What Influences Post-Secondary Art School Design?

(COPYRIGHT © 2011 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)-DRAFT OUTLINE-

Introduction
This research assesses university arts and design facilities to determine significant factors that affect the design of the built learning environment. Specifically, I explore the influence of learning theories, curriculum, and the goals of arts and arts education on spatial design. I review contemporary learning theories relevant to art instruction by studying literature to discover prevailing views and controversies, surveying key stakeholders in active art school design projects and then, relating that to the physical environment. I examine curriculum design implications by reviewing the history of curriculum for arts and design in America and analyzing pre-construction documents of proposed art school facilities. To discover the aims of arts and arts education, I survey the views of the experts in the field, and review public documents announcing art school projects. Finally, I summarize the key findings of my work.

Learning Theories Relevant to Art Instruction and Designing the Built Environment
There are many theories to explain student learning and nearly as many ways to categorize these frameworks of acquiring knowledge. Some theorists may sort them into categories of behavioralism, cognitivism and constructivism, or variations and combinations of these approaches. Each theory provides a way to explain how students learn and thus, prescribe effective teaching methods. It is important to consider these categories as poles within a spider graph, rather than as distinctly separate entities. Reigeluth (1996c) explains that we accept the notion that rehearsals (with commentary), make learning a new skill more successful. “Behaviorists recognized this, and called them…practice with feedback. Cognitivists also recognized this, but…give them different names, such as cognitive apprenticeship and scaffolding…An analysis of instruction designed by some radical constructivists reveals a plentiful use of these very instructional strategies” (p.2). Since there is a plethora of paradigms that posit how students learn in arts or design curricula, it is important to review these theories with two considerations. First, one must assess how the basic tenets of a learning theory affect the design of the physical environment. Secondly, researchers must regard each theory without prejudice, because in most cases, all stakeholders (each possessing particular views on student learning) have the ability to affect the design of the facility in some way.

Learning Theories in Literature
Behavioralist learning theories associate actions that demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge. These acts can be observed, measured, and analyzed in relation to a stimulus and reaction. Individuals’ thought processes and internal interactions are less important. The environment plays an important role in shaping learning in association with the interval in which a student is rewarded and the effectiveness of reinforcement. Operant conditioning, as described by B. F. Skinner, where a conditioned response receives a conditioned reward, is analogous to behavioralism characteristics of teaching and learning where the studious are rewarded by good grades (positive reinforcement) or meaningful class participation and attendance supplants the requirement to write a research paper (negative reinforcement). In general, behavioralism espouses a teacher-centered approach whereby experts package information in portions with behavioral objectives and measurable tasks.
Cognitive learning approaches generally explore the brain and memory processes as agents to explain how students learn, extending the reason for behavior beyond the stimulus/reaction framework of behavioralism. These theories recognize an individuals' existing knowledge, or schema, and how that is expanded or amended by new information. In addition, internal processes of committing items to short-term memory, long-term memory and its availability for use are part of this philosophical framework. It is important to note that our focus is college-level students and thus, cognitive approaches utilized are beyond the Piagetian early stages of development. In general, cognitive learning theories espouse a teacher-centered approach in which the sage instructor packages information in portions to facilitate the encoding, sorting and retrieval of information.
Hein’s (2002) description of constructivism states that learners create their truths from the world around them and although knowledge can be wholly personal, there is a universality of shared perceptions. Constructivism 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 term emerges--teacher student with students-teachers. The students, while being taught, also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow" (1970, p. 67).
There are many models of how learning occurs within a constructivist paradigm. Powell & Kalina (2009) argues that a good teacher must differentiate between many methods to accommodate learning for students in a constructivist classroom. “In cognitive constructivism, ideas are constructed in individuals through a personal process, as opposed to social constructivism where ideas are constructed through interaction with teacher and other students” (p. 241).
Other relevant models of learning for arts and design education are apprenticeship, communities of practice and self-regulation theory. An apprenticeship model of learning is founded in a traditional concept of learning by doing and by observing a Master teacher. In addition, learners benefit from association to the physical environment and discourse of an area of study. The communities of practice model emphasizes the social nature of our humanity and acquisition of knowledge. Skills are learned in reference to social attitudes, and learning contributes to our ability participate in the community and engage in the world. The self-regulation model focuses on “students’ self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions, which are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals” (Zimmerman, 1994, p.ix).

