Assessment of Architectural Spaces for Learning: A Literature Review
Mikael Powell, NCARB, RA, RID
Lesley University - Cambridge, Massachusetts
Abstract
Exploration of assessment theory and practice for higher education environments for learning over the past fifty years indicate a fundamental reliance upon methodologies favoring an empirical approach and a positivistic theoretical perspective. Indeed, determination of evaluation criteria occurs apart from the users of the space. Increasingly building evaluations are highlighting strengths and deficiencies outside of the framework of conventional POE models. I review pertinent contributions that describe common contemporary theory and practice of architectural assessments and prevailing theory behind critical interpretation of architecture and suggest areas of future research.
Assessment of Architectural Spaces for Learning: A Literature Review
My domain of research inquires, “In what ways do the architecture contribute to learning in the higher education built environment?” Thus, interest lies in ‘assessment’ in regards to the evaluation of physical university spaces for learning in America. I define 'Assessment' as a common, thorough, methodical way of evaluating the room or building after it has been in use. 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 and a critical interpretation of representation for architectural spaces. I explore two questions in this research:
1. What is the theory and procedure of the most common contemporary method of assessment?
2. 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.
1. What is the theory and practice of the most common contemporary method of assessment?
Theory
Post occupancy Evaluations (POE’s) 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, 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, are intended to provide several benefits from long-term to short-term advantages. 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 post occupancy evaluations as “to compare systematically and rigorously the actual performance of buildings with explicitly stated performance criteria; the difference between the two constitutes the evaluation”. Since the latter 1980’s in America, this concept has widely been employed as the foundation of the evaluation in which performance criteria is developed (usually by the client in response to client goals for the institution) and performance measures determined by the post occupancy evaluator. As Preiser, Rabinowitz and White state,” a conclusion is reached as to how successful the building performance has been”.
It is important to note the subjectivity of the process. The actual building can be evaluated different ways, depending on the performance criteria developed by the client. Moreover, the same building can have a different evaluation depending on 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 or different people may give different responses in future reevaluations. As the author states, “there are no absolutes in environmental evaluation because of cultural bias, subjectivity and varied background of both the evaluators and building users.” Moreover, the performance is derived directly from those values that the client feels are important, which are not necessarily the values of the evaluator or the users of the space. Within this framework, the information is categorized as either quantitative or qualitative in that some aspects of the building examination (i.e. the quality of lighting or the performance of building element and mechanical systems) is defined in terms that are computative and comparative. Other aspects of the building performance deal with each of the users opinions of security, comfort, aesthetics ect… -these can be described as quantitative portions of the evaluation. I found no documented evidence where the qualitative aspects of the building effects the quantitative, although the author surmised as such (See Appendix A and B). Practice
Post occupancy evaluations originated at a time when electronic computation was in it’s infancy. Thus, post occupancy evaluations became the way to collect large amounts of data and to sort and compute values for a building. The first evaluations of schools in the mid-1970’s were noted for being very wide-ranging and detailed (Preiser, Rabinowitz and White, 1988) However, the evaluation structure was rudimentary as POE’s 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, that represent the appropriate level of work. Methods employed may include utilizing questionnaires, site visits, personal interviews and document review and analysis. The authors remarked “this framework was considered to be quite simplistic, and, in many ways, inadequate”.
While the performance method was the first method widely used, other methods did develop. One was by Pena and Parshall (1983). They were interested in architectural research for both evaluation of existing buildings and for the design of new spaces. Programming is the collection of pertinent information to initiate design work, and they authored two books, the first on post-occupancy evaluations and the next on architectural problem seeking. Within their method, their evaluation strategy used the same format as in the initiation of a project and they categorized their efforts into four key elements (which correspond to the phase of the Rabinowitz POE) 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 POE’s of the era add human needs questioning as information solicited to evaluate the building.
It is important to note that while a post occupancy evaluations is said to get its name from the ‘certificate of occupancy’ commonly issued in America allowing an new facility to operate, there are other monikers that have evolved from the initial POE process. One is the Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). The integrative framework of this evaluation (Preiser, W. , Rabinowitz, H., White, E., 2005) covers issues like health, safety, security; issues addressed by building codes; functionality and guideline materials; and … the social, psychological, cultural aspects of building performance”. 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 outlines their use of FPE’s “to better understand the impact of early design delivery decisions on the 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”.
