Mikael Powell Research Initiatives: September 2008

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

{Assmt-intent} MY TRIP TO THE ARCHIVES

Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Museum –Architecture and Design Collection

My area of research concerns evaluation of university environments for learning in general, and college students and their assessment of their physical classroom space in particular. Inherent, although not often apparent in their evaluation, is the resultant effects of students perceptions of the personal and social relationships in their space as well as the perceived intent of the entity or person who created the environment for them. Although it is commonly understood in architectural education and practice that designed spaces are the solidification of intention, there is no documentation as to how the nonprofessional perceives that intention in terms of how they feel valued, or even whether they perceive the classroom environment as utility to the teaching method. Historically spaces have been designed and assessed per the 19th century architectural maxim of “Form follows Function”.

To those ends, my external experience involves conducting an initial research visit to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Museum, Bldg. N51, in Cambridge Massachusetts (http://web.mit.edu/museum/collections/architecture.html). I will be working in the Architecture and Design collection and Institute Archives and Special Collections. Before the 19th century in America, design work was largely the province of artisans/builders and a few architects. In the 1840’s, there was less than a half dozen architects in New York and slightly more in Boston. However, because of the accumulated wealth of the industrial revolution, architects began to be recognized as professional advisers and the first school of architecture in the United States was established at MIT. This archive collection documents the oldest architectural program in America and includes student thesis work and reviews from 1873 through the latter 20th century. The intent of the designer for classroom spaces are both illustrated and critiqued within the framework of architectural education, thus giving an historical foundation for the intent of the designer for teaching and learning environments.

I will develop a list of artifact categories to submit to the curator 30 days before my visit. I will work with them and their collection list to develop an organized ordered sequence of artifacts for viewing and work out how to document the work for my use. I will make an appointment for the actual visit. All visits are supervised and prearranged and the cost is $30.00 per hour for each hour after the first. Therefore, this initial visit will set up my research initiative and build relationships with the curation staff.

To document this external experience, I will write a paper detailing my process, present a summary of items viewed and commentary on the experience.

Interdisciplinarity: Like a Full Earthen Bowl???

My Summary of "Interdisciplinarity: Like a Full Earthen Bowl" by Dick Westheimer

In this article, Dr. Westheimer gives support to his initiative to apply interdisciplinary methods to “ all of his work and play” by presenting a theoretical foundation, contrasting interdisciplinarians and the disciplines and then proposing implications.

Setting his foundation for the place of interdisciplinary methods, Dr. Westheimer presents the angry admonitions of physicist Davie Bohm who blames contemporary culture for relying on a view of “ the totality as constructed of independent fragments”, in contrast to his views of an “undivided wholeness”. Westheimer summarizes by saying that interdisciplinarity views a phenomena as not discipline fragments independently existing, but rather, as Bohm posits “derivation of the parts by extracting from the whole”.

In regards to interdisciplinary actions and the disciplines, there is a dichotomy of sorts. Although Dr. Westheimer, writes of a “coherent interdisciplinary method revealing a dynamic connectedness”, he admits that great truths can be and often are derived mechanically (isolated from the whole). Indeed, much good has come from close inspection within the constraints of disciplinary organization. But he concludes that disciplinary work, when taken to the extreme, often “lays waste to more than it builds up”. Within that position, he offers that the only way to truly have a greater understanding of the whole is to master the part, which is highly improbable when one accepts topics that span multiple disciplines. Therefore, he concludes, that the problem is not in disciplinary work, but rather, when one crowds out the other and he clarifies the role of interdisciplinary work in nine areas.

Finally, Dr. Wertheimer illustrates the implication of his thinking by relaying a personal experience in which an outsider’s view affected the status quo. He concludes by imparting permission to the reader to find value in undisciplined inclinations, to question authority and empower those left out - indeed, to question that those disciplines actually exist.

