Post-Secondary Art School Design: Evaluation of Educational Facilities

(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
-DRAFT OUTLINE-
Introduction
This research is about assessing university facilities to see how the design and layout is influenced by instructional design and curriculum. Firstly, I want to know the basis of contemporary curricula for Arts and Design higher education in America. Secondly, I want to know what characteristics, elements, and amenities are valued for the accommodating built environment.

To explore the literature on the basis for contemporary curriculum and instructional design it is important to know about the history of curriculum for arts and design in America, modern learning theory, contemporary curriculum and pedagogical practices, which the experts are in the field and present controversies about these issues. For my study on the accommodating built environment and the things valued, I look first to case studies of completed art schools and I review an existing school in pre-construction. I refer to literature to examine building reviews to discover prevailing views and controversies, and I conduct interviews, distribute surveys with key stakeholders, and examine pre-construction documents. Finally, I summarize key findings of my review.

The basis for contemporary curriculum and instructional design
Firstly, I want to know what the basis of contemporary curricula is for Arts and Design higher education in America. It is important to know how the history of art instruction influences contemporary curricula as well as current learning theory and how that relates to modern curriculum and pedagogical practice. We can then look at current controversies in contemporary art school design.

History
When we explore curriculum in an historic context, we note that certainly art schools did not always exist in the form we have now. There were workshops in ancient times (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 not established until about the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. These early universities were formal and exclusive and artists were not trained within the system. Rather, they were instructed in workshops, after having come from either grammar school or uneducated from their home. For instance, Elkins (2001) states that “students spent two or three years as apprentices, often “graduating” from one master to another, and then joined the local painter’s 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 the higher educated: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Not until the Renaissance, were academies established to elevate the status of artists, rebel against the strict manner of the universities, and teach subjects outside of 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 pedagogical practice of studying statues. The idea that “art requires balance between theory and practice” (Elkins, 2001) is prevalent today. Conomos (2009) remarks on the changes in both society and the profession of teaching as they relate to higher education art training when he says” 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 presents part of a curriculum determined by a university or art school program.” (p124).

Contemporary learning theories

Current thinking about teaching and learning that reflects the zeitgeist of an increasingly technological culture can be described as conflicting with traditional methods. “Tapscott shows his description of a new paradigm of learning, which could possibly be described as the tension between hierarchical vs. distributed learning” (Baker, S. 2009, p35). Knowledge that can be described as linear, sequential and serial confronts new theories of hypermediated learning.

Interdisciplinary exchange supports and enhances teaching and learning. “Contemporary art may no longer be a discipline in itself, but rather a place where disciplines intersect and interact” (Baker, S. 2009, p38).

Art Schools should be mission-driven to enrich itself and the larger community. ”Every school embodies an inheritance at least and at most is an invention rising out of its inheritance…I mean the transmission and transformation of a creed”(Madoff, 2009, p ix).

The function of an art school is to guide students to their “unique voice” for life-long growth as artist, regardless of their potential commercial success. “What constitutes success for the graduating student?...in the short term, art schools are successful if they guide young artists into the right artistic production processes for them; this match between talent (creative intelligence and skills) and old and new mediums is what gradually helps them to achieve their unique voice…In the long term I believe that artistic success should be defined as the ability to sustain art making for a lifetime, whether within the profit or non-profit sectors, remaining part of the conversation about the destiny of the country, the culture, and global citizenship” (Pujol, 2009, p.12-13).

Art schools must perpetuate art culture (the discourse, system of museums nad contemporary art center, commercial galleries, public and private collectors, reviews, catalogs, institutions of cultural exposure and mediation). “The art schools best suited to the current world – and, no doubt, the best schools—are those that deliberately underscore that they consider themselves part of the artworld establishment”(deDuve, 2009, p.17).

Students who highly regard learning “the process” had a stronger interest in learning. “Phenomenographic research into the experience of Graphic Design students by Davies (2006) described how design students’ conceptions of design varied, with some students associating it with the acquisition of skills and learning processes and others viewing it as an act of communication, or as a vehicle through which to explore personal perceptions of the world. He went on to suggest that students who used the design process as ‘a platform from which to explore their own perceptions of a complex world’ (Davies 2006: 3) adopted a deeper approach to learning. (p110 Reading, c. 2009)

Exposure to art is fundamental to art training. It is important to show students that exposure to art is relevant to their maturation as artists. “Many students lack confidence and skills in their engagement with museum collections. Helping them to identify the things that motivate them in their design work and indicating to students how the collections might be used to support these interests may improve students’ motivation to access museum collections. Similarly, making the experiences and stages within the design process visible to students and improving skills such as drawing may increase the range of ways in which students use the collections and may also help to improve confidence” (p. 110 Reading 2009).

Curriculum/Instructional Design

Prevailing theories and hypotheses

From the 14th to the mid 18th century, the academies conceived good art as not straying “too far from the middle for the sake of effect” (Elkins, 2001 p. 10); Nowadays, art instruction supports the concept of art as a provocateur.

Marketing of educational institutions has resulted in university profiling, branding and consolidation. This redefining of identity has adversely affected arts schools. “Throughout all institutions to a greater or lesser extent, modular structures, curriculum and grading and point systems are being introduced, systems which have hitherto been considered incompatible with the free, experimental execution of art” (Bogh 2009, p.64)

“The core pedagogical approach of the Bard program is conversation and critique” (Lauterbach 2009, p.92).


Training for peer review and peer critiques should be formalized in the curriculum and supported in course design. “In South America, a vital tradition continues of artists training other artists in their studios—a far more autonomous means of transmitting knowledge than the bulkiness of institutional learning” (Madoff 2009, pg x).

In order to truly understand the institutional mission of a department as demonstrated through action, one must examine three fundamental dimensions of professional work –to think, to perform, and to act with integrity. This constitutes signature pedagogy. For example, how many years are spent teaching student to think like a designer or to produce art? How many courses are devoted to professional conduct? “A signature pedagogy has three dimensions. First, it has a surface structure, which consists of concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning, of showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing. Any signature pedagogy also has a deep structure, a set of assumptions about how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and know-how. And it has an implicit structure, a moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions. Finally, each signature pedagogy can also be characterized by what it is not–by the way it is shaped by what it does not impart or exemplify. A signature pedagogy invariably involves a choice, a selection among alternative approaches to training aspiring professionals. That choice necessarily highlights and supports certain outcomes while, usually unintentionally, failing to address other important characteristics of professional performance” (Shulman 2005, pp 54, 55).

The curriculum should place emphasis on teaching communication and management skills. “As a design educator I am seeking a re-vision of the role of graphic design and designers within our communities. Graphic designers should function as facilitators of communication among myriad communities of people: not only between businesses and consumers, but also between communities of citizens, governments, scientists, scholars, activists and other social groups too numerous to list. Through greater attentiveness to our own direct experience of the living world, we can guide the direct experience of others. We can aspire to be 'something more'. Graphic design need not be merely an adjunct to consumerist lifestyles, but a mediator of balanced human relationships” (Lawrie 2008, p. 206).

“We also had no curriculum. In other words, you choose from a menu and made up your own dishes” (Baldessari & Craig-Martin 2009, p.42)

Key controversies

There are fundamental questions about curriculum and the manner in which art is taught. “What besides art is necessary? What should be taught in art schools apart from visual arts? Do artist need a core curriculum of classics? Is visual art important enough and different enough to warrant four years of study?”(Elkins 2001, p.55). “Well, art is taught. But nobody seems to know how” (Birnbaum 2009, p. 232).

Traditional training must be re-visioned to reflect modern times with global and interconnected resources and it’s respective art product. “So what does this all mean for foundation curriculum development? I means that art schools stand on the threshold of multidisciplinary art research and interdisciplinary art production—not as one more theoretical seminar or “multimedia” studio among stubbornly traditional course offerings, or one more state-of-the-arts degree, but as the next wave of cultural production” (Pujol 2009, p.3)

Rather than promote interdisciplinarity, art schools should foster a transdisciplinary approach that goes beyond each distinct area of study to create something new that bridges the current subjects. (Seaman 2009)

Unlike traditional art activities, cloistered within the department or the university, the art school should be more entwined within community and instruction should foster a sense of community. “By viewing learning activities as a community of practice, where more experienced practitioner tutors enable students to participate, they are more likely to develop an identity of belonging, with an associated sense of the meaning of activities within the community of practice in education”. (Shreeve, 2007, p11)

“The problems that currently bedevil art education in the United States, as well as in many other countries, issue directly from a long-standing tendency to reassert obsolete philosophical dichotomies (mind-body/intellect-intuition/creation-interpretation/aethsteics-criticality) and impose them on institutions of differing types in order to pit those institutions against one another or against noninstitutional or quasi-institutional forms of teaching and learning” (Storr 2009 p. 63).

