Butterpaper, sweat & tears : the affective dimension of engaging students during the architectural critique

Considering how dominant a feature of architectural education the critique has been, and continues to be, little has been written about the affective dimension of engaging students during this key final stage of the design or documentation process. For most students, the critique is unlike any previous educational or life experience that they have ever confronted, and the abrupt change in the instructor’s role, from tutor to judge, can be disconcerting at a time when the student is feeling their most vulnerable. The fact that the period immediately leading up to the critique habitually entails not only a focused and sustained effort, but also sleepless nights of intensive work, further exacerbates this. The purpose of this paper is to recognise the affective phenomena influencing student engagement, during the critique. The participants of this research were second to fourth year architecture students at a major Australian university. Following the implementation of trials in alternative modes of critique in architectural design and technology studios, qualitative data was obtained from students, through questionnaires and interviews. Six indicators of engagement were investigated through this research: motivation and agency, transactional engagement with staff, transactional engagement with students, institutional support, active citizenship, and non-institutional support. This research confirms that affective phenomena play a significant role in the events of the critique; the relationship between instructor and student influences student engagement, as does the choreography and spatial planning of the critique environment; and these factors ultimately have an impact on the depth of student learning.

Bouncing back : Students learning through real-world experiences

The Bouncing Back research study, which began after the Queensland flooding in January 2011, has organically expanded through a number of architectural student design projects and exhibitions, which have sought to respond to catastrophic flooding events. In September 2011, 10 Queensland University of Technology architecture students travelled to Sydney to help construct a 1:1 true-to-life scale shelter, for the Emergency Shelter Exhibition at Customs House in Circular Quay. During the construction of the shelter, data were collected in situ, through dynamic interviews with the students. Using a grounded theory methodology, data were coded and then thematically analysed, to reveal three influential factors that positively impacted the students’ learning in this informal context. These were the student experience, the process of learning through physical making/fabrication, and development of empathy with the community. Analysis of these three factors demonstrated how this informal situated learning activity promoted vitally important learning in a real-world context, which is difficult to replicate in a physical on-campus environment.

Informe

Much landscape architectural form seems like hackneyed modernism, whether it be orthogonal or biomorphic, 'formal or informal' and doesn't seem to get to grips with the truly complex nature of the landscape, making any project seem potentially simplistic. This is largely because it has inherited languages from architecture that are based around objects, and that therefore can act to make designs self-referential rather than edgy instances in a dialogue much larger than the site itself, connected to systems that are unavoidable, even if one chooses to ignore them. These systems constitute a formal language even if landscape architecture looks to things like GIS to engage with them. Tropospheric Temperament was an Advanced Computing subject, for second-year landscape architecture students at UWA, taught by Julian Raxworthy and Rene Van Meeuwen, which ran in Semester 1, 2004. For this subject, the question was: how can we learn to wield such systems in design terms, even if they are developed through un-self-conscious natural and vernacular forces?

Crossing the cultural divide : a contemporary holistic framework for conceptualising design studio education

While the studio is widely accepted as the learning environment where architecture students most effectively learn how to design (Mahgoub, 2007:195), there are surprisingly few studies that attempt to identify in a qualitative way the interrelated factors that contribute to and support design studio learning (Bose, 2007:131). Such a situation seems problematic given the changes and challenges facing education including design education. Overall, there is growing support for re-examining (perhaps redefining) the design studio particularly in response to the impact of new technologies but as this paper argues this should not occur independently of the other elements and qualities comprising the design studio. In this respect, this paper describes a framework developed for a doctoral project concerned with capturing and more holistically understanding the complexity and potential of the design studio to operate within an increasingly and largely unpredictable global context. Integral to this is a comparative analysis of selected cases underpinned by grounded theory methodology of the traditional design studio and the virtual design studio informed by emerging pedagogical theory and the experiences of those most intimately involved – students and lecturers. In addition to providing a conceptual model for future research, the framework is of value to educators currently interested in developing as well as evaluating learning environments for design.

Assessing architectural design processes of diverse learners

Given that what students learn is so strongly related to how they learn, the modes of delivery and assessment that we as teachers provide them with have a major impact on their ability to learn. As this paper shows, good learning environments are constructed from a range of modes that respond to student learning styles and seek to align activities and learning outcomes with assessment tasks, to better accommodate a diversity of student learning styles and backgrounds. This paper uses a number of models of learning to critique and analyse the traditional practices of assessment in an architectural design class, and then proposes and reports on an alternative pattern of assessment. It discusses the issues of accommodating a group of first-year architecture students at Queensland University of Technology in 2009. These students arrived with diverse prior learning backgrounds, the group being evenly split between those with drawing capabilities and those without. They also had a variety of learning style preferences. The experiment in alternative assessment patterns presented here shows that what has traditionally been considered a diverse and difficult cohort of students can benefit from the assessment of a range of task types at different stages in the learning cycle.