Commentary on George Hein's article, “The Challenge of Constructivist Teaching”

Overall, I found the article to be an unexpected delight. In his “prologue”, Dr. Hein illustrates that interdisciplinarity can bring benefits to the classroom and then proceeds with a largely reasoned introduction to constructivism and offers his personal journey before outlining his response to the challenge of developing a course that embodied the constructivist theory. Upon further reading, I realized that the aforementioned course was the predecessor to Interdisciplinary Seminar I and it laid a wonderful historical foundation for my understanding of our initiative. Amid this reading, I did connect with issues of power relationships in education, the Discoverists posit that knowledge can be right or wrong and, lastly, the reason why this is especially appropriate for interdisciplinarians in light of, as George Hein states, “the few semesters in which he found it painful to face another three hours”.

I am a university professor, and in that light, I experience the balance of power between undergraduates and their instructor. My students, largely, expect to be fed what is ‘right’ and then offered the opportunity to regurgitate the truth in examination. Their subservience to the knowledge and faith in this process ensure that I am in control in the classroom. I strive for a different pedagogy and I notice their fear of personal empowerment and the accompanying responsibility. As Dr. Hein acknowledges, shifting power, even in a constructivist methodology can be palatable.

The concept of knowledge as being right or wrong was highlighted for me when I took my first course here at Lesley University this summer and experienced a constructivist pedagogy. In collaborative work, as part of a process, not knowing if it is “right’ and not knowing if your cohort is “right” can be daunting. I can understand how the ‘unenlightened’ student can be wary of group work constructed from each team member’s interpretation of the text and I strive for more enlightenment.

Lastly, I can understand a benefit for interdiscipinarians in the constructivist methodology as Dr. Hein proffers, and I do see theories of knowledge and theories of learning working in continua with best practice often residing apart from the extremities.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Evaluation of Educational Facilities for Instruction/ Design

(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
The purpose of this course is to analyze the efforts by Lesley University and its agents to evaluate the architectural design of the existing Art Institute of Boston facility and outline the dynamics of the programming and schematic design phase of the new Art Institute of Boston. Topics addressed are curriculum and instructional theory, and contemporary evaluation.

A. Underlying premises
1. “School architecture profoundly influences the outcomes of learning” (Upitis, 2010, p. ix).
This assertion drives my research because it substantiates the relationship between adequate accommodations and effective teaching and learning.

2. There are distinct discourses to understand within the professions of architecture and education for effective collaboration (Upitis, 2010)
My architectural experience supports this idea that there are differences in the ways of speaking and values between architects and educators.

3. “If complexity science can be used to characterize the emergent and romantic nature of teaching and learning, then the next issue to consider is the kinds of architectural patterns that would allow for complexity to emerge.”(Upitis, 2010, p.79).
Within the various approaches to teaching and learning theory (constructivism – behavioralism, etc...) there are educational goals that are best supported by the built environment after consideration whether architectural accommodations address simple, complicated or complex issues.

4. Assessment of spaces must include lifecycle considerations (Upitis, 2010).
This premise reinforces that long-term use analysis is essential to effectively compare costs to benefits.

B. Course objectives:
Existing facility:
• To discover the basis for the design of the existing facility
• To review the relationship between curriculum/instruction and layout/spatial accommodations
• To gain an understanding of administrative procedures involved in the design of the facility
• To gain an understanding of the intentions and values of major stakeholders at the time the existing facility was developed.
New facility:
• To gain an understanding of the design of the new facility in regard to deficits of the existing building
• To analyze the initial stages of design for the new facility exploring how the proposed built environment supports teaching and learning (with particular attention to non-linear solutions that incorporate complexity science theories).
• To review the relationship between instruction and spatial accommodations
• To gain an understanding of administrative procedures involved in the design of the new facility
• To gain an understanding of the discourse, intentions and values of major stakeholders
• To gain an understanding of the new facility as a venture driven by owner initiatives, as a community venture, and as an architectural statement

C. Level of access requested from Lesley University
• Interviews with stakeholders
• Minutes of meetings (and attachments) of Lesley University with the architect
• Minutes of internal meetings (and attachments) and correspondence of Lesley University
• Minutes of internal meetings (and attachments) and correspondence from the architect
• Access to architectural sketches and presentations
• Assessments of the existing facility (formal and commentary)

