By Mikael Powell (© Mikael Powell 2012)
Although exploration of individual responses to the built environment and its effect on learning, and how the environment supports or hinders pedagogical practices are important in determining the educational experience, the evaluation process itself, plays an important role in the assessment of physical university environments for learning. Architectural practitioners have long employed methods to rate the effectiveness of higher education facilities. Concerns about the facilities and how to judge them were formalized (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White1988) in both traditional research (especially through environment- behavior research or Environmental Psychology beginning in the 1970’s) and through an architectural assessment called Post-occupancy evaluation. In the later, evaluation criteria are generally determined apart from the users of the space (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White 1988). Increasingly building evaluations are highlighting strengths and deficiencies without the framework of conventional POE models. The use of case study to analyze buildings is becoming increasingly common. Also, tenets of critical pedagogy offer methods that allow the professional to analyze the built learning environment to discover elements that effect social change, cultural diversity, economic equity, and political enfranchisement while offering the potential to empower the users of the space.
I use 'assessment' to mean a common, thorough, methodical way of evaluating the room or building after it has been in use and I focus on educational settings. Inherent in my exploration is the need to understand several variables- whose input will constitute the assessment (the user of the space, whether student or instructor or administrator), who will set the criteria, the method and manner of evaluation, and the spatial qualities rated. The following is an overview of relevant literature that surveys the key authors and main issues associated with this topic. Specifically, this review explores the extent of literature concerning contemporary methodologies of architectural assessment, the Case Study method, and a critical interpretation of representation concerning architectural spaces. I investigate three questions in this search:
1. What is the theory and practice of the most common contemporary method of assessment?
2. What is the effectiveness of the Case study in architectural assessment?
3. What is prevailing theory behind art and architectural critical interpretation?
In summation, I review the major elements and conclusions and suggest areas of future work. My goal is to discover if there is development of critical architectural interpretation criteria or processes systematically utilized in post occupancy evaluations for educational facilities.
3.1A What is the theory of the most common contemporary method of assessment?
Post-occupancy evaluations are a relatively contemporary method (originating around the 1960’s in America) to determine whether design decisions made by design professionals are delivering the performance intended as evaluated by those who use the building. These assessments are intended to provide several benefits from long-term to short-term advantages, unlike the traditional publication in architectural trade magazines which tend to highlight buildings that photograph well or those designed by architectural celebrities, or those of particular interest to architectural critics. Some of these benefits include 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 1980’s 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) and performance measures are determined by the post-occupancy evaluator.
It is important to note the subjectivity of the process. The actual building ratings are dependant on the performance criteria developed by the administrators. The performance is derived directly from those values that the university deems important which 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. 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).
Within this framework, the information can be described as either quantitative or qualitative. Some aspects of the building examination i.e. the quality of lighting or the performance of building element and mechanical systems are defined in terms that are computative and comparative. Other characteristics of the analysis deal with each of the user’s opinions of security, comfort, aesthetics etc… and those can be described as qualitative portions of the evaluation. I found no documented evidence where the qualitative aspects of the building influenced perception of the quantitative performance although Preiser, Rabinowitz and White surmised as such .
3.1B What are practices of the most common contemporary method of assessment?
Post-occupancy evaluations originated at a time when electronic computation was at its beginning. Thus, the format of POEs was favorable to collect large amounts of data and to sort and compute values for a building. The first evaluation of schools in the mid-1970’s were noted for being very wide-ranging and detailed (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White 1988) however, the evaluation structure was rudimentary (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White 2005). Eventually POEs were grouped into three levels of sophistication- indicative, investigative and diagnostic, with each successive level costing more money and involving more effort and time. Within each level there are three phases (1) Planning the POE, (2) Conducting the services and (3) Applying the data to produce the deliverables) which document the appropriate amount of work per each level. Methods employed may include utilizing questionnaires, site visits, personal interviews and document review and analysis. The authors remarked that although this format was easy to comprehend, it was often not comprehensive enough for the task.
While the Performance Method was one technique that originated, other ways did develop. One was by Pena & Parshall (1983). They were interested in architectural research for both evaluation of existing buildings and for the programming of new spaces (the collection of pertinent information to initiate design work). They authored two books, the first on Post-occupancy evaluations and the next on architectural problem seeking. Within their method, the evaluation strategy used the same format as in the initiation of an architectural project and they categorized their efforts into four key elements (which correspond to the phases of the Preiser, Rabinowitz & White) used throughout the POE. The establishment of purpose, the selection and analysis of quantitative information, the identification and examination of qualitative information and statement of the lessons learned. Other POEs of the era add human needs questioning as information needed to evaluate the building.
It is important to note that while a Post-occupancy evaluation is said to get its name from the ‘certificate of occupancy’, which is commonly issued in America allowing a new facility to operate, there are other monikers that have evolved from the initial POE model. One is the Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). The integrative framework of this evaluation (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White 2005) covers concerns like building code related issues, life safety requirements, space utilization and human personal, cultural and social needs. A Facility Performance Evaluation (FPE) is a new term coined in the early part of the millennia that carries the concept of the traditional Post-occupancy evaluation further to include ongoing assessments. The website of the United States department of General Services (2009) outlines their use of FPEs as “to better understand the impact of early design delivery decisions on long term efficiency and effectiveness of buildings and to better understand the impact of building delivery processes and decisions on customer response both initially and over the life cycle of the building”.
Interdisciplinarity
POEs have been used extensively in Brazil for primary and secondary education since the 1990’s (Ornstein 2005). The main POE practitioners for education have been the Center for Research in Technology of Architecture and Urbanism (NUTAU) and the School of Architecture and Urbanism (FAU) of the University of São Paulo. Their evaluations “consist of interfaces between evaluations made by specialists based on the survey of users’ needs and satisfaction” (p. 135) so their efforts are clearly “multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary”(p.135). They employed experts in many fields into the POE process. With this in mind, the methods used most often are qualitative in nature. The author states “POEs have most recently been applied to public school facilities, especially in the city of São Paulo, and have been characterized by a systemic and integrating vision of a built environment. In this case, the search for a global and holistic understanding of the entire process has been essential” (p.136). Tools used to rate user satisfaction include observations, interviews, questionnaires and focus groups.
Participation
The Scottish Executive, the executive arm of the Scottish government, was recently involved in facilitating building evaluations with local officials on one of the largest school renovation projects in Scotland (Watson & Thomson 2005). The activity is centered on primary and secondary school buildings and the key element in their Post-occupancy evaluation is participation. They inform that, “stakeholders say, in POE reviews, that they want to be asked and they frequently identify design improvements and operational adjustments for their benefit” (p. 129). Some of the many advantages of the collaborative process listed by the Scottish Executive are:
Post-occupancy evaluation enables local education authorities, schools and designers to work in partnership to achieve the best schools possible. Buildings derive their value from their utility, and the utility is itself dependent on the occupants so the method provides a structure to “negotiate” both building and use simultaneously. The focus on building use provides a “common denominator” to evaluation that is inclusive of all interested parties. Consequently, it is egalitarian, in that it creates a forum for all participants to equally express opinions about how buildings are functioning for use. The process is accessible to all people, to present their views in their own ways. Thus it reflects individuals and celebrates diversity of opinion about building needs. (Watson & Thomson 2005, p. 130)
Therefore, comments about the Post-occupancy evaluations were solicited from the stakeholders in the school who were determined to be “teachers, students, non-teaching staff, parents, the local education authority, design and building team, sustainable building experts, facility and maintenance staff, and service suppliers, private investors, future generations (represented by a specialized sustainability architect), independent experts and peers” (p. 131). Sanoff (2002) describes his extensive use of user participation in Post-occupancy evaluations for K – 12th grade schools. His POEs are used primarily to evaluate existing schools where there will be an addition or replacement facility (in the case of natural disaster). Sanoff employs stakeholder workshops to explore and define issues. He advocates that this medium facilitates the dissemination of ideas through small cluster interactions and then group sharing. Sanoff informs that individuals learn from arguments and the sharing of opinions as it serves to remind them of their own concerns and values which subsequently they are better able to document.