“Art has a socially critical role to play in the survival and evolution of the American democratic experiment” (Pujol 2009 p.8).

Conclusion
Contemporary curricula are for Arts and Design higher education in America is partially derived from the guild system of ancient times and remnants of the academy structure originating in the mid 16th century. Throughout history some themes are constant – the struggle for artist to be seen as professionals; questions about the need for supportive coursework outside of the art field; defining the relationship between the aesthetic and commercial; and the relationship of artists to the community. Some contemporary learning theories as well as controversies are borne from popular zeitgeist and post-modern conceptions of constructivist approaches to knowledge. With these issues in mind, I will review the amenities created by the built environment that support the values, curriculum and pedagogical practices at art schools.

Characteristics, elements, and amenities as supported by built environment

My review of the built environment focuses on how the physical space accommodates the instructional design and pedagogical practices and those values held by the students, faculty and administration. First, I review post-occupancy reviews of contemporary art schools. Secondly, I review literature to reveal prevailing views and controversies about the relationship of the physical space to art post-secondary education. Thirdly, I display the results of interviews and surveys with key stakeholders. Lastly, I examine pre-construction documents of an art school in design to discover valued concepts and proposals to support them through construction and furnishings.


Review of case studies

Le Fresnoy (National Studio of Contemporary Art) by architect Bernard Tschumi in Turcoing, France (See Appendix A)
This project is a 10,000 square meter international center for contemporary arts. The facility that houses a school, film studio, médiathéque, exhibition halls, two cinemas, laboratories for research and production, administrative offices, housing and a bar/restaurant. Portions of the existing structure were preserved and protected by the new overhang roof. Conceptually, the project was designed as a succession of boxes inside a box. The outer box is a large rectangular; Under cover of the large electronic roof are the boxes of the existing building. The large overhang provides areas for concerts and special events. The building was designed to encourage and increase community involvement in the art school.

Prevailing theories and hypotheses concerning the role of the built environment in arts education

When considering the main element of a “school” one cannot underestimate the importance of time in the relationship of factors. “It is necessary to dwell on this conflation of duration (time), gathering (a forum), and site (place for learning). Of these, time is the most important, because a gathering that does not endure or a place that disallows the transformative, accumulative inscription of exchange and discourse cannot by itself, or even in combination, generate a context for learning”(Raqs Media Collective 2009 p.75).

“Any specificity in a design that means to give form to a particular teaching philosophy is bound over time to fail, rendering a chokehold on change in place of being its enabler” (Moran 2009, p. 34). “The challenge of designing art school environments has less to do with any existing need for iconic structures than with instituting flexibly configured structures –or platforms—in which creative productions will take place” ( Moran 2009 p. 35).


The design of arts schools should an environment that supports excellence. “This can be done through organizing environments in which training and skill development occur, where the atmosphere is conducive to reflective practice , and where there is an expectation of high performance within peer groups and by the faculty” (Coogan, J.(2009) p.125-126). Likewise,
“It seems to me that the most important thing about an art school is that it is a creation of a sympathetic ambiance in which people feel comfortable and free to act according to their own instincts”(Baldessari & Craig-Martin 2009, p.42)

One cannot underestimate the social consequences of creating and arranging spaces. “To develop a holistic view of the individual learner (and teacher) as embodied, socially and psychologically constructed, emotional, and situated in space, is, I argue, a more challenging, but authentic way towards a student centeredness based on actual diversity. This means inviting and taking risks with emotional interactions. It means questioning ownership (and
indeed non-ownership) of creative learning spaces. It means asking whose emotional interactions are being foregrounded and whose denied by our traditional structuring of spaces. But surely risk-taking, emotional connectedness and a questioning of traditional structure are at the very heart of any creative project” (Sagan 2008, p183)

Key controversies concerning the built environment for art schools

Art schools should have adequate spaces for presentation. “the relationship between art and exhibition ,which offers the option to test situation and combinations and explore thoughts through works of art is no less needed as a focus in art education”(Bauer 2009, p. 225)

“In recent years, arts institutions have grown dependant on image-boosting architecture as a cornerstone of their fundraising programs and mission statements” (Renfro 2009, p.161). “What better way than with a spectacular new building to lure deep-pocketed trustees and star faculty members to the school?”(Renfro 2009, p.161).

“How will the school’s online presence be reflected in the built environment? (Renfro 2009, p.162).


Interviews
(Please see Appendix B for protocol) For each type of stakeholder I inquire about the basic issues: What is their learning theory/curriculum/instructional design? What characteristics, elements, and amenities are (highlighted) valued for the facility? How are they accommodating by the built environment?

Surveys

(Please see Appendix C for protocol) For each type of stakeholder I inquire about the basic issues: What is their learning theory/curriculum/instructional design? What characteristics, elements, and amenities are (highlighted) valued for the facility? How are they accommodating by the built environment?

Document review
(Please see Appendix D for a summary of document review findings)Documents-I review to find the following information: Who is the originator? Who is the recipient?) What characteristics, elements, and amenities are (highlighted) valued for the facility? How are they accommodating by the built environment? What is assessment of the existing facility?
i) archive- About 300 documents consisting of Meeting reports, existing building survey, preliminary layouts, programming surveys. Planning sheets, technology checklists, comparative space analysis and program reports.

Summation









References

Danto, A. (1964) The Artworld, Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571-184.

Madoff, S.H. (Ed.). (2009). Art school:Propositions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pujol, E. (2009).On the ground. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.1-13). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

deDuve, T. (2009). An ethics: Putting aesthetic transmission in its proper place in the art world. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.15-24). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Moran, B. (2009). Aesthetic Platforms. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.33-37). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Baldessari, J. & Craig-Martin, M., (2009). Conversation. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.41-52). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Storr, R. (2009). Dear Colleague. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.53-67). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1984) The means of correct training. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon books.

Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.). (2009). Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers

Baker, S. (2009) Art school 2.0: Art schools in the information age or reciprocal relations and the art of the possible. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.27-44). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.

Bogh, M. (2009) Borderlands: The art school between the academy and higher education. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.64-75). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.

Coogan, J. (2009) Evolutionary forces: Advancing art and design education. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.121-135). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.

Raqs Media Collective (2009) How to be an artist at night. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.71-81). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Lauterbach, A. (2009) The thing seen: Reimagining arts education for now. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.85-97). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Seaman, B., (2009) Combinatoric micro-strategies for emergent transdisciplinary education. In Buckley, B. & Conomos, J. (Eds.) Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. (pp.182-205. New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.

Esche, C., (2009) Include me out: Helping artist to undo the art world. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.101-112). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Renfro, C., (2009) Undesigning the new art school. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.159-175). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Bauer, U.M., (2009) Under Pressure. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.219-226). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Birnbaum, D., (2009). Teaching art: Adorno and the devil. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.231-246). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Madoff, S. H., (2009). States of exception. In S H. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.271-284). Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

Reading, C. (2009).Sources of inspiration: How design students learn from museum collections and other sources of inspiration. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,8, 2, 109-121.

Bohemia, E., Harman, K. & McDowell, L. (2009). Intersections: The utility of an ‘assessment for learning’ discourse for design educators. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,8, 2, 123-134.

de la Harpe, B. & Peterson, J. F.(2008). Through the learning and teaching looking glass: What do academics in art, design and architecture publish about most? Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,7, 3, 135-154.

Valentine, L. & Ivey, M. (2008). Sustaining Ambiguity and Fostering Openness in the (Design) Learning Environment. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,7, 3, 155-167.

Sagan, O. (2008). Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: emotional exchange in creative. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 3, 173-186.

Melles, G. (2008). Producing fact, affect and identity in architecture critiques - a discourse analysis of student and faculty discourse interaction. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 3, 159-171

Lawrie, S. (2008). Graphic design: can it be something more? Report on research in progress. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 3, 201-207.

