The Intrinsic Assets and Obstacles of Cross-Disciplinary Integration in Architectural Pedagogy and its Suggested Implementation in the School of Design and Construction at Washington State University
By KATHERINE KNUTSON
Advisor: GREGORY KESSLER
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY College of Engineering and Architecture School of Design and Construction Spring 2015
TO THE UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE:
As thesis advisor for ___KATHERINE KNUTSON___, I have read this paper and find it satisfactory.
____________________________________________ Thesis Advisor | Gregory Kessler
____________________________________________ Date KNUTSON 1
PRÉCIS A great amount of research and planning is inherently critical in the successful creation and implementation of strong pedagogic value systems, especially within educational disciplines which have a high likelihood of impacting public health and safety. In the design disciplines (architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, construction management, etc.) inquiries often arise concerning ideal ways to find balance between emphases on art, technology, theory, practice, structure, law, and particularly notions of cross-disciplinary integration and collaboration. Within cross-disciplinary pedagogies, there exists a series of intrinsic assets to be embraced and obstacles to be overcome. For example, cross-disciplinarity affords students access to a wide variety of shared knowledge and emphasizes the importance of collaboration in the learning environment. However, it also displays potential negative tendencies such as lack of acceptance by all members of a faculty, lack of consistency between courses, and/or the minimization of the benefits found in individuality and disciplinary distinction. Through a series of analyses and case studies, the benefits of integration are ultimately found to outweigh the potential issues. Cross-disciplinary pedagogical structures are recognized to be an ideal solution for the formation of successful university graduates, provided that certain restraints are applied in the particularities and methods of its implementation. This identified system of alternative approaches to cross-disciplinarity can next be applied to the new administrative and educational strategic plan currently being formed by the School of Design and Construction at Washington State University. If it is implemented in an appropriate manner, future efforts can be made to measure its perceived success.
KNUTSON 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to Professor Greg Kessler and to my fellow students, especially Anthony Petrillo and Ashley Kopetzky. Without your inspiration, advice, and support this thesis would not be possible. You all have helped me so much along the way, both in developing this research project and throughout the time we’ve known each other. You have consistently shown me nothing but kindness and support. Thank you.
KNUTSON 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ADVISOR APPROVAL FORM……………………………………………………………… 1 PRÉCIS ……………………………………………………………………………………….
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...………………………………………………………………...
3
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………...
6
I.1 Introduction to Architectural Education and Studio Culture ………………..
6
I.2 Washington State University’s School of Design and Construction ………..
9
II. THESIS ACTIVITY …………………………………………………………………
11
III. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………………..
12
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………..
15
IV.1 Identifying the Issue ………………………………………………………....
15
IV.1.1 National Requirements …………………………………………………...
15
IV.1.2 Departmental Aims ……………………………………………………….. 16 IV.1.3 Future of the Profession ………………………………………………….
17
IV.1.4 Types of Integration ………………………………………………………
18
IV.2 Assets ……....………………………………………………………………... 20 IV.3 Obstacles …………………………………………………………………….
22
IV.4 Recommendations …………………………………………………………...
27
V. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………
29
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………….. 31
KNUTSON 4
LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1:
Five basic elements of the Beaux-Arts method …….………………………...
7
FIGURE 2:
Typical architecture course progression diagram ...…...……………………...
10
FIGURE 3:
Typical studio problem solving strategy ……………………………………... 12
FIGURE 4:
Problem solving strategy to be used in this thesis ……………………………
FIGURE 5:
Disciplinarity type qualities ………………………………………………….. 19
FIGURE 6:
Disciplinarity types diagram …………………………………………………. 19
FIGURE 7:
Required undergraduate architecture course breakdown 23 (fall 2014-spring 2015) ……………………...………………………………..
FIGURE 8:
Breakdown of obtained syllabi (fall 2012-spring 2015) ……………………... 24
FIGURE 9:
Analysis of cross-disciplinary studios (spring 2014-spring 2015) …………...
13
26
KNUTSON 5
I. INTRODUCTION I.1 Introduction to Architectural Education and Studio Culture Architectural pedagogy—or its method and practice of teaching—largely revolves around an implicit hybridity of several schools of thought.1 It aims to create students who are knowledgeable and skilled in understanding both technical, scientific realities and artistic thinking and problem solving.2 In order to facilitate such a hybridity of technics and aesthetics, science and humanity, schools typically follow a curriculum in which the design studio is the primary, centralized method of imparting knowledge.3 Generally speaking, modern studio courses follow the framework pattern established by the renowned French school Ecole de Beaux Arts.4 The Beaux Arts system was first brought into the United States and Canada in the late nineteenth century. It followed the traditional French curriculum in which architecture was taught through a master-apprentice relationship and contained five basic elements distinct from other professional disciplines (see figure 1). Students would be placed in different ateliers or studios and led by a master architect to develop a design solution. Once a project was completed, it would be evaluated through a jury system. 5
1
Joan Ockman, ed, Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2012), 10.
