Building Clouds Drifting Walls:Year One Design Studio: A Critical Appraisal

This is a Booklet about a first year design studio in a school of architecture. It describes and reflects on changes that happened in the course over a three year period starting September 2000. The Studio is made up of students from mainstream architecture, and dual courses with landscape and engineering. The booklet is for those who are thinking of studying architecture. It might also be for those already learning and teaching architecture who want to see how other design studios work.

Transcending Boundaries of Creativity: Active learning in the Design Studio

This essay investigates the changing dynamics of interaction and paradigm of communication in the design studio. It analyses the process of practical implementation of interactive tools in architectural education which placed the
diversity of students’ cultural experiences, contextual awareness and individual interests as crucial resource for design innovation and inquiry. Building on Brian Lawson’s thesis on creativity in design thinking, this research project undertook
comprehensive investigation of students’ satisfaction of their roles in the studio and the room for liberal thought they are given to elaborate on genuine approach to architectural matters. The cyclical development of interactive learning strategy is explored through two different settings: first, it analyses architectural students’ position as passive/active in the studio, considering their relationships with tutors’ ideals; second, it reports on empirical strategy of students-led workshops at British schools of architecture, during which students have taken the lead of their creative design agenda. The practical implementation of interactive learning tools proved influential in helping students to personalize their design direction and to build a sense of confidence and independence.

The Design Process- Making It Relevant For Students

Within the ever-changing arenas of architectural design and education, the core element of architectural education remains: that of the design process. The consideration of how to design in addition to what to design presents architectural educators with that most constant and demanding challenge of how do we best teach the design process?

This challenge is arguably most acute at a student's early stages of their architectural education. In their first years in architecture, students will commonly concentrate on the end product rather than the process. This is, in many ways, understandable. A great deal of time, money and effort go into their final presentations. They believe that it is what is on the wall that is going to be assessed. Armed with new computer skills, they want to produce eye-catching graphics that are often no more than a celebration of a CAD package. In an era of increasing speed, immediacy of information and powerful advertising it is unsurprising that students want to race quickly to presenting an end-product.

Recognising that trend, new teaching methods and models were introduced into the second year undergraduate studio over the past two years at Queen's University Belfast, aimed at promoting student self-reflection and making the design process more relevant to the students. This paper will first generate a critical discussion on the difficulties associated with the design process before outlining some of the methods employed to help promote the following; an understanding of concept, personalisation of the design process for the individual student; adding realism and value to the design process and finally, getting he students to play to their strengths in illustrating their design process like an element of product. Frameworks, examples, outcomes and student feedback will all be presented to help illustrate the effectiveness of the new strategies employed in making the design process firstly, more relevant and therefore secondly, of greater value, to the architecture student.

Sensing Spaces:A Body-oriented Architectural Design Education

The contemporary dominance of visuality has turned our understanding of space into a mode of unidirectional experience that externalizes other sensual capacities of the body while perceiving the built environment. This affects not only architectural practice but also architectural education when an introduction to the concept of space is often challenging, especially for the students who have limited spatial and sensual training. Considering that an architectural work is not perceived as a series of retinal pictures but as a repeated multi-sensory experience, the problem definitions in the design studio need to be disengaged from the dominance of a ‘focused vision’ and be re-constructed in a holistic manner. A method to address this approach is to enable the students to refer to their own sensual experiences of the built environment as a part of their design processes. This paper focuses on a particular approach to the second year architectural design teaching which has been followed in the Department of Architecture at Izmir University of Economics for the last three years. The very first architectural project of the studio and the program, entitled ‘Sensing Spaces’, is conducted as a multi-staged design process including ‘sense games, analyses of organs and their interpretations into space’. The objectives of this four-week project are to explore the sense of space through the design of a three-dimensional assembly, to create an awareness of the significance of the senses in the design process and to experiment with re-interpreted forms of bodily parts. Hence, the students are encouraged to explore architectural space through their ‘tactile, olfactory, auditory, gustative and visual stimuli’. In this paper, based on a series of examples, architectural space is examined beyond its boundaries of structure, form and function, and spatial design is considered as an activity of re-constructing the built environment through the awareness of bodily senses.

Critical Dialogue in Architecture Studio: Peer Interaction and Feedback

Most tutors in architecture education regard studio-based learning to be rich in feedback due to is dialogic nature. Yet, student perceptions communicated via audits such as the UK National Student Survey appear to contradict this assumption and challenge the efficacy of design studio as a truly discursive learning setting. This paper presents findings from a collaborative study that was undertaken by the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, and Queen’s University Belfast that develop a deeper understanding of the role that peer interaction and dialogue plays within feedback processes, and the value that students attribute to these within the overall learning experience.

The paper adopts a broad definition of feedback, with emphasis on formative processes, and including the various kinds of dialogue that typify studio-based learning, and which constitute forms of guidance, direction, and reflection. The study adopted an ethnographic approach, gathering data on student and staff perceptions over the course of an academic year, and utilising methods embracing both quantitative and qualitative data.

The study found that the informal, socially-based peer interaction that characterises the studio is complementary to, and quite distinct from, the learning derived through tutor interaction. The findings also articulate the respective properties of informal and formally derived feedback and the contribution each makes to the quality of studio-based learning. It also identifies limitations in the use or value of peer learning, understanding of which is valuable to enhancing studio learning in architecture.