Bouncing back : Resilient design for Brisbane - Exhibition

"Bouncing Back: Resilient Design for Brisbane" was an opportunity for QUT students to communicate their inspiring design responses to adversity, to the larger Brisbane community. The exhibition demonstrates new and innovative ways of thinking about our cities, and how they are built to be resilient and to suit extreme environmental conditions. The challenge for architecture students is to address the state of architecture as a reflection of today's world and to consider how design fits into the 21st century. Students have explored notions of 'Urban Resilience' from multiple perspectives, including emergency design while facing flooding, flood proof housing and urban designs.

Dichotomy in the design studio : adapting to new blended learning environments

In a study aimed at better understanding how staff and students adapt to new blended studio learning environments (BSLE’s), a group of 165 second year architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia were separated into two different design studio learning environments. 70% of students were allocated to a traditional studio design learning environment (TSLE) and 30% to a new, high technology embedded, prototype digital learning laboratory. The digital learning laboratory was purpose designed for the case-study users, adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) principles, and built as part of a larger university research project. The architecture students attended the same lectures, followed the same studio curriculum and completed the same pieces of assessment; the only major differences were the teaching staff and physical environment within which the studios were conducted. At the end of the semester, the staff and students were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and preferences within the two respective learning environments. Following this, participants were invited to participate in focus groups, where a synergistic approach was effected. Using a dual method qualitative approach, the questionnaire and survey data were coded and extrapolated using both thematic analysis and grounded theory methodology. The results from these two different approaches were compared, contrasted and finally merged, to reveal six distinct emerging themes, which were instrumental in offering resistance or influencing adaptation to, the new BLSE. This paper reports on the study, discusses the major contributors to negative resistance and proposes points for consideration, when transitioning from a TSLE to a BLSE.

Bouncing back : resilient design for Brisbane

"Bouncing Back: Resilient Design for Brisbane" was an opportunity for QUT students to communicate their inspiring design responses to adversity, to the larger Brisbane community. The exhibition demonstrates new and innovative ways of thinking about our cities, and how they are built to be resilient and to suit extreme environmental conditions. The challenge for architecture students is to address the state of architecture as a reflection of today's world and to consider how design fits into the 21st century. Students have explored notions of 'Urban Resilience' from multiple perspectives, including emergency design while facing flooding, flood proof housing and urban designs.

Educating for change : a case for a pedagogy of desire in design eduation

Despite major inroads in demystifying creativity for the non-design disciplines, there has been very little movement in the design disciplines themselves beyond traditional paradigms. As argued in this paper, this is particularly noticeable in design education where traditional pedagogical approaches persist despite the emergence of new experimental pedagogies and the possibilities and opportunities they offer. In response, this paper describes what is revealed when a ‘pedagogy of desire’ is used as a critical lens to reflect on an experience of developing and implementing a first year interior design program involving first and second year undergraduate interior design and architecture students. Implications drawn from the review are presented and a case made for continuing experimentation and development of a pedagogy of desire for design learning and teaching.

A holistic blended design studio model : a basis for exploring and expanding learning opportunities

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way (Bose, 2007). This study responds to this need by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative approach. The research aims to explore the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face (f2f) design studio as well as a virtual design studio (VDS) as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to maximize learning. The main outcome is a holistic multidimensional blended model being sufficiently flexible to adapt to various setting, in the process, facilitating constructivist learning through self-determination, self-management, and personalization of the learning environment.

A holistic blended design studio model : Exploring and expanding learning opportunities

This book involves a comprehensive study of the learning environment by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative way.It explores the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face and a virtual design studio as experienced by architecture students and educators at an Australian university in order to find the optimal combination for a blended environment to enhance the students’ experience. The main outcome:holistic multidimensional blended learning model,that through the various modalities,provides adaptive capacity in a range of settings.The model facilitates learning through self-determination,self-management,and the personalisation of the learning environment. Another outcome:a conceptual design education framework,provides a basic tool for educators to evaluate existing learning environments and to develop new learning environments with enough flexibility to respond effectively to a highly dynamic and increasingly technological world.The provision of a practical framework to assist design schools to improve their educational settings according to a suitable pedagogy that meets today’s needs and accommodates tomorrow’s changes.