2
Neil Spiller and Nic Clear, eds, Educating Architects: How Tomorrow's Practitioners Will Learn Today (London: University of Greenwich, 2014), 10.
3
Ockman, Architecture School, 10.
4
Mario Estioko, John P. Forrest, and Gwen Amos, "Ten Ideas for More Effective Critiquing."
5
Ockman, Architecture School, 396-397.
KNUTSON 6
Five Basic Elements Of The Beaux-Arts Method 1.
The division of students into ateliers run by practicing architects
2.
The tradition of older students helping the younger
3.
The teaching of design by practicing architects
4.
Starting design work as soon as the student enters the atelier
5.
The system of the esquisse, or preliminary design sketch, as the
l
core of the design process Figure 1: Five basic elements of the beaux-Arts Method 6
North American architectural pedagogy saw its first major intellectual revolution in the 1930’s. The Beaux Arts jury system was accused of preferring presentation aesthetics over content or student ability and so another studio pedagogical structure was introduced to the US: the German Bauhaus method. This method primarily contrasted the Beaux Arts method through its ‘learning by doing’ attitude, compared to the French ‘learning by imitating’ attitude.7 Bauhaus schooling was founded on the idea that design was “neither an intellectual nor a material affair but simply an integral part of modern concepts of mass production and modern technology, which the Beaux Arts had refused to accept.”8 Its pedagogy was largely practical in nature and sought to communicate architectural values through a system where students were provided with opportunities to engage in technical, material work within shops and on buildings. As these two contradictory systems both gained pedagogical ground in North American schooling, there was a second intellectual revolution experienced. Schools began teaching an 6
Shonali Bose, The Design Mind: Into the Metacognitive Processes of Architecture and Design (Pullman, WA: Washington State University School of Architecture and Construction Management, 2010), 13.
7
Ockman, Architecture School, 397.
8
Jeffery A Lackney, "A History of the Studio-Based Learning Model," (1999).
KNUTSON 7
integration of the two sets of values—technology and art—rather than favoring one system over the other. This unification was accomplished through the mindset that architectural design is highly dependent on holistic knowledge and that knowledge should be used to improve design quality whenever possible.9 Contemporary studio culture follows the Beaux Arts-established curriculum of master-apprentice project structures—in which there is a given design problem, a series of analyses, desk critiques, pin-ups (intermediate group critiques), and a final critique where a solution is proposed to the original design problem—while simultaneously maintaining the Bauhaus emphasis on technology and material experience. This decision to integrate the two learning systems, while relatively obvious to today’s culture, was radical to its time and a major step in the evolution of design pedagogy. Today, many schools across the United States are attempting to evaluate and implement a third sort of major intellectual revolution: the integration of architecture with other design disciplines such as landscape architecture, urban planning, interior design, and construction management. This can be seen as another critical moment in the history of architectural pedagogy and is motivated by the inherent hybridity of the discipline and its emphasis on knowledge from a multitude of sources. As described by University of Maryland professor Madlen Simon, The trend toward integrating knowledge and skills from other curricular and disciplinary areas will no doubt accelerate [with the mass adoption of technology], just as globalization will increasingly bring the wider world into the studio and take the design studio to places around the world.10
9
Sheng-Hsiao Chiu, "Students’ Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Sharing in the Design Studio—an Exploratory Study," [International Journal of Technology and Design Education 20, no. 27 (2008)], 27-42.
10
Ockman, Architecture School, 284.
KNUTSON 8
Such an interdisciplinary attitude can be observed in North American design schooling case studies since World War II. However, it is for these reasons (i.e.: the mass adoption of technology and increased globalization) that it is just recently gaining additional pedagogical ground at an accelerated pace among a multitude of universities, specifically within Washington State University’s School of Design and Construction.
I.2 Washington State University’s School of Design and Construction Established in 2012, Washington State University’s School of Design and Construction (SDC) houses four design disciplines—architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, and construction management—and functions simultaneously under the Voiland College of Engineering and Architecture (VCEA) and the College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences (CAHNRS). Known previously as the School of Architecture and Construction Management (established in 2000), the department recently underwent a critical restructuring in which it established itself as an integrated pedagogy between the previously mentioned four design disciplines, both in name and in curriculum. The new School of Design and Construction currently houses approximately 600 students and thirty nine faculty and staff spread between its three graduate and four undergraduate degree programs.11 Of these, approximately 300 students make up the architecture program.12
11
School of Design and Construction, "Strategic Plan Draft 2015-2020," (Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2015), 2.
12
Mitra Kanaani, Suzanna Wight Kelley, Zia A. Musa, Stephen L. Sharp, and Sue Lani W. Madsen, "Washington State University School of Design and Construction Visiting Team Report," (National Architectural Accrediting Board, 2014), 4.