Interdisciplinary
POE’s have been utilized overseas, for primary and secondary education, extensively in Brazil since the 1990’s. POE practitioners Ornstein, Sheila, Walbe (2005) outline the activity at 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. POE’s from these groups “consist of interfaces between evaluations made by specialists based on the survey of users’ needs and satisfaction” so their efforts are clearly “multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary. Their process involves specialists in many fields collaborating for the final product. (See figure 1.).
With this in mind, the methods used most often are qualitative in nature. The author states “POE’s 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”. Tools used to rate user satisfaction include observations, interviews, questionnaires and focus groups. (See Appendix C).
Participation
In Europe, the Scottish executive was recently involved in one of the largest school rebuilding projects in recent times, per Watson and Thomson (2005). The activity is centered on primary and secondary schools and the key element to their post occupancy evaluations is participation. They state that, “stakeholders say, in POE reviews, that they want to be asked and they frequently identify design improvements and operational adjustments for their benefit.” Some of the many advantages of the collaborative process listed by the Scottish Executive are as follows:
“Post-occupancy evaluations 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”.
Comments for the post occupancy evaluations were solicited from the stakeholders in the school- the “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” .
Sanoff, Henry (2002) describes the extensive use of user participation in post occupancy evaluations in several locations in the United States for primary and secondary schools. His POE’s are used primarily to evaluate existing schools, in which there will be an addition or replacement school (in the case of natural disaster). To those ends, he combines an evaluation of the existing which directs development of a new facility or addition. He employs participatory workshops to explore and define issues.
Quality Indicators in the Design of Schools (QIDS)
Sebastian Tombs(2005), who is the chief executive of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland remarked in his paper to an international conference, that 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. 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. Categorizations began from “building on the foundations set out by Vitruvius, as translated by Sir Henry Wootton, as “Commodity, Firmness and Delight”, as Tombs remarks , “to "Humanity, Efficiency and Delight" in the latter 1990’s to “Functionality, Build Quality and Impact”. This ultimate grouping from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland in conjunction with Keppie, an architecture firm, became the Quality Indicators in the Design of Schools (QIDS). This contributes 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 and Impact - Character and form; 3.) Internal environment, Social integration, Sustainability + ecology”.
These qualities were rated with a score of one to ten. In early 2004, when the Educational Institute of Scotland undertook a survey of new and refurbished schools, they concluded that value was achieved by soliciting opinions within their categories. The author, however, indicated that actually a small number of questionnaires were given out and few were returned (the number of questionnaires distributed was less than 200 and there was a 33% return) “Nonetheless, the Indicators do provide sets of issues which all stakeholders need to address, although some aspects will be, for them, of much greater importance than others. Often, for example, 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” The author remarks that “Those who had used the tool did provide some good reasons for their scores, albeit based on a short visual tour of the building.
Criticism
There are several concerns often cited about the effectiveness of post
occupancy evaluations. Firstly, the prevailing building authority often commissions POE’s. The values of that entity frame the course of the evaluation. Likewise, the performance measures developed by the evaluator also serves to influence the process. Hewitt, Higgins, Heatherly, Turner (2005) state that “Owners, not design teams, are the primary audience for a POE” . This may be problematic if the purpose of the evaluation is to provide incite for a building addition or new facility. Often designers have needs for different information or it would be advantageous to review the results as referenced to other priorities. 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 states that oftentimes architecture students were not introduced to client and user issues to the point that they could be an effective part of a POE team.
Secondly, 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”. Indeed Lackney, J. (2001) reports that in most instances there is “no clear economic incentive for conducting the POE in the first place. Client organizations are not quick support the POE due to the potential for bad publicity if problems are uncovered so soon after a large expenditure of public funds”. In addition, as the performance criteria and performance measures are developed by other than 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) 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 (See Appendix G).
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 inhabitant and how students retaliated by vandalizing, defecating, trashing and eventually trying to burn down the facility. Unfortunately, she remarked that more and more POE’s 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.”
Lastly, Tombs, Sebastian (2005) remarked that his experience developing quality indicators within the framework of a POE, was not without criticism. As he put it “some architects have been critical of this approach, in that certain aspects, considered to be paramount, were perhaps not given sufficient profile-- for example: teaching philosophy/pedagogical approach. This, they argue, 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!”