D. Course grade is assessed from satisfactory completion of the following components:
1. The Process:
• Set up the process and repository to receive preliminary design documents and correspondence
• Set up procedures and materials for interviews
• Review, maintain, format and analyze data repository
• Perform interviews with key stakeholders
• Collect and analyze pertinent research

2. The Deliverables:
• Prepare interview protocol document for review.
• Prepare an analysis of the efforts by Lesley University and its agents to evaluate the architectural design of the existing Art Institute of Boston facility and outline the dynamics of the programming and schematic design of the new Art Institute of Boston pursuant to course objectives.
• Present evidence of archival categorization and formatting of artifacts.

3. Timetable
Issue Preliminary draft to Dr. Rena Upitis for comments no later than Sunday, November 14, 2010.
Transmit final paper to Dr. Rena Upitis for grade and final comments no later than 30 days after receipt of preliminary comments.
4. Final Evaluation
Outside activity faculty/ individual will send a letter of evaluation to the Senior Advisor in time for grades to be posted.

-end

Reference

Upitis, R. (2010). Raising a school: Foundations for school architecture. Township of South Frontenac, Ontario, Canada: Wintergreen Studios Press.
(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)

Monday, September 01, 2008

Form Follows Function Cha-Cha-Cha:

Form Follows Function Cha-Cha-Cha:

In the Classroom Assessment Dance with Architectural Theory and User Perceptions, who Leads?

Articulation of the Research Question

My research concerns the physical classroom environment and how well it is congruous to the method of teaching. I consider the impact of the adequacy or inadequacy of the space and how the classroom selection affects the college student. I go further to explore how human adaptability alters that perception. I come to this research not only as an architect with specialty in designing educational facilities, but also as a former executive board member and a current full-time college professor. This topic is pertinent to me because, while serving in an administrative capacity during a financial crisis, I authorized classroom assignments that were sufficient but not wholly appropriate and there was no basis to ascertain if the students truly perceived that intention. This research explores two questions - How do college students feel the physical classroom environment relates to the method of teaching and how does the relationship between the physical classroom environment and method of teaching affect college students in regards to how they feel valued?

To address this inquiry, I have assembled a team of researchers and associates and enlisted support from the Office of Teaching and Learning at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boson, Massachusetts. My research is under the supervision of Dr. Gene Diaz, my Lesley University faculty advisor. I have enlisted the services of three professionals from a research agency to conduct the focus group sessions and analyze the data, under my direction. In addition, three researchers will assist me and between three to five work study students will be at my disposal throughout the duration of the study.

Plan for Triangulation

This research explores students’ perception of their classroom environment defined within categories of the teaching method. Therefore, when triangulating the study, students will be involved in all three areas of the research. Initially, subjects will participate in in situ focus groups to give students a vocabulary to frame their responses and to explore value issues. We will distribute documentation of the sessions to participants for commentary and review the findings for emergent themes. The second method of research will employ open-ended surveys targeted to students identified in the focus group analysis. Lastly, we will solicit historical experiential information from effected students via the Internet to create phenomenon narratives.

Validity, Credibility and Trustworthiness

The triangulation method is one of the elements we included to highlight the integrity of the research. We will also examine deviate cases that arise and indicate how we incorporate those findings into our understanding. In addition, we utilize respondent validation for the focus group data and we will videotape the sessions and transcribe key exchanges for further documentation. Likewise, we will publish our focus group objectives list, survey form, important responses, solicitations, and pertinent raw data (masked to preserve privacy). For archival purposes, this study will maintain a depository for all raw data, notes, forms, and reductionist data and employ a systematic method for producing the items.
Confidence in this study is also based on the integrity of the researchers. Although I came from a professional architectural background and have an advanced degree from Harvard University, I also have a perspective as a professor and board member. My experience informs, but does not overly bias these research questions, which inquire about the layman’s perceptions of the classroom environment in relation to architectural concepts of design fit and the resulting affect on the student. My theoretical stance, largely, is that I am separate from the data and that universal truths exist that is not entirely subjective. However, the third method of this triangulated study involves creating phenomenological narratives that are wholly my interpretation through information provided by the participant. Within my group of associates, we will use standard methods to provide inter-rater reliability in the coding of responses. My consulting researcher will lead, document and analyze data from the focus group effort, under my direction. Outside of my study, I will have a peer de-briefer to review and comment.