KNUTSON 9
The architecture program within the new SDC includes a four year Bachelor of Science degree in Architectural Studies followed by one of three tracks for the accredited Masters of Architecture degree: a one, two, or three year track (dependent on level of student design competency and speed at which they progress through the program.)13 Within their undergraduate career, students spend their first year in a fully integrated studio with other prospective architecture, landscape architecture, and interior design students. They then apply for program certification and proceed to years two through four of their schooling upon accepted certification in the undergraduate architecture degree. It is within these four undergraduate years that students are strongly encouraged to participate in cross-disciplinary pedagogies established by the school.
Figure 2: Typical architecture course progression diagram14,15 13
Paul Hirzel, "Master of Architecture Graduate Handbook," (Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2014), 3.
14
School of Design and Construction, "Bachelor of Science in Architecture Studies." (Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2014.)
KNUTSON 10
The intended purpose of the cross-disciplinary, integrated approach to architectural pedagogy by the new School of Design and Construction is to encourage a comprehensive education in design, history, theory, technology, and practice and to expose students to a collaborative learning environment.16 This is intended to mimic and adequately prepare students for success in the collaborative professional environment they will experience upon exposure to the industry.17 With collaborative, cross-disciplinary integration being the self-identified goal of the new School of Design and Construction’s pedagogical structure, it then becomes a question of how can we continue to justify, establish, and accomplish this attitude in a successful and consistent manner.
II. THESIS ACTIVITY While the current context of architectural education is composed of the three pedagogies discussed above, this thesis will focus on the interdisciplinary component. The investigation will seek to identify the intrinsic assets and obstacles of cross-disciplinary education and offer a series of recommendations that may serve as a potential framework for further establishing a consistent and comprehensive interdisciplinary education in Washington State University’s School of Design and Construction. The underlying question for this thesis is; in a diverse
15
Hirzel, "Master of Architecture Graduate Handbook," 3.
16
Kanaani Wight Kelley Musa Sharp and Madsen, "Visiting Team Report," 1-4.
17
Ibid., 7.
KNUTSON 11
academic environment, is it possible to establish an interdisciplinary pedagogy that is comprehensive and egalitarian?
III. METHODOLOGY Typically in studio-based architectural problem solving, students follow a generic series of steps to come up with a design resolution. They are initially given a problem to consider, asked to identify a series of goals to accomplish (or are provided with a set of goals), and are then responsible for analyzing the existing conditions and information relative to the project— topography, sun path, wind direction, city massings, community values, etc.—in order to create a designed solution to the given problem.18 While the design process is admittedly much more complex and deviating, this generalized series of steps provides a logical base to work from.
Figure 3: Typical studio problem solving strategy
In order to create a rational approach to the analysis of interdisciplinary learning, this thesis will follow a similar, three step problem solving strategy. It will seek to firstly identify the issue at hand and goal to be accomplished (cross-disciplinary learning in design pedagogy and its implementation into Washington State University’s School of Design and Construction), secondly analyze the intrinsic assets and obstacles involved with the implementation of such a pedagogy, and thirdly offer a series of recommendations that may serve as a potential framework
18
Lackney, "A History of the Studio-Based Learning Model.”
KNUTSON 12
for further strengthening a consistent and comprehensive interdisciplinary education in the SDC, particularly within the context of studio courses.
Figure 4: Problem solving strategy to be used in this thesis
To accomplish step one and identify the issue at hand, two primary documents will be analyzed: (1) the SDC Strategic Plan draft for 2015 to 2020 and (2) the 2014 National Architectural Accreditation Board’s Visiting Team Report. The strategic plan, while admittedly a preliminary draft, comprehensively identifies a series of administrative and pedagogical goals, proposes a series of strategies to reach them, and establishes a set of markers to measure their success.19 This document is compiled by the School of Design and Construction itself and will serve as a basis for the argument toward the implementation of interdisciplinary education. The visiting team report is an assessment of the SDC by the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB), the result of which was the renewed accreditation of the SDC Masters program.20 While the strategic plan provides a series of standards required by the department, this report serves to provide a series of standards required by national criteria. These two reports will be analyzed and cross-referenced to support the initial need for the implementation of an integrated pedagogy along with a series of scholarly works that will be assessed to support the intellectual necessity of such a policy. Finally, the concept of integration itself will be analyzed and defined by breaking it down into four categories: centric disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity,
19
School of Design and Construction, "Strategic Plan Draft.�
20
Kanaani Wight Kelley Musa Sharp and Madsen, "Visiting Team Report."
KNUTSON 13
interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. In order to accomplish step two—an analysis of the intrinsic values and obstacles of cross-disciplinary learning—a combination of scholarly works and case studies will be discussed. To establish an understanding of the potential benefits of integrated pedagogies, case studies will look into the programs of other universities in the United States and their various successes. Case studies concerning the inherent obstacles of integrated pedagogies will assess the level of implementation (or lack thereof) observed within the SDC, both in studio and general required courses. It is important to note that SDC integration will be defined as being some level of pedagogical collaboration (independent of how minor or major) between architecture and one or more of the other offered disciplines: construction management, landscape architecture, and/or interior design. Step three will offer next a series of recommendations to the School of Design and Construction based on the compilation of research completed throughout steps one and two (problem identification and intrinsic characteristic analysis, respectively). These recommendations will be limited to undergraduate course structures and will aim to further the establishment of a consistent and comprehensive interdisciplinary education—specifically within studio course contexts—while maintaining equity among disciplines. Finally, a conclusion will be composed which summarizes these findings and discusses their potential for future significance and actual implementation in the new SDC strategic plan.