Shreeve, A. (2007). Learning development and study support – an embedded approach through communities of practice. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 11-25.

Reid, A. & Solomonides, I. (2007). Design students’ experience of engagement and creativity*. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 27-39.

Radclyffe-Thomas, N. (2007). Intercultural chameleons or the Chinese way? Chinese students in Western art and design education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 41-55.

Eilouti, B. (2007). A spatial development of a string processing tool for encoding architectural design processing. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, 1, 57-71.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus,134, 3, 52–59.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Appendix B- Interview Protocol


Questions for Students

1. What is your major and year?

2. Why did you choose this institution and why did you stay?

3. What most describes how you feel knowledge about your profession is acquired? Is it something imparted to you for you to absorb by someone who is knowledgeable? Does it exist freely for everyone to partake and make meaning of, perhaps requiring a facilitator to assist you to make clearer understanding? Is learning really a matter of accumulating positive behaviors and rewards? Alternatively, perhaps you most describe learning as both memorization and synthesis of new concepts with your own life experiences.

4. What things do you value most about the design program here?

5. How can they be supported by the physical environment?

6. How can the built environment hinder them?


Questions for Faculty

1. What is your position here and what do you teach?

2. Why did you choose this institution and why do you stay?

3. What is special about this department? This institution?

4. What is the mission of the institution? How is that made evident through university actions?

5. What constitutes student success at this institution?

6. What most describes how you feel knowledge about your profession is acquired? Is it something imparted to you for you to absorb by someone who is knowledgeable? Does it exist freely for everyone to partake and make meaning of, perhaps requiring a facilitator to assist you to make clearer understanding? Is learning really a matter of accumulating positive behaviors and rewards? Alternatively, perhaps you most describe learning as both memorization and synthesis of new concepts with your own life experiences.

7. What types of course interactions do you have with students, for example studio, lecture, workshop? For each type, what kind of pedagogical practices do you employ?

8. How can your teaching be best supported by the physical environment (including furnishings)?

9. Does the built environment currently hinder your teaching in any way?

Questions for Administration and appropriate Staff

1. Why did you choose this institution and why do you stay?

2. What is special about this institution?

4. What is the mission of the institution? How is that made evident through university actions?

5. What educational benefits do you anticipate as an outcome of the construction/renovation project?

6. What are some non-educational reasons for embarking on the construction/renovation project?

7. What most describes how you feel knowledge about your profession is acquired? Is it something imparted to you for you to absorb by someone who is knowledgeable? Does it exist freely for everyone to partake and make meaning of, perhaps requiring a facilitator to assist you to make clearer understanding? Is learning really a matter of accumulating positive behaviors and rewards? Alternatively, perhaps you most describe learning as both memorization and synthesis of new concepts with your own life experiences.

8. What things do you value most about the institution?

9. How can they be supported by the physical environment?

10. How can the built environment hinder them?
-end
NOTE: IMAGE ABOVE IS AT THE Yoyogi Seminar Formative Arts School (or Yozemi Zokei), that exclusively teach art-school applicants, in Tokyo, Yokohama, and Osaka.


(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)

Creating a Student Pre-Assessment Lesson Plan for Post-Occupancy Evaluations of Higher Education Facilities that use Constructivist Curricula-1stDRAFT

(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
Introduction
Concerns about the effectiveness of buildings and therefore, methods of evaluation, were traditionally addressed in research (especially the environment- behavior studies of environmental psychologists beginning in the 1970s as documented in 2006 and 2007 by Pol) and by an architectural assessment called a Post-Occupancy Evaluations or POE (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White, 1988). In the later, evaluation criteria are generally determined apart from the users of the space. Increasingly, building evaluations are highlighting strengths and deficiencies by modifying the framework of conventional POE models. I propose that the common contemporary post-occupancy evaluation, framed by the institutional authority and charged to find a quantitative answer to building performance, is inadequate to gauge the experience of the built environment by the users of the space. Political, social and cultural aspects of the environment – the personal truths experienced by each individual are not voiced within conventional POEs. Tenets of critical pedagogy provide rationales that allow evaluators to analyze their built learning environment to discover elements that influence social change, cultural diversity, economic equity, and political enfranchisement while offering the potential to empower the users of the space. Furthermore, research has shown that building evaluators need instruction to recognize the influence of the built environment on the oppression or liberation of students so that the evaluation itself becomes a practice of freedom.
In the following, I generally outline the need for incorporating critical theories into evaluations of the learning environment. I discuss aesthetics and functionality - the customary values assessed, with regard to critical theories, paying particular attention to didactic and constructivist approaches to education. I review the method of assessment. In greater detail, I discuss the need and composition of a pre-assessment lesson plan. Finally, I provide concluding remarks.


The Need for Critical Theory in the Evaluation of the Built Learning Environment
The major concern about the effectiveness of traditional post-occupancy evaluations is that the institution often commissions the POE. Values of the school administration frame the evaluation (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White, 1988) and the university hierarchy itself serves as the primary recipient of the information (Hewitt, et al. 2005). The aim of critical theories is to empower the individual by encouraging user introspection and recognition of the political aspects of the built environment. Critical theory expounds that architecture is not benign and provides the framework to better discern the emotions that buildings incite. This introspection is part of a process that can become an avenue for personal transformation.
Critical interpretation of architectural forms in the university setting reveals systems that are not neutral. Traditionally the architecture of spaces is judged on aesthetics and functionally (how well the space serves as utility to the tasks within). Hebdige (1979), a cultural critic, finds manifestations of values ubiquitous and inherent in the architecture of modern schools. Hebdige describes “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, even the tacit power of physical elements, but in itself, the architecture is merely complicit. To say, “This classroom architecture oppresses me!”, may be simply an aesthetic statement, but to malign the learning space when it is congruous with the teaching approach, and not to look for the source of distress, leads the inhabitant away from an awareness of the causes of oppression and impotent of real transformation. The use of critical theories when assessing the built learning environment can enable the evaluator to see the building as an aesthetic element and/or as support or hindrance to an empowering or stifling curriculum.
Incorporating critical theories in the building evaluative process helps the reviewer to better discern the emotions that building incite through a structured process of introspection and personalization, leading to awareness. In line with a critical interpretation for higher education, professors of architecture Dutton & Grant (1991) want to: “move the theory and practices of [architecture] into more critical terrain…Architecture unavoidably frame the world. It structures experience, reinforces assumptions about culture and politics, and orients attention toward certain types of knowledge and ideologies… Schools can never be understood as neutral sites…All pedagogy, by its very nature, represents some theory and thus serves certain cultural and political ends.”(p.38)
Liberation philosophies within the framework of a Post-occupancy evaluation provide an avenue for praxis. “Critical and liberating dialogue, which presupposes action [the assessment of their physical environment], must be carried on with the oppressed at whatever the stage of their struggle for liberation” (Freire, 1970, p. 52). Reflective, structured instruction can nurture the awareness of elements that limit one’s ability to be truly human.
The Values to be Assessed

If one concedes that pedagogy and architecture are influenced by the “prevailing ethos” as Frederick (2007) puts it, then determining the parameters and emphasis for assessing the built environment may also be transitive. Both aesthetics and functionality are often cited as primary considerations. Critical theories offer the framework to review the beauty of a space with regard to design intent as well as examine the alignment between the design of the built environment and the tasks intended, and how either restrains or encourages liberation.
Aesthetics
At the start of professional architectural training on the design of educational facilities in America, classical style and ornamentation was pervasive to the degree that, at the start of the twentieth century, engineer John R. Freeman remarked that contemporary work was ”preoccupied with aesthetics”, and “rarely thought through the question of use and function”. This classicism was not borne of the original intent of the Middle Ages, but rather as a modern reaction to the classical time. Tony Ward, an architect and educational theorist said “the aesthetic paradigm is morally vacuous because it excludes social, political and ethical considerations... [Consider] a recent review of Phillip Johnson’s PPG tower in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania…The review goes on to extol the quality of the building’s detailing, its thermal performance, and it’s visual impact…What is interesting about the appraisal is that it contains no reference whatsoever to the experiences of the building’s occupants, to the economic policies of PPG as a corporate entity, to the investment structures which generate such buildings at the expense of high unemployment artificially generated through Reagonomics to keep wages low and profits (for further investments) high”(Ward, 1998, pp.55, 56). Critical theories can provide the impetus to explore oppressive intent through reflective actions.
Functionalism
Functionalism was a reaction to the purported overuse of decoration at the expense of the efficiency of the space ( It is important to note, however, that iconic Modern architects of the period such as Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe are likened to functionalists only to the extent that their buildings were radical simplifications of previous styles and lacked ornamentation). Currently, the “Form Follows Function” 19th century maxim prevails today as the cornerstone of architectural design and the standard to which the built environment is often assessed. Brian Edwards (2000) put the onus on the administration when he remarked that, “Universities have the most unique challenge of relating the built fabric to academic discourse” (pg. vii). Therefore, when evaluating the influence of the built learning environment on the educational processes housed within, it is important to discern alignment with the educational approach. The architectural design of the room is not the lesson plan; criticism of educational approach is best placed with educators. However, the physicality of the educational space as a support or hindrance to teaching and learning plan is fair game.