Quality Indicators in the Design of Schools (QIDS)
In the early 1990’s the Scottish government began a review of school facilities as a reaction to a series of lawsuits plaguing the government (Tombs 2005). The assessment of the facilities laid out several recommendations that respond to quantitative aspects, without particular attention to the qualitative experience of the schools. In response, the architectural community in Scotland began a dialog to place the experiential aspects of a building into a formal assessment. The qualitative categories of assessment determined by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland in conjunction with Keppie, an architecture firm, became the Quality Indicators in the Design of Schools (QIDS). These indicators contribute to the common POE by developing three areas of inquiry:
1. Functionality- Uses and spaces, Access, External environment,
2. Build Quality - Engineered systems and performance, Construction
3. Impact - Character and form, Internal environment, Social integration, Sustainability + ecology (Tombs, 2005, p. 70).
These qualities were rated by stakeholders with a score from 1 – 10. Certainly, within these areas of inquiry, the personal and socio-cultural responses to the built environment perceived by individuals (as outlined in Section 1 of this paper) are addressed. Tombs described the benefits of the QIDS as supplying information to “those preparing briefs for new school buildings, and to provide appropriate trigger points for debate and discussion amongst all the stakeholders” (p. 69). This QIDS method for Post-occupancy evaluations was used in 2004, when the Educational Institute of Scotland evaluated several new and renovated schools. Although they only distributed a small number of questionnaires, the government found value in their efforts because the large return rate indicated interest by the respondents and comments illustrated the concerns of each group of participants. Tombs remarked, “for architects, the clear architectural vision, the scale and proportion and the issue of colour and texture, might be important, whereas for the janitorial staff, the management systems and controls, and artificial lighting system etc may be far greater significance” (p. 70).
3.1C General Criticism
There are several concerns often cited about the effectiveness of Post-occupancy evaluations. Firstly, the institution often commissions POEs. The values of that entity frame the evaluation (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White1988) and serve as the primary recipient of the information (Hewitt, et al. 2005). This may be problematic if the purpose of the evaluation is to provide incentives for a building addition or new facility. Often designers have needs for different information. It would be advantageous to review the results as referenced to other priorities and other stakeholders. Likewise, the performance measures developed by the evaluator also serves to influence the process (Preiser, Rabinowitz & White1988). Moreover, Rev. Dr. Charles Doidge at The Leicester School of Architecture maintains the need for setting up a national system of Post-Occupancy studies within the design curriculum. He advises that oftentimes architecture students are not introduced to client and user issues to the point that they could be an effective part of a POE team.
Second, as Doidge (2001) goes on to state “The greatest obstacle to POE studies is that professionals must guard their reputation and avoid litigation” and he adds that such studies “have been conducted for at least half a century but the results are not encouraging. Most take the form of ‘internal enquiries’ either to ‘whitewash’ or to ‘apportion blame’ and are rarely published”(p. 2). Indeed, Lackey (1999a) reports that in most instances there is “no clear economic incentive for conducting the POE in the first place. Client organizations are not quick to support the POE due to the potential for bad publicity if problems are uncovered so soon after a large expenditure of public funds”(p. 5). In addition, since the performance criteria and performance measures are not developed by the users it is useful to critically consider the following: What are the consequences of false positives or false negatives (if an evaluation of a university space is inaccurate) who will gain and who will loose?
Thirdly, a critic might argue that the most important criteria for school design are flexibility. Ponti (2005, p.85) states that “The pedagogical and didactic activities are continuously changing” and therefore, the ability to easily change the environment to adapt to new pedagogies is paramount, whether the changes are daily or annually. Also, in regards to the lifecycle costs of the facility, long-term adaptability to accommodate multiple uses is prudent.
Fourthly, Grannis (1994) points out instances in which environmental-behavioral research would aid in the design of effective 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, defecation, trashing and eventually trying to burn down the facility. It is unfortunate that increasingly POEs are conducted by specialists with expertise in a facility type:
Rather than academic researchers, the focus has shifted increasingly away from theory building and hypothesis testing and toward applied problem solving. While professionally conducted evaluations provide useful information about specific facilities or settings, they often lack the scientific rigor necessary to generalize their results to other settings and consequently do little to extend the theoretical base of environment- behavior studies (p. 216).
Lastly, Tombs (2005) remarked that developing quality indicators within the framework of a POE was not without criticism. Some individuals in the design professions were skeptical of the categories of quality. They saw the indicators as giving less emphasis to epistemology/pedagogical practices which they maintain “is required to be a headline item, because without an appropriate understanding of these matters, a very fine building may not end up delivering the places/spaces within which appropriate teaching can take place i.e. the school might be a very poor performer!”(p. 70).
3.1D Consideration of the Assessors: Demographic Information
Another thing that is lacking in the traditional POE is a thorough consideration of the users in the space, their values, mannerisms, and concerns about their environment in regards to the methods of the post-occupancy evaluation. Because students are an important user of the facility, it is important to know demographic information about the typical college student in general and the arts and design student in particular.
When considering the makeup of students in post-secondary educational institutions it is important to distinguish between assumptions of student populations by the institution, student assumptions about their educational experience, and the actual demographic statistics concerning college coeds.
Many research studies have verified the general disparity between the institutions expectations and assumptions of college students and actual conditions. Barefoot (2000) describe how the institution’s expectations are highlighted in the design of programs developed to stop the attrition of freshman in universities. Many of the administrators still had the view of incoming freshmen as similar to when they had attended college many years previous. Barefoot (2000) noted that the foundation of those programs still had “the same basic structure that was designed for a population of white, middle- or upper-class males who constituted the vast majority of college students until the last two decades of this century”(p.12).
But, students too, have assumptions about their future educational life and support that are not in line with their subsequent experience. The College Student Experiences Questionnaire Assessment (CSEQ) and the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSEQ), both administered by the Center for Postsecondary Research, examine the amount of effort students expend in their post-secondary education and student goals, respectively. Findings indicate that students, who thought they would never use the library as a silent place to study, actively did so more than three times as much as expected; likewise, students who thought they would use the library to study often, actually used it half as much.
The US Census Bureau reports the rising number of non-white citizens in the United States. By the year 2051, Whites will be about half the population, with Hispanics at a quarter and African Americans about 15%. This represents a reversal of the positions of Hispanic and African Americans since 1980. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009) reports increasing enrollment of minority students. Also, the numbers of male and female coeds have changed since the early to mid nineteen seventies. At that time males outnumbered females, but the male population was rising at a low rate. The number of female students on campus in second and fourth year post-secondary institutions overtook the male students around 1977. Since then, the rate of female students has increased, widening the gap between male and female students on campus. The traditionally aged student (18 - 24 years old) currently makes up about 59.4% of the total college enrollment. That number is expected to grow at 16% until 2014. When one considers undergraduate students, only 67.3% were 24 years old or younger in 2003. In contrast, in 1970 69.2% of all enrollments were by traditional-aged students (NCES, 2005). It is likely that growth in student populations of 25 – 29 year old college students is from recent graduates continuing on to higher degrees.
Nowadays 32.9% of in-coming college students label the political scene in America as “very important” compared to the lowest recorded the involvement of 28.1% in 2000 or 31.4% in 2002. The number of freshmen calling themselves “conservative” increased from 20.7% to 21.3% between 2000 and 2002; and those identifying themselves as “liberal” decreased from 29.9% to 27.8% in that same time frame. Students claiming to be centrists grew slightly from 49.5% to 50.8% between 2000 and 2002.
While the media often portrays college students as being unbridled partiers, statistics indicate a decline in beer drinking to 46.5% in 2002, the lowest recorded record. The highs record was 73.7% in the early 1980’s. Likewise, consumption of other alcoholic beverages is down as well.
3.1D1 Values of the general population of contemporary college students
To examine the complexity of the typical college student it is useful to consider general student characteristics to examine contemporary coed values and expectations and review the psychological makeup of students. Every generation can be characterized by their lived experience and similar traits (Coomes & DeBard, 2004), (Coomes, 2004a). The generation of students currently in college was largely born in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s in an area labeled as the “Millennial’s”. Besides sharing similar traits they also have a shared history. This generation, the largest in U.S. history, grew up with MTV and has a deal with the aftermath of 9/11 as adolescents or young children. In regards to student values toward education, administration, and evaluation, deBard (2004) characterizes the Millennial generation as cherishing a committed loyalty to institutions, a system in which there is accountability and feedback on demand. (See Table 4 which compares values between generational traits). Likewise, Richard Sweeney, University Librarian, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 2006 indicate that contemporary students value more flexibility for their convenience and more options to choose.
