By Mikael Powell (© Mikael Powell 2012)
In order to review contemporary pedagogical practice, I consider the curricula and the learning theory espoused. Our current arts & design education is founded in historical experience, so I review the history of each field. In western culture, the origin of training for architecture, interior design and the arts is very different. Therefore, first I discuss the history of curriculum, learning theory and pedagogical practice, for architecture, interior design and the arts. Second, I explore those elements in contemporary times and offer some new approaches to coursework. Third, I describe features of the immediate built learning environment and relay some of their effect on pedagogical practices. Last, I provide a conclusion.
2.1A History of Architectural Curricula, Learning Theories and Pedagogical Practices
Around 1676, the first formalized technical societies began in French military schools, where students gained expertise through direct mentorship and the study of long-established rituals (Stratton & Mannix, 2005). Likewise, in the latter 18th century, prominent professionals actively practicing in the field presented instruction, often supported by a system of upperclassmen teaching underclassmen. During the summer months, students gained practical experience working on actual building projects. Founded in 1829 as a private school, the Ècole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures was the first non-military school of engineering for citizens. The following is an example of an early curriculum for architecture at the Gardiner Lyceum (often considered a secondary school) founded by Robert Hallowell in 1822, but operating only a few years:
First year
Arithmetic, Geography, Bookkeeping, Algebra, Geometry, Mensuration, and Linear Drawing.
Second year
Trigonometry, Surveying, Navigation, application of Algebra and Geometry, Differential and Integral Calculus, Mechanics, Perspective, Chemistry and Agricultural Chemistry. Instead of the last mentioned study, Civil Engineering is pursued by those who prefer it.
Third year
Natural Philosophy, Astronomy, Political Economy, the Federalist, History, Mineralogy, Natural History, Natural Theology.
Besides the above, Blair's Rhetoric is studied during the first and second years, and the Evidences of Christianity during the second and third years. The students in the two higher classes are also instructed in composition and declamation.
The short courses, of three- and four-months duration, included Civil Architecture,with Geometry, Architectural Drawing, and the mechanical principles of Carpentry; Surveying; Navigation; Chemistry; and Agriculture, with Agricultural Chemistry, Anatomy and diseases of domestic animals, and some Natural History” (Stratton & Mannix, 2005, p. 41)
Although other colleges claimed exclusivity in the professional arts, Rensselar Institute and West Point were the preeminent technical schools during the mid-1800’s. At that time, the contemporary classical model for higher education was increasingly questioned as an appropriate way to effectively provide technical training. Even the designs of colleges immediately after the Civil War were characterized by a movement away from contemporary college layouts and their elite curriculum that schooled mainly clergy and professionals to promoting education for the common man (Turner, 1988). Local Boston conditions made it favorable for a new institution because prominent Bostonians felt a citizenry knowledgeable in new development of industry would ensure a prosperous future and traditional methods of training were untenable. Therefore, in 1860, William Barton Rogers proposed four societies that comprised MIT – The Horticultural Society; the Natural History Society; a Department for Mechanics, Manufacturers, Commerce and General Technology; and a Department for Fine Arts and Education. With MIT’s school of Industrial Science opening in February of 1865, actual instruction began with the aim of educating the ordinary citizenry to work in industry. Within this, the MIT program became the first school of architecture in the United States. Modeled after practices of the Ècole des Beaux Arts in Paris, France, this American program was started by William Ware after extensive review of European institutes. In fact, an acclaimed graduate of that school taught at MIT every year until 1932, when Beaux Arts methods began to wane. Methods of the French academy were as follows:
The cornerstone of the Beaux Arts system was the "design problem" assigned to the student early in the term and carefully developed under close tutelage… The Beaux Arts teaching systems relied heavily on brilliant teachers and learning-by-doing. Competition was intense and the end results were beautifully drawn projects in traditional styles which were often defensible only on grounds of "good taste" and intuition... Projects were judged by a jury of professors and guest architects. (Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, 1988, p. 1)
In addition to the professional courses, the curriculum for MIT architecture students also included non-professional studies. John E. Burchard, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, compiled a comparative graph for his work to propose a curriculum for the School of Architecture in 1942 that reviewed the curriculum in ten year intervals starting with the school years 1890 – 1891. The movement away from classical education is apparent. For instance, in school year 1910 – 1911, non-professional courses were Mathematics (6 class hours per week per year), Science (9 class hours per week per year), English & History with Problem Analysis (6 class hours per week per year), Pol. & Economics (1.5 class hours per week per year), languages (2.5 class hours per week per year), General Studies (2 class hours per week per year) Military Science & Physical Training (2 class hours per week per year). This required 36.5 hours per week of preparation time. Compared to the previous decade in class per hour per year, this represented an increase of 1 class hour for English & History with Problem Analysis, a decrease in Language coursework by 8 class hours, an increase of .5 hours for Military Science & Physical Training and the addition of coursework in General studies.-Mikael Powell (MIT, 2011c).
