(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)