When considering the whole student, Perry (2003) informs that "the first year of college is a transitional period in students' lives in which psychological control is diminished or undermined due to the emphasis on success/failure, heightened academic competition, increased pressure to excel, frequent academic failures, unfamiliar academic tasks, new social networks, and critical career choices" (p. 316). Perry and other researchers have studied the effects of the location of perceived control- whether students felt that their educational outcomes were controlled by them or beyond their control. Lavender, et. al (2010) showed that the typical student exhibited better “task-persistence, affect , motivation, and creativity” (p211) when they had an enhanced attribution of personal control.
3.1D2 Demographic information concerning the contemporary Arts and Design college student
When examining the subpopulation of Arts and Design coeds, it is important to consider how they contrasts or align themselves with the larger student population. The Higher Education Arts Data Services Art and Design Data Summaries (HEADS) 2009-2010 solicits information from American post-secondary arts and design schools. Their findings indicate that nine post-secondary arts and design institutions graduated a total of 396 Doctoral Students. Among these, females comprised 71% and Whites are 67 %. It is important to note that like the general population of students, arts and design students have a higher percentage of female students although they are less prevalent in the Master’s program. The Department of Education had the racial- ethnic distribution in college enrollment in 2007 - 2008 at about 67% for White/non- Hispanic students, which is larger than the arts school enrollment in 2009-2010, which is 58.1%, but matches the graduate doctoral student’s gender mix. The U.S. department of education in the 2007- 2008 school year lists the percentage of minority males to total college enrollment as Black, non-Hispanic male- about 4.9%, Hispanic or Latino males – about 5.1% and Asian males- about 3.1% . Arts and design schools have much lower male minority enrollments for each of the groups mentioned except Asian males. Statistics from the College Arts Association confirms increased enrollments in arts curriculums, although the total number of students majoring in art is only about 5.5% of the total population.
3.1D3 Values of the subpopulation of Arts and Design college students in regards to their educational experience
To study the personal goals of art and design students one must look at their values and expectations as they differ from the general college population. Lavender (2010) states “College art instructors, like their colleagues in other disciplines, routinely cite phenomena such as student non-responsiveness to instruction, sinking motivation, and under-preparedness (i.e., insufficient academic or behavioral qualities”( p. 199). Likewise, due to the cut-back in art training in secondary and elementary schools, students may enter college with a greater assumption of their skills and unreasonable expectations of academic success.
3.1D4 Conclusion
There must be institutional responsibility to assess educational facilities, taking into account the make-up and values of college students. 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.
There are other types of existing building reviews. Pomona College was listed in Princeton Review’s The Best 371 Colleges, 2010 edition as best in the nation for its classroom environment. A student remarked on its “state-of-the-art facilities”. Princeton Review evaluates university facilities in categories of: a). Housing- coed dorms or same-sex dorms; accessibility to handicapped; b). Special academic facilities /equipment-
Percentage of Computers in classrooms, dooms, library, dining areas; percentage of wireless networks. The Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design creates profile sheets of essential information for prospective students to evaluate for all the art schools within its purview yet there is no mention of the facilities and the value that might bring to students.
A post- occupancy evaluation to solicit information about the likes and dislikes of the facility that considers students, should query about matters that concern student values. I created the following questions that should appeal to the surveyed population:
1. Are the common spaces arranged in a manner that promotes community-building?
2. Does the art facility and its spaces support my level of trust for the institution? Is the layout straight-forward or misleading?
3. Does the educational space allow me to do meaningful work in class, or am I constantly moving chairs and equipment or reconfiguring the learning environment to facilitate classroom activities?
4. Are there internet and virtual classroom capabilities everywhere on the grounds of the campus?
5. Does the classroom and overall facility layout contribute to my sense of being in control of my educational outcomes?
6. Does the classroom and facility layout project institutional control? Are rooms and corridors positioned to monitor participants in spaces?
7. Is there a hierarchy of accoutrements or amenities that serves to indicate the ‘nicer’ parts of the building and label my position in the institution?
8. Is the Post-Occupancy Evaluation administered in a way that allow for access to answer 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week online within a determined evaluation period?
9. Does the Post-Occupancy evaluation offer an ombudsman option that allows me to give constant feedback whenever I want after initial building questions are submitted?
10. Does the facility have integrity? Is the design trying to project an image that it is not?
Rhatigan & Schuh (2003) wrote an article in which they described how little interactions with students where faculty and administration extend themselves to support, encourage or listen to their concerns, have the potential to make great changes in student’s lives. They describe these opportunities as “small wins”. A Post-Occupancy evaluation can be a diminutive way to give students some control of their environment and demonstrate that their opinion is valued. Part of asking about their likes and dislikes of the facility is considering the issues that they value when it is not the same as the creators or initiators of the building evaluation. Rhatigan & Schuh state “small wins can produce results that are electrifying and, in some cases, life changing…What kind of campus environments are you creating that allow and support each student to feel comfortable in his/her “skin”? What “small wins” are you creating?” (2003, pp.425–426).
3.2 Case study Method of Assessment for the Built Learning Environment
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 (1997a) 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 the case study as a post-occupancy evaluation method for the built environment. In the following, I study the make-up of case studies to examine their use in the social sciences and architecture and discover how they are shaped by their corresponding philosophies. 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. Therefore, I inquire as to what is the typical education case study model for researching educational facilities and what is the standard architectural case study for the same building type. Last, I conclude with a discussion of what case study model can best serve the architecture community that is concerned with educational issues in designing new school facilities.
3.2a Social Science Case Study Model
Stake (1997b), a noted professor of Education and long-time researcher of case study method declares that case studies are now “one of the most popular, and usually respected, forms for studying educators and educational programs” (p.401). In the following, I outline his commentary on the elements of case studies in regards to purpose, process, and conventions, as well as, researcher, interactions, intended audience, and establishment of credibility.
Stake examines the purposes of case studies and admits that in themselves they do not remedy particular issues but they shed light on problems within their cases that may be transferable to other situations. It is that deep inspection of the case that is the purpose of case studies and while one may not find “particulars [are] generalizable, but the systematicity” (Stake, 1997a, p.403) may relate to other instances. Therefore, the extent of the case must be discerned through clear boundaries. Stake says that the researcher should try to get the reader involved in the case. Stake also says what a case study is not:
It is not like a newspaper story. There are some important similarities. Both are trying to develop an understanding through the description of what, where, how when and why. Both use narrative and testimony. The difference is in the use of theme. The reporter tries to tell the story primarily to be interesting to the reader. The case researcher starts out looking for what is meaningful to researchers but simultaneously tries to discover what is meaningful to the case people. Really, the case is precious [paramount]. (Stake, 1997a, p.404)
Also, if one were looking for trends across several different instances, case study research is not the best method to discover those patterns.
Of the researcher, it can be said that “this was his story, …his construction of truth” (Stake, 1997a, p.409) and Stake relishes that oftentimes personal and administrative weaknesses are discovered and highlighted in a case study. I find it important to understand the purposes, beliefs and expectations of the researcher. Stake pays particular interest to the issues researchers bring to the case and what one learns from acquaintance with the case. Stake (1997a) describes the process of deciding on the case to investigate in detail. He stresses the importance of setting the limits of the case and within those boundaries discovering the ordinary occurrences and key players. Then you need to set the format of the case study as well as the focus and theme. Research questions and pertinent issues are derived from the key issues. Lastly, you should look for “patterns, co variations, and regularities that beg for better interpretation” (Stake, 1997a, p. 408). It is not uncommon in the practice of case studies to employ objectivity or subjective interpretation or to interact with the subject or the phenomenon.
Careful review of the case study will determine whether the case is meant to be relevant for greater situations. It is very important to know the audience, usually fellow researchers, who Stake (1997a) says, “have appreciated deep, self-referential probes of problems” ( p.401).
Lastly, in establishing the credibility of the case, Stake advises researchers to consider which reader would find the case study useful, elements within the study that reinforce the accuracy of the work, and the overall rigor of the research. It is helpful to the reader if documentation is included in the case study that reinforces the research.
3.2b Architectural Case Study Model
Like Stake’s assessment, there are several claims to a model for architectural case studies. One is an academic version developed from architecture and design practitioners in a university setting. Another is developed in a commercial environment for practitioners directly involved in the architecture and construction industry.
