Sustainable Architectural Education - Environmental Design in ...

First published by EDUCATE Press 2012 Department of Architecture and Built Environment University of Nottingham, United Kingdom NG7 2RD

Edited by: Dr Sergio Altomonte Authored by: EDUCATE Project Partners, www.educate-sustainability.eu Designed by: Dr Sergio Altomonte, assisted by EDUCATE Project Partners

© EDUCATE Press/University of Nottingham © Text: EDUCATE © Images: EDUCATE, unless otherwise stated

ISBN: 978-0-9573450-0-3

Cover Image

School of the Built Environment Classroom with Students © The University of Nottingham Photo credits: Martine Hamilton Knight

Disclaimer The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. This publication has been prepared with the primary aim of providing general information about the activities and outcomes of the EDUCATE project and is not intended to constitute specific advice. Although every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information and material here presented was accurate at the time of publication, it can be subject to variation at any time without notice and no warranty whatsoever is given that any information or material provided will be accurate or complete at any particular time or at all.

EDUCATE

Table of Contents

Table of Contents List of Authors .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 The Challenge of Education for Sustainability ................................................................................................... 6 Agenda for Sustainable Architectural Education ............................................................................................... 8 Pedagogical Objectives and Learning Outcomes ........................................................................................... 12 Programme Structure and Methods for Teaching and Learning ..................................................................... 16 Priorities for Transfer of the Pedagogy ............................................................................................................ 20 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................... 25 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix - Best Practice in Sustainable Architectural Education ................................................................... 31

Sustainable Architectural Education

3

EDUCATE

List of Authors

List of Authors This white paper on “Sustainable Architectural Education” is the result of a collaborative effort directed and coordinated by Sophie Trachte and Andre’ de Herde (Universite’ catholique de Louvain), and with the specific contribution of Maria López de Asiain and Celina Escobar Burgos (Seminario de Arquitectura y Medioambiente), Sergio Altomonte and Andrew Gibson (University of Nottingham).


4

EDUCATE

Foreword

Foreword Only through Beauty's morning gate, dost thou enter the land of Knowledge Friedrich Schiller

Sustainability has become a pervasive influence and seemingly ubiquitous presence within higher education programmes. The scale of anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s life systems, the compelling evidence of a rapidly changing climate, international directives concerning the pursuit of sustainable development, and stringent legislative requirements, have all contributed to the acknowledgement that education at both preand post-professional levels has a significant role to play in addressing these challenges. As key contributors to global emissions and wider environmental issues, it is widely recognised that architecture and other disciplines of the built environment must act appropriately and decisively. In response, educators, students, and practitioners have understandably been charged with significant responsibility to engage fully with the sustainability agenda, although there are numerous pedagogical, regulatory, and professional barriers that must be overcome. This white paper on “Sustainable Architectural Education” represents a comprehensive synthesis of the activities performed by the EDUCATE (Environmental Design in University Curricula and Architectural Training in Europe) project from 2009 to 2012. In so doing, it draws largely from key previously published documents that include the following:  State of the Art of Environmental Sustainability in Academic Curricula and Conditions for Registration (2010)  State of the Art of Environmental Sustainability in Professional Practice (2010)  Benchmarking of Professional Needs (2011)  Framework for Curriculum Development (2011)  Results of Course and Curriculum Development (2012)  Criteria for Professional Qualification (2012) These documents are all available for download from http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/download The paper presented here proposes a series of pedagogical principles and practices - illustrated in terms of mission agenda, learning outcomes, programme structure, methods for teaching and learning, and priorities for transfer of the pedagogy - that aim to promote the effective implementation of sustainable environmental design at different stages of architectural education across Europe and beyond. Far from advocating the standardisation of pedagogies in programmes of higher education, this paper fully supports the requirement for flexibility, autonomy, cultural diversity and innovation in academic and pre- and post-professional training in architecture and cognate disciplines of the built environment. As such, the principles and practices here presented are solely intended to provide guidelines for curriculum and course development, therefore enhancing educational provisions and moving closer to the goal of embracing environmental sustainability within architecture and urban design.


