Interdisciplinary Education: A Collaborative Approach Between Disciplines through Making by JakePirulli

Interdisciplinary Education A Collaborative Approach Between Disciplines Through Making

Jake Pirulli

Interdisciplinary Education A Collaborative Approach Between Disciplines Through Making

Jake Pirulli

Dedicated to my mother and father. Thank you for the love and encouragement you have given me over these past five years and all the years leading up to this. & To Robin Wyckoff for your constant support through this thesis and the many challenges that came before.

Thank you to Michael Cercone for the courses you taught in high school that led me into architecture. To Chuck Hotchkiss, Mark Mulligan, & Sam Montague for taking the time to sit down and be interviewed for this thesis. To Anthony Piermarini, Robert Cowherd, Mark Mulligan, & Penn Ruderman for helping to guide my ideas through this process. To Kelly Hutzel, Director of the graduate program. & Lastly, to all past professors, peers, and staff that encouraged design through collaboration and making.

15 | Introduction

21 | Architectural Pedagogy

37 | Collaborative Insights

79 | Interdisciplinary Design

115 | Future Considerations

uil

ee Construction Engineering

En gin

tio ruc

nst

rin

Interdisciplinary

sig

n-B

n sig ng De eeri gin

Architecture

Interdisciplinary Education A Collaborative Approach Between Disciplines Through Making The integration of other constructionbased disciplines early in an architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education through hands-on learning will influence the practice to create a more cohesive and efficient design process and facilitate communication between fields. The knowledge of how to build has become secondary in design education forcing designers to face unnecessary hurdles once practicing. An interdisciplinary educational model based around making allows designers to gain real world interaction and be exposed to varying ideologies and problem solving skills. While architecture students are learning how to design, they are also learning from peers in disciplines such as Construction Management and Civil Engineering as a way to reach outside of architecture to come up with new solutions and to better take on the role of master communicators.

Jake Pirulli Fall 2019 Design As Research: Professor Anthony Piermarini Methods: Professor Robert Cowherd Spring 2020 Thesis Advisor: Professor Penn Ruderman Independent Advisor: Mark Mulligan, Chair, Department of Architecture

Interdisciplinary Involving two or more academic, scientific, or artistic disciplines.1

Communication A process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior.2

Fabrication The action or process of manufacturing or inventing something.3

1 Merrian-Webster Dictionary 2 Merrian Webster Dictionary 3 Oxford Dictionary

Education The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.4

Agency Action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.5

Peer A person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.6

4 Oxford Dictionary 5 Oxford Dictionary 6 Dictionary.com

Interdisciplinary Education

Introduction

The integration of other constructionbased disciplines early in an architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education through hands-on learning will influence the practice to create a more cohesive and efficient design process and facilitate communication between fields. Architects are meant to be innovators. Our job is to design, understand, and translate the world around them. Professional requirements and programmatic constraints placed on education and practice hinder the ability of architects to be innovators. While education attempts to prepare students for professional practice, it falls short due to the limitation placed on it and creates graduates who are great at fitting into the pre-established idea of what an architect is. In a world where collaboration is needed every day especially in the field of architecture, students must be trained to expand beyond the limitations of professional standards. Communication between architects and other construction-related fields such as construction management or civil engineering has never been a strength of any of the related parties. Easily observable within a short amount of time in professional practice and even earlier on in education, there has been a long-standing trend of placing blame on disciplines that differ from our own. This problem stems from all partiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lack of understanding. Whether it is a lack of understanding of how to make or a lack of understanding of a design process, all groups have their role to play. This back and forth is most obvious in the field, but education is the driving force that continues to fuel the toxic competitiveness in

the built environment. Architecture school continues to be a place of theory while the knowledge of how to build takes a back seat. Conceptual design and theory have a rightful place in education but needs to balanced with a practical understanding. Construction Management and Civil Engineering tend to have a more scientific approach when building. Looking for the most efficient and cost-effective approach, their process in linear while an architect's is seemingly never-ending. Rooted in making, all construction and design based disciplines should have the basic knowledge of how to do so. The introduction of computers and the technologies that have followed have given architects and the like more freedom than ever when it comes to making yet it appears, in education and practice, that we have been trapped within the bounds of a screen. Large scale fabrication and model making act as a crucial method of representation that can span between discipline. One does not need to understand construction documents to see the impact of gravity or the material limits on a physical model. Once extremely expensive, digital fabrication tools are finally making their way into practice and education. Still, these tools are underutilized and often forgotten for easier, computerized, representational methods. The world designers and builders operate in is three dimensional and so should be the spaces we create in. While Wentworth Institute of Technology is ranked highly nationally among other architecture schools, there are inherent flaws within the program, how majors interact with each other, and the aging building that

Introduction

Figure 1.1 Locked In, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

houses all design majors and Construction Management. Based on the typical architectural studio model, core design courses put little emphasis on making on a large scale. Even with a newly renovated Center for Applied Research (CfAR), student participation is seemingly hesitant in a studio environment. Courses that use CfAR extensively come in the form of an elective that occurs once a semester. The elective courses only teach a small number of students the benefits of making by hand and how to incorporate digital fabrication methods. This lack of making at a scale larger than a small model within a studio pushes architecture further away from our physical environment and slowly strips students of an understanding of how to build. The culture between designers and Construction Management at Wentworth is somewhat toxic. There are a clear divide and strong competition between the two groups

Interdisciplinary Education

over who plays a larger role. This unnecessary competition showcases the start of the same problems at a professional level. With even a small amount of time in a professional environment, the struggle between architects, contractors, and consultants, is evident in the interactions between many. The constant struggle for power and the placing of blame starts at the educational level. The reason for this uneasy relationship is the harsh division of program in the Annex building that houses each major in the College of Architecture, Construction Management, and Design at Wentworth. Annex is divided into four spaces with each group receiving their own, disconnected portion of the building. Interaction between spaces is almost nonexistent with students unaware of what other majors are working on. With design and construction being so closely related once practicing, one would imagine education being the same. The lack of

1 long term collaboration outside the respective disciplines only leads to more misunderstanding that continues to plague professional practice. The infrastructure and design of the Annex building also cause complications both within its walls and the areas surrounding it. Built in 1915 as a vocational high school, the programmatic layout does not support the needs of today. While it divides majors inside, the rear of the building that faces the Alice Taylor Boson public housing apartment acts as a physical barrier between the Institute and the neighborhood beyond. Paved over and faced with an inaccessible forty-foot elevation, the space between the Alice Taylor apartments and the Annex building is nothing more than uninviting. The goal of this thesis is to redevelop how architectural education is taught by using the tools of today and to reexamine Wentworth Institute of Technology and its role in education

and Greater Boston. My relationship with this thesis topic stems from my need to discover more throughout my life. Growing up, I have always tried to discover how things are made and what it takes to build anything. Beyond education, I have forced myself to make as a hobby throughout my life. From welding to woodworking, my attempts at learning more have always brought me to learn from different groups of people and knowledge. My ideas of architectural education before arriving at Wentworth were different than what I encountered. Tasked for much of the first semester freshman year to draw people, I craved the idea of being able to simply build and discover. While that first task was beneficial for several reasons looking back, it is what drove me to push my education in the path it currently is. Within my studio courses, I have always tried to build at a large scale using digital

Figure 1.2 Division of Program within Wentworth Institute of Technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Annex Building. 2017, Aerial view of Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, Captured with Google Earth, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on, Aerial view of Wentworth Institute of Technology. 2017.

Introduction

fabrication and traditional methods while expanding beyond architecture. Being able to and being excited about making is a trait that I see as crucial in designers and builders. As a discipline, we should welcome non-architects in as a way to discover more and make our profession more well-rounded and suited for future practices. For those making the decisions within educational institutions, this thesis hopes to encourage and support collaboration at every level, throughout majors. Interdisciplinary collaboration should not start once students exit school; the process of collaboration should be a fundamental building block in education. For a higher level of education to succeed students also need to be provided with the guidance and tools to make the most out of their time in academia. This role falls squarely on the professors and higher-level faculty to ensure the good of the students. While their best intentions are always there, faculty can overlook what students need. Since this thesis is from a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective, one can hope that the ideas of the student population are

Figure 1.3 (Above) Self Fabricated Steel Truck Bumper. 2018, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 1.4 (Left) Proof-of-concept facade model using a series of electromagnets controlled by an Arduino board designed to move a panel along a rail system. 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Education