The Effect of Learning Theories on the Design of Environments for Learning
If one were to subscribe to the maxim, “form follows function”, coined by architect Louis Sullivan (1947), then it would follow that the design of learning environments should be congruous with the particular concept of how students learn. Straits & Wilke (2007) describe models of teaching as having either a transmission or participatory approach. (See Figures 1 and 2 below.) They remark that in “participatory classrooms students, manipulatives and

Figures 1 and 2. Straits, W. & Wilke, R. (2007) p.59.
problems are central; whereas in transmission-based classrooms the instructor and his/her words are the focus” (Straits & Wilke, 2007, p.59). Rengel (2007) states that architectural designers rely upon functional focus as an important component of spatial design to shape built learning environments. Rengel adds that
“most spaces have a functional focus. Depending on their nature, they may sometimes even have more than one. In most teaching classrooms, for instance, there is one main focus: the front of the room, where the lecturer stands. A restaurant, in contrast, may not have a single communal focal point, and instead may be designed to highlight each seating section so that each becomes and individual focus. An office space may have both an individual foci at the workstations and a central team-oriented area” ( 2007, pp. 73–4).
When describing the architecture for a teacher-focused approach in line with behavoralist and cognitive theories, Hebdige (1979), a cultural critic, states that “the hierarchical relationships between teacher and taught is inscribed in the very layout of the lecture theatre where the seating arrangements – benches rising in tiers before a raised lectern – dictate the flow of information and serve to ‘naturalize’ professorial authority” (p.13). Functionally, this layout supports a one-way “banking” model of education (Freire, 1970) and demonstrates the tacit power of physical elements in support of learning theories.
In regards to constructivism physical environments, Graetz and Goliber (2002) indicate how architectural layouts and furnishings can support constructivist thinking instead of traditional teacher-focused presentations. Graetz and Goliber (2002) note that successful universities will plan “for small groups of students gathered around tables and engaged in discussion. They will anticipate movement, not just of students and instructors, but of tables, chairs, white boards, data projection, and laptops” (p. 20). This environment encourages an individual group focus for cooperative learning strategies. Rashid (2008) prepared a white paper for furniture manufacturer Herman Miller, Inc to explore how furniture and arrangement in university classroom affect instructor and student behaviors and learning outcomes. His work utilized two prototypical classrooms – one laid out with desks in a traditional manner statically oriented toward the front of the room and an innovative room with moveable tables and chairs with castors. Rashid’s findings indicated that student perceptions of classroom experience were significantly improved in the innovative classroom. Rashid concludes however, that learning environments are complex systems so “it is necessary to explore more systematically other potential impacts any physical changes and their interactions may have on learning outcomes” (p. 29).
The functional focus for a learning environment that values the apprenticeship model might highlight the main work area while spaces designed in line with communities of practice theory might generally focus on several group interaction areas. Designers for learning spaces commensurate with self-regulation theory may have individual focus areas.

Survey of the Learning Theories Valued by Key Stakeholders
Three universities were contacted and offered participation in the online survey conducted from February 9, 2011 to February 28, 2011. Participants consisted of art department faculty (full-time and adjunct) and administration, university or college administration building committeepersons, and the architectural team (See appendix B). I conferred with university administration and sent an email that was forwarded to major stakeholders asking for participation in the survey. Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, working with Bruner/Cott Architects, is currently in the pre-design stage to construct a new art school building to house the Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University. Rhode Island College is in the design process with RGB Architects, to renovate and expand their existing art center. The University of Wyoming and architect, Malone Belton Abel, PA are in the beginning stages of building a new visual arts center.
I conducted this survey to determine the learning theory valued by each of the stakeholders for each course type. Etmer & Newby (1993), posited that student prior knowledge of the area of study and the degree of cognitive processing required to learn the lesson, can dictate the teaching methods of which is most effective. Therefore, I solicited opinions of introductory and advanced courses, first year courses and upper-class courses (See Figure 3 below).