Dr. Dilanthi Amaratunga, director of the Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment at the University of Salford (Amaratunga & Baldry 2001) concurs with Stake’s (1997a) understanding of the requirements of case study that examine the process of a singular instance. Amaratunga & Baldry (2001) writes that in architecture “case studies are tailor made for exploring new processes or behaviours or ones which are little understood. In this sense, case studies have an important function in generating hypotheses and building theory in built environment research” (p. 13). Amaratunga & Baldry describe philosophies of conducting architectural research. “In research design, therefore, the issue then becomes not whether one has uniformly adhered to prescribed canons of either logical positivism or phenomenology but whether one has made sensible methods decisions given the purpose of the study, the questions being investigated, and the resources available”(p.3). A case study is interpretive– It does not need to control behavioral events in the case. It reports and interprets. It can be positivistic or phenomenological and she argues that mixed methods can make environmental behavioral research better when it is suitable for the research question. Ultimately, the purpose of case study research is to add to existing knowledge in a way that advances understanding by providing a solution or asking better questions. Amaratunga & Baldry say that a case study should not be used to reinforce a known fact, rather, this type of research “is able to draw on inductive methods of research, which aim to build theory and generate hypotheses rather than primarily to test them” (p. 14).
Purpose of architectural case study for practitioners
Architectural Record (2006), a national award-winning magazine, is a commercial publication that has a circulation of over 70,000 and is a publication of the American Institute of Architects, a non-profit organization of the architectural community that has over 300 state and local chapters throughout the United States. The magazine has been published for over a century for the purpose of stimulating and informing its patrons (Architectural Record 2009a). Regularly published case studies present “a comprehensive look into construction goals, plans and implementation. The very best of analyses, case studies and write ups by expert architects” (Architectural Record 2009b).
The intended recipients are design students, and those individuals involved in the architecture industry around the world. With these two models in mind, the following is a collection of architectural case studies.
3.2c Environmental Behavioralist Case Study Model
In architecture, there is a movement called ‘Evidence-Based Design, which encourages a process to bring verifiable behavioral research into the design of architectural spaces (Hamilton & Watkins 2009). The purpose of Environmental-Behavioralist case study is to address the needs of the users of the space, to seek verifiable answers and to evaluate satisfaction of those needs. Good basic research advances environmental behavior knowledge and aims to close the gap between environmental design and architectural practice. The researchers are those academic professionals and the intended audience is the architectural community. Empirical methods establish credibility for case study and the foundation of this research is positivist in nature.
3.2d Case Studies
Education Facility Case Study
Dr. Rena Upitis, ( 2007) presents a typical education case study model for researching the design of school buildings. She offers a collective case study in which she analyzes four school projects. She reports that these schools illustrate “how schools can provide students with opportunities to develop ecological mindfulness through practical activities that are enhanced by natural and built environments” (p. 1). I focus on the first school project, The Shearwater Mullumbimby Steiner School, New South Wales, Australia. This school, founded in 1993, with 37 students, is located on the edge of a rainforest. Less than a year later, the student population increased and land was purchased to construct a new building. By 2005, there were over 500 pupils total in grades K – 6.
Purpose of Education case study
Upitis (2007) outlines previous research on environmental consciousness, place-based education, and curriculum theory in the case study introduction. She wants to highlight “four educational institutions where beauty and a sense of place are paramount”(p.5) and show examples of locations where adults and students, working in consort, make an ecological statement. Therefore, this is an instrumental case study, because, as Stake (1997b) indicates, the research is meant to further a movement toward environmentally conscious education.
Researcher, Interactions, and Intended Audience
Upitis (2007) is a doctor of Education, professor of arts education in Canada, a noted scholar, and her interests include how architecture affects learning in the school environment. Her beliefs are stated in her case study: “The driving premise of this paper is that students should be schooled in built and natural environments that afford them ways of understanding of how their daily physical actions and social choices affect the earth” (p.1). Upitis begins her research with information compiled from published articles and augments her data by conducting personal meetings with the architect and school officials and by visiting the school. Konrad Korobacz, one of the schools founders and the current administrator, felt the tremendous growth of the school was partially due to the school’s relationship with its location. Upitis brought her ideas that the “learning of the core curriculum subjects through a study of place” (p.4) was important. Upitis took her experiences from the case study and expressed them (Etic2) by proclaiming, “Here is an example of how the flora and fauna of this setting are embodied in the curriculum and involve learning through manual or practical skills—what Dewey called learning by doing” (p.6). She concluded that “schools and curricula that focus on a sense of place are able to support the practical activities that lead to meaningful relationships between members of the community, and between people and the land” (p.10). Her audience is educational researchers.
Establishing Credibility for Case Study
The case study is presented in a cohesive, consistent manner. It is not rigorous (it is less than 1000 words), but is part of a collection of selected case studies of which the entirety adequately supports the research. All pertinent information is included in narrative form. The boundaries of the case are clearly identified as the school and surrounding site. This research was funded partially by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the information is disclosed by the author. Dr. Upitis personally photographed all the images included.
Architectural Case Studies for Education Facilities
Architectural Record magazine published a collection of exemplary schools designed and constructed in the 21st century. These schools are meant to be examples of both environmentally sustainable architecture, and buildings designed to meet the needs of students in a community context. Both schools have achieved the certification of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the non-profit organization that rates the environmental performance of buildings. Educators in these schools say that the environmentally conscious building systems in the facilities heighten awareness of the environment for students and instill a since of stewardship. Moreover, the design of the spaces incorporates daylighting for better illumination. Of the collection of case studies, I will focus on two schools - the Rosa Parks School, in Portland, Oregon, and Fossil Ridge High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, both authored by B.J. Novitski (2008).
The Rosa Parks School is a kindergarten through sixth grade facility for 550 students in a renovated subsidized housing complex. This case study exemplifies collaboration between the public housing authority, school district and private non-profit youth organizations to create one shared facility. (See youth organization section in attachment 2). In addition, it is designed with the maximum use of daylighting to illuminate spaces.
The Fossil Ridge High School is in the Poudre School District in Fort Collins, Colorado. This school is exemplary because it has a large square footage and yet it accommodates a divided curriculum that is separated into three distinct learning communities.
Purpose of the Collection of Architectural Case Studies
Joann Gonchar AIA (2008), a senior editor who focuses on building science and technology issues at Architectural Record, writes the introduction to collection of case studies. Within the mission of the magazine, the goal of this works it to provide an “in-depth look at completed schools that employ high-performance strategies”(Architectural Record 2008) with emphasis on innovative and successful strategies.
In congruence with the architectural case study model for the academic community, both studies are presented to advance building and curriculum theory. The Rosa Parks School highlights a method of collaboration between entities to control costs by limiting redundancies, although the crucial process of working together between the school board, designers, and the boys and girls club was hardly outlined. This case study did, however, provide new information in that regard. The other major issue of the project – the extensive use of daylighting, however, is hardly novel to the architectural community. The Fossil Ridge High School facility is over 300,000 square feet and the case study touts the concept of creating three distinct learning areas within the footprint. However, the process of designing the spaces and their realized effectiveness is given short-shrift. The second major amenity of the building is its environmentally conscious building systems. Here, the case study does well in documenting a particular case in which the daylighting systems provided too much illumination at times.
For architectural practitioners these short case studies introduce greater concepts of flexibility, collaboration, environmental sustainability and development of community that can be inspirational, but they do not provide the in-depth coverage nor do they discuss implementation of curriculum at a comprehensive level.
Researcher, Interactions and Intended Audience
B.J. Novitski (2008) is managing editor of ArchitectureWeek publication and he brings that experience working for a commercial trade magazine to the projects. He conducted interviews, obtained construction documents, compiled photographs and collected data. He discovered from acquaintance with the Rosa Parks educators that “many of the buildings' high-tech and high-performance features also serve to instill in students an awareness of their surroundings” (Architectural Record 2008). In the Fossil Ridge High school, B.J. Novitski learned from a teacher that the she felt a strong sense of communitiy from the students due to the building layout and Novitski conjectured that some studens may enter the architectural profession because of exposure to this new facility . Joann Gonchar (2008) concludes that “each of the schools, in its own way, establishes a strong connection between building and context” (Architectural Record 2008). Each case study is approximately 1000 words in length and includes photographs, list of project team members, and manufacturers of major products and building systems. For instance, the Rosa Parks school case study lists the owner, architect, general contractor and building consultants. It also credits the masonry subcontractor, painter and manufacturers of the curtainwall, acoustical ceiling, paint and coating, kitchen appliances, resilient flooring and carpet. This group of constituents is presumably the case study audience. Adjacent to the case study are advertisements for building products and materials.