The Modern movement emerged in the early part of the 1930’s influencing architectural education by encouraging an individualistic, non-competitive approach to designing and by promoting a closer relationship to arts and crafts. The German Bauhaus method followed, emphasizing practical instruction and hands-on shop work and construction site visits. The 1970’s brought attention to environmental issues in architecture, followed by urban panning, social issues and later, sustainability. Pause (1976), a curriculum historian noted, “Teaching methods have changed over this time from criticizing the student’s designs relative to the design standards of first the Beaux Arts and then the Modern Movement to role playing, setting examples and facilitating self-criticism.” (p. i).
2.1B History of Interior Design Curricula, Learning Theories, and Pedagogical Practices
While architectural training began in America just after the Civil War, Interior design had its origin just after World War I. Female enrollment had increased at the American institutions founded as land grant colleges, and curriculums in Interior Decoration were established. About a generation later, those programs became known as Interior Design and they were usually situated in Art, Architecture or Home Economics departments. Whitney (2008) describes:
While the curricula for these different programs looked the same, with a mixture of studio and lecture classes, the foci of each curriculum was different. Interior design programs housed in art departments developed the two dimensional and three- dimensional creativity of the designer. Programs housed in architecture departments stressed the architectural nature of the interior and aesthetics. Programs housed in home economic departments…emphasized matters of behavior, function, and document preparation. (p. 73)
Understandingly, beginning in the early 20th Century, several professional organizations were founded to cater to different constituencies within the programs. The various interior design organizations included: American Institute of Decorators (AID), American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), International Interior Design Association (IIDA), Institute of Store Planners (ISP), International Furnishing and Design Association (IFDA), and National Kitchen and Bath Association (NKBA). In the late 1960’s Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) polled its membership to try to develop a standard curriculum for Interior Design studies in America. Its membership reported that the most important traditions to be included in an Interior Design curriculum are, listed in descending order of importance, 64% -General design in the direction of environmental design; 56% contract (commercial) design; 46% - historic knowledge; 32% - interior detailing; 32% business and office procedures; 30% - residential interior design; 29% - basic design; 20% - communication skills; 10% - family housing; 3% - crafts approach, 3% - general design with direction toward furniture design, or exhibition design or stage design; 2% - merchandising (Friedmann, 1968). The Foundation for Interior Design Education (FIDER), an accreditation body was formed in 1970 and its education standards served to make Interior Design curricula uniform.
2.1C History of Arts Curricula, Learning Theories, and Pedagogical Practices
Distinguished from architecture and interior design, formal art instruction occurred much earlier. Exploring curriculum in an historic context, one notes that art schools did not always exist in their present form. There were workshops in (about the fifth century B.C.) and Rome and Greece both had technical instruction in painting, sculpture and music (Elkins, 2001). Centers of study similar to our educational institutions today were established about the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. These early universities were formal and exclusive, and artists were not trained within the university system, rather, they were instructed in workshops, after having come from either grammar school or directly from their homes. Elkins, a historian, (2001) observed that “students spent two or three years as apprentices, often “graduating” from one master to another, and then joined the local painters guild and began to work for a master as a ‘journeyman-apprentice’”(p. 7). While there was a movement in the twelfth century to elevate their craft to a profession, that initiative suffered because most artists had no formal training in the curriculum of their more formally educated peers. That is, artists did not formally study grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. During the Renaissance, academies, which were established to raise the status of artists, rebelled against the traditions of the universities where subjects were taught outside of what had been established as the university curriculum. These academies were informal places where students learned to “speak, write, and act in a proper and noble manner. Poems were read, plays were put on, music was performed, and what we know call “study groups” got together to discuss them” (Elkins, 2001, p. 8). The first public art academy, the Accademia del Disegno, was established by Giorgio Vasari in 1562 in Florence, Italy. Rather than existing on a centralized campus, academy activities occurred in various buildings throughout the locale. Elkins (2001) explains the learning theory of the academy in this way: “Artists, it was thought, need a good eye and a good hand, but even before they develop those, they need mental principles to guide them: so “measured judgment” and a “conceptual foundation” must come before manual dexterity” (p.10). Thus, the first subjects taught to incoming students were geometry and anatomy, which supported the prevailing pedagogical practice of studying statues.