I asked about the model of learning that most matched the respondent, instead of inquiring about a specific learning theory in reference to one’s concept of teaching methods, because Yang, Chang & Hsu (2008) found that “that the elements of constructivist teaching could not be defined because constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching” (p. 528). Although the research of Yang, et al. was concerned with pre-college teaching, they highlighted the importance of personal epistemological beliefs to effective support of constructivist teaching methods (Yang, Chang & Hsu, 2008). I also queried was whether there are significant differences between stakeholders and the foundation of their choice of favored learning theory. In addition, I asked whether their values for learning were theories long-held, or have they changed over time.
Findings indicate…..Curriculum and its Design Implications
The art school curriculum, and subsequently, instructional design and pedagogical practice are important programming information in the design of educational spaces. To understand 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.
History
When we explore curriculum in an historic context, we note that art schools did not always exist in their present form. 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 university system. Rather, they were instructed in workshops, after having come from either grammar school or directly from their homes. Elkins (2001) observed 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 their more formally educated peers. That is, artists did not formally study grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Not until the Renaissance were academies established to elevate the status of artists, rebelling against the traditions of the universities, where subjects were taught outside of what had been established as the university curriculum. These academies were informal places where students learned to “speak, write, and act in a proper and noble manner. Poems were read, plays were put on, music was performed, and what we know call “study groups” got together to discuss them” (Elkins, 2001, p. 8). The first public art academy, the Accademia del Disegno, was established by Giorgio Vasari in 1562 in Florence, Italy. Rather than existing on a centralized campus, academy activities occurred in various buildings throughout the locale. Elkins (2001) explained 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) remains a prevalent notion in today’s art curricula. Conomos (2009) summarizes some of the history of art education and offers regrets for a contemporary shift by saying “Evolving from the guild system and mentorship under a “master,” education has moved toward reliance on a curriculum and the exposure of students to multiple voices in their training. The cult of the artist personality, who was professional first and teacher second that prevailed in the early sixties, has evolved into the professional teacher who presents part of a curriculum determined by a university or art school program.” (p. 124).
Curriculum Requirements in Art School Project Documents and Public Information
Lesley University is in the beginning stages of designing and building a new post-secondary art school. I reviewed their Pre-design documents to explore how the curriculum influences the design of the art school. Spaces are designed to accommodate the classroom requirements of courses in the art school curriculum as well as adjacencies to associated functions and the frequency of use [See appendix C, Archive File E44]. Also under consideration is the technology, type of presentation, lighting and acoustical privacy required. The curriculum requires space for the following programs: Art Institute of Boston Library, Photography, Gallery, Extra Art Program, 3D, Ceramic, Drawing, Painting, Printmaking, Art History, Design [See appendix C, Archive File C1]. In addition, it was outlined that the computer lab should not be near messy spaces, acoustically isolated labs are required for the multimedia teaching methods and lighting flexibility and different types are required [See appendix C, Archive File D4].
The University of Wyoming Visual Art Center will house faculty and administrative offices and visual arts programs. The new facility will allow for more space for classrooms and studios and will accommodate a new master’s degree program (LeClair, 2010). Journalist Di’Onofrio (2010) reports the facility will provide “spaces for art history, ceramics, drawing, foundations of art, graphics, painting, printmaking, sculpture… the ceramics area will have an exterior workspace for large gas-fired kilns… The sculpture space will have an exterior workspace for raw material storage, foundry for metal casting and construction of large work”. Studios will have a combination of natural and artificial lighting.
Likewise, the renovation and expansion of Rhode Island College’s art center will create adequate spaces for offices, studios and classrooms. A new slide library, photography and computer labs will be provided as well.
Adequate illumination, as required by the coursework, is an essential building design requirement. Hetland et al. (2007) explains how lighting for art instruction becomes a coursework element:
“Light is another tool teachers use to set atmospheres conducive to learning. In Kathleen’s portrait assignment, students each set an individual light source to create the strong values they were emphasizing in their charcoal drawings. Jim frequently changes the lighting for particular challenges and even during a single class. He pulls the shades, uses spotlights, turns overhead lights on or off, and occasionally lines the window shades with strings of small white lights. In addition to creating aesthetic interest, such variation emphasizes the strong influence of light on mood and encourages students to use it as an element in their artworks to express different attitudes and meanings with values” (Hetland et al., 2007, p. 16).