Functionality of a space in regards to how well the space supports the intended use is a common concept and yet one that is conspicuous within the history of post occupancy evaluations. The subservience to the architectural maxim “Form follows function” (and homage to the 19th century architect Louis Sullivan who coined it) seems in congruence with the notion of classroom environment as utility to the method of teaching presented in educational research. Indeed, the more contemporary name, “facility performance evaluation”, links the space with the task. Brian Edwards (2000) put the onus on the administration when he remarked that, “Universities have the most unique challenge of relating the built fabric to academic discourse.” But the reality is that “Teaching and learning activities still take place in spaces unable to accommodate different pedagogical models”, as Elmasry (2007) states, so there is a lot of effective teaching occurring in poorly designed or inappropriate spaces. It is important to note that ideas of congruency are not universally accepted. Hauf, Koppes, Green, Gassman, Haviland (1966) in their research on designing new college facilities remarked, “Proper design of these spaces [for learning] does not depend on the dictates of a specific educational philosophy. Educational philosophies will be considered, but only in respect to their common influences on design. There will be no attempt to urge specific philosophies”. However, whether or not we take the preceding comments as an anomaly, there still is an underlying epistemological supposition to the common contemporary post-occupancy evaluations that seems moored to a previous era.
If one concedes that pedagogy and architecture are influenced by the “prevailing ethos” as Frederick (2007) puts it, then determining the parameters for assessing the built environment may also be transitive. In education, tenets of the Modern era can be found in the positivist view of learning. Hein (2002) outlines an orthogonal continuum of knowledge and learning in which one quadrant labeled ‘didactic-expository’ represents “the most traditional view” of education. The epistemology of this view is that knowledge is derived from a scientific method apart from the experiences of the learner and the theory of learning is that advancement occurs incrementally. Adjacent to that domain is the ‘discovery’ quadrant, which shares epistemology but characterizes the learner as active. Positivism falls between these two domains, tending most likely to ‘discovery’. Endres (1997) says positivism “aims at the discovery of law-like generalizations that can function as premises in deductive explanations and predictions.” In regards to the theory of knowledge, Peca (2000), in her historical study of positivism in education, summarizes the premise as “objective reality exists which can only be known objectively”. She concurs that the goals of positivism is to improve civilization using scientific method to discover natural laws.
When Beck (1997) describes contemporary education in the Post-modern era, he advises that it “does not represent a single point of view”. He does acknowledge however, “it has such features as the challenging of convention, the mixing of styles, tolerance of ambiguity, and emphasis on diversity, acceptance (indeed celebration) of innovation and change, and stress on the constructedness of reality”. Hein’s (2002) description of constructivism is congruous with tenets of the post-modern era. Learners create their truths from the world around them. Beck’s (1997) discussion of Post-modern education includes a democratic philosophy with a student-instructor relationship that is dialogical and downplays the role and authority of the professor. Dr. Hein also acknowledges, “shifting power, even in a constructivist methodology can be palatable”.
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 independent political, social and cultural aspects of the environment – the personal truths experienced by each individual are not given voice within the POE. This reality requires further inquiry.
2. What is prevailing theory behind art and architectural critical interpretation?
Shirley Yokley (1995), in her presentation paper for the National Art Association conference, explores the process to introduce a ‘critical theory of representation’ into the classroom. She defines that theory as being within critical pedagogy and the benefits of such critiques of representation “becomes an overt politicization of works of art and imagery of popular culture… In this way [it can] be a force to help transform society.” Giroux (1992) listed two main tenets of a critical pedagogy --There needs to be “a questioning of pre-suppositions” and “a language of possibility”. 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 a “mutual creation and recreation” of knowledge. Yokley’s goal is to encourage students to “make connections between works of art and their own personal like experiences and events for a richer, in-depth look at self and society.” Her classroom methods involve the selection of artwork that easily lends itself to deep review. She 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.” 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”. Her classroom lesson that encourages students to interpret an art piece of Frida Kahlo as contrasted to another work of the same era by Leonora Carrington help students to make political connections that result in “a critique of systems of power and of capitalism itself” (See Appendix D) .
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. Kowaltowski, Filho, Labaki, Pina, Bernardi (2004) stated that “following a post occupancy evaluation of state schools in the city of Campinas, in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, the research team saw the need to improve users’ awareness of their physical environment”. In the Brazilian schools, they indicated that students had to be taught about the concept of environmental comfort (“thermal, acoustic, and functional comfort as well as on good lighting conditions”), and learn to relate it to their life experiences before they could effectively rate their school environment. These instructors used in class materials and then latter developed a long-distance training program (See Appendix E).
