Bridging The Information Gap In The Comprehensive Design Studio

The culmination of a students design education at Oklahoma State University’s School of Architecture is experienced in the nine credit hour comprehensive design studio. The approach used in teaching this studio is a team concept, with four different faculty members specializing in architectural design, mechanical systems design, and structural systems design. Additionally, separate courses in project management and environmental controls design (as elective courses) are closely linked in the same semester. The scope of the comprehensive design studio is representative of conditions the students will experience as interns upon graduation, covering many of the topics that affect the design process. One problem encountered in this course deals with the vast amount of information that needs to be provided to the students during the semester. With the great number of topics that must be covered in this course to aide the students in the comprehensive design of their building, it is not time effective to depend solely on seminars to provide this information which have traditionally supplemented the design studio during the sixteen week course. It is the goal of the faculty members to utilize alternate methods to disseminate the required information efficiently, while simultaneously keeping a productive design atmosphere in the studio. This paper will look at the alternate methods used in introducing supplemental information to the students, and will review the relative success of these methods through qualitative analysis, with suggestions for comparing the methods through the use of quantitative data in the future. Few would argue that motivated students are easier to teach or that interested students learn more than those uninterested in a subject. As an educator, finding the most effective method of getting the point across to a student is of the utmost importance. With the limited time of contact the faculty has with students, the information must be delivered quickly, concisely, and in a manner that will be retained by the student. Keeping the attention of the student is important in this process, as those uninterested in a subject will be less likely to absorb the information being provided. For Architectural Engineering students at Oklahoma State University’s School of Architecture, the result of their education is put to the test during the final semester of the curriculum, in the nine credit hour comprehensive design studio. This course approximates actual practice in an A & E firm, and looks at all phases of design, from conceptual and schematic design, through design and documentation of the structure for the students design. For the Architectural Engineering student, taking this capstone studio design course during the final semester of the curriculum allows the application of their knowledge from earlier design Page 10273.1 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education” courses to determine which structural material (timber, steel, or concrete) to utilize for the structure in their design. As could be expected, this nine credit hour course is intensive, with 20 Oklahoma State University Architectural Engineering majors Curriculum Chart hours of contact time per week between the students and the faculty involved with the course. There are four professors assigned to help teach this course; two architectural design professors, one environmental controls design professor, and one structural design professor. The four faculty members use a team approach in teaching the class of forty five students, with each of the faculty members focusing on their expertise as it pertains to the design process. A major challenge to the faculty is keeping the students motivated and moving toward the final goal of completing the design process experience. The challenge lies in keeping the students interested in the course while at the same time trying to educate the students in the numerous methods and procedures that occur in the various phases of the design process. The course covers conceptual and schematic design, design development, and construction document phases of design. Prior to this course, the students have only touched on the design development phase in a design studio, and have not progressed beyond this point in the design process. In this course, the faculty is responsible for instructing the class on many topics to which they have not previously been exposed. For this progression through the design development and contract document phases of design to be successful, the students must be provided and instructed on many different topics during the sixteen week course. The studio environment is not the best place to accomplish much of the exchange of information that must take place during the course, thus alternate methods are employed to deliver the information. Over time, the faculty has questioned which of these methods are effective in the transfer of information to the student, and which are ineffective. If the course can take advantage of using those methods that are most effective, then perhaps the students have a better chance of realizing their potential in the comprehensive design studio. Beyond studio discussions, the alternate methods utilized in the course include individual reviews with a faculty member, plus seminars on design development, construction documents, environmental controls systems, and structural systems which are presented by the faculty P ge 10273.2 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education” members. In addition to faculty seminars, practicing building code officials present seminars dealing with major building code requirements. Field trip visits to construction sites help to explain the construction process to students, and an information wall, internet web site, and handouts are used throughout the semester to constantly provide and update information on the studio project. On two occasions during the semester, students present their projects to a jury of practicing architects and engineers, who respond to the designs presented. During this sixteen week course, there is a constant stream of information that is provided, and if this is not inserted into the coursework in a timely manner, the students will not be able to proceed properly through the design process. Some of the methods listed above have become more successful than others in the distribution of information to students. Individual critique sessions with faculty members are required in all design studios, and the comprehensive studio is no exception, where they become crucial in the development of the students project. Having four faculty members allows the students to respond to alternate viewpoints on their design, which helps the students prepare for the jury process that they will encounter during the semester. This method continues to be highly effective in the transfer of information to the students, though it seems to work best during the conceptual and schematic phases of design, when technical issues are less involved. The critique process allows the faculty to have input into each of the students learning experience during the semester by focusing on their expertise. Seminars presented by faculty members occur frequently during the semester. Each of the four faculty members present seminars pertaining to areas of their expertise. These must be concise and to the point, as we have experienced that the attention span of the class of students is between 35 and 45 minutes in any one sitting. Faculty try to keep within this time frame when possible, but it is quite often difficult to present all of the information required on a topic in this short amount of time. The faculty discuss major points in their seminars, and inform the students Powerpoint slide examples used in the structural seminars presented during the semester that they are available for individual crits as needed to discuss details of the individual topics further. The success of this method depends on the faculty member and how the seminar is presented. Those that incorporate visual images into their presentations have been deemed more successful, in that the images tend to keep the attention of the class better. Additionally, those seminars that required student participation have been very successful in encouraging the P ge 10273.3 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education” students to show their knowledge, or lack of, on a subject. One idea is to use some form of guided lecture notes to encourage the students to pay attention and take notes on handouts provided to them prior to the seminar. Building code seminars are presented by practicing building code officials from Tulsa, Oklahoma. This course is the student’s first exposure to many of the complicated building code issues that must be considered in the design process, and the seminars presented by the code officials have become invaluable in educating the students on specific requirements. An initial seminar is presented to the students on the major requirements of the building code, Practicing building code officials review student projects and discuss building code issues such as egress and fire resistivity issues. A second seminar takes place later in the semester that includes the code officials reviewing each of the student’s projects and discussing with the class the common misconceptions and errors that the students have incorporated into their designs. This face to face contact with practicing professional code officials has been very successful in the design studio, giving the students a face to the building code requirements that they