2.2A Contemporary Times – Architecture, Interior design, Arts Curricula
Nowadays similarities are evident between educational training for these three professions (Please see Table 2 for the comparison of curricula). All three fields place importance in the foundational coursework at the beginning of a student’s tenure, and they continue with increasingly sophisticated studio courses, leading to a capstone project. It is fitting to include the historical beginnings of each discipline because they share a reliance on Ecole des Beaux Arts-style studio coursework- much in the same manner as the 19th century. Indeed, Lackey (1999b) states:
the Beaux Arts tradition of education, the basic form… remain[s] unchanged. It can be argued that the studio-based learning model was first developed as part of arts education and training and only later adopted by architectural education in the 1800s. The origins of studio-based learning have their roots further back to the notion of the apprentice in the atelier and even further to the guilds of the Middle Ages centered primarily on the arts and crafts. (p. 3)
In the arts curriculum some themes, as reflected in the coursework, remain constant through history – the struggle of artists to be seen as professionals; questions about the need for coursework outside of the arts field; defining the relationship between the aesthetic and commercial; and the relationship of artist to the community. The idea that “art requires balance between theory and practice” (Elkins, 2001) remains a prevalent notion in today’s art curricula in America. Conomos (2009) summarizes some of the history of art education and offers regrets for a contemporary shift away from an apprenticeship model, by saying:
Evolving from the guild system and mentorship under a “master”, education has moved toward reliance on a curriculum and the exposure of students to multiple voices in their training. The cult of the artist personality, who was professional first and teacher second that prevailed in the early sixties, has evolved into the professional teacher who present part of a curriculum determined by a university or art school program. (p. 124)
Lastly, it is evident from comparing the three programs that each values a liberal arts educational background.
2.2B Contemporary Times – Architecture, Interior design, Arts, Learning Theories
Employed to facilitate the curricula for these disciplines, are many theories that help us to understand the processes involved in student learning and nearly as many ways to categorize these frameworks of acquiring knowledge. Some theorists sort them into categories of behavioralist, cognitivist and constructivist, or variations and combinations of these approaches. Each theory provides ways to explain how students learn and thus, aims to prescribe effective teaching methods. It is important to consider these categories as poles within a radar chart, rather than as distinctly separate entities. Reigeluth (1996c) explains that we accept the notion that rehearsals (with commentary) make learning a new skill more successful:
Behaviorists recognized this, and called them…practice with feedback. Cognitivists also recognized this, but…give them different names, such as cognitive apprenticeship and scaffolding…An analysis of instruction designed by some radical constructivists reveals a plentiful use of these very instructional strategies. (p. 2)
Therefore, it is difficult to label a particular pedagogical practice as wholly within the realm of an epistemological category in an arts or design curriculum. The following are descriptions of some learning theories that are relevant to architecture, interior design and the arts because of the variety of coursework required for each discipline.
Learning Theories in Literature
Behavioralist learning theories highlight actions that demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge. These acts are observed, measured, and analyzed in relation to a stimulus and reaction. Individuals’ thought processes and internal interactions are considered less important in the process. The environment plays an important role in shaping learning in association with the interval in which a student is rewarded and the effectiveness of reinforcement. Operant conditioning, as described by B. F. Skinner, is where a conditioned response receives a conditioned reward, and is analogous to behavioral-focused or behavioral informed teaching and learning. For example, the studious are rewarded by good grades (positive reinforcement) or meaningful class participation and attendance supplants the requirement to write a research paper (negative reinforcement). In general, behaviorism espouses a teacher-centered approach whereby experts package information in portions with behavioral objectives and measurable tasks that students perform (and about which they are evaluated).
Cognitive learning approaches generally explore the brain and memory processes as agents to explain how students learn, extending the reason for behavior beyond the stimulus/reaction framework of behavioralist methods. These theories recognize an individual’s existing knowledge, or schema, and how it is expanded or amended by newinformation. Understandingly, the internal processes of students committing items to short-term memory, long-term memory, and its availability for student’s later use are part of this philosophical framework. It is important to note that my focus here is college-level students and thus, the cognitive approaches utilized are beyond the Piagetian early stages of development. In general, cognitive learning theories espouse a teacher-centered approach in which the sage instructor packages information in portions to facilitate the encoding, sorting and retrieval of information.
Hein’s (2002) description of constructivism states that learners create their truths from the world around them and although knowledge can be wholly personal, there is a universality of shared perceptions. Constructivist teaching methodologies may employ independent work, cooperative learning, and group lecture within the same lesson plan. Beck’s (1997) discussion of contemporary education includes a democratic philosophy with a student-instructor relationship that is dialogical and downplays the role and authority of the professor. This is much in alignment with Freire’s (1970) remarks that “through dialogue a new term emerges--teacher student with students-teachers. The students, while being taught, also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow" (p. 67).