KNUTSON 14
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION IV.1 Identifying the Issue IV.1.1 National Requirements In 2014, the School of Design and Construction underwent an evaluation and renewal of its status as a nationally accredited school of architecture. The result was a comprehensive documentation of the school’s values, strengths, and shortcomings compiled in the NAAB Visiting Team Report. In their report, the visiting team praised the current ability of students to collaboratively work in multi-disciplinary teams as being impressive in several courses. However, they also called for collaborative project work to significantly increase in the department as a whole as the four programs within the new SDC fully develop in their integrative pedagogies.21 This call for integrated learning is founded on national objectives which seek to produce students who are skilled in comprehensive critical thinking skills, such as the ability to use abstract ideas to interpret information and consider diverse points of view. 22 By encouraging an integrated pedagogy in which architecture students work closely with peers in interior design, landscape architecture, and construction management, it is the position of NAAB that integrated design thinking will prepare students for the realities of the professional world and foster success.23
21
Kanaani Wight Kelley Musa Sharp and Madsen, "Visiting Team Report," 22.
22
Ibid., 16.
23
Ibid., 1.
KNUTSON 15
IV.1.2 Departmental Aims Currently, the School of Design and Construction is in the process of creating a strategic plan for the next five years under the guidance of the national goals and requirements established by NAAB. Their overarching pedagogical mission is to create an integrated education and research community which fosters innovation, application, leadership, and diversity in the fields of architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, and construction management.24 While this environment has already been established, the program is still in its infancy and is relatively undeveloped. In order to further mature in its academic legitimacy, the school is experiencing a need to improve the program reputation in respect to external constituencies, to be accomplished through the vigorous leveraging of the four-program integrated framework as an ideal model for design education.25 Through this continued promotion, the SDC seeks to cultivate a pedagogy of exceptional research, innovation, and creativity which places value on engagement, outreach, experimentation, discovery, and respect for global diversity and social equity. 26 The school sees the continued promotion of an interdisciplinary educatory system as the ideal means of realizing these standards of education. Therefore, strengthening of the integrated pedagogy within the school can be deemed as being critical as will inherently increase program promotion and positive reputation.
24
School of Design and Construction, "Strategic Plan Draft,� 18.
25
Ibid., 28.
26
Ibid., 2-18.
KNUTSON 16
IV.1.3 Future of the Profession Through both the national and university-established calls to action, a significant focus is placed on the critical nature of a comprehensive knowledge base. This is due to the very core of the discipline of architecture depending on a complex understanding of several elements. In the first century BC, architect, author, and civil engineer Vitruvius described the role of the architect in his Ten Books on Architecture. He wrote:
Let [the architect] be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history, have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, know the opinions of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the heavens. 27
Today, similar intrinsic complexities hold true. Contemporary students and professionals alike are expected to understand a wide range of knowledge and skills including the intricacies of form, structure, aesthetics, history, theory, law, and economics to name a few.28 The very definition of architecture calls for a complex multiplicity of understandings and skills. Therefore, its pedagogy should seek to reflect that attitude. This notion of multiplicity can undoubtedly be accomplished through the successful implementation of a cross-disciplinary, integrated pedagogical structure. The successful integration of design disciplines holds the potential to encourage and push critical thinking, prepare students for success in the professional
27
Spiller and Clear, Educating Architects, 92.
28
Ibid., 93.
KNUTSON 17
world, and maintain the level of esteem held by the profession itself.29 It is for these reasons that integrated educational models can be seen as imperative for the future of architecture.30
IV.1.4 Types of Integration In order to proceed with the analysis of integrated design pedagogy, it is crucial to firstly define what exactly integration means within the context of this research and, secondly, to define its various forms of implementation. In this research, disciplinary integration will be defined as having some sort of collaboration between architecture students and students of one or more of the other disciplines offered in a school: landscape architecture, interior design, and/or construction management for example in the SDC. This collaboration will not be restricted to any particular of level of implementation and will instead include occurrences of every scale ranging from a single minor project within a course to the entire semester itself. In the analysis of collaborative pedagogy, the practice of integration will be broken down into four disciplinary types: centric disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. Centric-disciplinary-based pedagogies are structures in which only a single discipline is exhibited and no cross-disciplinary collaboration is experienced.31 In multidisciplinary pedagogies, an approach is taken that juxtaposes disciplines, fostering wider knowledge, information, and methods, but the disciplines remain separate. In contrast,
29
Aaron Koch, Katherine Schwennsen, Thomas A Dutton, and Deanna Smith. "The Redesign of Studio Culture: A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force," 2002, 3.