Establishing Credibility for the Case Study
Due to the format of this case study, it seems unlikely that the case study serves to discover unsuccessful elements of the building projects to hold up the deficiencies to the architectural community and its associated entities. Data is presented to support some of the quantitative performance but no further research information is given to substantiate either learning performance enhanced by the built environment or affectation derived from it.
Environmental-Behavioralist Case Study for Education facility
Cherulnik (1993) reports on the Jones dormitory redesign case study for Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. It was conduct by Andrew Baum and Stuart Valins, researchers who have studied crowding behaviors in human populations. Over a period of three years, they studied two areas of one floor in the existing dormitory at the university. The spaces varied in social density within their residential units. The researchers incorporated observation, questionnaires and discussion groups to obtain their data. Results were used to influence the re-design. Cherulnik reported:
The project succeeded in demonstrating a promising approach to environmental-design research, one rooted firmly in the traditions of social science. It began with a sophisticated conceptual analysis bringing together several separate theories and extensive supporting research from such diverse traditions as ethnology, laboratory experimentation, and naturalistic quasi experimentation. It continued with dedicated research in the context for which new design solutions were sought, research that was conducted using state-of- the-art methods. Finally, the design inferred from that research was evaluated with the assistance of careful arrangements that provided experimental comparisons in a natural setting. (Cherulnik 1993, p.129)
Much like the architectural case study model for academics, the purpose of this case study is to inform the new redesign and it was essential in the theory supporting design of the new space. Likewise, this study goes beyond simply documenting existing fact. For the architectural practitioner, the case study is specific and comprehensive, delivering research information without inspirational appeal. In addition, unlike tenets of the architectural case study model for practitioners, the physicality of the layouts is illustrated in one simple line drawing.
However, the Jones dormitory redesign case study is a good example of Environmental-Behavioralist research in that it is detailed in context, description of place, method, and results. It goes on to provide favorable comments from students after the dormitory had been renovated. Directly, results of this study were incorporated into the six-stage research that culminated in a post-occupancy evaluation, but a greater audience of professionals will find this work beneficial.
3.2e Conclusion
First, 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.
All case studies presented are successful within their own genre. Movement between models for interdisciplinary fields could result in a case study approach unmoored to any discipline or potentially deemed inadequate by others groups. For instance, 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. The challenges to constructing a facility in a remote location are formidable. Infrastructure and building systems are particular concerns. While the education case study discusses curriculum, it is not clear about the comfort of the space or how this location for the school varied from the home environment of the students. However, these ‘shortcomings’ are not a fair assessment because they predispose an environment of shared values between constituents of the different case study models; the educational case study is not constructed of a philosophy that seeks a computational evaluation of the school in the form of quantitative data. Likewise, 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 philosophy of the architectural practitioner model, I challenge the hermeneutics of case study research. 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 stakeholders involved would be published in the case study.
With all this in mind, it seems unlikely that one case study model can best serve as a post-occupancy evaluation for the architecture community that is concerned with educational issues in designing new school facilities. Perhaps each type of case study, created to meet the expectations of its discipline, can provide a valuable understanding of the completed school facility when considered in consort with the views from different professions.
3.3A What is prevailing theory behind art critical interpretation?
In a presentation paper for the National Art Association conference Shirley Yokley (1995) explored the process to introduce a ‘critical theory of representation’ into the classroom. She defines that theory as being within the tenets of critical pedagogy and the benefits of such critique of representation are transformative in that they expose the institutional politics at the foundation of art and popular imagery. Giroux (1992) describes the foundation of critical pedagogy. There needs to be an inquiry and examination of presumption and a discourse that enables potential. Freire’s (1970) liberatory pedagogy looks at change in regards to how one perceives existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge. Not interested in ‘banking education’ where the knowledge moves directly from the teacher to the student and back in a hierarchical discourse, Shor and Freire (1987) yearn for shared construction and reconstruction of knowledge. Yokley’s goal is to encourage students to critically relate the meaning underlying art to their personal experience as it is lived within their society and culture. Her classroom methods involve the selection of artwork that easily lends itself to deep review. Yokley (1995) remarks that “by juxtaposing Faith Ringgold’s Tar Beach with Jacob Lawrence’s Daybreak a Time of Rest, developing dialog around the theme of “flight to freedom” and problemizing the historical and cultural conditions within the contexts of the works, students can engage in-depth discussions of issues of racism, classism and feminism”(p.2). Her classroom discussions frequently encounter issues involving epistemology and the manifestation of power. Yokley (1999) goes further to say that in education “critical pedagogy takes a skeptical look at what knowledge is taught or produced, what hidden knowledge is reproduced, how power is maintained and at whose expense”(p. 18). Her classroom lesson that trains pupils to interpret an art piece of Frida Kahlo as contrasted to another work of the same era by Leonora Carrington helps students to realize the manifestation of power and political control.
3.3B What is prevailing theory behind architecture critical interpretation?
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 the state of São Paulo, Brazil, Kowaltowski, et. al. (2004) discovered that evaluation respondents are often unaware of key conditions.
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 frames 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)
Dutton & Grant write about a politics of difference and a politics of voice. They define ‘difference’ as a self-identification by class, gender, sexual orientation etc.. and admonish all actions which homogenize the population, creating a universal culture or curriculum which only serves to repress difference. The politics of voice recognizes that “all forms of education, curriculum, and pedagogy are about someone's story. The question, of course, is whose story is most privileged.” (p.38). Dutton & Grant are not advocating for a politics of representation Aronowitz (1991) which would allow for a multicultural effect of giving the minority a ‘time on-stage’, rather, they advocate for critical review of institutional actions that minimize and prohibit. The authors point out the benefit of this recognition in that “coming to voice, within relations of difference characterized by asymmetrical relations of power, should be an empowering process.” (p.40) .
To highlight their points, Dutton & Grant describe the design of the National Heritage Rooms at the University of Pittsburgh. These traditional rooms were designed, in an on-going effort, to celebrate national heritage, ethnic diversity and encourage ‘voice’. Heritage rooms include Scottish, German, Swedish, Russian, Early American, Israeli , Armenian , African and Ukrainian. Dutton & Grant provide a detailed description of the process for the design and construction of the African classroom. They remark how the classrooms in general, successfully evoke a multicultural experience while providing an exchange of culture. But they admit “from the frame of critical pedagogy, concerns still remain. For example, although the rooms depict the "voices" of other nationalities, this representation runs the risk of essentialism the attempt to portray nationalities or ethnicities”(p.41)
Lucin Kroll (1984), an architect, describes conditions on the University of Louvain campus in Belgium, where he accepted a commission to design a facility to counter the institutional feel of adjacent buildings and celebrate diversity. He remarked "Of the new mixed-use facility, the building forms are not static. Walking through the site they change constantly, always in an unexpected fashion. The materials of the windows, their colors, curtains, balconies, and plants increase the sense of diversity. They reinforce the individuality and the autonomy of the occupants, and not the power of the central administration.”(p. 167) Kroll also puts heavy emphasis on user participation. In regard to the structure of one of the buildings, Kroll had the structural engineers develop a column plan that was not in the traditional grid pattern, thus ensuring an atypical layout in future renovations.
Critical interpretation of architectural forms in the university setting reveals systems that are not benign. Hebdige (1979), a cultural critic, remarked that ubiquitous and inherent in the architecture of modern schools are manifestations of values. If one considers a prevailing epistemology and pedagogical practices then, as 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).
To counter the painting of architecture with a brush so broad as to make it implicit with an overwhelming authoritarian power, it is important to note the role of social architecture outlined by C. Richard Hatch (1984). Although he acknowledges, “Architecture is ... the reification of social roles and a set of three-dimensional statements about power relationships,” he also remarks that “social architecture [an endeavor which involves user participation] is to be a driving force in the reformation of society”(p.9).
Another university professor, Piro (2008), comments on the expression of power through surveillance technologies and architectural layout in school environments. Piro said, “this kind of regulatory control resulted in maintaining power of one group over another"(p.30). Piro illustrates this concept with an historic review of Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon,” a circular prison building overtly designed to visually monitor and control inmates. Foulcault (1979) stated “The promise of the Panopticon was that it could ‘transform individuals: to act on those it shelters, to provide a hold on their conduct, to carry the effects of power right to them, to make it possible to know them, to alter them”(cited in Shah & Kesan, 2007, p.12). In addition, institutions like temples can serve to exemplify and intensify control. All this is in alignment with Michel Foucault’s critical studies on the general ordering of the visible and the visible and his concept of the archaeology of knowledge.
