Evaluation of Educational Facilities for Instruction/ Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-end

Reference

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