ArchiBabel: Tracing the Writing Architecture Project in Architectural Education

Though much recent scholarship has investigated the potential of writing in creative practice (including visual arts, drama, even choreography), there are few models in the literature which discuss writing in the context of architectural education. The paper presented here aims to address this dearth of pedagogical research, analysing the cross-disciplinary Writing Architecture Project based in the undergraduate course of the School of Architecture at QUB. Over the course of four years, teaching staff, in partnership with the university's Learning Development Service, technicians and specialist librarians, have addressed an unfortunately persistent struggle for both architecture students and professionals alike to research and construct argument in written form. The paper examines the current problem as identified in the literature before analysing the efficacy of the variety of teaching methods used in the Writing Architecture Project, with conclusions about the project’s success and continuing challenges.

Perceptions of physical versus virtual design studio education

While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines associated with the art and design, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way, with even fewer giving emphasis to the teachers and students and how they feel about changing their environment. This situation is problematic given the changes and challenges facing higher education, including those associated with new technologies such as online learning. In response, this paper describes a comparative study employing grounded theory to identify and describe teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the physical design studio (PDS) as well as the virtual design studio (VDS) of architectural students in an Australian university. The findings give significance to aspects of design education activities and their role in the development of integrated hybrid learning environments.

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.

Architecture & Research: a possible structure

This article results from three conferences organized by the research project titled “Architectural research framework” developed by the research center Architectural Lab – LabART – of the Lusófona University, and also by my personal experiences and dialogs with other members of the EAAE research committee. Architectural research always existed, but only recently some major questions have emerged, by the time that Europe started the last universitary reform on the 80’s. Two aspects are crucial in understanding the problematic that we are referring to. On the one hand we verify that the architectural teaching should maintain the articulation and close relationship between the theoretical and practical aspects. On the other hand, there is a need to confer academic degrees, as the MsC and PhD’s in the Faculties of Architecture. Inevitably, discussions began about the scientificity of architecture (its grounding), the types of research, methodological models, as well as on the evaluation criteria and the quality of research, or the relevance of the results. We will try to approach some of these discussions, and by the end, establish a basic structure that allows us to obtain an open model for research in architecture.

An innovative learning model for teaching architectural technology using building information modelling : a Queensland University of Technology perspective

In architecture courses, instilling a wider understanding of the industry specific representations practiced in the Building Industry is normally done under the auspices of Technology and Science subjects. Traditionally, building industry professionals communicated their design intentions using industry specific representations. Originally these mainly two dimensional representations such as plans, sections, elevations, schedules, etc. were produced manually, using a drawing board. Currently, this manual process has been digitised in the form of Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) or ubiquitously simply CAD. While CAD has significant productivity and accuracy advantages over the earlier manual method, it still only produces industry specific representations of the design intent. Essentially, CAD is a digital version of the drawing board. The tool used for the production of these representations in industry is still mainly CAD. This is also the approach taken in most traditional university courses and mirrors the reality of the situation in the building industry. A successor to CAD, in the form of Building Information Modelling (BIM), is presently evolving in the Construction Industry. CAD is mostly a technical tool that conforms to existing industry practices. BIM on the other hand is revolutionary both as a technical tool and as an industry practice. Rather than producing representations of design intent, BIM produces an exact Virtual Prototype of any building that in an ideal situation is centrally stored and freely exchanged between the project team. Essentially, BIM builds any building twice: once in the virtual world, where any faults are resolved, and finally, in the real world. There is, however, no established model for learning through the use of this technology in Architecture courses. Queensland University of Technology (QUT), a tertiary institution that maintains close links with industry, recognises the importance of equipping their graduates with skills that are relevant to industry. BIM skills are currently in increasing demand throughout the construction industry through the evolution of construction industry practices. As such, during the second half of 2008, QUT 4th year architectural students were formally introduced for the first time to BIM, as both a technology and as an industry practice. This paper will outline the teaching team’s experiences and methodologies in offering a BIM unit (Architectural Technology and Science IV) at QUT for the first time and provide a description of the learning model. The paper will present the results of a survey on the learners’ perspectives of both BIM and their learning experiences as they learn about and through this technology.

The Influence of Space Layout, Technology and Teaching Approach on Student Learning: An Architectural Technology Perspective

Some would argue that there is a need for the traditional lecture format to be rethought in favour of a more active approach. However, this must form part of a bipartite strategy, considered in conjunction with the layout of any new space to facilitate alternative learning and teaching methods. With this in mind, this paper begins to examine the impact of the learning environment on the student learning experience, specifically focusing on students studying on the Architectural Technology and Management programme at Ulster University. The aim of this study is two-fold: to increase understanding of the impact of learning space layout, by taking a student centered approach; and to gain an appreciation of how technology can impact upon the learning space. The study forms part of a wider project being undertaken at Ulster University known as the Learning Landscape Transition Project, exploring the relationship between learning, teaching and space layout. Data collection was both qualitative and quantitative, with use of a case study supported by a questionnaire based on attitudinal scaling. A focus group was also used to further analyse the key trends resulting from the questionnaire. The initial results suggest that the learning environment, and the technology within it, can not only play an important part in the overall learning experience of the student, but also assist with preparation for the working environment to be experienced in professional life.