30
Lori Brown, and Joseph Godlewski. "7 Ways to Transform Studio Culture & Bring It into the 21st Century."
31
Ockman, Architecture School, 291.
KNUTSON 18
interdisciplinarity involves the collaboration of two or more disciplines where the distinctions between each are not so strictly maintained. Finally, transdisciplinarity refers to a system which transcends the scope of disciplinary worldviews through an overarching synthesis and results in the formation of a combined, additional disciplinary entity.32
CENTRIC DISCIPLINARITY Singular No collaborative efforts
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY Juxtaposing Sequencing Coordinating
INTERDISCIPLINARITY Integrating Interacting Linking Focusing Blending
TRANSDISCIPLINARITY Transcending Transgressing Transforming
Figure 5: Disciplinarity type qualities 33
Figure 6: Disciplinarity types diagram
With these disciplinarity types identified and defined, the question then becomes; is any one form superior to another—especially within the design studio context—and how can we implement one or more method to achieve a consistent and comprehensive cross-disciplinary education in the SDC?
32
Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 16-24.
33
Frodeman, Thompson Klein, and Mitcham, The Oxford Handbook, 16.
KNUTSON 19
IV.2 Assets In order to truly understand the nature of cross-disciplinary design pedagogies, an analysis must be made of their intrinsic characteristics, both positive and negative. Through this analysis, it becomes apparent a series of innate assets or benefits can be observed in all forms of cross-disciplinarity, particularly the ability to foster both personal, professional growth in individual students and collaborative relationships between groups of students. As described by the National Architectural Accreditation Board, there is a critical need for architecture students to be prepared for the professional environment and its diversity of design considerations. One major asset of a fundamentally integrated design curriculum is its ability to expose students to this atmosphere.34 Students who experience such pedagogical atmospheres typically are highly skilled in the collaborative work environments crucial to successful, professional delivery of the built environment and are able to promote innovative, human-centered design and business practices.35 Wholly collaborative learning environments elevate teamwork above all else and work upon the notion that people are innately smarter as a collective group than any individual can be.36 In addition to preparation for successful entry into the industry, cross-disciplinary pedagogies place an emphasis on the formation of collaborative relationships between students. These systems are able to create an environment where the sharing of knowledge is adamantly encouraged and there exists a resulting collective transparency between students and faculty. 34
Kanaani Wight Kelley Musa Sharp and Madsen, "Visiting Team Report," 7.
35
School of Design and Construction, "Strategic Plan Draft,� 18.
36
Susan Cain, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012).
KNUTSON 20
This collective knowledge base is intuitively critical to the development of a true understanding of architecture as a discipline. Most design problems are extremely complex when they first appear and are often too complicated for a single discipline to adequately conquer. If real-world elements are incorporated into the given problem, cross-disciplinary collaboration is then fundamentally needed and will allow students to successfully and holistically address the design issue and come up with a solution.37 This attitude of encouraging students from the beginning of their design education to feel their work is part of a dialogue within a wider design community is essential to their future growth and will allow them to find success in collective, collaborative work environments with other designers.38 This interdisciplinary, collaborative pedagogical work environment has been successfully implemented in several schools of architecture in the United States. Perhaps most notably, Joseph Hudnut helped to establish the Harvard Graduate School of Design in 1936. Within this school, Hudnut established a series of optional, joint studios where students from all three disciplines offered were encouraged to work together.39 The major benefit to his foundational interdisciplinary design curriculum was its ability to create disciplinary ‘contaminations’ in which ideas and knowledge were openly passed from one discipline to another and not contained in a theoretical vacuum.40 Today, successful examples of interdisciplinarity can be found in universities such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology (offering architecture and urban studies and planning), 37
Frodeman, Thompson Klein, and Mitcham, The Oxford Handbook, 31.
38
Spiller and Clear, Educating Architects, 98.
39
Ockman, Architecture School, 398.
40
Spiller and Clear, Educating Architects, 197.
KNUTSON 21
University of California Los Angeles (offering architecture and urban design), and University of California Berkeley (offering architecture, planning, and landscape architecture).41, 42, 43
IV.3 Obstacles In contrast to the intrinsic assets of cross-disciplinarity in design pedagogies, there exists a series of intrinsic obstacles associated with their successful implementation. For example, issues are commonly found with their acceptance by existing faculty, level of consistency, and ability to maintain disciplinary distinction. Within the last academic year (fall 2014 to spring 2015), there is a significant lack of consistency found in the level of implementation of cross-disciplinary pedagogic class structures in the SDC. Out of the required undergraduate courses (general and all studio sections combined), only 47% of professors implemented some level of scholastic collaboration between architecture and one of the other disciplines into their curricula. Out of all studio sections offered in this past academic year, a mere 25% displayed some amount of integration (see Figure 7). While first year required courses are holistically integrated, there is a sudden and prominent drop in cross-disciplinarity observed in years two through four. These statistics serve to demonstrate one of the major intrinsic obstacles faced with the implementation of a cross-disciplinary pedagogy; where an existing structure precedes the
41
"MIT School of Architecture Planning: Overview,” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology,) http://sap.mit.edu/school/overview.