Discovering Goals of the Arts and Arts Education
The design of the built learning environment is shaped by expressed and unarticulated aims of the arts and of art instruction. The expressed intent of art and art making theory can be found in literature. Specific aims and values for an art facility are often found in its design documents and public pronouncements. Unarticulated goals may be discovered in a post-occupancy evaluation of the facility.
Survey of the Views found in Literature on the Aims of Art Schools
In the broader sense, a prominent goal of art schools is that they should be mission-driven to enrich themselves 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). Indeed, deDuve declares that “art schools must perpetuate art culture (the discourse, system of museums and contemporary art center, commercial galleries, public and private collectors, reviews, catalogs, institutions of cultural exposure and mediation) (deDuve, 2009, p.17)”. Therefore, they do not only enrich the greater community, but they should sustain the existence of art enterprises and impart the discourse of the arts community to new artists. “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).
Yet another popular goal is for the art school is to foster individual growth. The program should guide students to their “unique voice” for life-long growth as artist, regardless of their potential commercial success.
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).
Published Articles Announcing Post-Secondary Art School Projects
The following information concerning the administrative goals of the new art facilities are derived from newspaper and on-line press releases.
In 2010 the Wyoming state legislature approved funds to build a $25 million dollar, 83,750 square foot visual arts center (See Appendix A). This new facility consolidates art students and programs into one building and accommodates “an increasing student
enrollment, growth in studio areas, new technologies and expanding programs," says Ricki Klages, head of the UW Department of Art (.Di’Onofrio, 2010). Moreover, "Our close
proximity to the Centennial Complex will encourage more cross-over of exhibitions, visiting artists and students' use of the collections. We hope that…we can establish a hub of creativity”.
On Nov. 2, 2010, Rhode Islanders approved a higher education bond referendum that included $17 million to finance the renovation and expansion of Rhode Island College’s 52-year-old Art Center (See Appendix A). The project is now in the design phase. The published goals of the project are to centralize the arts programs into one facility, to improve the physical classroom and office environment, and to make the arts program more attractive to prospective students. A new art center will "increase the seriousness in which the
students regard their work," said William Martin, chair of RIC's Art Department. "It will help make them see themselves as professionals (Fusco, 2010)."
Documents from an Existing Art School in the Pre-Construction Phase
Lesley University (See Appendix A), in their programming documentation, list aims for their new art school and the culture that they hope to encourage. They listed the three key requirements that will affect how students, faculty, administrators, and staff interact with each other as organizing into work areas, which associate with various programs, locating all offices together and providing the opportunity for students in different majors to influence one another in senior studios. Moreover, they want to promote the maximum mixing of students, faculty, and entire community. Also, they intend to facilitate a strong connection to the art world for students, faculty and community participants [See appendix C, Archive File D39]. They included extensive goals for each program [See appendix C, Archive Files I47 – I49].
They also stated their aims that a strong public presence should be encouraged, they recognize that some spaces should be arranged for interdisciplinary use, there should be informal galleries throughout, and technology should be integrated on a personal level [See appendix C, Archive Files C14 –C15].
Design Implications
The design of university architecture can convey administrative intent and values. Goals for art schools such as to perpetuate art culture, become a part of the artworld establishment, foster individual growth or unify the department and programs can be expressed in the design and layout of spaces. Architect, Gary Moye (1994) describes the seven main elements that we experience in university architecture as coherence, variation, openness, light, comfort and longevity (See Figure 4). These elements can enrich a design tasked to create interactive spaces, community galleries or areas of introspection.
Conclusion
This research explores literature, public documents and surveys key stakeholders to determine significant factors that influence the design of the built learning environment for post-secondary arts and design schools. I reviewed the impact of learning theories, curriculum, and the aims and culture of arts and arts education on the design of spaces. 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 artists 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 born from popular zeitgeist and post-modern conceptions of constructivist approaches to knowledge as opposed to the traditional Apprenticeship model, but arts schools continue to evolve to be

COHERENCE - The Organization and definition of spaces promote a natural comprehensive bill in the in the building.
Spaces:
• Clear positive rooms and circulation patterns
• Integration of services and served
• Hierarchy of spaces and activities

VARIATION - The spatial variety in the college supports different activities and different needs
Spaces:
• Different types of places to do things together
• Places to be noisy quiet alone

OPENNESS - Views and connections inside and outside give the college a sense of openness and in what informality
Spaces:
• Tangential circulation
• Generous windows
• Interior windows

LIGHT - The atmosphere the building is bright
Spaces:
• Natural light in every room
• Balance lighting systems
• Reflective surfaces

COMFORT - The rooms in the college are inviting and a pleasant place to inhabit
Spaces:
• South facing orientation
• Materials that are pleasant to touch
• Adequate ventilation and control

LONGEVITY - The fabric of the building is durable, maintainable, and can adapt to different uses and tastes
Figure 4. adapted from Gary Moye (1994), Facilities Program: International College, University of Oregon
relevant to today.
This work is not about the ‘correct’ theory of learning for art instruction or the ‘right’ way to design an art school. Rather, I look to discover the personal epistemology of stakeholders and review how that might influence design, contemporary curriculum and its effect on the built environment and the goals of university administration and how they are expressed in the architecture. It is through this exploration of what is, that we can affect what can be.