1 considered by those in power. The idea of interdisciplinary education may at first be intimidating for students as it has likely never been introduced in past levels of education. The concept increases student productivity and independence by placing much of the responsibility or learning on the students and faculty act more like guidance. Having students gain that sense of agency allows for increased pride in onesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work and growth in curiosity by learning from one's peers. This also lessens competition between fields and allows for better communication overall. Professionally, collaboration that begins before students enter the workforce creates individuals that are capable of speaking between disciplines effectively. Whether an architect is speaking with a fabricator about the construction of an item or explaining design decisions to an engineer, that base foundation of common knowledge would act as a critical element in a cohesive project. All members of a team would approach problems with an understanding of goals and concerns from each member. Even spending small amounts of time withing professional practice, the lack of communication between designers, contractors, and consultants is a clear issue that leads to costly change orders and overall misunderstanding that mostly can be avoided through clear communication. The governing bodies such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) play a large role in how education and professional practice operate. In the collegiate setting, NAAB controls how architectural education is conducted through a series of criteria that must be met in order to remain an accredited institution. The criteria are

very rigid and leave no room for colleges to expand their curriculum beyond architecture. With technology, architecture is becoming a discipline capable of more than design but strict limitations placed on practicing architects and students stifle the drive to learn more than just design. The Architectural Pedagogy chapter that follows dives into the rise of interdisciplinary fabrication precedents and how education can learn from those types of program. The history of architectural education is also analyzed through the lens of both the studio and crit models with an emphasis on the return of design science in the studio by investigating the current curriculum and the emerging digital fabrication methods that now make interdisciplinary education more necessary than ever. The literature review ends with a focus on how digital fabrication and representation can create meaningful communication and collaboration between fields with a focus on discovery through making. Collaborative Insights is written to inform the reader of existing conditions on campus and the possibilities where change can occur through interviews, diagrams, and comparisons. Interdisciplinary Design examines and redevelops the aging Annex building and the surrounding site through programmatic transformation and curriculum reform with the goal of interdisciplinary collaboration. Lastly, Future Considerations is a reflection of this thesis and how future theses can respond and build off the work, continuing the push for a collaborative educational environment.

Introduction

Interdisciplinary Education

Architectural Pedagogy: Discovery Though Making

The inherent nature of architecture and design is collaborative. Many architectural education programs seem to forget the need for collaboration outside of the discipline once in a professional environment. Interdisciplinary collaborative education is vital for preparing and educating architects with perspectives other than design and theory. New technology has allowed designers to have a role in an environment of making and this opening will bring architects closer to master builders while increasing communication between all sectors of construction. Knowledge gained from peer learning within education, not only educates specialized individuals to other fields but crosses cultural boundaries evident in construction. The process of advancing

architectural education that incorporates architects more into construction and making must begin long before graduation. Through integrated collaborative display areas, large scale maker spaces that encourage peer-learning, and from curriculum reform that educates all branches of the built environment on disciplines different from through own. By allowing education to progress to a state that teaches designers and builders increased understanding and communication, the next generation of designers will not only be architects but masterbuilders and master-communicators.

Figure 2.1 Exploded program drawing of the AutoDesk BUILD Space, 2019, (Starthub.org).

Architectural Pedagogy 21

Figure 2.2 Cross-laminated timber test panels, 2019. (University of Maine, Advanced Structures and Composite Center).

Interdisciplinary Collaboration Design is not limited to what we currently know. As architects, our role is to question and solve problems to rediscover and reinvent better ways to build and design. Architects do not start out having the answers to every problem, nor should we, but we should know whom to approach to solve that problem and know how to channel that knowledge. The built environment is not limited to architecture, we must be willing and able to look past design and acknowledge what makes up the world around us from engineering to nature to art in order to use architecture in a more efficient and effective manner. Sparking this notion, Jonathon Keatsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; critical analysis of Buckminster Fuller dives into the ideas of design scientists and learning from our environment through

the study of nature to increase efficiency in design.1 Biomimicry is not a new idea when reaching other disciplines but it shows a clear link between architecture and nature. While it may not create the most beautiful designs, biomimicry is just one branch of research that drives innovation within architecture. Collaboration can come from those closest to the field of architecture. Whether itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s by working more closely with contractors or engineers, or by working with scientists, collaboration outside of architecture has been a growing trend with the creation and maker spaces and research facilities that support discovery along with the increasingly more accessible digital fabrication tools that are making their way into the hands of more people, designers or not. Facilities such as the Autodesk BUILD Space or the University of Maine Advanced

1 Jonathan Keats, You Belong to the Universe: Buckminster Fuller and the Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 6.

Interdisciplinary Education

2 Figure 2.3 Student drawing of Fuller's Geodesic dome, led by Buckminster Fuller at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From Phyllis M. Kelly & Richard W. Hamilton, Housing Mass Produced, 1952, (Joan Ockman, Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America).

Structure and Composite Center, are just two examples of the growing trend within the making community. Not limited to architects, these spaces encourage and promote the mixing of design and construction ideas to push innovation and problem-solving. Currently being tested at the UMaine Center are ways to maximize the strength and efficiency of crosslaminated timber (CLT) panels. Most commonly used in architecture, projects like this bring new insights to design challenges and improve existing modes or production by finding new uses for materials. The challenges of the built environment cannot be solved by pure design, it takes a team of different people with different skills to successfully complete a project. Instead of having these teams met once a week at best on site, maker spaces and fabrication facilities

keep that form of collaboration instantaneous through the proximity of makers. Even though these types of spaces give access to many different tools and machinery, the biggest role they play in advancing the field of architecture and all related disciplines is the fact that these areas bring together a magnitude of people to reach a common goal.

Design Science The term "design science" is most commonly associated with Buckminster Fuller. Architect and futurist amongst many other titles, the notion of design science was the main theme in his 1969 book, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. The purpose of his work was to "make the world work for 100% of humanity."2 While Fuller is most famous for his geodesic

2 R. Buckminster Fuller, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Zurich: Lars Muller Publishers, 2018), 7.

Architectural Pedagogy 23

dome, he tackled ideas such as housing, vehicular travel, and environmental issues. For his time, many of his ideas were outlandish and unrealistic since current technology was unable to support his inventions yet to this day the way he approached problems by going outside of just architecture is a method we should be striving for as designers. The designers of today can learn from the past and fields outside our own. By expanding our knowledge beyond what is taught in education, we can begin to see new solutions to problems we currently face. Taking a step back from design and looking at these problems with a new mindset and knowledge base allows individuals to efficiently and responsibly apply different solutions to different challenges. Architecture does not need to be limited by the constraints of design formalities and professionals should be willing to see when it is necessary to expand the field. Design science of today cannot forget the meaning of the term. The goal is to solve problems efficiently and effectively through new insights.

Educational Collaboration While collaboration is beneficial to design and a foundation for architectural practice, education is still recovering from the teaching practices of the 1960s that led to a pedagogical revolution and flipped the discipline on its head. As outlined in Joan Ockmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s writings, the 1960s and 70s brought a wave of theory-based design that dug its way into education and the traces can still be seen

today.3 Though educating bodies are trying to regain the valuable time that was misused during this educational revolution, the public sector based around technology seems to have the largest impact on educating those who are curious for the sake of learning more. Settings like maker spaces allow for people of different backgrounds to come together and collaborate. Based on a membership platform, these public maker spaces give people access to a range of tools and equipment that would otherwise be hard to come by. Self-education through the internet and public sources is based around the idea of collaborative learning from your peers. Curiosity is what drives learning outside of formal education. A truly collaborative model has yet to be designed for architecture students while practice outside of education is entirely collaborative as Keith McPeek points out, explaining how even though the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) requires collaborative courses for accredited architecture programs, those courses are not preparing students for post-graduation.4 Graduates from many architecture programs lack the necessary communication skills needed to be successful designers in an environment that forces interactions with outside disciplines. The lack of interaction within education puts these designers at a direct disadvantage as they attempt to perform a task based around managing and uniting a series of fields to accomplish a common goal. Keatsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; writing explains the thoughts of Fuller and how architectural specialization has turned around

3 Joan Ockman and Rebecca Williamson, ed. Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012), 160-201. 4 Keith T. McPeek, "Collaborative Design Pedagogy: A Naturalistic Inquiry of Architectural Education" (Architecture Ph.D Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2010), IV.