How each part of the triangle interacts in this multi-faceted design

The first groups of randomly chosen students will participate in focus groups that are specific to a teaching method. We will present the concepts and vocabulary so they can describe their perception of the classroom environment in regards to teaching method. We will also inquire about their sense of value. We will send interpretations from the focus group to participants and the resulting findings will directly inform the survey method. We will provide the open-ended survey to a much larger population of targeted students. Although the previous course is undoubtedly a grounded theory approach, phenomenon reporting is decidedly phenomenological. In this method, we will review individual experiences, analyze important themes and give a rich narrative of the occasions. We will study divergent phenomena and discern how it supports our findings. The combination of these methods and approaches make this study quite credible.
Participants

College students are the population who will know if they perceive a relationship between the classroom environment and the teaching method. They will know, after consideration, if that relationship is beneficial or if other variables like human adaptability is more imposing. Furthermore, college students are the source to elicit their sense of value. College students from Wentworth Institute of Technology, exclusively, will be solicited for the focus groups and open survey sessions. Eighty students will be used in the focus group study (with forty students as alternates) and about 250 students will be encouraged to participate in the survey. The Institute has a student population of about 3200. The phenomenon reporting method will advertise to students at Lesley University and the Colleges of the Fenway (Wentworth Institute of Technology, Simmons College, Wheelock College, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, and Emmanuel College) which comprises a student population of over 20,000 students, in hopes of corresponding with three to five subjects.

The Lesley University Internal Review Board for Human Subjects Research will provide consultation and resource in the interpretation of the procedures and policy. Special care will be taken with freshmen that are not yet 18 years of age. My efforts as a researcher include preparing a proposal, application to the IRB and providing letters of Informed Consent.
Research Study Set-up

Our research efforts will work in conjunction with the Center for Teaching and Learning in Beatty Hall on the campus of Wentworth Institute of Technology. A faculty/room survey will be sent to all faculty members at Wentworth Institute of Technology prior to the start of the semester to ascertain the pedagogy in regard to the teaching method types: a. Lecture, b. Examination, c. Collaboration, d. Demonstration, and e. Studio Guidance. The teachers will also be asked to rate the adequacy of the classroom. For their efforts, they will be accredited as a supporter in our WIT publication. We will choose one class from each type that highly exemplifies the teaching method while having high room adequacy and one class from each type that highly exemplifies the teaching method and has low room adequacy. I will reserve their classrooms for the focus group sessions through the registrar’s office and arrange to have the classroom photographically documented and site measured to create a digital floor plan. In the event that we cannot solicit one class from each variance in adequacy, we will use one class total from each teaching method with a median adequacy rating and reduce our study population accordingly.

The Focus Group Method

Based on information from the Faculty/room survey, 10 (ten) Focus Group sessions will take place in the actual classroom on the campus of Wentworth Institute of Technology over the course of 3 weeks at the end of the Fall Semester. Twelve (12) students will be selected at random (eight actual participants and four alternates) from the class roster of the selected course for each session so that we can have a representative subset of the student population in that class. Allowing for 50% attrition should ensure that we have the desired number of research subjects. All students in the classes will initially receive an email correspondence about the study while the random selection will ask for their participation. If they choose to participate, they will attend a general meeting at the center for Teaching and Learning to receive permission forms for them to sign (and their guardian, if they are under 18 years of age). I will announce the date of the sessions and let them know that all announcements and correspondence can come through a particular email address. There will be 80 participants total, divided into 5 pairs of focus sessions. Each participant will be given $15.00 at the end of his or her session.