Didactic educational approach
Culturally, Jamieson (2003) offers that the traditional American university physical environments for learning were shaped for didactic instruction. Classrooms were originally designed for a one-way, formal education, which also mirrored the institutional culture of the university. Indeed, many American universities function on the United States model in which the head of each academic department reigns over a fiefdom of sorts where students traverse interstate to access course instruction (Jarzombek, 2004). Freire (1970) describes this manner of education as narrative as opposed to dialogical. “The teacher deposits and students are the depositories. Students receive, memorize, and repeat… The banking model tries to control thinking and action and inhibits our creative powers. It tries to maintain the submersion of consciousness. In it we are merely spectators, not re-creators” (pp. 58, 62).
Constructivist Epistemology
In Hein’s (2002) description of constructivism, he 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 remarks that “through dialogue a new terms emerges--teacher student with students-teachers. The students, while being taught, also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow" (1970, p. 67).
Assessment Method
A Post-occupancy evaluation is a common, thorough, methodical way of evaluating the room or building after it has been in use. A POE is very much a progressive document and relatively contemporary method (originating around the 1960s in America) to determine whether architectural decisions made by design professionals are delivering the performance intended as evaluated by those who use the building. These assessments provide several benefits including the identification of spatial problems and successes, the opportunity for user involvement and the establishment of prototypical spaces. Preiser, Rabinowitz and White (1988) describe the intent of a POE as “to compare systematically and rigorously the actual performance of buildings with explicitly stated performance criteria; the difference between the two constitutes the evaluation” (pp. 3, 4). Since the latter 1980s in America, the performance method concept has been widely employed as the foundation of the evaluation. Performance criteria are usually developed by the university administration (in response to their goals for the institution); the post-occupancy evaluator determines performance measures (Please see appendix A for an example of a simple evaluation form).
Performance measures are either quantitative or qualitative. Some aspects of the building examination e.g., the amount of lighting or the performance of building elements and mechanical systems are computable and comparative. Characteristics of the analysis that solicit user opinions of security, comfort, aesthetics, etc. are qualitative portions of the evaluation.
It is important to note the subjectivity of the process (see Figure 1 for an illustration of the Performance model). Actual building ratings are dependant upon the performance criteria developed by university administrators. The performance, derived directly from values the university deem important, are not necessarily the values of the evaluator or the users of the space. Moreover, the building evaluation result is reliant
upon the goals of the evaluator and the performance measures developed to test the criteria. Including a pre-assessment lesson for the POE that is structured upon a dialogical shared exchange will benefit both evaluators and administration. “It would be a contradiction in terms if the oppressors not only defended but actually implemented a liberating education” (Freire, 1970, p. 39). Lastly, the users of the space may give varying responses at different times and different users may give a different response. Preiser, Rabinowitz and White state, “there are no absolutes in environmental evaluation because of cultural bias, subjectivity and varied background of both the evaluators and building users” (1988, p.33).
In addition, since the performance criteria and performance measures are not developed by the users, it is important to critically consider the consequences of false positive or false negative ratings. If an evaluation of a university space is inaccurate, then who will gain and who will loose?


Pre-assessment Lesson Plan

As students need training to develop self-reflection skills and to recognize cultural and political conditions around them, it is also true that they often need specific education to discern conditions in their immediate environment. After de-briefing the research team that conducted a post-occupancy evaluation of state schools in the city of Campinas, in Brazil, Kowaltowski, et. al. (2004) discovered that evaluation respondents are often unaware of key conditions. In the Brazilian schools, students had to be taught the concept of environmental comfort (thermal, acoustic, and functional comfort as well as good lighting conditions) and learn to relate it to their life experiences before they could effectively rate their school environment. These instructors used in-class materials and developed a long-distance training program. For this course, I developed a lesson plan for university students prior to their assessment of the school facilities.
Understanding Goals and Course Objectives
This lesson plan was developed to train assessors (the users of the space) to be critically sensitive to issues promoted and facilitated by the physical learning environment per theories of Paulo Freire (1970) in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Freire says that the oppressed (students and/or faculty) must be engaged in a dialog with the oppressor (faculty and/or administration) illustrating historical conditions to evoke them to critically look at world, recognize causes of oppression, discover themselves as hosts of oppressors, objectify and create new situation through reflective participation that evokes transforming actions enabling the oppressed to strive to be fully human. This process is divided into five lessons.
Lesson one is concerned with giving general information about critical theories and constructivist education. Students will participate in a structured dialog and reflection. They will prepare a concept map of their understanding of how knowledge is acquired. Lesson two discusses recognition of oppression in academic architecture. Students will be able to recognize intent, control, and oppressive manifestations of power. They will participate in group discussion and journal writing. Lesson three will enable students to see the role of the oppressed as sustaining the oppression as well as express how the model presented of a substantial oppression influenced by the built environment relates to their personal experiences. Students will relate their experiences to constructivist education. Lesson four describes the concept of being fully human and students reflect and participate in group discussion and personal journal writing. Lesson five is a general unpacking of the day’s topic and the preparation to being the post-occupancy evaluation of their learning environment. The lesson plan is attached.
Conclusion

Grannis (1994) points out instances in which effective inquiry would aid in the design of successful spaces for higher education. A review of the Yale University Arts and Architecture building in 1987 gave many examples of a building not designed to fit the behavior of the inhabitants and how the students retaliated by vandalizing, defecating, trashing and eventually trying to burn down the facility. The inclusion of critical theories into the post occupancy evaluation of educational facilities is useful in two ways. First, an effective pre-assessment plan will give the users skills to critically review their environment, while providing a vehicle for a dialogical exchange with administration they has the potential to be transformative. Secondly, incorporating tenets of critical pedagogy into the evaluation criteria may provide questions and answers that enable all to become more fully human.

References

Beck, C. (1993). Postmodernism, pedagogy, and philosophy of education. Canada : EPS/Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Dutton, T. & Grant, B. (1991). Campus design and critical pedagogy. Academe; bulletin of the AAUP, 77, 4, 37-43.

Edwards, B. (2000). University Architecture. London and New York: Spon Press

Elam, K (2001) Geometry of design: Studies in proportion and composition, pg 48. New York: Princeton Architectural Press
Elmasry, S. (2007) Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies, Page 15.

Endres, B. (1997). Ethics and the Critical Theory of Education. Canada : EPS/ Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Frederick, M. (2007) 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, pg 83, Boston: MIT Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum
Grannis, P. (1994). Postoccupancy evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 9, 2, 210-219

Hauf, H. & Koppes, W. & Green, A. & Gassman, M. & Haviland, D. (1966). New spaces for learning: Designing college facilities to utilize instructional aids and media. New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hebdige, D.(1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. London and New York: Methuen.
Peca, K. (2000). Positivism in education: Philosophical, research and organizational assumptions. Opinion paper, Educational Resources Informational Center

Hein, G. (2002) The challenge of constructivist teaching, Passion and Pedegogy: Relation, Creation and transformation in Teaching, Ed. Elijah Mirochnik, Debora C. Sherman , NY: Peter Lang

Piro, J. (2008). Foucault and the architecture of surveillance: Creating regimes of power in schools, shrines, and society. Educational Studies, 44, 30–46.

Pol, E.(2006). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (I): From First Birth to American Transition. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7, 2, 95-113.