5

EDUCATE

The Challenge of Education for Sustainability

The Challenge of Education for Sustainability Education for sustainability is an emerging paradigm that transcends disciplinary boundaries, wielding a potentially profound, but also imprecisely understood, influence that requires a reflection on the way in which new generations of students and practitioners are trained within academic and professional institutions. If the sustainability agenda now looms large, the central concept is, however, inherently elusive and largely defies consensus beyond a relatively shallow one. By far, the most commonly cited definition relating to sustainability, encountered in countless examples of scholarly and pedagogical literature, originates from the Brundtland Report, part of the UN World Commission on Economic and World Development. Although addressing the concept of ‘sustainable development’ - and not ‘sustainability’ per se - the Commissioners asserted that development is to be considered sustainable if it “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Several scholars have ventured to offer their own adaptation to this definition, clearly inspired by the vision articulated in this ground-breaking report: as an example, [sustainability may be conceived as] “a set of conditions whereby human and natural systems can continue indefinitely in a state of mutual well-being, security and survival” (Jones at al., 2010). However, such an interpretation still leaves the question of how does one arrive at a less subjective understanding of ‘well-being’, and how might this square with the constant shadow of threats to one’s very existence? For some others, the very word ‘sustainability’, which at its most basic level conveys an impression of continuously carrying on, is limiting and, indeed, inherently static. It can also further obscure the qualitative dimension of comprehending that which is to be sustained, or the extent to which it is to be gauged by such equally subjective measures as justice and equity. Perceived conceptual frailties and imprecision have also been voiced against sustainability, a slippery, imprecise and contested concept that should be immediately recognised as a social construct. This inherent lack of conceptual clarity is further exposed within the realm of education, and there is a danger that what emerges is essentially a superficial consensus predicated upon the potentially prescriptive aims of educating for sustainability. Scholarly perceptions of the pedagogical impact of sustainability are complex and not necessarily complementary. Based upon research in the specific domain of architectural education (e.g., Salama and Amir, 2005; Guy and Moore, 2007; Graham, 2008; Rice, 2011; etc.), sustainability surely represents a social change agenda informed by an understanding that technological solutions cannot hope to single-handedly eliminate the need for a fundamental revision of ethics - from the institutional to the personal level - and the values and motivation of all parties involved in the educational process. Such an investigation necessitates asking broader questions of how and why students learn. Approaching sustainability in a non-prescriptive manner should be deemed a pedagogical imperative. The challenge is to be found not so much in an illusory pursuit of agreement upon precise goals, but in the ability to appreciate situation-specific contexts and embrace multiple interpretations of a sustainable approach to design informed by place and a sense of history (Timmerman and Metcalfe, 2009; Wals and Jickling, 2002). Sustainability should be integral to architectural design and education. Buildings and urban spaces significantly influence the way of living and thinking of their users. Therefore, it is crucial that academic programmes of disciplines of the built environment embrace the key values of sustainable development, which encompass: integration of ecological, economical, and social dimensions; inter- and intra- generational equity; collective responsibility; recognition of scientific uncertainties; and, participation and good governance. As a result, academics and students are confronted with the significant challenge of negotiating a clear path that embraces robust, pluralist, contextually-sensitive conceptions of sustainability. However, lecturers and tutors frequently discover how difficult it is to incentivise or motivate students to apply knowledge and principles pertaining to sustainability in their design work. It also seems clear that any ambition to promote commitment to questions of education for sustainability is confronted by appreciable and multi-layered pedagogical challenges. Educators face the demanding task of trying to understand the complexities of students’ engagement and negotiate with its multiple dimensions (Schwarzin, et al., 2011). Conversely, logistical factors and attitudinal approaches also impact upon effective teaching and learning for, and of, sustainability. Indeed, it may be argued that both academics and students often, for different reasons,