There are many models of how learning occurs within a constructivist paradigm. Powell & Kalina (2009) argues that a good teacher must differentiate between many methods to accommodate learning for students in a constructivist classroom. “In cognitive constructivism, ideas are constructed in individuals through a personal process, as opposed to social constructivism where ideas are constructed through interaction with teacher and other students” (p. 241).
Other relevant models of learning for arts education are apprenticeship, communities of practice, and self-regulation theory. An apprenticeship model of learning is founded on a traditional concept of learning by doing and by observing a master teacher. In addition, learners benefit from association with the physical environment and with practicing the discourse of an area of study. The communities of practice model
emphasizes the social nature of our humanity and acquisition of knowledge. Skills are learned in reference to social attitudes, and learning contributes to our ability to participate in the community and engage in the world. The self-regulation model focuses on “students’ self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions, which are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals” (Zimmerman, 1994, p.ix). Etmer & Newby (1993), posited that student’s prior knowledge of the area of study and the degree ofcognitive processing required to learn the lesson, can dictate the most effective teaching methods. (See Figure 1 ).
Yang, Chang & Hsu (2008) found that “that the elements of constructivist teaching could not be defined because constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching” (p. 528). Although the research of Yang, et al. was concerned with pre-college teaching, they highlighted the importance of personal epistemological beliefs to effective support of constructivist teaching methods (Yang, Chang & Hsu, 2008).
Survey of the Learning Theories Valued by Key Stakeholders in Arts and Design
To research specific information about beliefs concerning learning models for arts and design education, I solicited opinions from administration, students, faculty and staff on their theory of learning for introductory and advanced courses, first year courses and upper-class courses One university was contacted and offered participation in the online survey, conducted from February 20, 2011 to March 5, 2011. That institution, Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is working with Bruner/Cott Architects, in the pre-design stage to construct a new art school building to house the Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University. Stakeholder participants consisted of art department faculty (full-time and adjunct) and administration, university or college administration building committeepersons, and the architectural team. I conferred with university administration and sent an email that was forwarded to major stakeholders asking for participation in the survey.
I conducted this survey to determine the learning theory valued by each of the stakeholders for each course type. Etmer & Newby (1993), posited that student prior knowledge of the area of study and the degree of cognitive processing required to learn the lesson, can dictate the teaching methods of which is most effective. Therefore, I solicited opinions of introductory and advanced courses, first year courses and upper-class courses.
I asked about the model of learning that most matched the respondent, instead of inquiring about a specific learning theory in reference to one’s concept of teaching methods, because Yang, Chang & Hsu (2008) found that “that the elements of constructivist teaching could not be defined because constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching” (p. 528). Although the research of Yang, et al. was concerned with pre-college teaching, they highlighted the importance of personal epistemological beliefs to effective support of constructivist teaching methods (Yang, Chang & Hsu, 2008). I also queried was whether there are significant differences between stakeholders and the foundation of their choice of favored learning theory. In addition, I asked whether their values for learning were theories long-held, or have they changed over time.
I sent emails to 80 persons who are connected with the university design program. 30 individuals attempted to fill out the on-line survey. Nineteen respondents completed
the survey at least partially and filed electronically. Therefore, 63% of those who attempted submitted. At least one person from each category participated.
Because of the small number of participants, I examined how the entire population responded to each question and then studied the differences and similarities of their responses for each question, instead of how individual categories of participants responded.
I presented the following models of how knowledge is acquired (Model I, II, III, and IV) which corresponds with a traditional view, a constructivist view, an apprenticeship view, and a community of practice view, respectively.
Individual categories of respondents were: A.) a member of the university administration or staff (primarily administrative or academic support), serving on an executive committee for the design of a post-secondary arts school, B.) a member of the university administration or staff (primarily administrative or academic support), not serving on an executive building committee, but otherwise involved in the design of a post-secondary arts school, C.) a member of the arts department administration or staff (primarily non-teaching) in a post-secondary arts curriculum, D.) a full-time faculty member in a post-secondary arts department, E.) an adjunct faculty member in a post-secondary arts department, F.) an architect or design professional involved in the design of a post-secondary arts school, either currently or previously, G.) a student in a college or university arts program, and H.) other.
This survey explores stakeholder’s personal views on how students acquire knowledge in relationship to the course content or in non-classroom learning spaces. I also queried whether a person’s belief about how students acquire knowledge has changed within the last ten years and the foundation of their theories of learning.
Lastly, I asked about the certainty of their answers – how well the responses matched their beliefs, or the degree to which the respondent did not hold a distinct idea about how knowledge is acquired by students. Throughout this survey I found that at least one of these four models explained the beliefs of respondents.
Of the four models presented, the traditional view was the only one chosen as not in alignment with participant’s theories of learning. For an introductory studio, the apprenticeship model was most favored; For an introductory general elective and a design history course, the constructivist model was most favored; The communities of practice view was favored for the advanced studio course and the non-classroom learning space (See Figure 2).