References

Baker, S. (2009). Art school 2.0: Art schools in the information age or reciprocal relations and the art of the possible. In B. Buckley & J. Conomos (Eds.), Rethinking the contemporary art school: The artist, the PhD and the academy (pp.27–44). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Baldessari, J., & Craig-Martin, M. (2009). Conversation. In S. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century (pp.41–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

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

Beck, C. (1993). Postmodernism, pedagogy, and philosophy of education. Canada : EPS/Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Birnbaum, D. (2009). Teaching art: Adorno and the devil. In S. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century (pp.231–246). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

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

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. doi:10.1386/adch.8.2.123/1

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

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

Danto, A. (1964) The artworld, Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571–584. doi:10.2307/2022937

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

de la Harpe, B., & Peterson, J. (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. doi:10.1386/adch.7.3.135_1

Di’Onofrio, M. (2010, October 20). The Branding Iron. Retrieved from http://www.brandingirononline.info/archives/1874-visual-arts-center-to-be-operational- by-2011

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. doi:10.1386/adch.6.1.57_1
Ertmer, P., Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, (4), 50–72.
Esche, C. (2009) Include me out: Helping artist to undo the art world. In S. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century (pp.101–112). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

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

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Fusco, J. (2010, September 7). Funding for art center renovation and expansion on the ballot.What’s News Online- Rhode Island College. Retreived from whatsnews@ric.edu

Graetz, K., Goliber, M. (2002). Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations and new frontiers, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, Winter.

Hebdige, D.(1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. London and New York: Methuen.

Hein, G. (2002). The challenge of constructivist teaching. Passion and pedagogy:
Relation, creation, and transformation in teaching Retrieved January 2005,
From http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/ghein/papers_online/challenge_construct_2002
/challenge_construct_2002.html

Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S. & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

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

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

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. doi: 10.1386/adch.6.3.201/1

LeClair, A. (2010, September 2). Kickstart for the visual arts. The Laramie Boomerang. Retrieved from http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2010/09/02/news/doc4c7f20d31f81a70255 3595.txt

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

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

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 doi:10.1386/adch.6.3.159_1

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

Moye, G. (1994) Facilities program: International college. University of Oregon.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peca, K. (2000). Positivism in education: Philosophical, research and organizational assumptions. Opinion paper, Educational Resources Informational Center

Powell, K. & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, Winter, 130, (2), 241–249.

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

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. doi: 10.1386/adch.6.1.41/1.

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

Rashid, M. (2008). A study of the effects of physical design on learning experience in university classrooms. A white paper submitted to the Herman Miller, Inc. and presented at the Environmental Design Research Association 40 conference in May 2009.

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. doi:10.1386/adch.8.2.109/1

Reid, A., & Solomonides, I. (2007). Design students’ experience of engagement and creativity*. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6, (1), 27–39. doi:10.1386/adch.6.1.27_1

Reigeluth, C. (1996c). What is the new paradigm of instructional theory. IT forum Paper #17. [Online]. Available: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper17/paper17.htm

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

Rengal, R (2006) Shaping Interior Spaces, New York: Fairchild.

Sagan, O. (2008). Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: emotional exchange in creative. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education,6, (3), 173–186. doi:10.1386/adch.6.3.173_1

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

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. doi:10.1386/adch.6.1.11_1

Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus,134, (3), 52–59. doi:10.1162/0011526054622015

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

Straits, W. & Wilke, R. (2007). How constructivist are we? Representations of transmission and participatory models of instruction in the Journal of College Science Teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, Jul/Aug, 36, (7), 58–61.

Sullivan L. (1947) The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered In: Athey I.(Ed. Kindergarten Chats (revised 1918) and Other Writings. New York 1947: 202-13.

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. doi:10.1386/adch.7.3.135_1

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practise, learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Westley, F., Zimmerman, B. and Patton, M. Q. (2007). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, Canada: Vintage Canada
Yang, F., Chang, C. and Hsu, Y. (2008). Teacher views about constructivist instruction and personal epistemology: A national study in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 34, (5), 527– 542. doi:10.1080/03055690802288486

Zimmerman, B. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In B. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.