Interdisciplinary Education

2 Figure 2.4 Drawing showing varying tile size and interaction from a studio-wide design process by Murali Paranandi, 2013, (Murali Paranandi, "Making Ripples").

to harm the profession.5 As a field, we have trapped ourselves to only knowing design and blocked out other physical problems that go hand-in-hand. We tend to pass on matters related to the actual construction or assembly and only focus on how a building will look. This problem gets addressed in the real world but in education, as long as a design is not held up by "sky hooks", the question of "how does this get built?" is rare. The proof is not needed, for the most part, just a general idea. The lack of collaborative processes remains a by-product of an education that lacks realism. Architecture viewed strictly as art diminishes the role of what architecture is capable of. Thankfully, technology and digital fabrication have begun to pull architecture back in the direction it needs to go. Architects are not just theorists or artists, they are, and need

to be designers who search for answers to new questions, whether those answers come from the past or are discovered at the moment. While we are not contractors or engineers, we must collaborate at an earlier stage to appropriately respond to problems and present solutions that are not based entirely on theory. Designers personally do not need to know exactly how to pour concrete or frame a wall. Our job is to understand these processes and what they take and what goes into them. This understanding is what we use to communicate between groups. It is not the job of an electrical engineer to be able to communicate with a mason and vice versa but an architect must do so. Neglecting that role leads down a path of miscommunication and a lack of cohesiveness, making successful completion unlikely. Architects must walk a

5 Keats, You Belong to the Universe, 37.

Architectural Pedagogy 25

Figure 2.5 (Top) Drafting studio at the University of Pennsylvania, 1914, (Joan Ockman, Architecture School). Figure 2.6 (Bottom) Drawing of Percival Goodman and graduate studio class at Columbia by N. Gobkelen, 1950, (Joan Ockman, Architecture School).

Interdisciplinary Education

fine line between design and construction. It is unwise to envision an architect being capable of performing the role of every player that it takes to create a building, but it is equally unwise to limit ourselves to theoretical design with little insight. Per the writings of Fathi Bashier, education has turned into an environment that rewards what outcome looks like rather than the design process, citing an American Institute of Architects (AIA) study concluding the same.6 Educational studios remain highly subjective and reward based on what looks nicest. The trial and error process from physical testing is missing as a core pillar in these studios. This current method creates a homogeneous type of designer and students see what types of work get rewarded. Having the thought process of trying to innovate just for the sake of innovation especially in education to receive the highest possible grade leads designers down a path Stan Allen warned about. The lack of balance between discursive practice and material practice leaves designers unprepared for the challenges faced in the real world.7 Students should be aware of what real-world limitations are and be taught how to design around and with them. The understanding of both discursive and material is what separates architects from strictly contractors or artists and that balance needs to be reinforced appropriately in educational studios.

Existing Models Joan Ockman's compilation of essays accurately lays out the past and current trends

of architectural education.8 One of the only constants that carried through the many changes in educational models is the studio style of teaching. This form of class type is unique to design majors and is ideal for collaborating within a specific discipline. The studio model allows for a healthy level of competition to form and forces students to be aware of what is going on around them and what other work is being produced. There is also a strong element of intra-disciplinary collaboration but it lacks interdisciplinary collaboration. The processes that allow for any collaboration at the local level typically happen within a single studio. Long term partnerships between different educational studios are usually short-lived and infrequent. While design studios receive a fair amount of local collaboration, they lack true collaboration from those outside of their respective disciplines. Chaotic and sometimes unorganized, the studio model is crucial for incorporating collaborative processes with education. It allows for communication between peers and constant observation of the world within a studio. Traditional classrooms leave students at a disadvantage of quietly listening to the professor at the front of the room and being able to move on with little personal involvement. Even when these classes branch out to other activities such as Construction Management building concrete masonry units (CMU) walls, the peerto-peer involvement is much lower. A common place that encourages collaboration is close to nonexistent. At a local scale, studio spaces have worked around infrastructure issues when

6 Fathi Bashier, “Reflections on Architectural Design Education: The Return of Rationalism in the Studio”, in Frontiers of Architectural Research, Vol.3, no.4 (December 2014), 424-30. 7 Stan Allen, “Introduction: Project vs. Practice,” in Practice: Architecture Technique & Representation (New York: Routledge, 2009). 8 Ockman, Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America, 36-202.

Architectural Pedagogy 27

1850

1860

1870

1880

- 1860 Apprenticeship

- Scientific skill - Real world experience - Utility

1860 - 1920 Polytechnic vs. Beaux Arts

- Formal Universities - Architecture as science vs. architecture as art - Based off European models

Modernist Response

- Push against Beaux Art dominance - Product of economic forces (Great Depression) - Functionalist architecture

Rationalism

- Post WWII - Growth in architectural education - Engineering approach

Activism & Postmodernism

- Social and political revolution especially within academia - Collapse of rationalism and functionalism - Architecture no longer viewed as a tool for social reform

Technological Age

- Introduction of the computer in architecture - Scarred by theory driven design - Growth of architectural agency

Interdisciplinary Education

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Figure 2.7 Timeline of architectural education in North America, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on, Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America, edited by Joan Ockman

1920 - 1945

1945 - 1968

1968 - 1990

2000 -

Architectural Pedagogy 29

Figure 2.8 Design critique organizational diagram, 2009, (Keith McPeek, "Collaborative Design Pedagogy").

looking at problems like class space through the lens of collaboration. The difficult part of interdisciplinary collaboration comes when trying to mix design disciplines with construction or engineering disciplines. With design operating in a discursive mode of problem-solving and construction or engineering being a linear process, the question becomes, what role can a studio environment play in bridging these discourses? Bashier's work points out how architectural studios lack the intense trial and error and realism needed to operate in the real world.9 This lack can be a perfect opportunity for construction involvement and vice versa within studio spaces and can act as a method of communication between the two similar but distance disciplines of the built environment. Another constant within design

education that appeared at the end of the Second World War is the jury format of critique. Based on the student presenting their project and process to a panel of jurors, this model provides for instant feedback as McPeek points out in his dissertation.10 This style of final presentation is an ideal way to mimic the real world and how clients question design divisions but the downfall of juror style critiques comes at the hands of accessibility. The capabilities and benefits of this form of critique lack due to the space provided for the presentations. Rarely are these crit spaces open to people outside the respective disciplines. While outsiders are welcome into view, the infrastructural space and separated teaching areas prohibit those who do not have access to said spaces from taking part in the critique. These types of spaces should be one of the first pieces of program that

9 Bashier, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Reflections on Architectural Design Education", 424-30. 10 McPeek, Collaborative Design Pedagogy, 20-27.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 2.9 Curriculum diagram for the New Bauhaus School of Design, Chicago, 1937, (Joan Ockman, Architecture School).

users of a building walk past, no matter what field is presenting. This would force users to at least see what other disciplines are working on and hopefully encourage people of different disciplines to add their input into active critiques. Current buildings that house design and construction majors are more than likely divided by program. Richard Huizenga argues that as a profession, we must design these spaces, both studio spaces, and critique spaces, as a common place for all majors to gather, not only for the reason of interdisciplinary collaboration but to help the cultural problem that plagues education and professional practice.11 The constant competition between designers and builders is a result of the separation and lack of communication that occurs during education

with no help from current spaces that are meant to educate these future professionals.

Curriculum Reform

Curriculum also plays a large role in how making and collaboration are introduced into design education. Murali Paranandiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work shows that the current means of introducing physical, experimental, making, into architectural education is through the means of secondary courses.12 In most programs, the core design studios put little emphasis on the idea and students are called upon to approach it on their own, which little do. The elective courses that are centered around physical discovery offer some of the best opportunities to branch into other disciplines yet these classes typically

11 Huizenga, I Design. I Build., 43-46. 12 Murali Paranandi, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Making Ripples: Rethinking Pedagogy in the Digital Ageâ&#x20AC;?, in International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol. 11, no.4 (December 2013): 415-36.

Architectural Pedagogy 31

Figure 2.10 Image of disassembled power drill with parts laid out, 2015, (Tyner, Randall. Image of Disassembled Power Drill with Parts Laid Out. October 27, 2015. Core77. )

have small numbers. Studio courses should be capable of introducing fabrication and making as a form of research early into education which would give students sufficient time to explore and innovate while in a setting that promotes it. As the core courses that architects are taught continue to specialize, electives are the only easily accessible form of interdisciplinary education. Past examples of education offered a broad range of courses for architects to take making them well-rounded professionals. The growing influence of technology in the built environment should directly impact the core classes of education. Studios should be capable of ingraining the knowledge of making into future architects as a way to understand the space around them. The three-dimensional world that designers, builders, and engineers function in should be tested primarily through the lens of three-dimensional tests instead of two-dimensional drawings. Incorporating

Interdisciplinary Education

making into the core curriculum opens doors to an applied understanding of applied physics and forces but also of spacial relationships and materiality. The instant feedback that comes from this form of curriculum would allow designers to effectively use these forms of representation to communicate between fields by displaying the proof behind the work, helping to create a more effective and efficient work environment that emphasizes the physical world that surrounds all parties involved.