Understanding Student and Staff Perceptions of Feedback in Architecture: Summary Report

This report presents the results of a collaborative project between Queens University, Belfast and the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, and builds on a dialogue initiated during Session 2009-10 through which course guidance and feedback received by students was identified as an area requiring deeper understanding in order to enhance current practice

Portrush: Architecture for the North Irish Coast

The North Irish coast resembles one of the unique landscapes that define the scenic character of the place. To understand place you need to engage with stories and histories behind it. The search for Portrush has to start from Ulster. This book offers a journey to explore histories, traditions, festivities and the architecture of the Irish town. Approaching Portrush as a field of experimental architectural studio, the studio at Queen’s University Belfast teamed up to rediscover the Irish coastal condition and have a rethink about the origins and ingredients of Irish architecture and landscape. This book records and discusses this ambitious project and its outcome. Divided into two parts, the book introduces a comprehensive contextual and historical investigation into the heritage, culture and architecture followed by a display of students’ theoretical encounters and designs.

Design of a salisbury screen absorber using frequency selective surfaces to improve bandwidth and angular stability performance

A new design method that greatly enhances the reflectivity bandwidth and angular stability beyond what is possible with a simple Salisbury screen is described. The performance improvement is obtained from a frequency selective surface (FSS) which is sandwiched between the outermost 377 Ω/square resistive sheet and the ground plane. This is designed to generate additional reflection nulls at two predetermined frequencies by selecting the size of the two unequal length printed dipoles in each unit cell. A multiband Salisbury screen is realised by adjusting the reflection phase of the FSS to position one null above and the other below the inherent absorption band of the structure. Alternatively by incorporating resistive elements midway on the dipoles, it is shown that the three absorption bands can be merged to create a structure with a −10 dB reflectivity bandwidth which is 52% larger and relatively insensitive to incident angle compared to a classical Salisbury screen having the same thickness. CST Microwave Studio was used to optimise the reflectivity performance and simulate the radar backscatter from the structure. The numerical results are shown to be in close agreement with bistatic measurements for incident angles up to 40° over the frequency range 5.4−18 GHz.

Design and Practice in Architectural Theory Education

Benefiting from design in theory learning is not common in architecture schools. The general practice is to design in studio and to theorise in lectures. In the undergraduate module History and Theory in Architecture II at Queen’s University Belfast, students attend interactive lectures, participate in reading group discussions, design TextObjects, and write essays. TextObjects contain textual, audio and/or graphic representations that highlight a single concept or a complex set of issues derived from readings. Students experiment with diverse media, such as filmmaking, photography, and graphic design, some of which they experience for the first time. Lectures and readings revolve around theories of architectural representation, media and communication, which are practiced through TextObjects. This is a new way to link theory and practice in architectural education. Through action research, this study analyses this innovative teaching method called TextObject, which brings design and practice into architectural theory education to stimulate students towards critical thinking. The pedagogical research of architectural theoretician Necdet Teymur (1992, 1996, 2002) underlies the study.

Moments of Recognition:The Four Semester Studio in QUB

It is a legitimate assertion that the common ground of work of worth in architecture, whether theoretical or built comes from a firmly held position on the part of the author. In addition to delivery key competencies architectural education should act to support the formation of such a position in the student, or to make students aware of the possibility of holding such a position.

It is with this in mind perhaps that intensive unit-based diploma and masters structures are increasingly becoming the standard structure for for schools of architecture across the UK. The strengths of such a structure are most evident when the school, either by virtue of financial strength or geographic location is able to attract a diverse range of contrasting positions to bear in the formation of these units. In effect the offering to the student is a short, intensive immersion into a clear line of thought based on the position of those running the unit. Research is channeled by those running the unit to the work of the students. A single cohort of students therefore is able to observe and understand a wide range of ways of thinking about the subject whether or not they are participants in a unit or not. It is axiomatic that where this structure is applied in the absence of these resources the result can be less helpful, individual units are differentiated not to reflect the interests of those running the unit but for the sake of difference as its own end.

In structuring the M.Arch programme in Queens University Belfast the reality of our somewhat peripheral location was placed at the forefront of our considerations. A single 4 semester studio is offered. The first three semesters are carefully structured to offer a range of directed and self directed projects to the students. By interrogation of these projects, and work undertaken at undergraduate level the aim is to assist the students to identify a personal position on architecture, which is then developed in the thesis in semester four. Research and design outputs are emergent from the interest of the student body, cultivated by staff who have the time over the four semesters to get to know all aspects of a students interests.

This paper will lay out this structure and some of the projects run within it. Now having delivered two graduating years the successes and challenges of the system will be laid out by reference to several case studies of individual student experiences of the structure.

Think, code, succeed: The Programming Studio as a games-based collaboration:Paper published in the Proceedings of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe conference: Teacher Education through Partnerships and Collaborative Learning Communities, Glasgow, UK. ATEE, 2015

This paper investigates the profile of teachers in the island of Ireland who declared themselves willing to undertake professional development activities in programming, in particular to master programming by taking on-line courses involving the design of computer games. Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), it compares scores for teachers “willing” to undertake the courses with scores for those who declined, and examines other differences between the groups of respondents. Findings reflect the perceived difficulties of programming and the current low status accorded to the subject in Ireland. The paper also reviews the use of games-based learning as a “hook” to engage learners in programming and discusses the role of gamification as a tool for motivating learners in an on-line course. The on-line course focusing on games design was met with enthusiasm, and there was general consensus that gamification was appropriate for motivating learners in structured courses such as those provided.