Daylighting design in the architectural design studio

This paper discusses two different approaches to teaching design and their modes of delivery and reflects upon their successes and failures. Two small groups of third year design students have been given projects focussing on incorporation of daylighting to architectural design in studios having different design themes. In association with the curriculum, the themes were Digital Tools and Sustainability. Although both studios had the topic of daylighting, the aim and methodology used were different. Digital Tool studio’s aim was to teach how to design daylighting by using a digital tool, where as, Sustainability studio aimed at using scale modelling as a tool to learn about daylighting and integrating it into design. Positive results for providing student learning success within the University context were the students’ chance to learn and practice some new skills –using a new tool for designing; integration of the tutors’ extensive research expertise to their teaching practice; and the students’ construction of their own understanding of knowledge in a student-centred educational environment. This environment created a very positive attitude in the form of exchanging ideas and collaboration among the students of Digital Tools students at the discussion forum. Sustainability group students were enthusiastic about designing and testing various proposals. Problems that both studios experienced were mainly related to timing. Synchronizing with other groups of their studios and learning of a new skill on top of an already complicated process of design learning were the setbacks.

Modelling sustainable and optimal solutions for building services integration in early architectural design : confronting the software and professional interoperability deficit

Decisions made in the earliest stage of architectural design have the greatest impact on the construction, lifecycle cost and environmental footprint of buildings. Yet the building services, one of the largest contributors to cost, complexity, and environmental impact, are rarely considered as an influence on the design at this crucial stage. In order for efficient and environmentally sensitive built environment outcomes to be achieved, a closer collaboration between architects and services engineers is required at the outset of projects. However, in practice, there are a variety of obstacles impeding this transition towards an integrated design approach. This paper firstly presents a critical review of the existing barriers to multidisciplinary design. It then examines current examples of best practice in the building industry to highlight the collaborative strategies being employed and their benefits to the design process. Finally, it discusses a case study project to identify directions for further research.

Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching

This article describes research higher degree supervisors’ experiences of supervision as a teaching and learning practice. While research education is considered central to the HDR experience, comparatively little is known to date of the pedagogical lenses adopted by supervisors as they go about their supervision. We worked with 35 supervisors engaged in discipline-specific and interdisciplinary research across architectural design, science, engineering, computer science, information systems and librarianship. Several of these supervisors conducted projects which interfaced with the social sciences and humanities. The pedagogies, constructed through the discussions and phenomenographic analysis, offer a picture of supervisors’ collective awareness of supervision as a teaching and learning practice. Supervision as a teaching and learning practice was experienced as: Promoting the supervisor’s development, Imparting academic expertise, Upholding academic standards, Promoting learning to research, Drawing upon student expertise, Enabling student development, Venturing into unexplored territory, Forming productive communities, and Contributing to society.

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.

Reflection in Integrated Problem Based Learning : 20 years of continuing application to the teaching of architecture

In 1984 the School of Architecture and Built Environment within the University of Newcastle, Australia introduced an integrated program based on real design projects and using Integrated Problem Based Learning (IPBL) as the teaching method. Since 1984 there have been multiple changes arising from the expectations of the architectural fraternity, enrolling students, lecturers, available facilities, accreditation authorities and many others. These challenges have been successfully accommodated whilst maintaining the original purposes and principles of IPBL. The Architecture program has a combined two-degree structure consisting of a first degree, Bachelor of Science (Architecture), followed by a second degree, Bachelor of Architecture. The program is designed to simulate the problem-solving situations that face a working architect in every day practice. This paper will present the degree structure where each student is enrolled in a single course per semester incorporating design integration and study areas in design studies, professional studies, historical studies, technical studies, environmental studies and communication skills. Each year the design problems increase in complexity and duration set around an annual theme. With 20 years of successful delivery of any program there are highlights and challenges along the way and this paper will discuss some of the successes and barriers experienced within the School of Architecture and Built Environment in delivering IPBL. In addition, the reflective process investigates the currency of IPBL as an appropriate vehicle for delivering the curriculum in 2004 and any additional administrative or staff considerations required to enhance the continuing application of IPBL.

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?

A blended learning approach to the teaching of professional practice in architecture

This paper reports on a number of blended learning activities conducted in two subjects of a Master of Architecture degree at a major Australian university. The subjects were related to “professional practice” and as such represent a little researched area of architectural curriculum. The research provides some insight into the student perceptions of learning opportunity and engagement associated with on-line delivery modes. Students from these two subjects were surveyed for their perceptions about the opportunity for learning afforded by the on-line components, and also for their perceived level of engagement. Responses to these perceptions of traditional and on-line modes of delivery are compared and analysed for significant differences. While students were generally positive in response to the learning experiences, analysis of the results shows that students found the traditional modes to assist in their learning significantly more than on-line modes. Students were neutral regarding the opportunity for engagement that on-line modes provided. Analysis of the students’ gender, age and hours of paid work was also conducted to ascertain any relationship with attitudes to the flexibility of on-line delivery; no significant relationship was detected. This study has shown that students were generally resistant to on-line engagement opportunities and their ability to support learning.