Interdisciplinary Learning Benefits Within making, collaboration happens at every scale. The difficult part is how to efficiently allow that collaboration to happen and how to prepare future designers and makers for that inevitable collaborative work environment. As Huizenga demonstrates, collaboration occurs at every scale, from

building design to tool design.13 The creation of a power drill takes a team of designers and engineers working together to produce a cohesive finished product. The same collaboration occurs when designing a building. There are almost no logical reasons to have a divide between designers and builders within education. Collaboration between the members of building design and construction only increases the communication between the groups. The negative culture between designers and builders would also begin to disappear with the understanding of the methods each group uses and the concerns that are brought forward during a project. From an architect's point of view, the design process can be better explained to defend design decisions. From the view of a contractor or engineer, the possibilities of the built environment along with practical building methods can be brought to the table. Both of which are things designers and builders should know and understand. Mark Bacon claims the growth of knowledge of how to build would also empower architects with an increased amount of agency and the ability to act as a driving force when construction choices are made.14 An interdisciplinary education would bring architecture students closer to the environment that will eventually be operating in and be able to reinforce the forgotten notion of architects being "master builders" as architectural history from Ockman's work proves.15 With increased communication and understanding being the goal, interdisciplinary learning creates opportunities for architects to branch beyond

architecture and apply their knowledge to other fields and pull foreign knowledge into design. When students and designers realize that architecture is more than art or theory, architectural solutions will be much more effective by applying many social or technical answers through every stage of design, from site strategies to building details.

Knowledge of Traditions The master builder concept that Andrew Manto refers to in his architectural thesis is not a new one.16 Countless others write about that part of history in architecture's timeline but rightfully so. Architecture has long forgotten what it means to not only lead design but to lead construction. While we have transitioned from makers to designers, the knowledge of traditional modes of construction need not be forgotten. The original roots of making that formed architecture are projecting the discipline into the future of technological making. Without the base knowledge of how to make, digital fabrication seems incomplete. With the discipline already accepting digital fabrication, most architectural education lacks the traditional knowledge that lends itself so perfectly to digital making. Many students coming into architecture know little about making. It should be a priority of education to demonstrate a base knowledge of how to make with traditional methods. Most programs skip over this. By doing so, students inadvertently forget about what is possible in design and are pushed even further

13 Huizenga, I Design. I Build., 36. 14 Mark Bacon, The Nature of Making: Rapid Prototyping in Architecture (Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Thesis: Kanas State University, 2016). 15 Ockman, Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America, 36-66. 16 Andrew James Manto, "Masterbuilders: A Gallery for Making at the Edge of the Mockup" (Master's Thesis, Kanas State University, 2014.)

Architectural Pedagogy 33

from architecture's original purpose. With the knowledge of how to make, students can apply things such as material properties to digital fabrication as a means to effectively use new tools to push making even further as a form of research.

The Future of Making With more advanced tools and technology making their ways into architecture, digital fabrication has become increasingly more accessible for professional practices and education. Nick Dunn's writing analysis the history of fabrication methods and how they have played a role in architecture.17 Digital fabrication has played a large part in the rise of maker spaces but also rapid prototyping and affordable full-scale mock-ups. The skills of modeling by hand should be fundamental but the future of making comes with the use of digital technologies. As a way to quickly produce physical communication tools, technology can help bridge the gap between disciplines. A tactile object is easy to understand for every discipline, even non-construction related ones and affordable technology has allowed that form of communication to occur. Making at full or large scales twenty years ago was unrealistic and unaffordable. Now that educational facilities and practices can do so, these mock-ups can act as a teaching tool, displaying forces like gravity or deflection on a model that would have little impact on a small scale. Digital fabrication encourages large scale making and also cuts down on the time needed to make. The rapid creation of physical designs pushes discovery through making and allows students to design based on how their model

reacts. Iteration after iteration can be produced within a matter of twenty-four hours with a clear direction of progress. To name a few, computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines, 3D printers, and laser cutters have steadily increased the output of physical models with educational environments with increasing complexity and detail. The use of these machines also teaches students about fabrication. While not fabricators in the traditional sense, students gain the ability to communicate with people such as CNC operators and understand what is going on. Digital fabrication tools will remain a source of knowledge and a means to educate architects to understand technology and outside disciplines as the field continues to use everchanging technology. An architect's scope of historical knowledge is based around interdisciplinary collaboration. Always known to be thinkers and problem-solvers, past trends in education locked architects in a theoretical world. The connection to the present and real-life was lost through the out-of-balance relationship between theory and practice. The digital tools we now have allows for the reemergence of large scale making done at the hands of the architect. The question remains: As current designers and architects, how do we prepare future architects for a world focused on interdisciplinary collaboration where the designer has the ability and knowledge to also be the maker?

17 Nick Dunn, Digital Fabrication in Architecture, (London: Laurence King, 2012).

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 2.11 (Top) Wood construction detail drawings by Robert Eidlitz of Cornell University, 1883 (Joan Ockman, Architecture School). Figure 2.12 (Bottom) CNC cut file for producing customs pieces rapidly with the help of digital fabrication tools, 2019 (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Architectural Pedagogy 35

Interdisciplinary Education

Collaborative Insight Consultations with Educators Chuck Hotchkiss

Dean of Architecture, Construction Management, & Design Wentworth Institute of Technology

Mark Mulligan

Department Chair of Architecture Wentworth Institute of Technology

Sam Montague

Department Chair of Industrial Design Wentworth Institute of Technology

Where do you see a need for interdisciplinary collaboration? What Majors? Can you envision the type curriculum associated? Are there any current courses in your department supporting that role or ones that could be modified? Do you see an active encouragement to collaborate across campus? From whom? What do you believe is the driving force that either prohibits or supports interdisciplinary education? In your department, how strongly is "learning though making" encouraged? Is this embedded in core classes, electives, or not at all? Are there certain strengths or weaknesses to education based around physical making? Can it take on a larger role? Are there any resources your department is lacking that would allow for more interdisciplinary collaboration or hands on making? What would your department benefit from most in a hypothetical new building?

The direction of all educational programs comes from higher level faculty at Wentworth and other schools around the county. Every department chair or dean would like to see progress within their college but many times they face unseen hurdles. These hurdles range from student participation, logistical concerns, and accreditation requirements that must be met. Even without these challenges, making major changes at an already established university is difficult but not impossible. Focusing on Wentworth Institute of Technology and the College of Architecture, Construction Management, and Design, interviews were

conducted with each department chair and the dean of the college. The goal of these interviews is to establish the current educational environment at Wentworth and be able to get insight into how educational facilities operate. Comparing each interview hopefully will uncover the possible points of connection between departments and highlight things that prohibit interdisciplinary collaboration. Each interview is based around the questions listed above with each participant following the same format.

Collaborative Insight 37

Where do you see a need for interdisciplinary collaboration? What Majors? Can you envision the type curriculum associated? Chuck Hotchkiss: ...everything we hear from stakeholders, both internal and external department chairs, faculty, industry, advisory boards, they're all saying that we need to become more interdisciplinary because that's the way that the professions are going in practice. And so, yeah, there's a real strong need for us to be more interdisciplinary...if you think about the built environment professions at Wentworth, civil engineering certainly would be included. A sort of interesting question is whether there are disciplines we're missing that ought to be here, right? Landscape architecture, urban planning, you could imagine having a more comprehensive set of disciplines here. Mark Mulligan: My most immediate goal will be to have more collaboration with construction management. And I say that in a little bit of selfish way, but I believe that there are really skills being taught in construction management that would greatly benefit us in architecture. I think that construction management has a very good track record of giving some very useful and simple tools and ways of thinking that can take design projects and make them realizable. I think it would be worth noting, we have good conditions for exploring collaborations with the computer science department. That would be very interesting for architecture as we look at building simulation [and] a fuller range of technology and sustainability issues in the, in the program. Sam Montague: Industrial has had a long history with interior, but we used to be

Interdisciplinary Education

part of the same department, so it used to be the department of design and facilities management. So interior design and industrial were two programs in the same department. When I got here, almost all our foundation classes freshman year were all the same, and we've slowly split apart a little bit so we don't take all the same classes because they're are specific needs that we are realizing. What we need to is specialize more this for, for industrial designers. We needed to get more three dimensional faster, those kinds of things. Are there any current courses in your department supporting that role or ones that could be modified? CH: We've had some collaborative courses in the past... So we know this kind of thing can be done. Design education lends itself to this because it's project based, begin with, so unlike other programs, we've already got that base system. We just need to figure out how to make more of those projects interdisciplinary....We have had architecture classes working with construction management for instance, on the broker over past project, they tend to be more in some ways complimentary projects rather than really getting close to the groups working on the same thing. MM: ...Scott Sumner (Construction Management Department Head) and I are trying to develop an elective course. ...we would like to do a design build project of some kind. This coming summer with those sophomores who have the space in their schedules. We could go back to a design build model with Construction Management, if we're collaborating with