In line with a critical interpretation for higher education, professors of architecture Dutton and Grant (1991) want to “move the theory and practices of [architecture] into more critical terrain.” They maintain, “architecture unavoidably frames the world. It structures experience, reinforces assumptions about culture and politics, and orients attention toward certain types of knowledge and ideologies.” Furthermore, they continue,” the built environment has powerful influences that can squelch diversity – especially in the university setting, where they state “schooling is a political process that has socio-cultural consequences. 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.” They write about a politics of difference and a politics of voice in which they define ‘difference’ as a self-identification by class, gender, sexual orientation etc.. “Pretenses to universality, a national interest, an American culture, and a common curriculum have the effect of repressing 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.” These authors are not advocating for a ‘politics of representation’ Aronowitz (1991) which would allow for a multicultural effect of giving the minority a ‘moment in the sun’, rather, Dutton and Grant advocate for “a sustained critique of the institutional practices [of power] that exclude”. 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.”
To highlight their points, Dutton and Grant describe the design of the African room in National Heritage Rooms at the University of Pittsburgh,. These 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. While they describe in great detail how the room successfully “stimulates an international view while providing intercultural exchange”, in retrospect 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” (See Appendix F).
On another university campus Lucin Kroll, an architect, accepted a commission on the University of Louvain in Belgium, to design a building to counter the institutional feel of adjacent buildings. He stated that from the very start he wanted to “express the diversity of individuals and not the authority of institutions." Of the new mixed-use facility, he remarked, “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.” Kroll also puts heavy emphasis on user participation. In regards to the structure of one of the buildings, Kroll had the structural engineers develop and column plan that was not in a traditional grid. Dutton and Grant (1991) remark that “in this way, Kroll built diversity right into the core of the building that guards against uniformed space planning in any future renovations”.
Critical interpretation of architectural forms, in the university setting, reveals systems that are not benign. Hebdige, a cultural critic, remarked that “most modern institutes of education, despite the apparent neutrality of the materials from which they are constructed (red brick, white tile, etc.) carry within themselves implicit ideological assumptions, which are literally structures into the architecture itself”. 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”.
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 as 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”.
Another university professor, Piro (2008) remarks on the manifestation 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". 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. Piro remarked “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”. 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. He said” the very provisional character of the building invited users to create their own, continuously evolving environment by incremental change. Thus, users developed a feeling of responsibility for their environment”. Indeed, Brand (1995) quotes one user as saying” If you don‘t like a wall, you just put your elbow through it. If you make a hole in the floor to get more vertical space, you just do it without asking…This is really our place. We have designed it, we run it. The building is full of micro-environments, each one a creative space of its own. It has so much personality”.
Criticism
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 “Critical thinking is broadly seen as the kind of logical thinking that helps us to analyze and make sense of, or interpret, all forms of situations or information so that the conclusions we draw from our interpretations are sound’. However, she warns that it should not be taken as the only ‘good’ thinking. Certainly how we experience 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…”
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 effected 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. It is indisputable that architecture as an art form always expresses something - the newly-built always comments on the existing environment in terms of what indigenous elements it chooses or refuses to integrate, how important it perceives itself to be, how much it chooses to aid the patron through its structure and the hierarchy it gives to particular spaces, how responsive it chooses to be to cultural concerns, and in many others ways. But, it's easy to obscure, in these anthropomorphic terms, the intention of university administrators, department heads or lead professors that expose their agenda in what and how and at whose expense they choose to build. Indeed, architectural design can spawn social and cultural change as much as a cathedral interior can inspire its congregation.
Updating the traditional POE to assess the support and detriment of the built environment is appropriate. Also, in assessments for higher education facilities, it seems appropriate to consider congruence of the architecture to the prevailing epistemology and pedagogical practices.
I have not found a widely-used, rigorous, methodical way of evaluating the room or building after it has been in use that embraces tenets of a critical architectural interpretation, but certainly, if those qualities of the environment were needed to be assessed, then proper user education, adequate time for introspection and response training could provide that data.