Pol, E. (2007). Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (II):
From architectural psychology to the challenge of sustainability. Medio Ambiente y . . Comportamiento Humano, 8., 1y2, 1 – 28.

Scherr, R. (2001). The grid: Form and process in architectural design. Page 11. New York, Verona, Bucharest: USA books.

Shor, I. (1996) When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Strange, C. & Banning, J.(2001). Educating by Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. (2008) Modern architecture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ward, T. (1998) .Phenomenological Analysis in the Design Process. Design Studies.10, 1. pp.53-66.
Student Pre-Assessment Lesson Plan For Higher Education Facilities Using Constructivist Curricula

Purpose of Lesson Plan: Students will learn to critically analyze their physical learning environment.

1) LESSON ONE Topic: Critically Viewing the World [1 hour]
a) Understanding Goals that include performances of understanding
i) Students will understand general critical theories of the oppressed.
ii) Students will understand general tenets of Constructivist learning theory in opposition to the concept of banking education.
b) Class Objectives
i) Students will participate in a dialog about the topic
ii) Student will prepare a Concept Map with Reflection
c) Presentation format
i) Activity – Presentation A: Directed Discussion on Critical Theories of the Oppressed and General Constructivist Learning Theory (See appendix B)
(1) Directed lecture/dialog about fundamentals of Freire. [15 minutes]
(2) Discussion of constructivist learning theories and introduction to concept mapping. [15 minutes]
ii) Activity- Concept mapping – Diagramming constructivist learning within the academic culture at the university indicating ideas, context and relationships.
(1) Students will sketch their own concept map of Constructivist learning theory and the educational institution. [10 minutes]
(2) Small group discussion of sketches. [10 minutes]
(3) Share main points with whole group [10 minutes]
(4) Write class reflection in lesson journal.
d) Presentation Forms and Access
i) Directed Discussion on Critical Theories of the Oppressed and General Constructivist Learning Theory (Attached)
ii) Students will have online access to lecture/conversation materials.
iii) Scaffolding --Post concept maps and document main points of discussion electronically.
e) References
2) LESSON TWO Topic: Recognizing Oppression through the Built Environment in the Academic Setting [1 hour]
a) Understanding Goals that include performances of understanding
i) For architectural elements students will be able to:
(1) recognize intent and distinguish situations when it is oppressive.
(2) recognize control and identify when it is overbearing.
(3) be aware of surveillance issues.
(4) recognize manifestations of power and when it is oppressive.
b) Class Objectives
i) Student will students will discuss the impact of architectural elements on the educational experience.
c) Presentation format-
i) Activity – Presentation of images and directed dialog. [1 hour] Main Concepts and Background Information:
(1) Presentation B: Architectural intent (Rengal) -
(a) Architecture as an art form always expresses something. The newly-built always comments on the existing environment in terms of what indigenous elements it chooses or refuses to integrate, how important it perceives itself to be, how much it chooses to aid the patron through its structure and the hierarchy it gives to particular spaces, how responsive it chooses to be to cultural concerns, and in many others ways. It is easy to obscure, in these anthropomorphic phrases, the intention of university administrators, department heads or lead professors that expose their agenda in what and how and at whose expense they choose to build. Rengal, R (2006). Shaping interior spaces. New York: Fairchild.
(b) Control as supported by the architecture (Piro, Foucault)-
(i) The Panopticon was proposed by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), a Utilitarian philosopher and theorist of British legal reform. Piro, J. (2008). Foucault and the architecture of surveillance: Creating regimes of power in schools, shrines, and society. Educational Studies, 44, 30–46.
(c) Manifestations of power in the built environment.
(i) Foucault, M (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books
(ii) Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punishment. New York: Vintage Books.
(d) Students will be presented with a Case Study outlining the steps for . critical review and ways to gauge the severity of the oppression – The Siberian syndrome in Shor, I. (1996) When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
d) Presentation Forms and Access
i) Student availability to lecture conversation materials
ii) Students will have online access to lecture/conversation materials.
e) References

3) LESSON THREE Topic: Complicity as a Host of the Oppressors [1/2 hour]
a) Understanding Goals that include performances of understanding
i)Students will be able to see the role of oppressed as sustaining the oppression.
ii) Students will be able to express their personals experiences on this topic in their lesson journal.
b) Class Objectives
i)Student will students will discuss the roles of participants in oppression.
ii) Students will reflect in their lesson journal.
iii.)Student will prepare a written account of how the architecture aids or hinders learning for them in a constructivist model.
c)Presentation format
i)Class dialog on the Culture of Silence and passivity.

4) LESSON FOUR Topic: Becoming ‘Fully Human’ Within the Context of Constructivist Education[1/2 hour]
a) Understanding Goals that include performances of understanding
(1) Students will understand the parameters of ‘becoming fully human’ in the Freire context.
ii) Class Objectives
(1) Student will students will discuss this topic.
iii) Presentation format-
b) Activity – Presentation and directed dialog. [1/2 hour] Main Concepts and Background Information:
i) “Colleges and universities have a distinct responsibility…If we fail to utilize what knowledge we have about humanization as an educational responsibility, then we risk loosing the [possibility of realizing the potential for total growth in our young. (p 511)”
ii) DeArmond, M., Parker, A. (1968) Becoming human: An educational process, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 39, No. 9 , pp. 506-511.
c) Presentation Forms

5) LESSON FIVE Topic: Reflection and Participation in a Transformation [30 minutes]
i) Class Objectives
(1) Student will reflect upon and discuss the lesson of the day.
ii) Presentation format
(1) Activity –
(a) Small group discussion. [15 minutes]
(b) Share main points with whole group [15 minutes]
(c) Students will begin Post-occupancy assessment of their learning environment.

(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)

The Reflective Professor: A Teacher’s Journal and Guide for Project One-“Designing a Place for Reverie” for 2nd year College Design Students-1st DRAFT

(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
I am creating a teacher’s guide to facilitate Conceptual Change. It invites Professors to review the foundations of their educational approach and consider new models for teaching and learning through the teaching and reflection upon a student lesson plan. The generative question for Professors is “How might I Teach Reflectively?” Their 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?"

Section 1a. Overall Topic and Essential/Generative Question (Please see page 1):
Professor’s Lesson Plan
. The teacher’s guide lends itself to be an instrument of introspection and conceptual change for the instructor. The generative question is “How might I teach reflectively?”. It is a generative topic because it relates to the basics of teaching as well as inviting deep introspection into the professor’s own foundation for teaching and thinking about the cognitive processes involved in their instruction. It is generative because it is an interesting topic that should go to the core of why a professor teaches and it provides many opportunities to make connections with one’s existing theories as well as new research. In addition, this topic is rife with all kinds of research that can support or refute pedagogical practices. This topic is important and compelling because there is a dearth of trained educators in the design field. This topic has pushed my thinking tremendously because I have little formal background in education and nearly everything I know about education I learned in this course incrementally, so I have been stretched to the boundaries of what I can assimilate and correctly apply to the lesson plan in an organized way. As we discussed in the tutoring class exercise, this project meets me at the edge of my capabilities and understanding of the material.
Because of the developmental stage of professors, this lesson plan was created with deference to the tenets of adult education. Professors do not want to be told what to do; they need to discover the inadequacies of their conceptions. I help the professors to connect the new learning with life experiences and previous knowledge. I made the guide practical and immediately relevant and I respected the adult learner (professor) and previous understandings. All design professors have professional experience and most have graduate degrees. This lesson plan gives design professionals all the guidance they need to teach the course – it does not presume to tell them how to interpret images for design concepts. They are overly knowledgeable of design theory and application and would take offence to the teachers guide’s presumption of inadequacy. To motivate the professors to utilize this journal and guide, I offer this as an opportunity to increase the quality of design in America by improving the academic experience, and I highlight personal growth in acquiring new knowledge (Lieb 1991). Particularly for adults, Boden et. al (2006) points out the benefits of this self-directed type of journaling in ways of “reflecting, watching… personal growth, self-discovery, professional development, and self expression” (p.12).
The topic of teaching reflectively invites cognitive, emotional and social engagement because it offers the opportunity to review substitutive research on design education and encourages teaching metacognitively; The Professor’s plan not only promotes thinking, but also, being conscious about your thinking. It is emotional because it deals with the desire to teach, the contribution to one’s teaching from college experiences as well as the atmosphere and processes of a design practice. All these situations that may be the basis for one’s teaching are in review and rated with other models to see which best supports the education in the class room. Of course, the notion of teaching reflectively involves social engagement because it evaluates how professors relate to their peers and the culture of the institution in which they teach. More importantly, it is about social exchange with the students as participants in this journey to design the reverie space.