industrial design then the fabrication becomes a focus....Maybe it's in tandem with or in parallel to some fab style project. So we have a summer that is going to be our first area of experimentation. Obviously the other area for interdisciplinary work will be senior year, either electives or studios option studios. SM: We have our design magic class. That starts our seminar class. It's a freshman class to sort of introduce what creativity is, what is design, so that's still together with interiors and our drawing class is still together with interiors and our color and composition classes still together with interiors. So we still have three classes that are, that is a mix between both departments. Do you see an active encouragement to collaborate across campus? From whom? CH: I think we're pushing as hard as anybody. All of the departments in our college who have done some interdisciplinary work, the challenges is to really step it up. MM: It feels like a push for me. I think that when I've spoken to architecture students, there's a very vocal and very visible minority of students who would be interested in reaching out. And I can't say, I can't speak for those who haven't reacted except to say, well, perhaps by not responding, they're either extremely happy with what they're doing or they're so overwhelmed with what they're doing. They can't imagine taking on something else. I want to respect that, you know, but I do think that for those who are interested, we could do more. SM: ...it's whether people are willing to count

one activity as meeting another activity. And that's up to each department. I talked to your chair, Mark, and we talked about the possibility of, do we have a seminar class? Like design magic that is across the board because when we're talking about some fundamentals of creativity and design, you know, designers are influenced by architects. Architects are influenced by designers and interior designers. And so we all influence each other and we're all influenced by painters and artists and filmmakers. And the pool of what forces us is all the same. What do you believe is the driving force that either prohibits or supports interdisciplinary education? CH: Some of it is scheduling. Some of it is just not wanting to. We've taken some small steps toward identifying subject matter that is common across disciplines that could be taught together. But each major has its own internal logic in the way the courses are structured. And breaking out of that in order to bring students from different programs together turns out to be a lot harder than it ought to be MM: It's everything. It's the fact that we go on co-op different semesters than everybody else, it's the fact that our architecture history courses aren't considered humanities even though at any other school they would be considered a humanities course. It's rigid curricular structure. Everything has to happen in a given semester. I think those are things that could change or evolve. Yeah, I do have hope. And that's, why I came here. I really wanted to be part of an effort in seeing the potential in this school and saying,

Collaborative Insight 39

I want to be part of an effort to break down those silos and really take advantage of things on this campus that no other architecture school, at least in New England, has. SM: The industrial designers society of America has an annual conference and part of it they have an educators' conference and one of the discussion groups we were talking about collaboration. One of the things that were discussed is you want to make sure ,if it's a venn diagram, that the people collaborating have a little overlap but not too much. Sometimes too much overlap then creates conflict because one group thinks they can tell the other group exactly what to do. And that's, I think always something that has to be considered with any kind of collaboration, is do parties bring something of value to the table that helps both parties or does it become a hierarchical structure? Cause then it doesn't work and then it's like we're the visionaries of the project. Then it just totally implodes. It has to be done with finesse or again, it doesn't work. It can't be forced. And if it's two parties, they both have to bring an expertise to the table that has be respected. And if that doesn't happen then it's not a good collaboration. In your department, how strongly is "learning though making" encouraged? Is this embedded in core classes, electives, or not at all? CH: The new interior design chair is very interested in getting her students access to shops. I don't think she cares too much, whether it would be industrial design or architecture. That gets into some sticky questions about how

Interdisciplinary Education

many students that facility can accommodate and how do most students get provided training? And it involves resources sort of flowing across departments, which is not something that we have a lot of experience, so there's some issues, but certainly, yes. That's on the table right now. MM: I want to say both. Yeah. But the truth is so far only in a few studios have I seen a significant fabrication or a making component. So it seems to me that it is more likely to happen in a self selecting group, you know, electives or in the emerging technologies concentration. And I say self-selecting and maybe that's okay. We have CfAR (Center for Applied Research) that has the carpentry lab has capacity for ten people maximum to work in it. We're a school of 500 students, so definitely if there's not some degree of self-selection and sort of like concentration in that way. That said one of the things I'm really very eager to do is to, let's say, take the carpentry lab component of our education, which currently introduces students in the summer of sophomore year....I'd like to move all of that down. I want freshmen in the lab. I want I want to see thinking through making, learning about joinery, learning about you know, basic tools that I want that to be more foundational for students. If you're taking a class in structures, I would love you to have a sense about how much a stick of wood weighs and what it takes to break it at different dimensions. I think it would be really, I think just a visceral sense of the material properties of architecture and would be a real gift to younger students in the program. SM: We live in a three dimensional world and the products we design exist in that three dimensional world. And the only way you're

going to really know what you're doing is to make three dimensional things... if we have, it's like a stool project, we'll have a student build a fully realized stool and then say like, yeah, we really got to tweak this because this is too heavy and this structurally is not strong. Are there certain strengths or weaknesses to education based around physical making? Can it take on a larger role? CH: I don't feel like I'm an authority on it, but I recognize that it has been a hallmark of a Wentworth education that is really hands on. And I do think that there is a big demand out. Well I know that there is big demand out there for students who have the kinds of fabrication skills in addition to the general knowledge of architecture and design that our students come away with. I think of a company like CW Keller where our students are really valued, right? They'd rather have us than Harvard or MIT because of our emphasis in fabrication and making. The other nice thing about it is that emphasis allows us to do some very practical community based projects. Thinking rubbed from board's work for instance, with a couple of different YMCA facilities. It's great that it gives us a good basis for reaching out in the community and being more involved in that kind of real world collaboration with external partners is also really valuable. Are there any resources your department is lacking that would allow for more interdisciplinary collaboration or hands on making?

MM: I think space is the biggest problem. I think that if we were to double the size of CfAR, I don't know when that's ever going to happen, but if you were to double it, with the same number of tools. I believe we could have twenty people working at the same time, it's part of the safety issue is that people will bumped into each other while they're using hazardous machine. I think doubling the space would help or increasing it. I think bringing the digital fabrication, the laser and the robots and all of this down into the space directly below us here and making those spaces accessible and integrating them into CfAR would be a great step forward. SM: Our shops tapped out. There's the notion of, well wouldn't it be nice to open up the shops in theory, yes. But in practicality there is no way, and then people say, well, you can just schedule it. It doesn't work like that. What Wentworth needs to think about is having multiple shops depending on the type of gear you have in the shop, how much it's open or what makes sense. What would your department benefit from most in a hypothetical new building? CH: If we were doing a new building from scratch a, you would definitely want to have more collaboration spaces as we've developed in other parts of campus. Right? You see it over in CIS, you see it in next door and IRA Allen. And there's some way you see it a lot in the library. There's just a lot of collaborative spaces and I think that's a good thing. Secondly, if we were really doing a new building from scratch ...[with an] emphasis on fabrication, I don't know why we wouldn't have a single large set of shops

Collaborative Insight 41

designed to serve the entire college and figure out how to manage that facility in a shared way rather than what evolved here sort of organically having two sets of shops at opposite ends of the facility without much interaction. MM: The number one thing for me, the space to build inside during inclement weather. I love that we have with space outside...that is really important to us. But that's a limited space. I think collaborating with construction management in the concrete lab in the, in the, you know, in the yards that they have, fine. But as space is available and this year they have such a big entering class that we've hardly been able to make any connection there. So space will put everybody at ease. I think we'd love to see...a college wide fabrication center and just move everything, move everything there and work on staffing so that all the necessary labs are open at the hours that students need them. I think that would be the best option. SM: So it's like we need more shops, not just combining shops or super shops or things like that. I mean if you guys, you know, cause you have a multiple floors, if you had like a shop on the top floor and then a shop on the bottom floor, why wouldn't that be great?

Interdisciplinary Education

"...we need to become more interdisciplinary because that's the way that the professions are going in practice." - Chuck Hotchkiss "I want to be part of an effort to break down those silos and really take advantage of things on this campus that no other architecture school, at least in New England, has." - Mark Mulligan "We live in a three dimensional world and the products we design exist in that three dimensional world. And the only way you're going to really know what you're doing is to make three dimensional things..." - Sam Montague

Collaborative Insight 43

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.1 Analytique drawing focusing on the Annex building and using the site as a collaborative spaces for not only those inside the building, but those living around it though the act of making, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Collaborative Insight 45

Site Conditions

The campus of Wentworth and the surrounding areas features a number of different types of spaces such as: greenspace, hardscaped parking lots, governmental facilities, and public housing projects. While greenspace is limited on campus, the area surrounding the Annex building is one of the spaces most in need. Located at the peripheries of campus and situated directly next to the Alice Taylor Boston public housing projects, interaction between Wentworth and the neighborhood beyond is funneled through the site of Annex.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.2 (Left) Spaces around Wentworth Institute of Technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Campus 2019, Aerial view of Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, Captured with Bing Maps, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on, Aerial view of Wentworth Institute of Technology. 2019. Figure 3.3 (Right) Site plan highlighting green spaces and hardscapes on Wentworth's campus along with main division, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 47

