interactive spaces. Online and virtual platforms offer opportunities to extend the learning boundaries of its social realm. Studies in the influence of these spaces on tacit knowledge construction are currently insufficient. An interpretive study was conducted in different studio environments within the Environment and Interior Design discipline of the School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University to further the understanding of tacit knowledge construction in blended learning environments.

How to Cite

Venkatesh, A. (2021). Facilitating Tacit Knowledge Construction: Re-Examining Boundaries of the Design Studio Environment. Cubic Journal, 4(4), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.31182/cubic.2021.4.043



Author Biography

Aruna Venkatesh, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Aruna Venkatesh is a full-time PhD student at the School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She has a graduate diploma in architecture from India and a masters in design education from the School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Having worked in the interior design field in the past, her current interests lie in design pedagogy research, which she hopes to pursue as a future career option.


Crowther, Philip. “Understanding the Signature Pedagogy of the Design Studio and the Opportunities for Its Technological Enhancement.” Journal of Learning Design 6, no.3 (2013):18-28. https://doi:10.5204/jld.v6i3.155.

Ertmer, Peggy A., and Timothy J. Newby. “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2013): 43-71. https://doi:10.1002/piq.21143.

Loenhoff, Jens. “Tacit Knowledge: Shared and Embodied”. In Revealing Tacit Knowledge: Embodiment and Explication. Edited by Frank Adloff, Katharina Gerund and David Kaldewey. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag, 2015. 21-40. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/polyu-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2026189

Mareis, Claudia. “The Epistemology of the Unspoken: On the Concept of Tacit Knowledge in Contemporary Design Research.” Design Issues 28, no. 2 (2012): 61-71. Retrieved August 27, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lb.polyu.edu.hk/stable/41427826.

Oztok, Murati. “Tacit Knowledge in Online Learning: Community, Identity, and Social Capital.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 22, no.1 (2013): 21-36. https://doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2012.720414.

Schön, Donald. The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust, 1985.

Shulman, Lee S. “Signature Pedagogies in the Professions.” Daedalus 134, no.3 (2005): 52-59. https://doi:10.1162/0011526054622015.

Suwa, Misaki, John Gero, and Terry Purcell. “Unexpected Discoveries and S-invention of design Requirements: Important Vehicles for a Design Process.” Design Studies 21, no. 6 (2000): 539-567. https://doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00034-4.