Not all university buildings, of course, have the perception of institutional control. Christian Kuhn (2005) explores the success of Building 20, formerly standing on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This laboratory facility, initially constructed for radiation research during World War II, was designed in an afternoon by a graduate student and constructed in six months. Although it eventually was in use for over fifty years, it was originally thought to be a temporary structure and therefore did not have to meet the normal cadre of building codes. Kuhn claimed that the building was one of the most prized on campus because of the unpretentiousness of it. The provisional character of the building allowed its inhabitants to create and re-create spaces and personally identify with the built environment.
3.3C Criticism and Commentary
While critical thinking may bring recognitions that empower an individual, Doddington (2007) also warns of the dangers for placing it in too high of regard. She acknowledges that the enhanced scrutiny may support the foundation of sound reasoning but she warns that it should not be taken as the only ‘good’ thinking. Certainly our experience of architectural spaces is also driven by our senses and emotions. Doddington remarks “We begin life utterly embodied and drowned in sensation, and the assumption that we should move away from this towards mindful objectivity... seems to have become a denial of the full richness of personhood…” (p.458)
Piro (2008) also advises caution when reviewing the works of Michel Foucault. He says" It would be simplistic, and probably unfair, to criticize schools because of their focus on control, discipline, and regulation. These features can contribute to the creation of a solid social fabric. Indeed, many of Foucault’s ideas on the struggle for self-freedom against forms of control and discipline have been criticized by some as extreme and anarchic."(p.44)
3.4 Conclusion
A Post-occupancy evaluation, defined as a common, thorough, methodical way of evaluating the room or building after it has been in use is very much a progressive document- fundamentally affected by the electronic age and the move toward assessment specialists. Founded within an era of modern thinking it is often still in search of the answer(s) to questions posed by the institutional authority.
Critical pedagogy seeks to empower the individual. Tenets of a critical interpretation for architecture encourage user introspection and recognition of the political aspects of the built environment.
Updating the traditional POE to assess the built environment for teaching and learning is appropriate. In addition, it seems appropriate to consider congruence of the architecture to the prevailing epistemology and pedagogical practices.
Within the spirit of the times, the common contemporary Post-occupancy evaluation, framed by the 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. The traditional POE predisposes a linear relationship to learning such that the manipulation of one variable (such as an architectural element) proportionally affects another (like educational outcomes). Tenets of complexity theory which describe the educational experience as a self-organizing, emergent, recursive, organism is a more appropriate framework in which to explore post-occupancy evaluations of the built learning environment. Moreover, the independent political, social, and cultural aspects of the environment – the personal truths experienced by each individual are not given voice within the traditional POE. These realities require further inquiry.
4.0 Final Comments and Proposition
I believe that the preceding exhibits a mastery of pertinent issues within my research domain- the influence of the built environment on learning. These qualifying papers discuss social and cultural aspects within my areas of study and set an appropriate foundation for my doctoral dissertation. Moreover, they demonstrate my facility to begin. In my dissertation, I look to explore Post-Occupancy Evaluations of University Spaces: Assessing within a Complexity Paradigm, how the Built Environment Influences Learning for Contemporary Post-Secondary Design curricula.
These qualifying papers address how one can rate the impact of the built environment on learning for university arts and design curricula, by analyzing an individual's personal response to a space and how that affects learning, how pedagogical practices are affected by the built environment and how the influence of the environment on learning can be assessed.
Findings indicate that there are a variety of variables, of differing importance, both innate to human nature and a part of one’s unique affectation, regarding personal perceptions of social or cultural issues, and human comfort, that individual’s may respond to in their educational experience. Research and literature has addressed these variables with a linear way of thinking, showing causation between one component and learning, giving rise to a pattern book approach to design.
A review of teaching approach and how it is affected by the built environment reveals traditional pedagogical practices that are ripe for change, from both emergent technologies as well as a move toward constructivist methodologies for traditional practices. However, little is written about the architectural space needed to accommodate virtual and online supplementation. Most literature details anecdotal examples of outlying conditions.
Examination of the typical POE reveals a tool that is largely limited and ineffective. The POE says what is functional, but not what is optimal. Moreover, it doesn’t say what is happening in the space (the inter-relationships).
My dissertation work will focus on this issue from a complexity paradigm, looking at the matrix of components and their interrelations to reveal the intricacy of the question through a clear comprehensive model that laymen can understand. It will probably involve determining what is needed to include in the model, then creating the criteria to assess, and then creating the tools to assess. In the end, I intend to inform a cost/benefit ratio for post-secondary A&D facilities in regard to student learning. This clearly extends beyond the shortcomings of the traditional Post-Occupancy Evaluation.
5.0 References
Aarts, H., and Dijksterhuis, A. (2003.) The science of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84 (1), 18 – 28.
Abbaszadeh1, S., Zagreus1, L., Lehrer1 D., Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant Satisfaction with Indoor Environmental Quality in Green Buildings, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2006, Lisbon, Vol. III, 365−370.
Adler, A. (1968). Understanding human nature, Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I, & Gauvain, M. (1981, 1994). A cross-cultural and dialectic analysis of homes, in L. Liben, A. Patterson, and N. Newcombe (eds.) Spatial representation and behavior across the life span (pp. 283−320). New York: Academic Press.
Amadeo, D. & Dyck, J. (2003). Activity enhancing arenas of design: A case study of the classroom layout, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(4), 323−343.
Amaratunga, D. & Baldry, D. (2001). The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Built Environment: A Question of Method or Epistemology? Refereed paper in the Proceedings of Bizarre Fruit International Postgraduate Conference, pp.129−149. The University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Architectural Record (2008). Schools of the 21st Century: the latest thinking and best ideas on the planning and design of K – 12 school buildings. [Supplement], New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from http://www.architecturalrecord.construction.com/schools/0712_casestudy_intro.asp
Architectural Record (2006). Architectural Record Editorial, New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from http://www.architecturalrecord.com/advertise/2006/AR_Editirialpdf.pdf
Architectural Record (2009a). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from http://archrecord.construction.com/community/
Architectural Record (2009b). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Retrieved from http://www.magazinesubscription.co.uk/subscribe-to/Architectural-Record-Magazine.html
Anthes, E. (2009). Building around the Mind. Scientific America Mind, April. New York: Scientific American, Inc.
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (1988) The education of an architect. Excerpted from Guide to architecture schools, sixth edition. Washington, D.C.: ACSA.
Augustin, S. (2009) Place Advantage: Applied psychology for interior architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Balfour (2011). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Graduate Student Ring. Austin, TX: Commemorative Brands, Inc.
Ball, L. & Christensen, B. (2009), Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: Two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution, Design Studies, 30(2), 169–186.
Barunio (Producer). (2004) MIT welcome address to new grad students-2004 [video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D808sgyW9T4
Bauer, U. (2009). Under Pressure. In S. Madoff (Ed.), Art school :Propositions for the 21st century.(pp.219–226). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bar, M. & Neta, M. (2007) Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2191–2200.
Barefoot, B. (2000) The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus, January–February, 12–18.
Beck, C. (1993). Postmodernism, pedagogy, and philosophy of education. Canada : EPS/Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Becker, F. & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bellizzi, J., Crowley, A., Hasty, R. (1983). The effects of color in store design. Journal of Retailing, 59( 1), 21-45.
Berger , P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Penguin.
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
Boden, C., Cook, D., Lasker-Scott, T., Moore, S. & Shelton, D. (2006). Five perspectives on reflective journaling. Adult Learning. 17(1-4), 11–15.
Bradley, W., (1996) Perceptions about the role of architecture in education. Approved PhD dissertation, University of Virginia.
Brauner, C. (1997). Introduction to analyzing case study. In R. M. Jaeger, (Ed.). Complementary methods for research in education, second edition.(pp. 423–424). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Buckley, B., & Conomos, J. (Eds.). (2009). Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy. New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Calvo-Sotelo, P. (2001) The architecture of higher education university spatial models at the start of the twenty first century, Higher Education Policy, (14 ), 183–196.
Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G. (1999), Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education, Design Studies, 20, 153–175.
Chapman, M. (1994). Social change and American campus design. Planning for Higher Education. 22 (Spring).
Cherulnik, P. (1993). Applications of environment-behavior research: Case studies and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ching, F. (1975) Architecture: Form, Space & Order, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Christensen, B. & Schunn, C. (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory and
Cognition, 35, 29–38.