Instead of acting as a gateway between communities, the large parking lot at the rear of Annex and the forty-foot walls facing the Alice Taylor Apartments acts as a barrier between the two bodies. Being at the edge of campus, the goal of Annex, through program, should be a form of architecture that invites those inside and around it to collaborate. While collaboration must occur on the interior, the building should also function as a tool for collaboration between neighbors and communities.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.4 (Left) Highlight of rear parking lot between the Annex building and the Alice Taylor Apartments 2019, Aerial view of Wentworth Institute of Technology's Annex Building, Boston, Captured with Bing Maps, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on, Aerial view of Wentworth Institute of Technology. 2019. Figure 3.5 (Right) Diagram showing Annex's outlying location on campus and its placement within the housing complex, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 49

Not only acting as a site divider, Annexâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s programmatic arrangement further adds to the separation of majors. The most integration between majors comes from the circulation paths that lead to Annex. Annex should perform as a bridge that encourages and promotes interdisciplinary learning, the 105year old building lacks the ability to meet the conditions needed due to poor accessibility and a lack of available room to grow.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.6 (Left) Site plan highlighting circulation paths and building locations based on major, Architecture (blue), Civil Engineering (Tan), Construction Management (Grey), 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 3.7 (Right) Diagram showing the goal of making the Annex building a collaborative space with, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 51

The proposed changes to the site need to respond to both internal and external accessibility and inclusion. Acting as a beacon of creativity, the site has the ability to connect both an institution that promotes discovery and an underrepresented community on a new level. A stronger connection between both parties will result in a mutually beneficial relationship that can supply a new body of perspective students and the growth and sharing of knowledge outside of the walls of a traditional classroom.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.8 (Left) Site strategy with an addition onto the existing Annex building, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 3.9 (Right) Site strategy reimaging the Annex building with a central core for collaboration, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 53

Existing Programmatic Relations

Interdisciplinary Education

Every wing that makings up the programmatic layout of Annex is connected by a hallway twelve-feet wide. For the students inside this already demonstrates the division of spaces. The division carries on to the majors housed in the building with each almost every major having their own wings. With the programmatic spaces so split up with no common are for collaboration between majors, the building hinders any long term, interdisciplinary educational model.

Figure 3.10 Existing first floor plan of the Annex building showing program division, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on drawings provided by Wentworth Institute of Technology.

Collaborative Insight 55

The proposed replacement for the Annex building must meet the following criteria to be considered a successful implementation of an interdisciplinary educational building. 1. Program must encourage students to circulate and interact with other disciplines. 2. All main program elements must have access and connections to the centralized fabrication space. 3. The exterior and related program must respond to the site as a good neighbor to both the Alice Taylor apartments and the Wentworth Campus. 4. Programmatic arrangement should not be limited to strictly physical connection but also explore curricular connections.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.11 (Left) Axonometric drawing of existing Annex building, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 3.12 (Right) Exploded axonometric drawing with programmatic relations of the Annex building, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Classrooms Architecture Construction Management / Interior Design Lecture Hall Industrial Design Mechanical

Collaborative Insight 57

Existing Curricular Divisions

First Year Fall

Spring

Summer

Fall Studio 03

Figure 3.13 Existing curricular layout at Wentworth Institute of Technology highlighting courses where collaboration or making can be incorporated more, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on information provided on Wentworth Institute of Technology, 2019.

Architecture

KEY

Making Encouraged

Possibility for Collaboration

Studio 02

History/ Theory 01

English 01

English 02

Tech 01

College Math

PreCalc

HuSS Elective IDP Registration

Construction Management

Combination

Studio 01

Civil Engineering

Interdisciplinary Education

Intro to CM

Construction Graphics

Construction Surveying

Building Construction

Construction Equipment

Statics & Strength

Chem Built Environment

Physics

Estimating

College Math

PreClac

Financial Accounting

English 01

English 02

HuSS Elective

Engineering Calculus 01

Engineering Calculus 02

Multiv. Calculus

English 01

English 02

HuSS Elective

Engineering Physics 01

Engineering Physics 02

Engineering Chem 01

Intro to Engineering

Intro to Engineering Design

Intro to Geomatics

CAD/CAM

Intro to MATLAB

Statistics & Materials 1

Second Year Spring

Third Year Summer

Fall

Spring

Studio 04

Studio 05

History/ Theory 02

Fourth Year Fall

Spring

Studio 06

Studio 07

Studio 08

Tech 03

Concentration Studies

Architecture Elective

Tech 02

Structures 01

Structures 02

Architecture Elective

Physics 01

HuSS Elective

C0-op

Summer

C0-op

Building Systems

Material Testing

Estimating & Bid Analysis

Wood & Steel Design

Project Management

Concrete Design C0-op

Project Scheduling

CM Elective

HuSS Elective

Managing & Leading

HuSS Elective

Differential Equations

Fluid Mechanics

HuSS Elective

Structural Analysis

CE Materials

Soil Mechanics Environ. Engineering

Project Control Business & Finance C0-op

Statistics & Applications

Civil CAD

Power & Leadership HuSS Elective

Design Project

Hydraulic Engineering

Engineering Economy

Highway Engineering C0-op

C0-op HuSS Elective

Safety & Risk

HuSS Elective Science Elective

CE Elective Statistics & Materials 2

Summer

CE Elective

Senior Project Law & Govt. Regulations Labor Relations HuSS Elective

Civil Capstone Probabilities & Statistics HuSS Elective CE Elective

CE Elective

Collaborative Insight 59

Situations and Testing Figure 3.15 Program arrangement testing model, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Architecture Construction Engineering

• Large connected spaces within respective disciplines. • Limited student interactions between disciplines outside of centralized space. • Connection is based off of sight instead of main interaction points. • Isolates one side of the site, either Wentworth's campus or the Alice Taylor Apartments.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.16' Program arrangement testing model, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

3 Architecture Construction Engineering

• Randomized program layout. • Students must pass through other disciplines to reach other pieces of program. • Circulation between program is not efficient. • Lack of a sense of community within disciplines.

Collaborative Insight 61

Figure 3.17 Program arrangement testing model, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Architecture Construction Engineering

• Program pushing outwards towards neighbors. • Localized but segmented disciplinary programs. • Slight sense of community within disciplines through multiple program elements being connected. • Fabrication space no longer acts as main piece of program.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.18 Program arrangement testing model, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

3 Architecture Construction Engineering

• Program pushing inwards towards fabrication space. • Disciplinary program becomes too separated • Program and curriculum can be further integrated with the fabrication space. • Circulation and space between programs is awkward. • Corners can act as a display space for the building and community.

Collaborative Insight 63

Figure 3.19 Program arrangement testing model, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Architecture Construction Engineering

• Program elements are based off respective floors ex. studio/lab space on the first floor, classrooms and administration on the second floor. • First floor has the most access to the fabrication space. • Studios and labs are directly connected to the fabrication space. • Design studios, Engineering labs, and Construction labs all have direct visual access to each other. • Circulation between studios still remains somewhat stagnant.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.20 Program arrangement testing model, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

3 Architecture Construction Engineering

• The type of program stacks vertical. (Classrooms for design, engineering, and construction are situated in the same location.) • Program elements shift in vertical location dependent on the start location. (If architecture studios are on the first floor, the classrooms shift to the second floor and so on.) • Passing through different discipline is encouraged by level changes. • Exterior access to fabrication space.

Collaborative Insight 65

Interdisciplinary Education

Maker space Architecture Construction Engineering Figure 3.21 Series of rapid programmatic tests in relation to the site, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 67

Interdisciplinary Education

Studying two ends of a spectrum, Wentworth's annex building stays with the traditional method of discipline separation to establish professionals that will fit within a degree path. Keeping program structured allows for curriculum that is easily accepted by accreditation bodies. While it works well in the traditional understanding of college majors, the separation of spaces limits peer learning and interdisciplinary collaboration.

3 Figure 3.22 (Left) Massing study drawingsof Wentworth Institute of Technology with class space (tan) and maker space (blue), 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 3.23 (Right) Existing first floor plan if the Annex building showing program division, 2019, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Based on drawings provided by Wentworth Institute of Technology.

Wentworth Institute of Technology Floor Plan

Collaborative Insight 69

Figure 3.24 Massing study drawings with gathering space (tan) and maker space (blue), combining the programmatic possibilities when comparing the Annex building of Wentworth Institute of Technology with the Workshop of Kanagawa Institute of Technology, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.25 Massing study drawings with gathering space (tan) and maker space (blue), combining the programmatic possibilities when comparing the Annex building of Wentworth Institute of Technology with the Workshop of Kanagawa Institute of Technology, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 71

Figure 3.26 Massing study drawings with gathering space (tan) and maker space (blue), combining the programmatic possibilities when comparing the Annex building of Wentworth Institute of Technology with the Workshop of Kanagawa Institute of Technology, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 3.27 Massing study drawings with gathering space (tan) and maker space (blue), combining the programmatic possibilities when comparing the Annex building of Wentworth Institute of Technology with the Workshop of Kanagawa Institute of Technology, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Collaborative Insight 73

Interdisciplinary Education

On the other end, the Kanagawa Institute of Technology breaks down the division between spaces to create a space where knowledge can easily pass from person to person through physical and visual connections. The difficulty with this type of space is the ability to create any sense of discipline specific learning or pedagogy that still creates architects instead of pure generalists. The building itself is not used for any courses and acts as a space for open use and making.