Etmer & Newby (1993) posit about the selection of an appropriate learning theory to course content. They suggest a continuum whereby an introductory course in which the learner is concerned with “knowing what” may be effectively accommodated by a behavioralist theory, and a learner grows to “know how” best in a cognitive learning environment, finally achieving “reflection in action” successfully in a constructivist framework. That concept is not embraced by the respondents of this survey. The constructivist theory for student learning was favored similarly for both the introductory and the advanced studio course. Also, this survey indicated the highest constructivist response for a art history courses, in which a student is likely to not have a comprehensive prior education and the course is likely to require a high cognitive effort. This is contrary to Etmer & Newby (1993) findings which favor a behavioralist approach for this course (See Figure 2).
Responses to my queries about the foundations of one’s belief on student learning indicated that stakeholders personal scholastic experience most shaped their view on how students learn. Stakeholder's contemporary experience was their secondary basis of learning theory. Lastly, two-thirds of the respondents reported that their theories of how students learn have changed over the past 10 years.
Although I did notice differences between individual categories of respondents, the survey population was too low to make statistical comparisons. When comparing the standard deviation of all responses, I noted that Question 4.4, which asked if the community of practice model was how they thought students would acquire knowledge best in an advanced studio course, had the most closely aligned responses. Question 7.4, which solicited their agreement or disagreement with whether their professional experience was the foundation of their views on student learning, had the most divergent responses. I noted the following things about future work in this area. Firstly, I must distribute the survey more widely to get enough responses to prepare subgroup analysis. It would be interesting to compare the epistemological views and foundation of beliefs between administration and department, full time and adjunct professors and faculty and staff. I found that the resource to compile new building prospects is the Higher Education Arts Data Services (HEADS) - Art and Design data Summaries. The HEAD survey lists
colleges and universities in America that are in the process of building or renovating art schools. Secondly, I found that it is politically difficult to obtain pertinent information from the university administration. Evidently, the design phase before the facility is built is vulnerable to challenges (both internal and external) from stakeholders and the community. Since the data I seek is not associated with a specific time within the building process, it may be easier to solicit information one year after the facility is complete.
2.2C Contemporary Times – Architecture, Interior design, Arts, Pedagogical Practices
A review of Table 2 illustrates the breadth of subjects included in architecture, interior design, or artist training. They all maintain some vestige of the Ècole des Beaux-Arts studio critique, presentation, and competition. Both the sciences and liberal arts are valued. Therefore, many different pedagogical approaches are typically employed. Lecture, studio work, project learning, competition, precedence study, site visit, professional association, co- teaching, online collaboration, gallery presentation, independent work, capstone projects, group work, web-based scaffolding, charette, and critique are used in all three fields. Hidden within the core coursework, however, is a struggle between traditional methods of manual sketching, mechanical drawing and presentation and computer aided design and drafting, with many universities on a dual system – relegating hand sketching and the use of mechanical drafting equipment for underclass students but requiring competency with computer design, drafting and illustration programs before graduation.
There are several new movements in pedagogical practices for arts and design. Educators Gül, Gu & Williams (2007) find that “3D virtual worlds have the potential to make a major contribution to design education as constructivist learning environments” (p. 40). They see the digital world as a shared tool facilitated by the professor. Other educators tout a learn-by- doing approach for graphic design instruction that employs an emphasis on meta-cognition and cognitive skills (e.g., Ellmers, Brown & Bennett, 2009; Hargrove, 2011) or problem-based instruction. The following two examples (2.3A, 2.3B) are analysis of my work. The first is a lesson plan in the foundation year that emphasized meta-cognition for both the professor and student. Secondly, I included a lesson plan on creative analogy, which utilizes an active physical workshop format.
2.3A Examples of New Approaches to Course work:The Reflective Professor: A Teacher’s Journal and Guide forProject One-“Designing a Place for Reverie” for 2nd year University Design Students
The following is a teacher’s guide that I developed to facilitate conceptual change. It invites professors to review the foundations of their educational approach and consider new models for teaching and learning through teaching and reflection upon a student lesson plan. The generative question for professors is “How might I teach reflectively?” The student lesson plan is a transitional project to initiate 2nd year design students into the studio training environment. The key concepts utilized are metacogniton and analogy and the generative question for participants is “How do I design a place for reverie?" The intent of the student assignment is to create a series of spaces that encourage reverie. The objective of this exercise is to determine the ‘essence’ of a space for reverie by careful observation and thought, then demonstrate ability to create an environment that conveys this character.