6

EDUCATE

The Challenge of Education for Sustainability

fail to depart from purely transmissive educational models, where theoretical knowledge is delivered (and acquired) independently from its practical application and creative design exploration (Gelernter, 1988). Education for sustainability raises profound questions concerning how knowledge is acquired and applied, and the limits to discipline-based pedagogies. Deep engagement with learning should be achieved by anchoring the acquisition of principles and values with experience, and establishing a unifying framework that permits effective dialogue across disciplinary domains (Warburton, 2003). Enquiry and discussion should be fostered by the pedagogy, so that connections between key concepts can be made. Students should be encouraged to engage in analytic and synthetic processes at diverse levels, emphasising reflection and critical understanding. A meaningful education for sustainability should entice students to take active control over the cognitive processes of problem-solving and evaluating their own progress. At the broader curriculum level, therefore, education for sustainability should be best tackled within a more fully integrated pedagogical framework in which traditional disciplinary ‘silos’ are purposely transcended. It is certainly conceivable, and to be hoped, that the very complexities attending sustainability and the pursuit of greater multi/inter/transdisciplinarity can offer rich and inspiring pedagogical opportunities, including the potential to facilitate critically, creatively and deeply engaged students. In conclusion, education for sustainability faces stiff and diverse challenges, many, doubtless, of a general and generic nature, relating to such matters as resources, expertise and commitment. Other challenges relate more to how the sustainability agenda can impact upon particular institutional contexts and how sustainability is understood, interpreted and applied according to individual pedagogies, framed - as it should be - by subject benchmarks, professional guidelines and national and international regulatory frameworks. Nevertheless, the various ambiguities and inconsistencies associated with education for sustainability need not be solely considered as a source of weakness, but rather as opportunities to analyse and negotiate competing knowledge claims, from different academic disciplines, and thereby stimulate investigative thinking and effective learning experiences. The rendering of such into sound pedagogical practices should stimulate institutional and personal motivation, from academics, students, and professionals, towards the promotion of sustainability as the ultimate aim of any pedagogical process at all levels of education1.

1

For each chapter of this paper, a selected list of references and further literature reading is provided in the final Bibliography available on page 25.


7

EDUCATE

Agenda for Sustainable Architectural Education

Agenda for Sustainable Architectural Education Architectural education should foster knowledge, skills, and competence in sustainable environmental design, aiming to achieve comfort, delight, well-being and energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, and in urban spaces. This should be promoted within a culturally, economically, and socially viable design process at all stages of the training of building practitioners, by adoption of the following principles2:

1. SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SHOULD BE SEEN AS A PRIORITY IN THE EDUCATION OF BUILDING PRACTITIONERS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR STUDIES AND THROUGH TO CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT A sustainable approach to architecture and urban design should assume a core position in the training of building practitioners, starting from the earliest stages of curricula and feeding forward into life-long learning. Education plays a fundamental role in raising awareness amongst students and professionals, and in giving them the knowledge and commitment to put sustainable development into practice. Particular importance should be given to the development of sustainability literacy as a ‘core competence’. Pedagogical methods should move away from transmissive educational models, towards fostering critical and holistic thinking and building systemic connections between different cognitive domains. Sustainable environmental design should be professed as a core architectural skill with the potential to deliver low (or zero) carbon emitting / energy consuming buildings, while encompassing the aesthetic, economic, ethical, social and cultural values inherent in a responsible design process. This approach should be based on carefully thought-out design principles - albeit regrettably often confused with technicist solutions - which treat the environment as a form generator and adopt physical forces as architectural concerns.

2. HIGHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS, EDUCATORS, STUDENTS, AND PRACTITIONERS SHOULD ALL BE COMMITTED TO THIS PRIORITY For the successful implementation of principles and values of sustainability in higher and professional education, an ethical commitment and unambiguous, determined, and effective leadership - supported by a robust system of institutional dedication - is paramount. A positive ethos towards sustainability requires the creation of an inspiring environment in support of the pedagogy. This should start from the design and operation of the institution itself, so that students are able to see the concepts that they are learning put into practice. The holistic, linked-systems, nature of sustainability calls for collaboration and the pooling of skills and knowledge beyond disciplinary boundaries. Sustainability should be viewed as a core theme by all staff and students, demanding a reflection and/or review of the entire curriculum. Lecturers and tutors, with their attitudes and beliefs, are credible and authoritative role models of integrity in a student’s life, this being particularly relevant for the staff teaching design studio, especially at the early stages of education. The advertisement and promotion of the course is also essential to attract both enthusiastic students and staff, who already have a commitment, understanding, and/or positive attitude towards sustainability.

3. TEACHING AND LEARNING SHOULD ENTHUSE AND INSPIRE STUDENTS TO RIGOROUSLY AND CREATIVELY ADDRESS DESIGN CHALLENGES A starting point for addressing the danger of a deterministic response to current design challenges is held to a pedagogy promoting awareness and enthusiasm, and fostering inspiration and creativity. A robust engagement with sustainability is strongly contingent upon the values held and communicated, and the 2

The ten principles of the “EDUCATE Agenda for Sustainable Architectural Education” were proposed by the EDUCATE partners at a Symposium held in Budapest (Hungary) in January 2010. The Agenda - here edited and revised from its original version - resulted form the priorities identified within the intial task of the EDUCATE project, which focused on the analysis of the international state of the art of environmental sustainability in architectural education and professional practice. The original Agenda is featured in the March 2010 Printed Newsletter available on http://www.educatesustainability.eu/newsletter-mar-2010.php and is also included in the “EDUCATE Framework for Curriculum Development” downloadable from http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/educate-framework


8

EDUCATE


degree of incentive felt, by all parties involved in the teaching and learning process. Motivation, either intrinsic or extrinsic, is integral to education for sustainability and both realms reveal particular pedagogical opportunities to foster rigorous and creative design thinking. Intrinsic motivation can originate from a challenge, interest, curiosity, a desire for autonomy, a determination to achieve a task or a fear of failing it. It can be induced by a pedagogical approach that promotes student-centred learning, through collaborative and process-oriented methods. In contrast, extrinsically motivated students are moved by a need for recognition, praise, or reward (e.g., grades). Such motivation can be a powerful driver in today’s competitive academic and professional environments. Education for sustainability needs to be as participatory and inclusive as possible. Students are highly influenced by their tutors and peers, and seek to adapt their behaviour in order to fit in. Constructive and well-timed feedback can stimulate debate and reinforce attitudes conducive to sustainable values. Lecturers and tutors need to be flexible and critically reflective in their pedagogical approach, fully aware that what motivates some students may alienate others.

4. EDUCATORS SHOULD PROMOTE A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO DESIGN THROUGH APPROPRIATE PEDAGOGICAL METHODS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES Pedagogical methods should provide the theoretical principles, empirical applications, and analytic capacities necessary to inform the creative exploration of design. Studio projects should be conceived as cross-course vehicles, where sustainability is properly considered and assessed. This should be supported by adequate tools and techniques that promote the acquisition of cognitive notions and ethical values, with the development of synthetic abilities from where design decisions can generate. A rich and meaningful dialogue with issues of sustainability in the context of the design process should be embraced, and educators need to consider carefully how best to gauge and utilise their students’ knowledge and commitment. Ensuring that learning is made personally meaningful, and that a variety of teaching and learning styles are utilised, can enable students to reflect on their learning, and ask themselves significant questions on the notions and ideals inherent in the multi-faceted concept of sustainability. This entails a departure from an entirely ‘leftbrained’, sequential and objective, pedagogical process to one that embraces ‘right-brain’ features, encompassing the skills of problem-solving through creative and critical thinking, intuition and imagination. Given the scale of the challenges, and the behavioural and value-shifts required for reflective and active engagement, it is also pertinent for educators to ask constantly why, where and how learning takes place.