3 Figure 3.28 (Left) Massing study drawings of Kanagawa Institute of Technology with gathering space (tan) and maker space (blue), 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 3.29 (Right) Floor plan of the workshop at Kanagawa Institute of Technology, 2016, (Junya Ishigami + Associates). Floor Plan of the Work Shop at Kanagawa Institute of Technology. January 13, 2016. https://archeyes. com/kanagawa-institute-oftechnology-junya-ishigamiassociates/.

Kanagawa Institute of Technology Floor Plan

Collaborative Insight 75

Wentworth Institute of Technology

• Separate Disciplines • Limited Interaction • Traditional Educational Structure Figure 3.30 Side by side comparison of programmatic variation of maker space (blue) and gathering space (tan), 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). 76

Interdisciplinary Education

• Exposure to Program Variation • Simplified Learning • Hands-on Encouraged

• Limited Programmatic Separation • Creation of both Flexible and Rigid Spaces

Kanagawa Institute of Technology

• Surrounded by Making • Group Learning • Making on Display

• Pockets of Making and Learning • Flexibility of Space • Equal Exposure to Exterior

• Fast transfer of knowledge • Testing = Learning • Difficult to Structure Pedagogy

Collaborative Insight 77

Interdisciplinary Education

Interdisciplinary Design Design Response

The creation of an education that can push making at a larger scale than typically seen in architecture programs needs a maker space at the core. All program must revolve around it to establish connection to that centralized space. At a "small" scale, the maker space is what binds the interior program and encourages inclusivity through making. At a larger scale, the building and its positioning on the site must respond to accomplish that same role within the community. The key is to find a balance between the structure that currently exists within the Annex building and the chaos shown at the Kanagawa Institute of Technology.

Figure 4.1 Site model with concept model for a new building placed in. The concept focuses around a central maker space and radiates outward, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 79

The Maker Space

Interdisciplinary Education

The edges of education are where the collaboration begins. The thresholds of connection relate to pedagogy and program. The maker space at the center; studio space and classrooms overlook and evaluate the activity below. In this space, disciplines do not matter, only does the knowledge gained from the creation of things. The maker space is filled with constructions larger than their creators, designed to be interacted with and tested throughout their lifespans. The sound of safety buzzers rings as heavy equipment moves through the area. Onlookers watch as the makers work with their robotic counterparts to assembly full-scale test. There is constant growth as the new tests reach higher and higher towards the ceiling.

Figure 4.2 Orthographic drawing representing how the maker space operates, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 81

The Studio At the periphery of the maker space, the studio is engaged with testing and innovating. Gone are the days purely of thought, physical learning has taken priority in design. A collaboration of ideas influence choices and making is the norm. A culture of understanding emerges from the passing of knowledge through a pedagogical approach along with the programmatic relationships between studios. Travel across different disciplines is designed into the building, allowing proximity to spread knowledge. Teams of makers work at slightly smaller scales to work out details before bringing new tests into the maker space. The hum of the equipment around can be heard, and activity is constant.

Figure 4.3 Orthographic drawing representing how the studio operates, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Education

Interdisciplinary Design 83

The Class Space

Interdisciplinary Education

Interwoven throughout the studios, the classrooms populate the building and observe the making going on around them. The border between the class and the studio is weak. The structured transfer of knowledge that once was is now a transformative space permitting new ways of interdisciplinary teaching. Courses are no longer made of one discipline. An inclusive approach is taken to jumpstart the introduction to the practice. Methods of construction and technology are taught through hands-on learning. Students assemble wall details and innovate on new ways of construction.

Figure 4.4 Orthographic drawing representing how the class spaces operate, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 85

The Exhibition Space The outer edge closest to the surrounding site is a welcoming party to the non-makers. Where making becomes an everyday sight for those not taking part in the new education. Acting as the face of making, outsiders are curious about what occurs inside a building that can produce the things that are on display. The outsiders looking for a way to be welcomed by the controlled chaos occurring inside. The exhibition space is the gateway to making and understanding.

Figure 4.5 Orthographic drawing representing how the exhibition space operates, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Education

Interdisciplinary Design 87

METAL SHOP EXHIBITION

WOOD / MANUFACTURING

MAKERSPACE

MATERIAL TESTING

EXHIBITION

The design of the new making building for Wentworth focuses on accessibility to both the users inside and those who walk past it every day. On every floor, the centralized maker space is the foundation that grounds all the surrounding program and circulation. The ground floor is purely for making and for displaying those works to the people outside. The circulation paths inside the building carry users around the central space

Interdisciplinary Education

and respond directly to the existing paths of circulation on the exterior of the building. The accessory shops around the first floor all open to the exterior and allow for making to actively include those outside and the pathways that lead toward the building encourage users to pass through and experience the activity inside. The exhibition spaces are large enough for large exhibits or for wide-open crits where all are encouraged to engage in the making process. Figure 4.6 Ground floor plan, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Circulation

Program

Flexible vs. Rigid

Usage

Figure 4.7 (Top left) First floor circulation diagram based on existing site circulation paths, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.8 (Top right) First floor program diagram, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.9 (Bottom left) First floor diagram showing flexible (blue) and rigid (gray) spaces, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.10 (Bottom right) First floor diagram relating program to usage, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 89

OFFICE SPACE STUDIO

OPEN BELOW OPEN BELOW

STUDIO

CLASS SPACE

The second floor puts all emphasis on the circulation around the opening for the gantry. Orbiting paths are placed to encourage constant engagement with the activity below. The classrooms are surrounded by studio spaces that are actively busy through the transfer of ideas. Students of different majors share the same space, so peer learning is the primary teacher.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.11 Second floor plan, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Circulation

Program

Flexible vs. Rigid

Usage

Figure 4.12 (Top left) Second floor circulation diagram based on orbital paths around the maker space, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.13 (Top right) Second floor program diagram, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.14 (Bottom left) Second floor diagram showing flexible (blue) and rigid (gray) spaces, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.15 (Bottom right) Second floor diagram relating program to usage, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 91

BELOW

OFFICE SPACE

STUDIO

OFFICE SPACE

OPEN BELOW

STUDIO LECTURE HALL

CLASS SPACE

The third floor opens to a more intimate plan through circulation that passes through the center and projects back outward towards the site. Used for smaller studios, classrooms, offices, and a large auditorium, this floor responds to the needs of the classroom and still acts as a structured environment without hiding the purpose of the building and what it engages in.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.16 Third floor plan, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Circulation

Program

Flexible vs. Rigid

Usage

Figure 4.17 (Top left) Third floor circulation diagram based visual connection through the building and by the maker space, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.18 (Top right) Third floor program diagram, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.19 (Bottom left) Third floor diagram showing flexible (blue) and rigid (gray) spaces, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.20 (Bottom right) Third floor diagram relating program to usage, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 93

Proposed Curriculum First Year

Second Year

Third Year

Fourth Year

Design Studio 01

Studio 02

Studio 03

Studio 04

History 01

History 02

Studio 05

Concentration

Architecture Elect.

Concentration

IDP Registration

College Math

Construction Intro to CM

Graphics

Building Construction

Equipment

College Math

Building Tech

Elective

Building Tech

Elective

Physics

Estimating English 01

English 02

Stats and App.

Accounting

Chem. for Built Enviro.

Elective

Project Mang.

Business and Leadership

Law and Government

Estimating & Bid

Safety and Regulations

Labor Relations

Scheduling Structure and Testing

Studio 06 Comprehensive

Studio 07

Studio 08 Fabrication

Structure and Testing

Making Elective

Elective

Building Tech

Surveying

Engineering

Stats and Materials

Engineering Calc

Calculus

Dii Equations

Fluid Mechanics

Hydra Engineering

Engineering Economics

Science Elective

Engineering Physics

Engineering Chemistry

CE Materials

Soil Mechanics

Highway Engineering

CE Elective

Intro to Engineering

Intro to Geomatics

CE Materials

Environmental Engineering

CAD /CAM

Collaborative

While the building alone is unable to accomplish the goal of reestablishing architectural education, the pedagogy must be redesigned to incorporate collaboration between the related fields. As students progress through their education and collaboration becomes more of the norm, it gives them the ability to communicate between fields upon entering the workforce.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.21 (Left) Proposed new curriculum for design, construction, and engineering with collaborative courses highlighted, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.22 (Right) Exploded axonometric diagram marking course location and interaction in coordination with the curriculum chart, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 95

Year One

Design

Construction

Engineering

Collaborative

The first year of courses focuses on core instruction that every discipline needs to establish itself. Collaboration comes in the form of elective classes and each discipline begins to understand the maker space and the work that occurs there.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.23 (Left) Proposed first year curriculum for design, construction, and engineering with collaborative courses highlighted, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.24 (Right) Exploded axonometric diagram marking course location and interaction in coordination with the curriculum chart, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 97

Year Two

Design

Construction

Engineering

Collaborative

The second year builds upon the first but now incorporates collaborative building technology classes between construction and design, and construction and engineering share material and surveying courses. Buildingwide collaboration still comes in the form of electives.