Areas of future research should include:
· A review of administrative culture in higher education that encourages self empowerment of students through facility assessment
· Creating an environmental assessment to rate functionality within a constructivist pedagogy
· Exploration of values held by university administration as contrasted to values held by students
References
Aronowitz, Stanley (1991) Postmodern education: Politics, culture and social criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Brand, S. (1995) How buildings learn, London: Penguin Books
Doddington, Christine (2007) Critical thinking as a source of respect for persons: A critique, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 39, No. 4, pages 449-459. Critical Thinking and Learning, ed. Mason, Mark (2008) Blackwell: Oxford, UK
Doidge, C. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation and its implications for architectural education. Architectural Education Exchange, AEE 2001. http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/aee/abstracts/aeePage32.html
Dutton, T., Grant, B. (1991) Campus design and critical pedagogy, Academe; bulletin of the AAUP, Vol. 77, No. 4, pages 37-43.
Edwards, B. (2000). University Architecture. London and New York: Spon Press
Elmasry, S. (2007) Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies, Page 15.
Endres, B. (1997). Ethics and the Critical Theory of Education. Canada : EPS/ Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Frederick, M. (2007) 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, pg 83, Boston: MIT Press.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum
Giroux, H (1992)border Crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education, New York: Routledge
Grannis, P. (1994) Postoccupancy Evaluation: An avenue for applied environment-behavior research in planning practice, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 9,Issue 2, pgs. 210-219
Hatch, Richard C.(1984) ed.,The Scope of social architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company
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 Hewitt, D., Higgins, C.,
Heatherly, P., Turner, C.(2005) A Market-Friendly Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Building Performance Report, White Salmon, Washington :New Buildings Institute
Hebdige, D.(1979) Subculture: The meaning of style. London and New York: Methuen.
Heim, G. (2002) The challenge of constructivist teaching, Passion and Pedagogy: Relation, Creation and transformation in Teaching, Ed. Elijah Mirochnik, Debora C. Sherman , NY: Peter Lang
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, Vol. 36, No. 1, pgs. 19 – 31.
Kuhn, Christian (2005) Anything goes: Beyond defining what a good school is, Paper from OECD/PEB (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / Programme on Educational Building) Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Lackney, J.(2001) The State of post-occupancy evaluation in the practice of educational design , Paper Presented at the Environmental Design Research Association, Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA 32), Edinburgh, Scotland, July 5, 2001.
Lippman, Peter (2003) Practice Theory, Pedagogy, and the Design of Learning Environments, CAE Net.,Nov. (CAE Net is the quarterly newsletter of the Committee on Architecture for Education of the AIA)
Ornstein, Sheila Walbe (2005) Post-occupancy evaluation in Brazil- Paper from OECD/PEB (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / Programme on Educational Building) Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Peca, K. (2000). Positivism in education: Philosophical, research and organizational assumptions. Opinion paper, Educational Resources Informational Center
Pena, W., Parshall, S.(1983) Evaluating facilities : a practical approach to post-occupancy evaluation, Houston, Tex. : CRS Group Research
Piro, Joseph M. (2008) Foucault and the architecture of surveillance: Creating regimes of power in schools, shrines, and society, Educational Studies, Vol. 44, pages 30–46.
Ponti, Georgio (2005) Incorporating the principle of “flexibility” in the design of
educational spaces, Paper from OECD/PEB (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / Programme on Educational Building) Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Preiser, W. ,Rabinowitz, H., White, E. (1988) Post-Occupancy Evaluation, New York: Van Nostrand ReinholdPreiser, W. ,Rabinowitz, H., White, E. (2005) Building performance assessment-from POE to BPE, a personal perspective.(post-occupancy evaluations and building performance evaluation), Architectural Science Review, Vol. 48, Issue 3, pages 201-205.
Sanoff, Henry (2002) Schools designed with community participation. Washington D.C.:National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Shor, I., Freire, P.(1987) A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. New York: Bergin and Garvey
Sullivan, Louis (1947) The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered In: Athey I.(Ed. Kindergarten Chats (revised 1918) and Other Writings. New York 1947: 202-13.
Tombs, Sebastian (2005) Quality indicators in the design of schools (QIDS): A tool for assessing school design? Paper from OECD/PEB (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / Programme on Educational Building) Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Watson, C., Thomson, K. (2005) Bringing post-occupancy evaluation to schools in Scotland- Paper from OECD/PEB (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / Programme on Educational Building) Experts' Group Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities.
Yokley, Shirley (1995) Interpreting works of art using critical theory of Representation-presented at the National Art Education Association, Houston, Texas April 2 – 11, 1995.
Yokley, Shirley (1999) Embracing a critical literacy in art education, Art Education, Vol. 52, No.5 pages 18 – 24.
(COPYRIGHT © 2009 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