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.
Coomes, M. (2004a). Understanding the historical and cultural influences that shape generations. In M. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds.), Serving the Millennial Generation. (pp.17−31). New Directions for Student Services, n106, Summer.
Coomes, M. & DeBard, R. (2004b). A generational approach to understanding students. In M. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds.), Serving the Millennial Generation. (pp.5−16). New Directions for Student Services, n106, Summer.
Cote, S. (1999). Affect and performance in organizational settings, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8 (2) 65−68.
Danto, A. (1964) The artworld, Journal of Philosophy, 61, 571–584. doi:10.2307/2022937
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2005). Challenging images of knowing: Complexity science and educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 305–321.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2008). Complexity as a theory of education. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 5(2). Retrieved from http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci
de Duve, 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
Devlin, A. S., & Arneill, A. (2003). Health care environments and patient outcomes: A review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 35, 665-694.
Devlin, A. (2008) Judging a book by its cover: Medical building facades and judgments of care, Environment and Behavior, 40(3) 307 – 329.
Devlin, A., Donovan, S., Nicolov, A ., Nold, O. Zandan, G. (2008) Residence hall architecture and a sense of community: Everything old is new again. Environment and Behavior, 40(4) 487 – 521.
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
Dollinger, S. (2000). Locus of control and incidental learning: An application to college student success. College Student Journal, Dec, 34(4), 537─ 540.
Dutton, T. & Grant, B. (1991). Campus design and critical pedagogy. Academe; bulletin of the AAUP, 77 (4), 37-43.
Eastman, C., McCraken, M., Newstetter, W. (Eds.). (2001). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York: Elsevier.
Eich, E. (1995) Mood as a mediator of place dependent memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(3), 293 – 308.
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.
Elam, K (2001). Geometry of design: Studies in proportion and composition. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Ellmers, G., Brown, I. & Bennett, S. (2009) Graphic Design Pedagogy. Presented at EKSIG 2009: Experiential Knowledge, Method & Methodology, International Conference 2009 of the DRS Special Interest Group on Experiential Knowledge, 19 June 2009. Retrieved from http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/eksig2009
Elmasry, S. (2007) Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Endres, B. (1997). Ethics and the Critical Theory of Education. Canada: EPS/ Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Evans, G. & Cohen, S. (1987) Environmental stress. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds.),. Handbook of environmental psychology, 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 571– . 610.
Evans, G. & Johnson, D. (2000) Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 779– 783.
Filemyr, A. (1999). Interdisciplinarity as a commitment to social change, Network Issues and Ideas,16 (1), 8–14.
Floyd, M. (1989). Architectural education and Boston: Centennial publication of the Boston Architectural Center- 1889 – 1989. Boston, MA: Boston Architectural Center.
Foucault, M. (1984) The means of correct training. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon books.
Foucault, M (1995). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. (Trans.) Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books.
Franz, G.(2005) An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen and the Bauhaus University, Weimar.
Frederick, M. (2007) 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, Boston, MA: MIT Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Friedmann, A. (1968), Institutions Offering Interior Design Education. Directory. Indianapolis, IN. : International Design Educators Council.
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 Grannis, P. (1994). Postoccupancy evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 9(2), 210–219.
German, A. (2011, November 11). M. Powell. [cultural audit interview], Boston, MA.
Graduate Student Council (2011a). The Graduate Orientation 2011. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Graduate Student Council (2011b). The official MIT graduate ring gradrat home. MIT website. Retrieved December 5, 2011 from http://web.mit.edu/gsc/www/programs/ring/index.shtml
Grannis, P. (1994). Postoccupancy Evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning practice. Journal of Planning Literature, (9)2, 210–219.
Gül, L., Gu, N. & Williams, A. (2007). A new approach to design education: Evaluations of 3D virtual worlds on design teaching and learning. Presented at 7th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality: October 22-23, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.engr.psu.edu/convr/proceedings/papers/05_Gul_submission_24.pdf
Goffman, E. (1959)The presentation of self in everyday life, Garden city, New York: . . Doubleday.
Gosling, S., Ko, S., Mannarelli, T., Morris, M. ( 2002) A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms, Journal of Personality and Social . Psychology, 82(3), 379–398.
Graetz, K. & Goliber, M. (2002) Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological Foundations and New Frontiers, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92(Winter). Grannis, P. (1994). Post occupancy evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 9,(2) , 210–219.
Gruenewald, D (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational . . Researcher, 32 (4) 3–12.
Guanglu, Z. (2012). On the recursion between teaching and learning. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(1), 90–97.
Halsband, F. (2005). Campuses in place, Places, 17, (1).
Hall, E. (1982) . The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor books.
Hamilton, D. K. & Watkins, D. (2009) Evidence-based design for multiple building types. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hardman, M. (2011). Is complexity theory useful in describing classroom learning? In B. Hudson and M. A. Meinert (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe. Leverkusen, Germany: Barbara Budrich. ISBN 9783866493872
Hargrove, R. (2011). Fostering creativity in the design studio: A framework
towards effective pedagogical practices. Art, Design & Communication in
Higher Education (10)1, 7–31, doi: 10.1386/adch.10.1.7_1
Hartman, H. (2002) What is teaching metacognitively?, in H. Hartman (Ed.) Metacognition
in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hathaway, W.(1995). Effects of school lighting on physical development and school performance. Journal of Educational Research, 88(4), 228 – 241.
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.
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
Heschong, L., Wright, R. & Okuta, S. (2002). Daylighting impacts on human performance in . schools. Journal of Illuminating Engineering Society, 31, 101–114.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S. & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hewitt, D., Higgins, C., Heatherly, P. & Turner, C.(2005). A market-friendly post-occupancy evaluation: Building performance report. White Salmon, Washington: New Buildings Institute.
Hildebrand G. (1999) The origins of architectural pleasure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Israel, T. (2003) Some place like home. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley and . Sons.
Jamieson, P.(2003) Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for
academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 119–133.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrated framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169 – 182.
Kats, G. (2006) Greening American schools, Retrieved from the website of the United States Green Buildings Council, (12/3/2008), http://usgbc.org.
Kellert, S. (2005) Building for life; Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kluckhohn, F. (1953) Dominant and variant value orientations, in C. Kluckhohn , H. Murray, and D. Scheider (Eds.) Personality in Nature, society and culture, New York: Knopf.
Kowaltowski, D., Filho, F., Labaki, L., Pina, S. & Bernardi, N.(2004). Teaching children about aspects of comfort in the built environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 19 – 31.
Kuhn, Christian (2005) Anything goes: Beyond defining what a good school is. Paper from OECD/PEB Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., & Whitt, E. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Kuh, G.D., & Whitt, E.J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges
and universities. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 17, No. 1.
Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Kumar, R., O’Malley, P., Johnston, L. (2008) Association between physical environment of secondary schools and student problem behavior: A national study, 2000-2003. Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 455–486.
Kuller, R., & Lindsten, C. (1992) Health and behavior of children in classrooms with
. and without windows. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 305–317.
Lackey, J. (1999a) Assessing school facilities for learning/ assessing the impact of the physical environment on the educational process: Integrating theoretical issues with practical concerns. Paper presented at UEF21 New Jersey Institute of Technology conference, Newark, NJ. September 17, 1999.
Lackey, J. (1999b) A History of the Studio-based Learning Model. Retreived from http://schoolstudio.engr.wisc.edu/studiobasedlearning.html
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.
Lattuca, L. (2001) Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Lawrence, P. & Nohria, N. (2002) Driven. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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
Lavender, R., Nguyen-Rodriguez, S. & Spruijt-Metz, D. (2010). Teaching the whole student: Perceived academic control in college art instruction. Studies in Art Education, Spring, 51 (3), 198─218.
LeClair, A. (2010, September 2). Kickstart for the visual arts. The Laramie Boomerang. Retrieved from http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2010/09/02/news/doc4c7f20d31f81a702553595.txt
Little, B. (1987) Personality and the environment, In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 1. (pp. 205 – 244). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Madoff, S. (Ed.). (2009a). Art school: Propositions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Madoff, S. (2009b). States of exception. In S. Madoff (Ed.), Art school : Propositions for the 21st century (pp.271–284). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mahnke, F. (1996). Color, environment and human response. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
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
MIT (2011a). Self-guided walking tour of the MIT campus. Cambridge, MA: MIT
MIT (2011b, December 15). Graduate Student Development & Career Launch at MIT
Retrieved from http://gsc.scripts.mit.edu/wptest/wp- QQQQcontent/uploads/gradschool101_careers.pdf
MIT (2011c). The MIT Institute Archives, Records of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Architecture Curricula, 1866-1942 AC.0475 (curriculum materials).