Section 1b. Overall Topic and Essential/Generative Question (Please see page 10):
Participant’s (Student’s) Lesson Plan
Project One is a transitional exercise bridging the gap between the abstract two dimensional and three-dimensional design exercises of foundation coursework and later more program-driven projects of second year design studios. The generative question for students is “How might I design a space for reverie?” and there are several qualities that make it generative.
It is generative because it leads students to ponder the personal relevancy of the project. “What is the essence of the experience(s) of daydreaming for me and what are universal meanings?”; “How does one incorporate the design principles to support the space I am creating?”; In addition, “having created the space, how does one represent it both two-dimensionally and three-dimensionally?” Moreover, it is a generative topic because this is the first project where students have a dedicated studio workspace in the style that they will occupy throughout the remainder of their scholastic tenure. Therefore, this project sets fundamental concepts about how one begins the design process and how one synthesizes design theory from the foundation year into a concrete project.
It is generative because it is interesting for students. Reverie, or daydreaming, is something that everyone has done and can relate to whether they frequent that state or they wish they had more wistful moments within the rush of academic life. This topic excites students and gives them an opportunity to demonstrate to themselves, the instructors and their cohort, how well they adapted to the studio environment and their design capabilities. The topic is compelling because it invites a lot of interpretations for students.
I have utilized several research topics that we discussed in T-543 Applying Cognitive Science to Teaching and Learning throughout the participant’s lesson plan (Please see pages 10 – 11) . The main concepts covered are Metacognition and Analogical thinking. These topics are interesting for the instructors as well because the journal and guide provides them the opportunity to model these concepts for students while formally teaching students work processes and metacognition. These skills prepare students for the remainder of their academic year and their professional career; Thinking about one’s cognition, as well as speaking in the analogous repartee of professional design discourse initiates students into higher level design education and professional practice. Students currently have no formal training in assessing their thinking and this transitional project is the ideal place where that exploration should begin. It is important for students to be self-awareness, self-regulating and understanding of their command of executive functioning as well as how to adapt their environment to serve their thinking processes.
This question is generative because it provides many opportunities for situations to connect, through analogy, all kinds of elements and processes that have similarity and contrast, to find the core truth of the concepts. There are many venues that support this action, from the precedence study where they clip images of environments and themes from periodicals to conceptual sketching to the analogical dialog, which introduces analogical thinking in the form of three levels of dialogical analogy to describe their work. This method permeates through comments to other students; the way students explain their work; solve design problems and categorize their analogical thinking. It increases the quality of normal studio banter. New research shows that analogical dialog for design students are 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.
Metacognition invites cognitive and emotional introspection from students. Many of the social issues with this project deal with how students adapt to the learning environment in which they will reside throughout the rest of their scholastic career, so there is a large emotional content. In addition, the metacognitive portion will help students to be aware of how they think and benefit from that awareness. A substantial portion of this project is personal and group critique. The generative aspects of this project are apparent as students first present, defend their project to the class, and carry the experience on to succeeding critiques. In the first year curriculum, there are usually personal project review between instructor and student, with only exemplary work presented for display. Therefore, there is a huge social engagement that is taught and demonstrated in this lesson plan.


Section 2a. The Professor’s Understanding Goals (that include Performances of Understanding) and Journal Objectives (Listed on page 1):
Because of this reflective teaching experience, professors will be exposed to new research, taught many skills, be able to demonstrate them, and reflect upon them. This teacher’s journal and guide is a self-directed intervention to facilitate conceptual change. This curriculum offers the opportunity for professors to examine and change the foundations of their educational approach and thus, their teaching and learning concepts, curriculum and pedagogical practices. This intervention does not make judgments about prior foundations for their teaching but invites professors to reflect, giving them new research to consider and incorporate, in an “action research” fashion, allowing them to justify the validity of new ways. Both the understanding goals and the journal objectives are unwritten because I felt it inappropriate to promote the journal and teacher’s guide as a blatant vehicle to force change. Research on the cognitive development of adults as well as adult education concurs that this approach would not be affective (Lieb, 1991).
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. Professors will engage in an initial self-evaluation to assess existing conceptions of teaching and learning and unpack their experiences. Four different models are presented. First is architectural design practice. Nearly all faculty members were working design professionals having served as project architect, project manager or even head of an architectural office. Adjunct faculty members are often still employed by their firms. The second model presented as a possible influence for the professors, is their own undergraduate school educational experience. Thirdly, the culture of the teaching institution, including traditions and professorial cohort, may play a role as the basis for their educational approach. Lastly, new educational research may serve to strongly inform the professor’s conceptions of teaching and learning.
Each model 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 reviews the professor’s reflection for the lesson, which serves to defend the new concepts in relation to the four models presented in the introduction to the lesson plan. The professor is also 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. Within the student lesson plan, metacognition, analogy, transfer, discussion, criticism, problem based learning, disciplinarity, developmental issues, types of knowledge and assessment are presented.
Finally, the Professor’s Reflection on 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.
The Professor’s lesson plan is derived from the understanding goals. The plan builds awareness of the foundations for the professor’s educational approach through assessment and reflection. It provides research, enables reflection of teaching the lesson to aid professors in evaluating their existing conceptions, and teaches the skills to do so. This lesson plan concludes with suggestions for lesson improvement. Lastly, it provides metacognition skills and a venue (the studio classroom) for modeling methods. The journal objectives support the understanding goals (Please see page 1) . With regard to the effectiveness of this lesson plan, it is important to reinforce that this intervention is self-directed. The final assessment should show an increase in metacognition and reflective skills, but regardless, the lesson plan reflection asks the professor to consider the value of the guide and journal.
Section 2b. The Participant’s (Student’s) Understanding Goals (that include Performances of Understanding) and Course Objectives (Listed on pages 10 - 12):
Because of this lesson plan, students will understand how they can apply elements, principles, and theories of design to two and three-dimensional design solutions. This involves being able to synthesis the concepts learned in the foundation year in orthographic drawings and model work. Students will be able to formalize and critique their theories of thinking. They will be able to use this knowledge to create self-awareness strategies and adapt their work environments to accommodate their thinking processes. Students will have a series of lecture, directed conversations, presentations, explorations, drawings and model work to achieve these goals. The five major categories of understanding goals are metacognition, analogical reasoning, incorporation of design theory, presentation and orthographic competency and model making.
Metacognition
This project initiates students into the academic studio experience and professional life. Initially students are made aware of different concepts of knowledge and understanding through individual, small group, and class discussions so that they have a vocabulary and framework to ponder their own thinking processes. Students are invited to modify their own studio environment to accommodate how they work. Lastly, students will be able to make their thinking processes tangible by analyzing or mapping them. Throughout the project students have the opportunity to critique their own processes of thinking. These understanding goals are supported by course objectives and class activities. Much of the work is documented in their studio sketchbook (and journal). Metacognitive skills are prompted throughout the lesson plan. These skills support the creative process but are not specifically assessed for a grade.
Analogy
Students formally use analogy throughout the project, conceptualizing with analogical reasoning and engaging in analogical dialog. As a precursor to the Precedence Study assignment, students are given training to differentiate between the types of visual analogy and to discern the essence of the imagery content. Students learn how to utilize analogical reasoning and dialog as a way of explaining program concepts and reviewing others work. The selection of the images for their precedent study is a process for the students to organize their analogical reasoning. Presentation of their precedent study gives the professor the opportunity to model analogical dialog, and the students the venue to engage in such. The use of analogical reasoning, then visual analogies and analogical dialog, then creating a written project concept narrative of their analogies, and finally condensing the essence of their analogies into a concept statement, should increase the transfer of this conceptual design process forward to other projects and professional practice. While these skills are important to support the creative process, only the deliverable – the precedence study, is specifically assessed for a grade.
Incorporation of Design Theory
Immediately prior to this project, students have concluded the first year of their design training which introduces them to design theory. They spent two semesters working on abstract representations of design elements, design principles, spatial organization, space relationships and space definition. Project One is the beginning of synthesizing that theoretical training into a tangible built environment. At the beginning of the project, students will understand how they might apply design theories to select and interpret images. An overview of design theory is given in the presentation on Essense/Analogy/Metaphor as well as connecting the concepts to visual images. The first reading assigned from the required text, Rengal, R (2006). Shaping interior spaces, discusses some basic principles. Furthermore, this goal is supported by the individual precedence study presentations and group critique. Likewise, students participate in individual desk critiques and group desk critiques with the professor, as they explore ways to apply design theory to their initial project narrative and their concept statement refinement. The concept statement will be presented for class critique at the progress presentation. Each desk critique is an opportunity for students to explore spatial definition and organization with the professor and cohorts and their understanding will be demonstrated and queried at the progress presentation. Both the precedence study and the final project are assessed on how well students meet the requirements of the assignments and successfully incorporate sound design principles in support of their design intent.
Presentation
Upon completion of this lesson plan, students will be able to present and defend their work, engage in critical review within a group setting, and assess the quality of their project, design process and ways of thinking. In lesson two, students are given training on the meaning of critique as well as the proper way to participate in a group discussion. The instructor models and encourages analogical the dialog within presentations. Each level of presentation becomes more complex in terms of the subject matter presented, from conceptual visual images, to their design concepts, through progressions of their final project. Finally, students participate in a formal self-assessment of their final project and intent and they are encouraged to constructively reflect upon their ways of thinking throughout the project in their personal studio sketchbook.
Orthographic Competency and Model Making