42
"Architecture School Chair Statement – UCLA,” (University of California Los Angeles,) http://www.aud.ucla.edu/welcome/chair_statement.html.
43
"About CED,” (University of California Berkeley,) http://ced.berkeley.edu/about-ced/.
KNUTSON 22
formation of an integrated one, there is often bound to be a lack of enthusiasm or ability by professors to change course descriptions. The result is an inconsistency in collaboration experienced by students.
, 45, 46, 47
Figure 7: Required undergraduate architecture course breakdown (fall 2014-spring 2015) 44
This lack of acceptance and consistency can further be demonstrated through the analysis of studio courses since the formation of the School of Design and Construction in 2012. Out of nineteen syllabi obtained from the last six semesters (fall 2012 through spring 2015), only 26% of courses offer any indication that interdisciplinary collaboration occurred within their durations (see Figure 8). Remembering that the label of ‘integrated’ is applied to any course which demonstrates some level of pedagogical collaboration between architecture and one or more of 44
School of Design and Construction. "Bachelor of Science in Architecture Studies."
45
School of Design and Construction. "Four Year Curriculum in Construction Management."
46
School of Design and Construction. "The Four-Year Landscape Architecture Curriculum at WSU."
47
School of Design and Construction. "Interior Design Recommended Course Distribution."
KNUTSON 23
the other SDC design disciplines, independent of how small, this means that over the past six semesters, fourteen out of nineteen studio courses have zero indication that any crossdisciplinary interaction was experienced by students.
BREAK DOWN OF OBTAINED SYLLABI (Fall 2012-Spring 2015) INTEGRATED WITH… SEMESTER COURSE CM LA ID ARCH 101.2 48 Fall 2012 ARCH 301 49 ARCH 201 50 ARCH 301 51 Fall 2013 ARCH 401 52 ARCH 401 53 ARCH 401 54 SDC 140 55 56 Spring 2014 ARCH 303 ARCH 303 57
48
John Abell and Matthew A. Cohen. ARCH 101.2 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2012).
49
Anna Mutin. ARCH 301 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2012).
50
Ayad Rahmani. ARCH 201 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2013).
51
Mary Polites. ARCH 301 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2013).
52
Darrin Griechen. ARCH 401 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2013).
53
Bashir Kazimee. ARCH 401 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2013).
54
Robert Hutchinson. ARCH 401 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2013).
55
Kathleen Ryan, Taiji Miyasaka, and Jolie B Kaytes. SDC 140 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
56
Bashir Kazimee. ARCH 303 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
57
Rafi Samizay. ARCH 303 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
KNUTSON 24
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
ARCH 303.2 58 ARCH 403 59 ARCH 201 60 ARCH 201.2 61 ARCH 401 62 SDC 140 63 ARCH 203.2 64 ARCH 403.1 65 ARCH 403.2 66
Figure 8: Breakdown of obtained syllabi (fall 2012-spring 2015) where CM=construction management, LA=landscape architecture, and ID=interior design
Of these five studios which did demonstrate some level of integration, three can be described as having a multidisciplinary approach while the other two appear to have transdisciplinary qualities (see Figure 9.) Another intrinsic obstacle faced with collaborative studios is precisely this; their tendency to fall to one of the extremes of cross-disciplinarity— total implementation or minimal conformity.
58
Mary Polites. ARCH 303.2 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
59
Darrin Griechen. ARCH 403 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
60
Ayad Rahmani. ARCH 201 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
61
Bashir Kazimee. ARCH 201.2 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
62
Gregory Kessler. ARCH 401 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2014).
63
Kathleen Ryan, Ayad Rahmani, and Jolie B Kaytes. SDC 140 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2015).
64
Bashir Kazimee. ARCH 203.2 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2015).
65
Darrin Griechen. ARCH 403.1 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2015).
66
Gregory Kessler. ARCH 403.2 Syllabus, (Pullman, WA: School of Design and Construction, 2015).