Student Lesson
Students must create a path within the confines of a 60’-0” x 60’-0” x 60’-0” volume that passes through a minimum of three distinct interior spaces. The circulation ‘path’ must change elevation as it traverses the space. The spaces should express a hierarchy making it evidently clear when one has reached the reverie space. At some appropriate location, built-in seating must be provided. A clear ‘entry’ and ‘exit’ must be evident in the scheme. Students should keep a sketchbook of three-dimensional sketches (preferably perspectives) that are associated with the development of this project. The final deliverables are floor plans @1/4” = 1’-0”, section/elevations @1/4” = 1’-0”, model @1/4” = 1’-0” and a minimum of (3) material samples. In addition, students must produce a precedence study.
The main concepts explored in the student lesson are metacognition, which is concerned with how persons think about their cognition, and analogical reasoning, which is a form of problem solving intended to be ubiquitous in the studio and permeate throughout discussions with other students encompassing the way students explain their work, solve design problems, and categorize their analogical thinking.
Metacognition skills are valuable for students because it is important for them to be self-aware, self-regulating and understanding of their command of executive functioning as well as able to adapt their environment to serve their thinking processes. New research shows that analogical dialog for design students is helpful when one comes to an impasse in their design process (Ball & Christensen, 2009). This project allows the chance to explore the therapeutic benefits of analogy. Traditionally, concepts of analogy and metacognition are seldom incorporated into instruction, even though they are very important in early design education (e.g., Casakin & Goldschmidt, 1999; Oxman, 1999).
Professor’s Journal and Guide
The purpose of the self-directed teacher’s guide and journal is to facilitate conceptual change. It invites professors to reflect upon the foundations of their educational approach and their existing understanding about teaching and learning. They are confronted with teaching and learning outcomes that are discrepant with their existing framework and then offered new models for teaching and learning for consideration. Through teaching a lesson plan, they have the opportunity to test out the new methods. Afterwards they reflect upon the outcome and decide whether they can accommodate the new concepts or, on a smaller scale, assimilate new methods. The professor’s lesson plan is largely a reflective intervention.
Analogical Reasoning research
Design celebrities often cite metaphorical objects as important in their design process and thus, conventional wisdom gives support for the use of analogy in design education. Casakin & Goldschmidt (1999) explored the use of analogy in successful design solutions of first and second year architecture students, advanced fifth year architecture students and experienced professional architects, and found that “visual analogy improves the quality of design across the board, but is particularly significant in the case of novice designers” (p. 153). Lesson 1 relies heavily upon analogical understanding as the foundation for the first exercise – the precedence study. Analogies are a good tool to resolve design issues.
Researchers found that “analogical reasoning is a core design strategy that is instantiated coincident with situations of design uncertainty, serving to facilitate the resolution of such uncertainty” (Ball & Christensen, 2009, p.183). There are many rationales for analogy; Four main categories of purpose are:
problem identification -noticing a possible problem in the emerging design, where the problem was taken from an analogous source domain; Solution generation- transferring possible solution concepts from the source domain to the target domain; Explanation- using a concept from the source domain to explain some aspect of the target domain to members of the design team; and function finding- involving the active mapping of new functions to the design form currently being developed”(pp.173-174). The latter purpose was found to be generative-“whereby solution ideas are produced that are then explored and evaluated in subsequent simulation runs. (p.183)
Therefore, the aim of the analogical presentation in Lesson 1 is to encourage the use of these for categories of analogy with emphasis on function finding reasoning. In addition, research has shown that students obtain a deeper understand of analogy when they develop their own and when they analyze characteristics of fit and noncongruence of the analogy (Dunbar, 2001). The presentation sets a foundation of mutually aligned prepared analogies. The group discussions after the analogy presentation provides and opportunity for students to create and analyze their analogies.
Metacognition Research
There are two roles for metacognition in the studio. First, students receive instruction on metacognitive skills to benefit learning in a number of ways. Second, professors maintain a consciousness about the needs of their students and their teaching approach. Lesson 1 introduces student-learning strategies that permeate the entire lesson plan. This Journal and Guide is a tool for the professor’s metacognitive reflection. For students, the problem-based generative nature of Project One is ideal to support transfer of these skills for future work (Perkins, Simmons & Tishman, 1990, p. 296,) in a way that didactic coursework does not. In the development of this project, it is important for students to consider if elements are the essence of the analogy or if the reasoning represents a metaphorical solution or a “duck” (a pejorative used to describe a building that projects its meaning in a literal way). Schraw (2002) differentiates between three types of knowledge- declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge entails introspection about one’s learning; Procedural knowledge is concerned with ways of doing things and conditional knowledge is used to regulate between the two previous types.