The Survey Method

Based on the ethnographical and focus group findings, we will email 300 students for participation in the survey method with hopes of attracting at least 250 students to the research. Short meetings will be set up at the Center for Teaching and Learning in groups of 25 to explain the research, distribute permission forms (and if returned) immediately begin the monitored session in an adjacent classroom to complete the survey.

Phenomenon Reporting

The purpose of this method is to research the elements of concern in a highly phenomenological way. The Internet will be used to solicit email correspondences from college students at Lesley University and the Colleges of the Fenway through an announcement on their home pages. It will direct students with profound concerns to a website where they can view and print a consent form and upload the signed file.

Data Collection

The Focus Group Method

The sessions will last about an hour and thirty minutes and will have two monitors – a professional focus group moderator and professional observer. In addition, there will be an individual who takes notes during the proceedings ,and monitors a tape recorder and a fixed video camera. This moderator also takes digital photographs after the meeting if parts of the classroom are referenced in the session. The moderator will distribute a document to collect some brief ethnographical information and then proceed to follow a Question and Objective Outline (Please see Appendix A).

The proceedings will be transcribed and emergent themes will be categorized. Participants will have a badge referenced to their ethnographical information. Photographical exhibits will be cross-referenced to the transcript. This process of documentation should take three months. In the following semester, participants will be emailed findings from the proceedings for their comments if they wish. The focus group method is well suited for our purposes because it allows for open-ended discussions and the solicitation of shared ideas.

The Survey Method

The survey will be administered through Vista 4/Blackboard, an electronic platform, so students will have the opportunity to ‘mark’ a response and then go back at the end of the session to fully complete it. The survey should take about 45 minutes to complete. Each student will be given $6 (three 2 - dollar bills) upon completion. Rather than referencing one classroom, this survey asks each student to recall all their courses this semester and answer accordingly. These questions are mostly open-ended and vary from soliciting ‘value’ responses to, “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least the equal of others” to questions of “Overall, how do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the way this class has been taught this semester?”

This is a good method because it offers the opportunity to validate the focus group findings and extend the results beyond the experience of the classroom in extremes. The electronic platform allows us to capture the responses digitally to aid in categorizing and coding. It also provides the ability to sample a larger group of students and it can provide some supportive quantitative information. This process should take two months to administer and 6 months to document and analyze.

Phenomenon Reporting

The questions in the Internet advertisement (See Appendix C) will initiate a series of correspondences that explore “What it is to experience a classroom inadequately equipped for the method of teaching” or “How my sense of value is affected by the physical classroom environment I have endured” or “ How my classroom supports the pedagogy”. The goal is to flesh out the essence of the lived experience so the researcher can analyze and developed a narrative to support the research study findings or analyze as divergent information. The initial submissions from the participants will be reviewed for relevancy and probably only three to five will be fully pursued. Special care will be taken to make the participants responses anonymous and they will be sent a copy of the final relative for their comments. This process should take 3 months to complete information gathering and 2 months to develop narratives.

Next Steps in Formulating a Study plan

Working holistically is a key to a cohesive study plan, so as I move forward, it is important to review and revise the research questions and key elements, if need be. First, I need to continue adding to my literature review by exploring more research. I also need to develop a more thorough analysis procedure and work on implications drawn from the final research paper.

-end-

References

Edwards, B. (2000). University architecture. London and New York: Spon Press. This collection of notable university environments posits an exploration of the foundation of university building design. This book is highly pictorial and often includes presentation working drawing to describe building features. It coordinates with my research on ‘form follows function’ however, it introduces the variable of time. The author asks” if the speed of change is such that the stability of form and function is only achieved for short periods, how then, is reconciliation with the feeling of community to be achieved?”

Strange, C. & Banning, J.(2001). Educating by Design. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. This book explores the physical classroom setting within the context of a university community. They present an integrated framework for assessing and understating academic environments. Although some of their applications seem outdated, and many of their foundational resources are very much so, the categorization of their concepts was quite helpful to organize my work. In addition, they give excellent resources to their presentation on “How the physical environment communicates non-verbally.