Moran, B. (2009). Aesthetic Platforms. In S. Madoff (Ed.), Art school : Propositions for the 21st century (pp.33–37). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Morrison, K. (2006). Complexity theory and education. Paper presented at a meeting of the Asia Pacific Educational Research Association (APERA) Conference, 28 – 30 November, 2006 Hong Kong.
Moye, G. (1994) Facilities program: International college. University of Oregon.
Munitz, B., (2004) Place and history matter on all campuses, Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(9), 1–5.
Myers, I., McCaulley, M., Quenk, N. & Hammer, A., (2003) MBTI Manual. Mountain View, CA.:CPP
Nasar, J. (1994)Urban design aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377 – 401.
Nasar, J. (2000) The Evaluative image of Places. In W. Walsh, K. Craik, and R. Price (Eds.), Person-Environment Psychology: New Directions and perspectives. 2nd. Ed. (pp. 117 – 168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nasar, J. (2008) Visual quality by design. Holland, MI: Haworth.
O’banion, T. (2007) Creating a new architecture for the learning college: Community College, Journal of Research and Practice, 31, 713–724.
National Center for Education Statistics (2004h). Digest of Education Statistics, 2004: Table 173 [Data file]. Available from National Center for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ d04/tables/dt04_173.asp.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pause, M. (1976). Teaching the design studio, a case study: MIT’s department of architecture 1865 – 1974. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Peca, K. (2000). Positivism in education: Philosophical, research and organizational assumptions. QQQQQOpinion paper, Educational Resources Informational Center.
Perkins, D., Simmons, R. & Tishman, S. (1990). Teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Journal of Structural Learning, 10(4), 285–303.
Perry, R. (2003). Perceived (academic) control and causal thinking in achievement settings. Canadian Psychologist, 44, 312–331.
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.
Pollak, M. (1997). The education of the architect: Historiography, urbanism, and the growth of architectural knowledge. Boston, MA.: MIT Press.
Powell, K. & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, Winter, 130(2), 241–249.
Preiser, W. ,Rabinowitz, H., White, E. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Preiser, W. ,Rabinowitz, H., White, E.(2005). Building performance assessment-from POE to BPE, a personal perspective. Architectural Science Review ,48(3), 201–205.
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.
Rae, K., Pearse, B. (2004). Value of Place-based Education in the Urban Setting, Presented at Effective Sustainability Education: What Works? Why? Where Next? Linking Research . and Practice, 18-20 February 2004, Sydney, Australia.
Rapoport, A. ( 2007) some further thoughts on culture and environment. Archnet – International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 116 – 39.
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
Rhatigan, J. & Schuh J.(2003) The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus, March -April, 17–22.
Reigeluth, C. (1996c). What is the new paradigm of instructional theory. IT forum Paper #17. [Online]. Retrieved from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper17/paper17.htm
Reiss, S. (2004) Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic drives. . Review of General Psychology, 8 (3), 179 – 193.
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.
Rodemann, P. (1999) Patterns in interior environments. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Rose, L. T., & Fischer, K. W. (in press). Dynamic systems theory. In R. A. Shweder (Ed.), Chicago companion to the child. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Russell J.& Snodgrass A. (1987). Emotions and Environment In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1. (pp 245-281). New York: John Wiley and Sons. . .
Sadalla, E. & Sheets, V. (1993) Symbolism in Building Materials: Self-presentational and cognitive components. Environment and Behavior, 25 (2), 155–180.
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
Schein, Edgar (2004) Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlottmann, C. (2005) Introduction: Place-based and Environmental Education, Ethics, Place and Environment, 8(3) 257–259
Scherr, R. (2001). The grid: Form and process in architectural design. New York, Verona, Bucharest: USA books.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, New York: Basic Books.
Schraw, G. (2002) Promoting general metacognitive awareness, in H. Hartman (Ed.) Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Seaman, B. (2009). Combinatoric micro-strategies for emergent transdisciplinary education. In B. QQQQQBuckley & J. Conomos (Eds.), Rethinking the contemporary art school: the artist, the PhD and the academy (pp.182–205). New York, NY: Distributed Art Publishers.
Shor, I. (1996) When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Sivak, C (2006) Design and project diversification have led this architect's practice to international heights: An interview with Gyo Obata, FAIA, founding partner of HOK. Retrieved from http://www.architectureschools.com/interviews/gyo-obata.html
Shihui, J. & Shaodong, G. (2012). Curriculum studies based on complexity
Science. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(1), 82–89.
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
Sobel, D. (2004) Place-based Education: Connecting Classrooms and Community. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society Press.
Sommer, R. (1983). Social design: Creating buildings with people in mind. New York: qqqqqPrentice-Hall.
Stake, R. (1997a). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweetwater. In Jaeger, R. (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education, second edition. (pp.401-414).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Stake, R. (1997b). Introduction analyzing the case study. In Jaeger, R. (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education, second edition. (pp.423-424).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
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.
Strange, C. & Banning, J. (2001). Educating by design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Stratton, J. & Mannix, L. (2005). Mind and hand: The birth of MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sullivan, L. (1918, 1947). The tall office building artistically considered. In I. Athey (Ed.) Kindergarten Chats (revised 1918) and Other Writings. (pp. 202–213). New York: Wittenborn, Schultz, Inc.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work Places: The psychology of the physical environments in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press
Sutherland , L. & Lubman, D. (2001). The impact of classroom acoustics on scholastic achievement, 17th Meeting of the International Commission for acoustics, Rome, QQQQQItaly.
Tate, A. & Smith, C. J. (1986). Interior design in the 20th century. NY: Harper and Row, Publishing, Inc.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. (2008). Modern architecture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Triusa (Producer). (2009) MIT campus tour [video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSeqeJCccU&feature=related
Turner, P. (1984). Campus: An American planning tradition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ulrich, R. (2006) Evidence-based health-care architecture, Lancet, 368, S38–S39.
Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 19–38. Retrieved from www.complexityandeducation.ca
Upitis, R. (2007). Four strong schools: Developing a sense of place through school architecture. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(Interlude 1), 1 – 15.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (2002) Indoor air quality tools for schools program: Benefits of improved air quality in the
school environment. Report No. EPA-402-K-02-005. Washington D.C.:IAQ Info Clearinhouse.
Valdez, P. & Mehrabian, A. (1994) Effects of color on emotions, Journal of Experiential . . . Psychology: General, 123(4), 394 – 409.
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
Van Maanen, J. (1987). Managing education better: Some thoughts on the management of student cultures in American colleges and universities. Paper presented at a oooooomeeting of the Association for Institutional Research, May, Kansas City, Missouri.
Vischer, J. (2005) Space meets status: designing workplace performance. New York: Routledge.
Ward, T. (1998) .Phenomenological analysis in the design process. Design Studies, 10(1), 53–66.
Waxman, L. (2006). The coffee shop: Social and physical factors influencing place attachment..Journal of Interior Design, 31(3), 35 – 53.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practise, learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Westley, F., Zimmerman, B. & Patton, M. Q. (2007). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, Canada: Vintage Canada.
Whitney, M. (2008). A history of the professionalization of interior design viewed through three case studies of the process of licensure. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blackburg, VA.
Wilson, M. (1996) The socialization of architectural preference, Journal of Environmental . . . . Psychology, 16(1), 33–44.
Wineman , J.,& Serrato, M. (1999) Facility design for high performance teams. In E. . . . . . . Sundstrom et al (Eds.), Work team effeciveness. (pp. 271 – 298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wise, J. & Hazzard, T. ( 2000) Green buildings, benefits and bionomic design. Archi-tech, January, 24 – 30.
Yang, F., Chang, C. & 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
Yik, M. S. M. & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the big two of affect from the big five of ppersonality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247–277.
Young, R. (1999). Reexamining our rituals. About Campus, Sept.-Oct., 10–16.
Zeisel, J., Silverstein, N. & Hyde, J.(2003) Environmental correlates to behavioral health outcomes in Alzheimer’s special care units, The Gerontologist, 43( 5), 697–711.
Zhang, R. (2011, November 15). Interview by M. Powell. Culture audit interview. Boston, MA.
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.(pp. 3 – 21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-END-