Dichotomy in the design studio 2.0 : adapting to new blended learning environments

In a study aimed at better understanding how students adapt to new blended studio learning environments, all undergraduate and masters of architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia, learned a semester of architectural design in newly renovated, technology embedded, design studio environments. The renovations addressed the lessons learned from a 2011 pilot study of a second year architectural design studio learned in a high technology embedded prototype digital laboratory. The new design studios were purpose designed for the architecture students and adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs design principles. At the end of the semester, the students completed a questionnaire about their experiences of learning in the new design studio environments. Using a dual method qualitative approach, the questionnaire data were coded and extrapolated using both thematic analysis and grounded theory methodology. The results from these two approaches were compared, contrasted and finally merged, to reveal five distinct emerging themes, which were instrumental in offering resistance or influencing adaptation to, the new blended studio learning environments. This paper reports on the study, discusses the major contributors to resistance and adaptation, and proposes points for consideration when renovating or designing new blended studio learning environments. This research extends the 2011 pilot study by the same authors: ‘Dichotomy in the design studio: Adapting to new blended learning environments’.

Bouncing back : the role of design and making in understanding and dealing with adversity

The Bouncing Back Project, which began after the Queensland flood event in January 2011, has organically grown through a number of reiterations as per the diagram above. In the August 2011 it resulted in the physical construction of an Emergency Shelter [designed by GreenLeaf Engineers] in Sydney at the Customs House in Circular Quay and a conference paper publication at the AASA conference. To date this research has progressed without any research grant funding and has resulted in significant media interest. During the construction of the Emergency Shelter we collected a wide range of multimedia data which is being compilled into a documentary focusing on the architecture students’ experience throughout the iterations of Bouncing Back.

Bouncing Back : Recovery through Design + Making

Architectural education is beginning to recognise the potential of a more intensive relationship between the tasks of designing and building (Erdman et al., 2002) within a work integrated learning environment. The Bouncing Back Project, began after the Queensland, Australia floods in January 2011, and has organically grown through a number of architectural student exhibitions, initially displaying flood responsive designs. In September 2011, 10 Queensland University of Technology architecture students travelled to Sydney to work together in helping to construct a shelter in the Emergency Shelter Exhibition, at Customs House in Circular Quay. The construction and making of the shelter, was filmed. This film documents the student experience, of making, working with industry professionals, community engagement and it reveals how this activity promotes informal work integrated learning in a real world context.

Dichotomy in the design studio : adapting to new blended learning environments

Since the architectural design studio learning environment was first established in the early 19th century at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, there has been a complete transformation in how the discipline of architecture is practiced and how students of architecture acquire information. Digital technologies allow students to access information instantly and learning is no longer confined to the rigid boundaries of a physical campus environment. In many schools of architecture in Australia, the physical design studio learning environments however, remain largely unchanged. Many learning environments could be mistaken for those last refurbished 30 years ago, being devoid of any significant technological intervention. While some teaching staff are eagerly embracing new digital technologies and attempting to modify their pedagogical approaches, the physical design studio learning environment is resistant to such efforts. In a study aimed at better understanding how staff and students adapt to new blended learning environments, a group of 165 second year architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia were separated into two different design studio learning environments. 70% of students were allocated to a traditional design studio setting and 30% to a new, high technology embedded, prototype digital learning laboratory. The digital learning laboratory was purpose designed for the case-study users, adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs [SCALE-UP] principles, and built as part of a larger university research project. The architecture students attended the same lectures, followed the same studio curriculum and completed the same pieces of assessment; the only major differences were the teaching staff and physical environment within which the studios were conducted. At the end of the semester, all staff and students were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and preferences within the two respective learning environments. The questionnaire response rate represented the opinions of 100% of the 10 teaching staff and over 70% of the students. Using a qualitative grounded theory approach, data were coded, extrapolated and compared, to reveal emerging key themes. The key themes formed the basis for in-depth interviews and focus groups of teaching staff and students, allowing the researchers to understand the data in more detail. The results of the data verified what had become increasingly evident during the course of the semester: an underlying negative resistance to the new digital studio learning environment, by both staff and students. Many participants openly exhibited a yearning for a return to the traditional design studio learning environments, particularly when the new technology caused frustration, by being unreliable or failing altogether. This paper reports on the study, discusses the negative resistance and explores the major contributors to resistance. The researchers are not aware of any similar previous studies across these particular settings and believe that it offers a necessary and important contribution to emergent research about adaptation to new digital learning environments.