Transitional issues of induction into design education for international undergraduate students : a case study analysis of architecture

The overarching aim of this paper is to present and discuss a collaborative undertaking between the School of Architecture and Building and the Academic Skills Unit at Deakin University, Australia in a programme called The Integrated Support Programme for Architecture. It does this in the following ways. It provides a justification for the setting up of an integrated programme for international architecture students. It describes the programme that was set up and outlines the reasons for collaboration between an academic School and an Academic Skills support services unit to prepare students both nationally and internationally as graduates of architecture. It then reports on a study undertaken to evaluate the programme in terms of student response and perception. Following this, it highlights directions for effective and strategic transition of past and present learning for international students. Using a case study analysis, the thrust of this paper is to advance knowledge and understanding of the pertinent issues related to international students either commencing or articulating into the professional course of architecture. It is envisaged that in this discussion matters may be raised for a strategic and effective transition of generic and internationalised learning for international students.

Web 2.0 VDS : social networking as a facilitator of design education

In 2009, Deakin University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong trailed the use of Web 2.0 technologies to enhance learning outcomes in a third year architectural design studio that was modelled on the Virtual Design Studios (VDS) of past decades. The studio developed the VDS further by integrating a social learning environment into the blended learning experience. The Web 2.0 VDS utilised the social networking sites Ning.com, YouTube and Skype; various 3D modelling and video- and/or image-processing software; plus chat-software. These were used in combination to deliver lectures, communicate learning goals, disseminate learning resources, submit work, and provide feedback and comments on various design works in assessing students’ outcomes. This paper centres on issues of learning and teaching associated with the development of a Social Network VDS (SNVDS).

Web 2.0 virtual design studio : social networking as facilitator of design education

In 2009, Deakin University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong trailed the use of Web 2.0 technologies to enhance learning outcomes in a third-year architectural design studio that was modelled on the virtual design studios (VDSs) of the past decades. The studio developed the VDS further by integrating a social learning environment into the blended learning experience. The Web 2.0 VDS utilized the social networking site Ning.com, YouTube, Skype and various three-dimensional modelling, video and image processing, and chat software to deliver lectures, communicate learning goals, disseminate learning resources, submitting, providing feedback and comments to various design works, and assessing of students’ outcomes. This research centres on issues of learning and teaching associated with the development of a social network VDS.

Children and university architecture students working together : a pedagogical model of children’s participation in architectural design

Increasing efforts have been made to engage children in the design of the built environment, and several participatory models have been developed. The aim of this paper is to propose a pedagogical model for children's genuine participation in architectural design, developed in an architectural education context. According to this pedagogical model, children (primary school students) and youth (university architecture students) work in teams to develop the architectural design proposals. This model was developed through a joint educational project between Deakin University and Wales Street Primary School (both institutions are based in Victoria, Australia). In the four-week duration of the project, first year architecture students worked with Grade 3 and 4 primary school children to design a school playground. The final product of the project was a 1:20 scale model of a playground, which was installed and presented at the end of the fourth week. The project received positive feedback from all the participants, including children, architecture students, university lecturers, primary school teachers and architects. In addition, it achieved a high level of children's genuine participation. This model can be refined and applied in new situations, and potentially with other primary schools working with Deakin University.

Developing online construction technology resources in tectonic design education

We outline issues of importance in relation to tectonic design within the architectural profession and the relationship to architectural education in Australia. Twelve years of research and curriculum development at Deakin University is discussed, involving the creation of online resources and case studies, digitally-integrated projects relating to building construction and design studio education. The ethos behind the Construction Primer of engaging students as ‘amateur researchers’ in a way that ensures ‘that student research work is worth more than course assessment’ forms the pedagogical foundation of much of this work. A model of Socially Networked Construction Technology education has been developed that integrates social networks and the Internet to engage students in tectonic design within and outside the classroom through authentic curricula. Through the use of Virtual Galleries, Blogs, YouTube and social networks, a culture of peer learning and sharing has been developed. Through shared knowledge facilitated through social networks, great potential lies for expanding the synergies between higher order learning and online resource development for design decision support.

International congress on architetural education 28 July to 2 August 1924. Proceedings.

At head of title: The Royal institute of British architects.

Close encounter, withdrawn effects

Extending Deleuze’s later writing on the cinema and engaging both film and built work, the article explores what I call the "close-up," an immanent subjectivity of architectural encounter, whereby the architectural surface aggressively colonizes the subject at close range through a touch or by another mechanism I describe as the "withdrawn effect," the surface assimilates the subject.

Bouncing back : the role of design in facilitating students to understand and deal with adversity

After state-wide flooding and a category-5 tropical cyclone, three-quarters of the state of Queensland was declared a disaster zone in early 2011. This deluge of adversity had a significant impact on university students, a few weeks prior to the start of the academic semester. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role that design plays in facilitating students to understand and respond to, adversity. The participants of this study were second and fourth year architectural design students at a large Australian University, in Queensland. As a part of their core architectural design studies, students were required to provide architectural responses to the recent catastrophic events in Queensland. Qualitative data was obtained through student surveys, work design work submitted by students and a survey of guests who attending an exhibition of the student work. The results of this research showed that the students produced more than just the required set of architectural drawings, process journals and models, but also recognition of the important role that the affective dimension of the flooding event and the design process played in helping them to both understand and respond to, adversity. They held the ‘real world’ experience and practical aspect of the assessment in higher regard than their typical focus on aesthetics and the making of iconic design. Perhaps most importantly, the students recognised that this process allowed them to have a voice, and a means to respond to adversity through the powerful language of design.