KNUTSON 25
ANALYSIS OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY STUDIOS (Spring 2014-Spring 2015) INTEGRATION TYPE SEMESTER COURSE MD ID TD 67 SDC 140 Spring 2014 ARCH 303.2 68 ARCH 401 69 Fall 2014 70 SDC 140 Spring 2015 ARCH 403.2 71 Figure 9: Analysis of cross-disciplinary studios (spring 2014-spring 2015) where MD=multidisciplinary, ID=interdisciplinary, and TD=transdisciplinary integration types observed
A final intrinsic obstacle observed with cross-disciplinary design pedagogies is its ability to maintain disciplinary distinction and student individuality. Often with the notion of integrated learning systems, professors assign a series of extensive group projects. Referred to as the ‘new Groupthink’ by author Susan Cain, this mass adoption of group projects has resulted in a phenomenon which shows potential to stifle productivity and deprive students of the independent skills they’ll need to achieve success in the professional world. While intending to mimic the collaborative nature of the industry, within school settings the ‘new Groupthink’ can create situations where students’ respect for others is based on verbal abilities, not necessarily on originality or insight. It often becomes more a matter of which student can speak the most noticeably and/or eloquently at the expense of all other personality types.72 This extreme form of
67
Kathleen Ryan, Taiji Miyasaka, and Jolie B Kaytes. SDC 140 Syllabus.
68
Mary Polites. ARCH 303.2 Syllabus.
69
Gregory Kessler. ARCH 401 Syllabus.
70
Kathleen Ryan, Ayad Rahmani, and Jolie B Kaytes. SDC 140 Syllabus.
71
Gregory Kessler. ARCH 403.2 Syllabus.
72
Susan Cain, Quiet.
KNUTSON 26
collaboration poses the risk of students giving up their best personal designs to meet the needs of the group mindset and should be treated with caution.73
IV.4 Recommendations Through the fundamental understanding of both the intrinsic assets and obstacles of cross-disciplinary learning, a series of recommendations can now be created on how to best implement this type of design pedagogy. Specifically, the larger ramifications of this work can and should be realized through its being put into practice by the School of Design and Construction at Washington State University. This set of recommendations will collectively seek to encourage the continued implementation of integrated design pedagogical structures. It will attempt to establish a learning environment where individual disciplinary integrities will be maintained while simultaneously allowing for a rich sense of collaboration among students and faculty. Suggestions will be formulated based on their realistic ability to be successfully implemented within a five-year timeframe, as outlined by the SDC Strategic Plan scope of planning.74 In order to successfully realize these pedagogical objectives, a series of restraints must be identified. Firstly, in response to the ‘new Groupthink’ phenomenon being observed as of late, it is recommended that strategies which strongly favor group projects be approached with a high level of caution. While architectural education should undoubtedly seek to produce students who are adequately prepared for transition into the professional world, it should be noted that there is a fundamental difference between educational and professional environments. The total favoring 73
Koch, Schwennsen, Dutton, and Smith. "The Redesign of Studio Culture," (2002), 6.
74
School of Design and Construction, "Strategic Plan Draft,” 3.
KNUTSON 27
towards group-project based learning tends to dilute the essential differences of each stage in design thinking in its attempts to replicate industry attitudes. Through its relentless promotion of teamwork, the ‘Groupthink’ learning strategy risks the stifling of a truly developed sense of individuality in the learning experience. This lack of individuality can easily become a major hindrance within the context of schooling, where our personalities, aesthetics, and merits as designers are still in the process of being formulated. This type of development can undoubtedly be encouraged through opportunities for collaboration and interaction with the other disciplinary design fields. However, it does not so easily align itself with a fully collaborated, ‘Groupthink’based environment. Students should therefore be afforded equal if not more opportunities to experience individual work as they are group work in the SDC. That being said, it should be noted that experience must not be treated as being synonymous to growth. Simply providing some sort of integrated pedagogical experience is not enough. We as educators and students must respond to the fundamental call of higher learning: intellectual and theoretical growth. Just because we experience an integrated program through proximity does not necessarily mean we are able to develop who we are as designers or grow from it, an essential prerequisite of both academic and professional success. So the question now becomes; how can we simultaneously facilitate collaborative growth and maintain individuality and disciplinary distinction in a single pedagogical approach? To simultaneously achieve collective growth and cultivation of individuality, it is recommended that a well-developed, diverse series of integrated experiences be offered to students. This may include minor, introductory collaborative projects in the initial weeks of a design studio course or a series of workshops, lectures, and/or seminars—potentially student led—that seek to facilitate the interdisciplinary spreading of knowledge between students. These KNUTSON 28
sorts of alternative methods of collaboration would allow students the opportunity to directly trade knowledge and gain understanding of unique approaches to design taken by each of the relative disciplines. At the same time, they would not hamper our individual opportunities to profoundly delve into the depths and core beliefs of architectural studies. In total, the interdisciplinary learning environments in the SDC should seek to develop and demonstrate a similar multiplicity of pedagogical values as identified by architects Nanako Umemoto and Jesse Reiser: Our experience has been that truly innovative projects are not solitary productions, but the result of collaborations among the disciplines, each contributing its own expertise. This does not mean that architecture alone cannot drive the discourse, rather that it can have resonance with other disciplines by probing its own boundaries.75
It is for these reasons that caution should be exercised in the creation of inter- or transdisciplinary programs. A multidisciplinary approach with some interdisciplinary elements may be best suited at successfully accomplishing a comprehensive and holistic education while still maintaining the singularities and unique attributes intrinsic to the study of architecture.