Elmasry, S. (2007). Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies, Page 3, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. This rigorous research document (available at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09232007-220306/unrestricted/SElmasryETDbodytext.pdf) explores learning environments as a host to learning technologies. It also takes into account the teacher’s pedagogical and spatial use of the classroom, in developing an “intelligent architectural design process”. The use of methods of teaching as a variable is an important connection to my interests. This author also explores the common occasion of effective teaching and learning occurring in ill-designed environments.

Canter, D. (1992). Understanding, Assessing, and Acting in Places: Is an Integrative Framework Possible? In Garling, T. (Ed.), Environment, Cognition, and Action : An Integrated Approach. (pg 191). Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. This author researches the assessment process and categorizes the many variables involved within the framework of what he calls a “Purposive Evaluation”. His framework includes interrelationships between personal perception and the physical environment. I found his definition of ‘rules of place’ fascinating in regards to personal feelings and socialization within the classroom environment. His connection of physicality to the mix was quite helpful to me.

Gollege, R. (1992) Assessing the Environment, In Garling, T. (Ed.), Environment, Cognition, and Action : An Integrated Approach. (pg 2). Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. This author lays his groundwork for the succeeding chapters in this section. His book calls the researcher to explore the integration of environmental cognition, perceptions and actions of an individual within his or her environment. He admonishes that this is useful to fully understand the experience. This work is helpful to me in that it highlights personal spatial perceptions. It also discusses how the physical form of a room inhibits or supports perception of functionality.

Sullivan L. (1947) The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered In: Athey I.(Ed. Kindergarten Chats (revised 1918) and Other Writings. New York 1947: 202-13. In this article architect Louis Sullivan gives his impression of the state of design in America. He also introduces the concept of “form follows function”. This was a good source to lay as foundation for the traditional mantra of assessment. It also gave context to the formulation of his architectural maxim.

Michl, J. (1995) Form Follows WHAT ? The modernist notion of function  as a carte blanche*In Architecture & Town Planning nr. 10, Winter, 1995: 31-20. In this the author states
“Let us call these two different meanings of the notion of function the intended functioning and the actual functioning.” It was a good review of intention in architectural design.

Rengal, R (2006) Shaping Interior Spaces, New York: Fairchild. This author explores many elements involved in the design of spaces. He also discusses at great length the users perceptions. It was vital to solidify how a person is effected by the environment. It is a good foundational support resource.

Appendix A

Focus Group

Question and Objective Outline

I. Physical classroom environment

a. Maximizing physical comfort and well-being

1. Furnishings

2. Light

3. Sound

4. Acoustics

5. Environmental (HVAC) Comfort

b. Supporting Method of Instruction

1. Size

2. Room Layout

3. Audio/Visual Equipment

4. Power services

5. Internet Services

6. Printing services

7. Accessories

8. Adequate spatial accommodations for required tasks

A. How do you feel the physical classroom environment relates to the method of teaching?

II. Teaching Method (discuss only the method appropriate to the session)

1. Lecture, Examination, Collaboration, Demonstration, and Studio Guidance.

B. What can you relate about your experience of social interactions in this space?

C. How does this environment affect you in a personal way?

III. Other comments?

Appendix B

Note: Final survey will be revised in accordance with the findings of the focus groups

Survey data (actual survey is in an electronic format)

(You can use as much space as you like to fully respond)

[You may answer the following questions when prompted by the proctor]

What is your age?

What is your course of study?

What is your ethnicity?

What is your academic year?

[You may answer the following when prompted by the proctor. Then, please respond to express your degree of agreement or disagreement to the following]

This classroom environment has affected me personally in a profound way.

My social relationships are different in this space.

This environment creates strong associations for me after I leave.
My interaction with cohorts is affected by this environment.
I personally relate to this space.

[You may answer the following when prompted by the proctor. Please consider your overall experience within the methods of teaching described for this semester. Then, please use as much space as you like to fully respond]

Course 1