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.25 (Left) Proposed second year curriculum for design, construction, and engineering with collaborative courses highlighted, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.26 (Right) Exploded axonometric diagram marking course location and interaction in coordination with the curriculum chart, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 99

Year Three

Design

Construction

Engineering

Collaborative

The third year is when collaboration and making come full swing throughout the entire building. Design, construction, and engineering work together in comprehensive studios, building technology, and structural testing courses.

100

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.27 (Left) Proposed third year curriculum for design, construction, and engineering with collaborative courses highlighted, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.28 (Right) Exploded axonometric diagram marking course location and interaction in coordination with the curriculum chart, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 101

Year Four

Design

Construction

Engineering

Collaborative

The fourth year includes two interdisciplinary fabrication-based studios, along with physical making-based electives to push the studios to use all available resources and rely on peer learning to further their studies and communication between groups. This arrangement of courses helps to establish each discipline and then allow them to interact and collaborate as they would in the real world and prepare students for practice.

102

Interdisciplinary Education

Figure 4.29 (Left) Proposed fourth year curriculum for design, construction, and engineering with collaborative courses highlighted, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Figure 4.30 (Right) Exploded axonometric diagram marking course location and interaction in coordination with the curriculum chart, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 103

Spacial Operations How each space operates with the central maker space is crucial in terms of integrating not only each discipline but also the pedagogy and program that occurs within this new building. With the ground floor constantly active with full-scale making and exhibitions, this space is key in producing an environment of physical understanding. Allowing interdisciplinary collaboration to occur where things are being made and tested and can simulate a version of what to expect when these disciplines interact outside of education. Meant to close the cultural boundaries that currently divide the disciplines, the second floor encourages studio-wide collaboration that revolves around small scale testing in relation to the maker space. The third floor focuses on the core knowledge that makes up each discipline while keeping a strong connection to the making going on below the program and pedagogy within shape students to understand what their discipline does while demonstrating the importance of innovation. While the core space for making is located centrally within the building, all surrounding program acts like satellite maker spaces, keeping to the idea that making is key in establishing an educational system that encourages interdisciplinary collaboration. Figure 4.31 Rendering looking into the maker space and the surrounding areas, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

104

Interdisciplinary Education

Interdisciplinary Design 105

106

Interdisciplinary Education

Ground Floor • The maker space & exhibition space • Full scale making • Direct collaboration with close to real world experience • Environment of physical understanding

Figure 4.32 Rendering focusing on the ground floor, looking into the maker space, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 107

108

Interdisciplinary Education

Second Floor • Studio & testing • Studio-wide collaboration • Close connection to maker space below • Environment of cultural understanding

Figure 4.33 Rendering focusing on the second floor, looking into the maker space, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 109

110

Interdisciplinary Education

Third Floor • Structured learning & observing • Core instruction • Guidance from peers & instructors • Environment of discipline specific understanding

Figure 4.34 Rendering focusing on the third floor, looking into the maker space, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

Interdisciplinary Design 111

Figure 4.35 Rendering of the woodshop and satellite studio spaces with central maker space in the distance, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY).

112

Interdisciplinary Education

Interdisciplinary Design 113

114

Interdisciplinary Education

Future Considerations

The concept of collaboration within education is not new, but how to incorporate it across disciplines while still meeting strict accreditation criteria remains a challenge for all parties involved. While this thesis is a critique of architectural education, redesigning Wentworth's annex building through shifts in pedagogical relationships, programmatic interactions, and by emphasizing physical making/fabrication can lead to a cultural shift in how future architects practice and interact throughout the built environment. When continuing to expand and explore this thesis, investigating sectional relationships within the spaces that were designed will become a priority. As stated in previous chapters of this thesis, the idea of interdisciplinary collaborations falls both on pedagogy and the program that contains it. The proposed design could use more consideration in section to allow for better integration of the newly designed curriculum. There were many methods of research that facilitated this thesis. One that could have been expanded upon is the interview portion. While an effort was made to interview members of both the departments of construction management and civil engineering, no interview occurred. Interviews with the community members of the Alice Taylor Apartments would have also been beneficial to better understand the impact a building like the one designed would have on their neighborhood. To further the work already done, a deep dive into the criteria for NAAB accreditation and truly understanding how to better incorporate collaboration between majors that would keep the accreditation status for existing programs

would be key. Providing that information concerning interdisciplinary courses would allow administrations to be more welcoming to the change that is being suggested. Much of the hesitation related to these collaborative courses come from the need to meet certain criteria. The next step to make real-world change is to establish a solid foundation that meets all requirements but also goes beyond that to establish collaboration as a key part of education. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 that closed Wentworth Institute of Technology for the remainder of the semester, along with much of the country, the final thesis defense presentation occurred via a Zoom conference call. Throughout the presentation process, sectional relationships, accreditation, interviews, and the architecture itself were all spoken about. One topic that was particularly thought-provoking was that with so many universities and colleges needing to make the rapid transition to online learning, how can an interdisciplinary education, especially one based around making and hands-on experience, still occur? Many colleges may expand their online capabilities permanently following this outbreak, so how are students who are in construction-related fields able to adapt to that? This thesis explores and challenges the models of education that currently exist. With the state the world currently is in, any related future theses should address how students can continue to make and innovate when the tools needed are no longer at their disposal. Innovation will then be the source needed to produce meaningful and important work of any kind.

Future Considerations

115

116

Interdisciplinary Education

5 Figure 5.1 Analytique drawing showing the maker space, curriculum, concept model, floor plan, and diagrams of the maker space and exhibition space. The left and right show diagrams of the extremes in terms of programmatic layout, 2020, (Jake Pirulli CC BY). Future Considerations

117

Bibliography “Agency.” In Oxford Dictionary, n.d. Accessed 2019. Allen, Stan. “Introduction: Project vs. Practice.” In Practice: Architecture Technique + Representation, X-XXIII. New York: Routledge, 2009. Bacon, Mark. “The Nature of Making: Rapid Prototyping in Architecture.” Master’s Thesis, Kansas State University, 2006. Bashier, Fathi. “Reflections on Architectural Design Education: The Return of Rationalism in the Studio.” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol.3, no. 4 (December 2014): 424–30. Beorkrem, Christopher. Material Strategies in Digital Fabrication. New York: Routledge, 2013. Carpo, Mario. “The Second Digital Turn.” In The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence, 40–68. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017. “Communication.” In Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, n.d. Accessed 2019. Dunn, Nick. Digital Fabrication in Architecture. London: Laurence King, 2012. “Education.” In Oxford Dictionary, n.d. Accessed 2019. “Fabrication.” In Oxford Dictionary, n.d. Accessed 2019. Gramazio, Fabio, Matthias Kohler, and Silke Langenberg. Fabricate: Negotiating Design & Making. London: University College London Press, 2017. Huizenga, Richard. “I Design. I Build. Sometimes in That Order: An Argument for Construction-Centered Design Process.” Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2016. “Interdisciplinary.” In Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, n.d. Accessed 2019. Keats, Jonathon. You Belong to the Universe: Buckminster Fuller and the Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Manto, Andrew James, “Masterbuilders: a Gallery for Making at the Edge of the Mockup,” Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014. McPeek, Keith T. “Collaborative Design Pedagogy: A Naturalistic Inquiry of Architectural Education.” Ph.D Thesis, Texas A&M University, 2010. Ockman, Joan, and Rebecca Williamson, eds. Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012. Mallgrave, Harry Francis. “Cognition in the Flesh ...The Human in Design.” Edited by Tyler Stevermer. Thresholds 42: Human, (2014): 76–87. Paranandi, Murali. “Making Ripples: Rethinking Pedagogy in the Digital Age.” International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol.11, no. 4 (December 2013): 415–36. “Peer.” In Dictionary.com, n.d. Accessed 2019. Snoonian, Deborah, Josephine Minutillo, Martin C. Pedersen, and Laura Raskin. “The Future of Practice: Offices at Every Scale: S M L XL.” Architectural Record 206, no. 6 (June 1, 2018). 118

Interdisciplinary Education