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.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture

The development of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture (the Statement) centred on requirements for the Master of Architecture and proceeded alongside similar developments in the building and construction discipline under the guidance and support of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design (ADBED). Through their representation of Australian architecture programs, ADBED have provided high-level leadership for the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project in Architecture (LTAS Architecture). The threshold learning outcomes (TLOs), the description of the nature and extent of the discipline, and accompanying notes were developed through wide consultation with the discipline and profession nationally. They have been considered and debated by ADBED on a number of occasions and have, in their fi nal form, been strongly endorsed by the Deans. ADBED formed the core of the Architecture Reference Group (chaired by an ADBED member) that drew together representatives of every peak organisation for the profession and discipline in Australia. The views of the architectural education community and profession have been provided both through individual submissions and the voices of a number of peak bodies. Over two hundred individuals from the practising profession, the academic workforce and the student cohort have worked together to build consensus about the capabilities expected of a graduate of an Australian Master of Architecture degree. It was critical from the outset that the Statement should embrace the wisdom of the greater ‘tribe’, should ensure that graduates of the Australian Master of Architecture were eligible for professional registration and, at the same time, should allow for scope and diversity in the shape of Australian architectural education. A consultation strategy adopted by the Discipline Scholar involved meetings and workshops in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. Stakeholders from all jurisdictions and most universities participated in the early phases of consultation through a series of workshops that concluded late in October 2010. The Draft Architecture Standards Statement was formed from these early meetings and consultation in respect of that document continued through early 2011. This publication represents the outcomes of work to establish an agreed standards statement for the Master of Architecture. Significant further work remains to ensure the alignment of professional accreditation and recognition procedures with emerging regulatory frameworks cascading from the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The Australian architecture community hopes that mechanisms can be found to integrate TEQSA’s quality assurance purpose with well-established and understood systems of professional accreditation to ensure the good standing of Australian architectural education into the future. The work to build renewed and integrated quality assurance processes and to foster the interests of this project will continue, for at least the next eighteen months, under the auspices of Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)-funded Architecture Discipline Network (ADN), led by ADBED and Queensland University of Technology. The Discipline Scholar gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions given by those in stakeholder communities to the formulation of the Statement. Professional and academic colleagues have travelled and gathered to shape the Standards Statement. Debate has been vigorous and spirited and the Statement is rich with the purpose, critical thinking and good judgement of the Australian architectural education community. The commitments made to the processes that have produced this Statement reflect a deep and abiding interest by the constituency in architectural education. This commitment bodes well for the vibrancy and productivity of the emergent Architecture Discipline Network (ADN). Endorsement, in writing, was received from the Australian Institute of Architects National Education Committee (AIA NEC): The National Education Committee (NEC) of the Australian Institute of Architects thank you for your work thus far in developing the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Architecture In particular, we acknowledge your close consultation with the NEC on the project along with a comprehensive cross-section of the professional and academic communities in architecture. The TLOs with the nuanced levels of capacities – to identify, develop, explain, demonstrate etc – are described at an appropriate level to be understood as minimum expectations for a Master of Architecture graduate. The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) has noted: There is a clear correlation between the current processes for accreditation and what may be the procedures in the future following the current review. The requirement of the outcomes as outlined in the draft paper to demonstrate capability is an appropriate way of expressing the measure of whether the learning outcomes have been achieved. The measure of capability as described in the outcome statements is enhanced with explanatory descriptions in the accompanying notes.

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.

Teaching creatively, teaching for creativity : QUT’s Creative Industries Faculty Showcase Panel

In this panel, we showcase approaches to teaching for creativity in disciplines of the Media, Entertainment and Creative Arts School and the School of Design within the Creative Industries Faculty (CIF) at QUT. The Faculty is enormously diverse, with 4,000 students enrolled across a total of 20 disciplines. Creativity is a unifying concept in CIF, both as a graduate attribute, and as a key pedagogic principle. We take as our point of departure the assertion that it is not sufficient to assume that students of tertiary courses in creative disciplines are ‘naturally’ creative. Rather, teachers in higher education must embrace their roles as facilitators of development and learning for the creative workforce, including working to build creative capacity (Howkins, 2009). In so doing, we move away from Renaissance notions of creativity as an individual genius, a disposition or attribute which cannot be learned, towards a 21st century conceptualisation of creativity as highly collaborative, rhizomatic, and able to be developed through educational experiences (see, for instance, Robinson, 2006; Craft; 2001; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008). It has always been important for practitioners of the arts and design to be creative. Under the national innovation agenda (Bradley et al, 2008) and creative industries policy (e.g., Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2008; Office for the Arts, 2011), creativity has been identified as a key determinant of economic growth, and thus developing students’ creativity has now become core higher education business across all fields. Even within the arts and design, professionals are challenged to be creative in new ways, for new purposes, in different contexts, and using new digital tools and platforms. Teachers in creative disciplines may have much to offer to the rest of the higher education sector, in terms of designing and modelling innovative and best practice pedagogies for the development of student creative capability. Information and Communication Technologies such as mobile learning, game-based learning, collaborative online learning tools and immersive learning environments offer new avenues for creative learning, although analogue approaches may also have much to offer, and should not be discarded out of hand. Each panelist will present a case study of their own approach to teaching for creativity, and will address the following questions with respect to their case: 1. What conceptual view of creativity does the case reflect? 2. What pedagogical approaches are used, and why were these chosen? What are the roles of innovative learning approaches, including ICTs, if any? 3. How is creativity measured or assessed? How do students demonstrate creativity? We seek to identify commonalities and contrasts between and among the pedagogic case studies, and to answer the question: what can we learn about teaching creatively and teaching for creativity from CIF best practice?