Lesson 1 begins with an unpacking of assumptions of knowledge and provides an introductory review of each type, focusing on procedural cognition. Researchers have
found that incorporating metacognition into coursework improves the learning outcome. Students in their second year, after having completed foundation studies, are often
given more complex projects that require synthesis of their earlier concepts and their own dedicated studio space. Awareness of one’s thinking can aid self-regulation and enable students to effectively fashion their learning environment. Conversely, Hartman (2001) says that professors who teach metacognitively often have better educational results in the classroom and effective interactions with students. Moreover, openly modeling metacognitive behaviors by demonstrating how one may approach a task and sequence concepts can be successfully achieved by “thinking out loud”. These executive management strategies represent one general type of metacognition listed by Hartman. The other general type is strategic knowledge. While the former helps “you plan, monitor and evaluate/revise your thinking process and products, strategic knowledge about what information/strategies/skills you have, when and why to use them, and how to use them” (Hartman, 2001, p.150) are facilitated by this Journal and Guide.
Following the conceptual change model of Strike & Posner (1985), the professor’s introduction of the lesson plan begins with discovering the foundations that are the basis of the professor’s educational approach. Each basis is reviewed, highlighting the inadequacy of each conception and the need for an example that more successfully meets the needs of second-year university design students. The professor’s lesson plan introduction concludes with information about the major categories of research that informs the lesson plan and the possibility that they may better serve the needs of the lesson.
Each lesson begins with a professor’s introduction, which highlights new research and specifically discusses how it applies to the lesson, in the hopes of giving the concepts initial plausibility. The professor actually teaches the lesson and then afterwards writes the reflection for the lesson, which serves to defend the new concepts in relation to the four foundational models presented in the introduction to the lesson plan. The professor is invited to reflect upon the classroom experience and how well the new concepts supported teaching and learning or how they fell short, how the professor may revise the lesson plan in the future, whether there is a need to make adjustments to the lesson plan and about their thinking processes as they presented the plan. This analysis should make clear the fruitfulness of the new concepts. The student lesson plan presents metacognition, analogy, transfer, discussion, criticism, problem based learning, disciplinarity, developmental issues, types of knowledge and assessment. Finally, the professors reflection on the lesson plan invites them to engage in a concluding self-assessment to unpack the experience of teaching the lesson plan, list best practices and deficiencies for ongoing improvement of this lesson plan and evaluate their reflective skills. Table 3 outlines the full 5-part lesson plan.
2.3B Further Examples of New Approaches to Course Work
Utilizing Descriptive Explanation for Studio Presentation is a 6-hour workshop that I developed for 1st semester, 2nd year architecture, interior design, and arts students that takes place in their studio over a weekend and utilizes acting technique to support the instruction (Refer to Table 4. for the lesson plan). Frequently, incoming design students do not use descriptive dialog, a skill which is essential for academic advancement and professional employment. Most students do not enter their first design studio describing projects in analogy, essence or metaphor. Often first year postsecondary design students have not been exposed to the concept of descriptive explanation as a way to support creativity throughout their academic career and into professional practice. Students regularly are not able to differentiate between various types of verbal description and to discern the essence of imagery content. Students seldom utilize descriptive dialog as a way of explaining concepts and reviewing others’ work.
This instruction gives students needed information to distinguish between types of verbal explanation and to use descriptive dialog as an aid to support creativity while providing a framework and environment to practice descriptive dialog (modeling the instructor and each other). Learning this process should increase the transfer of this conceptual design process forward to other projects and professional practice. The workshop takes place in the student’s architectural studio at school so that students are using their own workspace and presenting their work to the group in the same room that future student presentations and critiques occur.
Instructional Strategies
In general, the skills the learners are required to do are largely intellectual and attitudinal. The workshop is for 15 students, the same size as a studio class. Students are instructed to wear comfortable, loose-fitting, modest clothing. There are two other evaluators/assistants helping me. The content is laid out in a straightforward way and the delivery format is instructor-led. There are many opportunities for learners to participate in each module as well as a way for learners to give feedback. For follow-thru, 3rd year studio professors are asked to consider the aims of this workshop in conducting their student presentations. Student groupings are used to build student confidence by working in their smaller groups of five and then presenting to the whole class at the end. Each module follows a format of overview, presentation, example, student brainstorm or student online interaction, then presentation (our web-based platform allows student to search the Web and upload into the course site during class) and flipchart. The centering, creativity, and relaxing exercises support the attitude for the presentation performances. In addition, students are given a handout of the slides with notes at the end of each audiovisual presentation. Scheduling the workshop over two days allows student to have a break and think about the material overnight, be able to relax before the final presentation after lunch and provide a way to have dessert and punch to celebrate their final accomplishment of the goal. Refer to Figure 3 for the instructional analysis of the lesson plan.
