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’.

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.

What is the Architecture Studio?

What is the Architecture Studio? What is the studio? Where do architect’s make architecture? What happens in architecture studios at QUT? How does QUT architecture provide assessment feedback? Why is QUT architecture Experimenting with Change?

QUT Architecture Film Studio (Aus)

Research Statement: An urban film produced by Luke Harrison Mitchell Benham, Sharlene Anderson, Tristan Clark. RIVE NOIR explores the film noir tradition, shot on location in a dark urban space between high-rises and the river, sheltered by a highway. With an original score and striking cinematography, Rive Noir radically transforms the abandoned river’s edge through the production of an amplified reality ordinarily unseen in the Northbank. The work produced under my supervision was selected to appear in the Expanded Architecture Research Group’s International Architecture Film Festival and Panel Discussion in Sydney: The University of Sydney and Carriageworks Performance Space, 06 November 2011. QUT School of Design research submission was selected alongside exhibits by AA School of Architecture, London; The Bartlett School of Architecture, London; University of The Arts, London; Arrhaus School of Architecture, Denmark; Dublin as a Cinematic City, Ireland; Design Lab Screen Studio, Australia; and Sona Cinecity, The University of Melbourne. The exhibit included not only the screening of the film but the design project that derived from and extended the aesthetics of the urban film. The urban proposal and architectural intervention that followed the film was subsequently published in the Brisbane Times, after the urban proposal won first place in The Future of Brisbane architecture competition, which demonstrates the impact of the research project as a whole. EXPANDED ARCHITECTURE 2011 - 6th November Architecture Film Night + Panel Discussion @ Performance Space CarriageWorks was Sydney's first International Architectural Film Festival. With over 40 architectural films by local and international artists, film makers and architects. It was followed by Panel Discussion of esteemed academics and artists working in the field of architectural film.

The Brisbane Northbank Urban Film Studio : screening of shortlisted films

Research Statement: In this research project film groups of 4-5 students under my direction produced a 3-5 minute urban film that explored the Brisbane Northbank, and which would become the basis for an urban proposal and design of a small film studio for independent filmmakers in the site. The theoretical premise was that a film studio does not simply produce movies, it creates urban effects all around it and acts as a vortex of cultural activity and social life. For this modest facility where the cinema goes out into the street, the city itself becomes the studio. Students were called to observe the historical problematics of technique, image and effect that arise in the cinema, and to apply these to their own urban-film practice. A panel of judges working in film and architecture shortlisted the 12 best films in 2010 and a major public film screening event took place at the Tribal Cinema. The Shortlisted films today form a permanent "exhibit" in YouTube. The research project was funded by the Queensland University of Technology, School of Design and received accolades from film faculty in the Creative Industries Faculty. The diverse body of work that emanated from the screening contributed a unique analysis of the Northbank to Brisbane.

Caught in the act of collaboration: Students’ experiences of collective learning within a real-world design studio context

This study is an evaluation of design students’ perceptions of the benefits of collective learning in a real-world collaborative design studio. Third year students worked in inter-disciplinary teams representing architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, and industrial design. Responding to a real-world brief and in consultation with an industry partner client and early childhood education pre-service teachers, the teams were required to collectively propose a design response for a community-based child and family centre, on an iconic koala sanctuary site. Data were collected using several methods including a participatory action research method, through the form of a large analogue, collaborative jigsaw puzzle. Using a grounded theory methodology, qualitative data were thematically analysed to reveal six distinct aspects of collaboration, which positively impacted the students’ learning experience. The results of this study include recommendations for improving real world collaboration in the design studio in preparation for students’ transition into professional practice.

Survey : The design studio now

In this book for the AASA I provide a response to the question asked by the editors: What is Architecture Studio?

The sublime, affective process + architectural production

A year before Kate Nesbitt’s Theorising a New Agenda For Architecture (1996), the author penned a chapter on the significance of the sublime and its contribution to post-modern architecture via the uncanny or disturbing through the theories of Vidler and Eisenman (Nesbit, 1995). Twenty years on, we see its ongoing presence within the contemporary works of artists Kapoor, Ellison and Viola. Eisenmann and Libeskind aside, explicit reference to the Sublime whether through architectural praxis or theory appears to have been trumped by ecological derivatives and associated transactions, as catalyst for new architecture and architectural thinking. For Edmund Burke (1757), the Sublime was seen as a leading, an overpowering of self to a state of intense self-presence, often leading to a state of otherness. To experience the sublime is to experience affect, physiologically overwhelming the mental faculties through intensities of astonishment, terror, obscurity, magnificence, and reverence. Key here is Burke’s articulation of the stages of the sublime encounter, particularly so, its implications for the process of production which architectural theorists appear to have overstepped in their valorisation of the sublime object. This paper seeks to resituate the sublime within the context of architectural production. Through concepts such as material thinking, bodies and making strange, the paper explores a shift in focus toward affective processes traced from Burke’s inquiry. Rather than proposing strategies solely for affect within the work itself, the focus lies upon the designing experience, where blockage and desirous forces are critical partners in the process of production, as revealed through recent studio programs entitled Strange Space.

The Perception of Light: Understanding Architectural Lighting Design

Light is essential to life and vision; without light, nothing exists. It plays a pivotal role in the world of architectural design and is used to generate all manner of perceptions that enhance the designed environment experience. But what are the fundamental elements that designers rely upon to generate light enhanced experiences? How are people’s perceptions influenced by designed light schemas? In this book Dr. Marisha McAuliffe highlights the relationship that exists between light source and surface and how both create quality of effect in the built environment. Concepts relating to architectural lighting design history, theories, research, and generation of lighting design schemes to create optimal experiences in architecture, interior architecture and design are all explored in detail. This book is essential reading for both the student and the professional working in architectural lighting, particularly in terms of qualitative perception oriented lighting design

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.

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.

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.

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.