5. THE PEDAGOGY SHOULD ENCOURAGE CRITICAL AWARENESS, RESPONSIBILITY AND REFLECTION OF THE INTERDEPENDENCIES WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESS Education for sustainability should stimulate the development of holistic insights and strive for coherence in the assimilation of disparate knowledge. Educators need to consider how best to encourage students to adopt ‘deep learning’ strategies to enhance analytical and conceptual skills and critical engagement. Deep learning can be achieved by anchoring ideas with experience and establishing a unifying framework that permits meaningful dialogue and consideration of the interdependencies between curricular areas. Lectures should not be presented as pedagogically independent of studio. Enquiry, discussion, and critical engagement with the interconnectedness of the complex issues of sustainability should be fostered by the education, allowing students to organise and structure disparate types of information into an articulate design whole. Traditional, transmissive pedagogies should be challenged in order to encourage learners to become active seekers of knowledge, emphasising reflection and taking full ownership of the challenges involved in balancing design creativity with environmental, social, and economic responsibility. Students should not be offered in advance the whole body of knowledge needed to solve every potential problem in their career, but rather they should be given a framework that promotes an evolutionary path of learning.

6. THE CURRICULUM SHOULD SUPPORT INVESTIGATIVE DISCOURSE BETWEEN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES, PARTIES AND PROFESSIONS A pedagogical framework that transcends disciplinary boundaries can bring the much needed intellectual synergies to address future-oriented goals and promote innovation in the design of the built environment.


9

EDUCATE


The most common form of educating beyond disciplines may be considered as multidisciplinary, where participants work in parallel to, or sequentially from, disciplinary-specific bases to engage with common problems. However, with multidisciplinarity, there is no expectation that methodologies normally associated with particular disciplines will be shared, or that the participatory disciplines will influence each other. More ambitious in scope, but certainly less typical, are interdisciplinary approaches whereby participants work from a shared perspective that go beyond disciplinary domains, in order to address a particular question. Finally, it is worth considering transdisciplinarity, in which knowledge is generated by participants working together from a shared conceptual framework, whereas ultimately their interactions hold out the possibilities of producing a new paradigm. In all these cases, the challenges of restructuring curricula around a multi/inter/transdisciplinary approach need to primarily recognise and take into account the knowledge, culture, and attitudes of both educators and students, and should thus not be underestimated.

7. ADEQUATE TIME, HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES SHOULD BE DEVOTED TO THIS PEDAGOGICAL PROCESS In today’s ‘congested’ curricula, sustainability is increasingly viewed as a positive component of a successful design, although not always it is seen as a basic, essential, and integral part of the educational process. Studio projects are frequently time-demanding, while theoretical modules can be fragmented and detached from applied coursework. In this ‘curricular split’, students are not always able to engage with an integrated design process founded on a mature level of analysis and in depth exploration of all the cognitive areas of the curriculum, thus not succeeding to fully embrace in all their assignments awareness and comprehensive implementation of issues of sustainability. These pedagogical practices hinder the development of critical thinking, and - in the best of the cases - simply favour the mere (albeit often short-lived) acquisition of information. To foster sustainability in academic curricula, full support by the institution is needed, both in terms of dedicated training programmes for staff, as in terms of inter-departmental cooperation and the creation of a consistent and meaningful dialogue, pacing and mutual exchanges, between design studio and theoretical modules. Consultants, practicing architects, engineers, part-time specialists, experts of cognate disciplines, etc., need to be involved in teaching and learning so as to promote a holistic and collaborative pedagogical ethos and embark on a team effort in support of education for sustainability.

8. EDUCATORS, STUDENTS AND PROFESSIONALS SHOULD CONTINUALLY EVOLVE THE KNOWLEDGE BASE OF SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN THROUGH EXEMPLAR RESEARCH AND DESIGN PRACTICE The discipline of sustainable environmental design requires a clear, yet continuously evolving, knowledge base founded on research and built practice that informs pre- and post-professional training. A solid theoretical background should stem from physical, physiological, and psychological investigations related to the design of the built environment, for then converging on the strategies and technologies that guarantee comfort, health and quality of life for occupants, and a proper management of energy and resources. Exploration and analysis of built case studies that embody sustainable environmental design - encompassing different typologies from contemporary practice as well as from historical architecture - can open up a wealth of opportunities for consolidating the acquisition of knowledge and providing tangible verification to intuitive design solutions. Observation and measurement of performance data could be related with simulations conducted at the design and/or verification stages, to facilitate the testing and evaluation of hypotheses and make performance predictions starting from early on in the design development.