Typically, students are concurrently enrolled in courses teaching beginning perspective and orthographic drawing. This lesson plan is mindful of other courses and their teaching methods for presentation and conceptual drawings. Lesson two begins with introductory instruction for perspective conceptual sketching and drills those methods to promote automaticity. Building an ease of conceptual drawing connects beginning students to part of the disciplinary culture of designers, both in advance schoolwork and professional practice. Students also receive supportive instruction for orthographic drawing by the professor as well as peer tutors who are trained within this lesson plan to be more effective. Lastly, toward the end of the lesson plan, students are shown examples of the previous year’s student work for this project and the professor describes successful solutions, design inadequacies and common mistakes that students commit.

Section 3a. Learners: Professors

Most architecture professors have no formal training in education. The terminal degree in architecture and design is the Masters and most instructors were project architects or project designers that led teams of designers at a firm. Master degrees in architecture and design do not include teacher training, but rather, offer specialization in a project type. Even in the latter 1960’s, when the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare commissioned a study focusing on the state of architectural education in America and outlining the need for higher degreed academic programs in architecture, the study did not list teacher training as needed skills for Masters and Doctorate degrees. Rather “the urgent need of architects, in school and in practice, for more knowledge about developments in all aspects of science and technology and about effective application of new ideas and techniques to architecture” (Kelly 1968, p.1) was determined to be paramount.
Many professors rely on their university experiences as a student in the latter 1970’s and 1980’s. Foundations of their educational approach that underlie their pedagogical practices may be their architectural design practice, their own undergraduate scholastic experience, their university’s institutional culture or perhaps, contemporary educational training. Instruction on new teaching and learning theories are best situated for these professionals within the tenets of adult education.
Lieb (1991) describes the autonomy and self-directedness of adult learners. This journal and guide allows professors to individually experience the intervention and relies upon their initiative to discover personal rewards in continuing to journal in the hopes of reaping personal benefits after having completed the course.
Boden, et. al (2006) acknowledges the benefits of journaling for adults. He writes about the journal reflections of an adult educator, Sylvia Moore, who extols reflection as an effective component of an experiential learning model for adults. This model has four elements- “concrete experiences, observation and reflection, forming abstract concepts, and testing in new situations.” (p.13). I utilized all four of these in my approach, which was especially designed for adult instructors. Professors have the opportunity to reflect upon their life experiences, explore new concepts, test them out in the studio and consider the results.
This topic is especially relevant to professors because effective teaching should be the goal of their profession. This journal and teacher’s guide is a tool for instructors to improve their teaching and therefore improve educational outcomes. Professors who are frustrated with the inadequacy of their skills will find this lesson plan particularly appealing. I have created this journal and guide to be engaging to professors – this self-directed workbook gives them the independence to participate in this lesson plan privately and at their own schedule.
Section 3a. Learners: Participants

The student learners are 2nd year college design students. They have just completed a year of “foundation courses” which introduce them to the concepts of design elements, design principles, space organization, space relationships, space definition, circulation systems and communication strategies. This is the first project in a studio set-up where they apply these principles to a programmed space. The baccalaureate degree is four or five years depending on the institution. In my experience, design students at this level of their training are often focused on what the professor will provide to the student as opposed to personal effort in learning. For instance, students often remark, “Just tell me what I need to know for the test, nothing more” or “the teacher spent too much time helping the students that didn’t know what to do!” Knox (2010) reported, “recent studies show that neural insulation isn't complete until the mid-20s. This also may explain why teenagers often seem so maddeningly self-centered”.
There are some major component of my lesson plan that are in alignment with adolescent cognitive levels of development. Firmly within a constructivist structure, this lesson plan gives students the opportunity to share and learn through individual reflection, small group discussions, and personal critiques with the professor, and class interactions. The lesson plan is truly centered on the individual student. All of the course material are available online to support learning. This project is particularly important to students because it initiates them into studio life and introduces them to the design process.
Section 4. Learning Challenges:

There are several learning challenges for professors that are addressed within their lesson plan, which is based on the conceptual change model (Strike & Posner, 1985). While there is a lot of anecdotal information concerning education training for design professors, there is a dearth of research on the topic. So, I have based this intervention on research concerning general adult education, graduate adult education, and evidence of the lack of educational training in master’s and doctoral level architecture programs (Kelly 1968)(Boden, et. al (2006)(Lieb 1991). Therefore, based on personal experience as well as exposure to several colleges of design and available research, I postulated. the conceptual ecology for learners. I fashioned this lesson plan to focus on features of the professor’s esteemed concepts that are not successful and contradictions on the appropriateness of experiences, to move the professors to plausibility and then, the fruitfulness of new concepts.
Professors could have difficulties along each step of the conceptual change. Some may not be ready to objectively review their past experiences and the foundations of their educational approach. Others may doubt the connection between their existing methods and inadequate educational outcomes for students. Professors may successfully analyze the foundations of their teaching, but doubt the plausibility of new research. Some professors, mired to an earlier tradition, may find the notion of constructivism too challenging to embrace. Lastly, all this reflection and metacognition might be too much cognitive load to comprehend.
I constructed the lesson plan to alleviate some of the perceived problems. While I presented large theories of metacognition, analogy and others, I created lessons such that the professor can elect to use just pieces of the model or a single method to provide an easier conceptual bridge. The reflective journal allows for an open-ended assessment throughout the lesson plan and I made it clear in the instructions to the professor that teaching this course is both an interactive and iterative process. Teaching methods may be effective for some students or many students but rarely for all students. .
There are several learning challenges for students that are addressed within their lesson plan journey from design concept to final presentation. . From my experience as a professor, I noticed that students are both anxious and reticent entering their second year in design school. Therefore, this lesson plan is structured to give students support from peers, written resources, and personal instruction from the professor in the form of desk critiques. Information on cognitive development reveal that students are centered on their own needs (Knox 2010), so special care is taken in this lesson plan illuminate the relevancy. This is especially true with the concepts of analogy and metacognition, which are seldom incorporated into instruction, but are very important in early design education (Oxman1999) (Casakin & Goldschmidt ,1999). If these concepts are not presented skillfully and openly, they could easily be interpreted by students as unwarranted cognitive load.