2.4A Features of the Immediate Built Learning Environment
The design of university architecture can convey administrative intent and values. Goals for arts and design programs such as to perpetuate design culture, become a part of the professional establishment, foster individual growth or unify the department and programs can be expressed in the design and layout of spaces. Architect, Gary Moye (1994) describes the seven main elements that we experience in university architecture as coherence, variation, openness, light, comfort and longevity (See Figure 4). These elements can enrich a design tasked to create interactive spaces, community galleries or areas of introspection.
Figure 4. adapted from Gary Moye (1994), Facilities Program: International College, University of Oregon [NOT INCLUDED]
2.4B Effects of the built learning environment on pedagogical practices
If one were to subscribe to the maxim, “form follows function” , coined by architect Louis Sullivan (1947), then it would follow that the design of learning environments should be congruous with the instructor’s particular concept of how students learn. Straits & Wilke (2007) describe models of teaching as having either a transmission or participatory approach. They remark that in “participatory classrooms students, manipulatives and problems are central; whereas in transmission-based classrooms the instructor and his/her words are the focus” (Straits & Wilke, 2007, p.59). Rengel (2007) states that architectural designers rely upon functional focus as an important component of spatial design to shape built learning environments. Rengel (2007) adds that:
Most spaces have a functional focus. Depending on their nature, they may sometimes even have more than one. In most teaching classrooms, for instance, there is one main focus: the front of the room, where the lecturer stands. A restaurant, in contrast, may not have a single communal focal point, and instead may be designed to highlight each seating section so that each becomes an individual focus. An office space may have both an individual foci at the workstations and a central team-oriented area. ( pp. 73–4).
When describing the architecture for a teacher-focused approach in line with behavoralist and cognitive theories, Hebdige (1979), a cultural critic, states that “the hierarchical relationships between teacher and taught is inscribed in the very layout of the lecture theatre where the seating arrangements – benches rising in tiers before a raised lectern – dictate the flow of information and serve to ‘naturalize’ professorial authority” (p.13). Functionally, this layout supports a one-way “banking” model of education (Freire, 1970) and demonstrates the tacit power of physical elements in support of learning theories.
With regard to constructivist physical environments, Graetz and Goliber (2002) describe how architectural layouts and furnishings can support constructivist thinking (instead of traditional teacher-focused presentations). They note that successful universities will plan “for small groups of students gathered around tables and engaged in discussion. They will anticipate movement, not just of students and instructors, but of tables, chairs, white boards, data projection, and laptops” (p. 20). This environment encourages an individual group focus for cooperative learning strategies. Rashid (2008) prepared a white paper for furniture manufacturer, Herman Miller, Inc. to explore how furniture and arrangement in university classroom affect instructor and student behaviors and learning outcomes. His work utilized two prototypical classrooms – one laid out with desks in a traditional manner statically oriented toward the front of the room and the other equipped with moveable tables and chairs with castors. Rashid’s findings indicated that student perceptions of classroom experience were significantly improved in the innovative classroom. Rashid concludes, however, that learning environments are complex systems so “it is necessary to explore more systematically other potential impacts any physical changes and their interactions may have on learning outcomes” (p. 29).
The functional focus for a learning environment that values the apprenticeship model might highlight the main work area while spaces designed in line with communities of practice theory might generally focus on several group interaction areas. Designers for learning spaces commensurate with self-regulation theory may have individual focus areas.
When there is not a good fit between the rationality for the building layout and the actual tasks performed within, the learning process can be affected. Jamieson (2003) offers that the traditional physical environment for learning was shaped for didactic instruction.
Classrooms were traditionally designed for one-way, formal instruction, which is also in line with a traditional view of how knowledge is acquired. Jamieson (2003, page 119) remarks “these same facilities now threaten to impede the implementation of more student-centered and flexible learning approaches being introduced in higher education worldwide. Recent attempts to create new teaching and learning facilities on university campuses have often resulted in celebrated architecture that has proved to be educationally problematic”.
2.5 Conclusion
Examination of contemporary architecture and design curricula reveals scholastic training that, by subject, is largely unchanged from its America origins, although the level of competency for non-core course has varied over the years. However, many of the standard studio methods are directly founded in the 19th century French tradition. The many examples where the built learning environment “stays out of the way” of the teaching are seldom noticed. Occasions when the classroom supports professorial teaching methods are expected and rarely noted. Anecdotes of conflicts between the architecture and teaching are much more prevalent.
I believe that the built environment for arts and design education will substantially change in the immediate future. The traditional space works against the intimacy created between the designer and the digital tool. Both the advent of smaller, faster computers and expectations of the ‘Millennial student’ will cause architects and educators to reconsider the traditional need for 36” x 48” drafting tables and high stools and tall, cavernous rooms with perimeter wall space in new facilities and renovations.