9. THE KNOWLEDGE BASE OF SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN SHOULD BE DISSEMINATED IN A MANNER THAT IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO STUDENTS, ACADEMICS, PRACTITIONERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC Sustainable environmental design is not uniquely concerned with energy efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions, but it is an overarching multi/inter/transdisciplinary domain as well as a moral obligation and an opportunity for inspired architecture. More widespread and accessible information on the principles and


10

EDUCATE


values of sustainability would bring advantages to the educational sector, the architectural profession, and the society as a whole, offering clearer understanding of the cost implications of sustainable solutions, stimulating ethical responsibility, and removing cultural routines that often ignore the possibilities offered by a sustainable approach to design. This would also respond to new regulations and governmental initiatives, and combat the common and deceptive practice of ‘greenwash’. Dissemination of knowledge to target groups and the public can also help to prevent frequent misconceptions, cultural prejudices, and existing mindsets that prioritise saving money at the time of investment rather than looking at benefits and returns in the long term, therefore triggering changes of attitude and behaviours (e.g., lifestyles and expectations). Such commitment should also be reinforced by continuing professional development for educators and practitioners, promoting the availability of more precise, reliable, transparent and verified data on performance, cost, and payback periods of built precedents and their response to regulatory benchmarks.

10. A SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION SHOULD HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF ACCREDITATION AND REGULATORY BODIES Subject benchmarking and accreditation and qualification criteria established by national and international regulatory bodies are devised to ensure that the learning achievements of successful graduates are adequate with respect to the design and professional skills and moral attitude needed for practice. Clearly, at a global level, the criteria for the prescription of qualifications would differ and embed flexibility of approach due to reasons which include cultural choice, tradition, and local requirements. An international review, however, indicates that the implementation of sustainable environmental design in accreditation and qualification criteria sits at the core of the agenda of many professional bodies. Such endeavours reveal that there is a global desire for measurable indicators that regulate access to the profession, nurturing the values of sustainability in the training and practice of architecture. Striking the right balance between promoting a positive framework, whilst minimising an unhelpfully prescriptive approach, is a challenge widely recognised. However, the criteria to be met for accreditation and qualification have to be based on adequate standards both in the educational system as in the professional training, so as to guarantee that knowledge, skills, and competence in sustainable environmental design are effectively acquired prior to accessing independent practice and is further deepened through continuing professional development.


11

EDUCATE

Pedagogical Objectives and Learning Outcomes

Pedagogical Objectives and Learning Outcomes Awareness that buildings are responsible for almost half of worldwide energy consumptions is forcing new demands on educators, students, and practitioners of disciplines of the built environment. For such priority to be consistently considered in curriculum development, pedagogical objectives should build on the most up to date and verified knowledge available and on the results of research and built practice - as well as on policies, national and international qualification frameworks and professional requirements - so as to define the learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills and competence in sustainable environmental design that graduates and professionals should acquire at each level of progression towards responsible practice. The descriptors knowledge, skills and competence derive from the European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF), adopted by the European Commission to act as a “translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems”3 (EC, 2008). Such learning outcomes are proposed here at three subsequent stages - Sensitisation, Validation and Reflection - that could be potentially assumed to correspond to undergraduate (Bachelors, FQ-EHEA 1st cycle, EQF level 6), graduate (Diploma or Masters, FQ-EHEA 2nd cycle, EQF level 7) and postgraduate (Doctorates or post-professional Masters, FQ-EHEA 3rd cycle, EQF level 8) degrees4. However, such correspondence can vary significantly basing on the structure, resources, ethos, and innovation in curriculum development that characterise academic and professional institutions. Two or all of these stages could indeed be condensed in one single cycle of higher or post-professional education. Without defining an “ideal” model of curriculum, these three stages - from the exploratory, through a propositive onto a critical approach - are therefore uniquely indented to define a progression of abilities of environmental sustainability centred on the role of design that students - as well as educators and practitioners - should gradually attain (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Stages of Education for Sustainable Environmental Design 3