Section 5. Structure of and Justification for the Instructional Design:

I am creating a self-directed teacher’s guide and journal 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. I created a full Lesson 1 and then outlined Lessons 2 – 5 for you to understand the concept of the intervention.
Their student lesson plan is a transitional project that bridges between first year introductory conceptual design training and actual design projects in the studio environment. The lesson plan for students is set-up in the traditional studio manner with 5-hour classes that occur twice a week. Students have an assigned studio area with a drafting table, additional counter space, storage and wall space for mounting work. Most assignments are produced in the studio, but the majority of time working on project occurs outside of class time. The studio is open nearly 24 hours everyday. Professional accreditation requirements dictate how much personal time the professor must give each student for exclusive attention to their work each week. It usually is about 13 minutes of personal instruction each class day. Usually there is a large group meeting for lectures and then the rest of the class time is in sections of about 12 – 15 students that are dedicated to a studio professor.
This project is important to me because while I served as a professor of design, both as adjunct and fulltime faculty, I was often amazed at how little explanation there was about our teaching that was founded on any educational theory. There is sound research about the value of incorporating metacognition and analogy into the student lesson plan. The value and need of those two concepts is highlighted in research that indicates, “the cognitive properties of design learning have never been the subject of design education. As a consequence, there presently exists a lack of educational theories of learning which function as an underpinning of design education.” (Oxman, R., 1999, p. 105) and “the use of visual analogy improves the quality of design across the board, but is particularly significant in the case of novice designers [in design school] “(Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G.,1999, p.153).
This project is timely and urgent for me because of where it fits in my doctoral studies. My domain is assessing how the built environment affects learning in university arts and design curriculums. If one gives credence to the maxim “form follows function” than it is important to understand contemporary curriculum and instructional design. After this course, I begin a 10-month study of an existing university design school, evaluating both curriculum/instructional design and building design to inform the design of the new facility. Explorations of these topics from T-543 Applying Cognitive Science to Teaching and Learning will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between learning and the built environment and will lead to a more adequate method of assessing the facility for learning. Moreover, I intend to teach this design project in the next school year and offer the teacher’s guide to the other three professors co-teaching the course with me.
This project stretches me as a learner and curriculum designer to complete it because it has been difficult to do and I am relying on course content week-to-week to do it.
I have taught a design project similar to this for two semesters but the project I created for this course is very, very different. (Please Appendix A - the previous project schedule in its totality). Every item is a new or completely redone. The way this course was taught previously, the project requirements were distributed on the first day and there is a series of desk critiques until final presentation. There was one group progress presentation midway. There were required readings from a text but they were never referenced in class. There were three 1- hour lectures about different design principles but they were not directly incorporated into the lesson plan. This project was completed in eight class meetings for both the existing course and the new one I created. . Overall, there was not a sense that the way we did it was founded in educational theory. In this student lesson plan, I created something very different; in the professor’s journal and guide, I created a vehicle for a more reasoned educational approach.

Section 6. Assessment Plan:
Professor’s Lesson Plan
There is several methods of self-evaluation that occur throughout the teacher’s guide and journal that support the understanding goals. There is an assessment in the beginning which makes professors aware of the foundations of their own educational approach and assesses their feelings about reflection, whether they practice that now, and how much. Reflective questions throughout the journal enable professors to evaluate their existing conceptions and the effectiveness of new approaches. The very act of journaling and listing helps professors to integrate new understandings and set directives for lesson plan improvements. The final assessment evaluates the benefits of reflection and journaling and the overall experience of this intervention. Those scores on the amount and perceived benefits of reflection and journaling from the introduction are compared to similar scores in the final reflection and self-evaluation . I hope that this will make concrete the benefits of the journal and a guide.
Participant’s Lesson Plan
Assessment occurs throughout this lesson plan, from student self-evaluation to group critique, self-reflection, and personal instruction/criticism from the professor. Accomplishing the understanding goals for Metacognition and Analogical reasoning will improve student processes and their final project, however they are not specifically assessed for a grade.
The understanding goals for Incorporation of Design Theory, Presentation and Orthographic competency and model making are assessed for a grade in a final evaluation personally sent to the student. For the precedence study, I evaluate the quality of submission of a vague image, an allegorical image, a serene place, and an energized place, that meet the assignment requirements. I also review graphic accuracy, quality and neatness of the presentation (Please see Appendix B for an example from a previous year).
For Project One, I evaluate whether the student has successfully included quality space organization, orthographic and graphic accuracy, neatness, and appropriate materials to create a place for reverie (Please see Appendix C for an example from a previous year).
Finally, students participate in a final dated self-assessment in their studios sketchbook to unpack the experience of Project One. They critique on their thinking and develop directives to move forward.
- Mikael
References:

Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How Analogies are Generated: The Roles of Structural and Superficial Similarity. Memory & Cognition. 28 1 pp.108-124

Boden, C. & Cook, D., Lasker-Scott, T., Moore, S., Shelton, D. (2006) Five Perspectives on Reflective Journaling, Adult Learning. 17,1-4, p11-15.

Boud D., & Feletti G., (2003) The Challenge of Problem Based Learning, 2nd Edition. Kogan-Page: London

Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G. (1999), Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education, Design Studies, 20 p.153–175.

Eastman, C., McCraken, M., Newstetter, W. (Eds.). (2001). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Elsevier: New York.

Hollander, J.A. (2002). Learning to discuss: Strategies for improving the quality of class discussion. Teaching Sociology, 30(3), pp. 317-327

Kerns, L (2006) Student’s voices in adult education: Refocusing the research agenda, Adult Learning, p 40-42.

Kelly, B. (1968) Preparatory study toward the improvement of education in collegiate schools of architecture-final report, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Washington, D.C., Grant No. OEG 1-7-078218-4303, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Knox, R. (2010) The teen brain: It's just not grown up yet, National Public Radio, Morning Edition, Broadcasted on March 1, 2010
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

Lieb, S. (1991) Principles of adult learning, VISION, Fall, 1991. Found at http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/adults-2.htm

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). New York: Academic Press.

Maitland, B. (1997). Problem-based learning for architecture and construction management. In D. Boud and Feletti (1997) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, London, UK: Kogan Page Ltd.

McCormick, D. & Kahn, M. (1982). Barn raising: Collaborative group process in seminars. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 7(4) pp. 16-20.

Oxman, R. (1999) Educating the designerly thinker, Design Studies, 20, pp. 105–122

Rengal, R (2006). Shaping interior spaces. New York: Fairchild.
(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)

Reviewing the Epistemologies of the Educational, Architectural and Interdisciplinary Case Study Models for Educational Facilities

(COPYRIGHT © 2010 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
A case study is a systematic way of doing research that exemplifies one incident or process. Many disciplines use case studies to further their understanding of a particular item or occurrence and the format and methods employed vary from study to study and across fields of inquiry. Stake (1997) reminds us “people have different notions as to what a case study is…It belongs to science and to social service” (pp. 401-402) and indeed to many other discourses.

The interdisciplinarity of my scholastic program and my background heightens my interest in case study methods as ways of conducting research. I intend to study the make-up of case studies to examine their use in the fields of education and architecture and discover how they are shaped by their corresponding epistemologies. Likewise, Filemyr (1999), a noted researcher of interdisciplinary studies, approaches “ knowledge from a perspective which incorporates, ..the social sciences and natural sciences…not simply to add multiple perspectives but to create a more cohesive framework from which to effectively engage in authentic inquiry”( p.8).

Therefore, I am not concerned with creating a discipline-accepted architecture case study or a case study in line with the education discourse, or one that blends formats, but rather to understand the foundation of case studies within the discourse of their disciplines.

Although case studies have a scope that can employ a positivist, phenomenological or mixed approach, the audience for case studies and the discourse it functions within have a definite preference.

The Environmental-Behavioralist Model has a distinct positivist foundation. Many of the tenets for the Social Science Model are interpretive. Movement between models for interdisciplinary fields can result in a case study approach unmoored to any discipline and potentially deemed inadequate by both.

The Educational case study falls short in regard to meeting the needs of the architect or the environmental behaviorist. Very little is mentioned about the collaboration between design professionals, builders, local authorities, and the school administration. Infrastructure and building systems are seldom highlighted. However, upon further inspection, the shortcomings are not only those of substance or shared values, but the educational case study is not constructed of a philosophy that seeks a computational answer in the form of quantitative data. The architectural model for academics is one moving toward positivism in its quest for legitimacy. Certainly, the evidence –based design movement embodies that initiative.

Lastly, within the epistemology of the architectural practitioner model, the hermeneutics of case study research is challenged. In these case studies, building product advertisers are highlighted, thus it is unlikely that unsuccessful systems would be illustrated. In addition, there is a high commercial aspect to the case study. Architects, contractors, school officials inevitably want to be shown in good light. Certainly, nothing which would fuel a lawsuit between any of the constituents involved would be published in the case study.

Conducting case study research begins with the examination of philosophical approach.