V. CONCLUSION Throughout the course of this research, it has become apparent that cross-disciplinarity in architectural pedagogy holds significant potential to define and improve the learning experience. It has the ability to create graduates who are highly skilled in collaborative interaction and comprehensive design thinking. However, it has also become apparent that the implementation such an approach holds a series of intrinsic obstacles to be overcomed, particularly acceptance 75
Spiller and Clear, Educating Architects, 212.
KNUTSON 29
by existing faculty, the establishment of consistency among course foci, and the maintenance of disciplinary distinctions. In order to successfully strengthen the cross-disciplinary attitude of the School of Design and Construction, it is apparent that alternative multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to educational integration should be taken. These methods may serve to simultaneously facilitate collaborative growth and maintain individuality among students and, under ideal implementation, will ultimately serve to strengthen the profession of architecture itself. If these revelations and recommendations were to be appropriately integrated into the new SDC strategic plan, they hold the potential to strengthen the department as a whole and promote the widespread use of such systems in architectural pedagogy. While the scope of this research is limited to theoretical proposals, it could easily be translated into applied actions and implemented in existing required courses. Its success could then be measured through course evaluations, student grades, and opportunities for student input and assessment to determine the next steps in its continued evolution.
KNUTSON 30
REFERENCES
"About CED,” University of California Berkeley. <http://ced.berkeley.edu/about-ced/>. "Architecture School Chair Statement – UCLA,” University of California Los Angeles. <http://www.aud.ucla.edu/welcome/chair_statement.html>. Abell, John, Matthew A. Cohen. ARCH 101.2 Syllabus. 2012. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Bose, Shonali. The Design Mind: Into the Metacognitive Processes of Architecture and Design. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, School of Architecture and Construction Management, 2010. Brown, Lori, Joseph Godlewski. "7 Ways to Transform Studio Culture & Bring It into the 21st Century" 13 Jun 2014. ArchDaily. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=515146>
Cain, Susan. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. New York: Crown Publishers, 2012. Chiu, Sheng-Hsiao. "Students’ Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Sharing in the Design Studio— an Exploratory Study." International Journal of Technology and Design Education 20, no. 27 (2008): 27-42. Estioko, Mario, John P. Forrest, and Gwen Amos. "Ten Ideas for More Effective Critiquing." Print. Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. Griechen, Darrin. ARCH 401 Syllabus. 2013. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Griechen, Darrin. ARCH 403 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Griechen, Darrin. ARCH 403.1 Syllabus. 2015. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Hirzel, Paul. "Master of Architecture Graduate Handbook." 2014. Hutchinson, Robert . ARCH 401 Syllabus. 2013. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Kanaani, Mitra, Suzanna Wight Kelley, Zia A. Musa, Stephen L. Sharp, and Sue Lani W. Madsen. "Washington State University School of Design and Construction Visiting Team Report." 2014. KNUTSON 31
Kazimee Bashir. ARCH 201.2 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Kazimee, Bashir. ARCH 203.2 Syllabus. 2015. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Kazimee, Bashir. ARCH 303 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Kazimee, Bashir. ARCH 401 Syllabus. 2013. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Kessler, Gregory. ARCH 401 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Kessler, Gregory. ARCH 403.2 Syllabus. 2015. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Koch, Aaron, Katherine Schwennsen, Thomas A Dutton, and Deanna Smith. "The Redesign of Studio Culture: A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force." 2002. Lackney, Jeffery A. "A History of the Studio-Based Learning Model." 1999.
MIT School of Architecture Planning: Overview,â&#x20AC;? Massachusetts Institute of Technology. <http://sap.mit.edu/school/overview>. Mutin, Anna. ARCH 301 Syllabus. 2012. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Ockman, Joan, ed. Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press ;, 2012. Polites, Mary. ARCH 301 Syllabus. 2013. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Polites, Mary. ARCH 303.2 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Rahmani, Ayad. ARCH 201 Syllabus. 2013. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Rahmani, Ayad. ARCH 201 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Ryan, Kathleen, Ayad Rahmani, Jolie B Kaytes. SDC 140 Syllabus. 2015. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. Ryan, Kathleen, Taiji Miyasaka, Jolie B Kaytes. SDC 140 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print.
KNUTSON 32
Samizay, Rafi. ARCH 303 Syllabus. 2014. School of Design and Construction, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Print. School of Design and Construction. "Strategic Plan Draft 2015-2020." 2015. Spiller, Neil, and Nic Clear, eds. Educating Architects: How Tomorrow's Practitioners Will Learn Today. London: University of Greenwich, 2014. Washington State University, School of Design and Construction. "Bachelor of Science in Architecture Studies." 2014. Washington State University, School of Design and Construction. "Four Year Curriculum in Construction Management." 2013. Washington State University, School of Design and Construction. "The Four-Year Landscape Architecture Curriculum at WSU." 2014. Washington State University, School of Design and Construction. "Interior Design Recommended Course Distribution." 2014.
KNUTSON 33