How would you assist students to integrate specialist knowledge into their design work and provide evidence of this within their portfolio? Built Environment Education Annual Conference BEECON 2006, London Dr. Samer Bagaeen Department of Architecture University of Strathclyde

Christopher Alexander an urban analogy thinking about city structure in “A city is not a tree”, Alexander argues both ‘tree’ and ‘semi-lattice’ are ways of thinking about how a large collection of many small systems goes to make up a large and complex system

tree and semi-lattice the semi-lattice promotes integration

but to achieve integration, we need patience! in A pattern language, Alexander writes that patterns “can never be designed or built in one fell swoop but patient piecemeal growth designed in such a way that every individual act is always helping to create or generate these larger global patterns”

so, where do we start? what we want to achieve is good discipline and management from below; a bottom-up hierarchy has the structure needed for effectiveness and is easy to construct it was after all Alexander who suggested that large-scale forms could be synthesised after analysing large-scale problems into small problems so that they could be picked off one at a time

HOWEVER, … there will be difficulties the tree is accessible mentally and easy to deal with; the semi-lattice is harder to deal with; the aspects of overlap, ambiguity, and multiplicity of the semi-lattice are thicker, tougher, more subtle and more complex difficult to achieve the complexity of the semi-lattice in a single mental act

one complex situation the study of architecture small systems forming a large complex system

…where the studio is the centre of the student’s educational life

lets take for example one system / challenge in the study of architecture… for ‘Building Technology and Environment’: how is specialist knowledge integrated into the studio?

there are two aspects to this how to synthesise and design with this specialist knowledge? how to prove you have done it? the former is about the process the latter probably concerns how this knowledge is mapped clearly to ARB/RIBA criteria; the manifestation and evidence

a continuum of explicitness if a student does a technology module and is assessed on it, there is clear evidence of that specialist knowledge HOWEVER… if the desire is for integration, the very act of separating it into a discrete module can be problematic and encourages a tick-box mentality ULTIMATELY… architecture is about the whole, even if one must prove things in the portfolio individually

issues to consider when moving forward think about both the ways in which courses may be structured (modules, learning outcomes, etc.) and how they are taught that is: the balance between, on the one hand, the modularisation and therefore the ‘explicitness of evidence’, and on the other seamless integration made by encouraging ways of integrative thinking

it’s really about getting the balance right… …and promoting a way of thinking

successful integration Student Personal Development Planning Year 1 Pilot, Department of Architecture Strathclyde University

because the majority of classes in the study of architecture are compulsory in alignment with ARB professional accreditation regulations, any additional tasks that the students needed to undertake regarding SPDP were minimal therefore, every effort was made to create an integrated network of activities to deliver SPDP objectives organically grown within and woven through the curriculum

classes in specific subject areas such as Architectural History and Theory, Building Technology and Environment, and Media and Communication, run in tandem with the studio in ever increasing efforts at integration, skills and knowledge gained in these classes are tested as applications within the studio with this process of creation and reflection, there is at the core of the student’s learning within the study of architecture a development of critical faculties with regard to their own work this self-critical context is suitably tempered to SPDP the SPDP process recognised this unique aspect of the study of architecture as a supportive backdrop to the tenets of SPDP, and stressed that its existing studio structure and culture already supported and embraced the process ambition of SPDP, and had existing tangible product from this process, vis a vis Progress File components, in the form of the portfolio and the sketchbook

Dearing’s Progress File (the Dearing Report, 1997) the Progress File is the manifestation and evidence of personal development consisting of two elements: A transcript A means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development

The Portfolio by its very nature the portfolio is reflective, and acts as definitive graphic evidence that “the student has participated in a range of learning contexts at each stage and level of their programme the SPDP experience extended the remit of the architectural portfolio to the logical incorporation of SPDP objectives: that all academic work, including class work be included in the students’ academic portfolio the physical portfolio became the physical embodiment of the student’s SPDP, including the student’s understanding of the process as much as outcome

SPDP within the Department of Architecture at Strathclyde SPDP has been introduced organically into the culture of the Department to consolidate established pedagogy it was not introduced as an additional credit but integrated seamlessly with existing coursework; the Learning Enhancement Network at Strathclyde recommended embedding SPDP to the point of invisibility it was not perceived as a tick box exercise; students were encouraged to embrace the benefits of SPDP as a voluntary act of self-awareness and life-long learning most important, SPDP in the Department was administered by a single member of staff, the SPDP Coordinator whose job was to plan, manage and coordinate

For SPDP to be successfully networked into all studios, classes, tutorials, etc… it was critical that ALL STAFF: ‘buy into’ the common aspiration engage with the ambitions of integration are suitably inducted and supported while keeping additional responsibilities to a minimum to succeed, must have a ‘system/network/semi-lattice’ and a ‘manager’ in place; the SPDP Coordinator

thank you W W