Learning outcomes - expressed as “a statement of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a learning process” (EC, 2008) - are described in the EQF in terms of: • Knowledge; describes the “outcome of the assimilation of information through learning”. It can be “theoretical and/or factual” and is constituted by “the body of facts, principles, theories and practices related to a field of study” (EC, 2008). • Skills; indicating “the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems”. In the EQF, skills are described as cognitive, “involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking”, or practical, “involving manual dexterity and use of methods, materials, tools and instruments” (EC, 2008). • Competence; is characterised as “the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development” (EC, 2008). 4 The Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area identifies three cycles of higher education as per the Bologna Declaration (FQ-EHEA, 2005), here defined as undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate degrees. Conversely, the EQF structures education in 8 levels, where level 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the FQ-EHEA’s three cycles.


12

EDUCATE


STAGE 1: SENSITISATION At the first stage of education, the main principles and values of sustainability should be provided as an introduction to contemporary challenges and as drivers of architectural form, transferring enthusiasm and commitment to sustainable design and opening the gates of the skills needed to creatively explore ideas. Students5 need to be aware of what the challenges are, and therefore have to be provided with the foundations of knowledge on which to construct their learning. The pedagogy should aim towards the formation of a sensitive attitude in the creation of built spaces, from the pragmatic to the poetic. This should help to mitigate potential prejudices, misconceptions and biased opinions on the framework of sustainability. A transmissive model of education may not be appropriate to guarantee the achievement of awareness, a critical exploration of sustainable principles and values, and their implications in design. Rather, a pedagogy based on learning by doing, with investigative “hands-on” coursework given at the same time of delivery of knowledge, can engage students in their learning, instigate passion and enthusiasm for sustainability, and target the sensitisation of students towards the development of an architectural language informed by sustainable environmental design. Students need to acquire knowledge of principles and practices of sustainability by their direct experience with them. In the delivery and exploration of contents, group work can represent a productive methodology for the development of assignments, also giving a way for students to socialise and engage in discussion, creative thinking, problem solving, and decision making. The learning environment should become one of cooperation and activity, fostering a dynamic interaction in the lecture theatre as in the design studio. The pedagogy can be reinforced by field trips and illustration of traditional and contemporary case studies to facilitate the visualisation of the concepts presented. This should include global/local strategies for sustainability, but also a critical understanding of historical, social, and cultural backgrounds, that should help to frame questions and appropriately interpret potential responses. Knowledge of regulatory frameworks - and their application to sustainable environmental design - should be introduced primarily in the form of benchmarks to be considered as a minimum standard to meet, but also as vehicles through which questions can be developed and creativity can be triggered. Students should be provided with rules of thumb as design techniques that could help inform the design response and contribute to frame the feasibility of the proposed domain of solutions. Basic practical/experiential learning tools could be introduced to identify the issues at stake and emphasise the importance of a complementary relationship with other disciplines, creating the foundations for a multi/inter/transdisciplinary approach to design. The experiential approach could be nurtured by simply inquiring the environment in which designs take place.

Learning Outcomes of Sustainable Environmental Design at Sensitisation Stage To facilitate Sensitisation, higher education and post-professional programmes should consider embodying the following learning outcomes in their pedagogical development: Students should exhibit knowledge of:      

Key values and principles of sustainable environmental design Precedents and environmental attributes of historic and contemporary buildings and urban spaces The potential offered by traditional and new materials and technologies to inform design Benchmarks and environmental standards at national and international level The relation with other disciplines concerned with the construction sector The opportunities afforded by the procedures of the building industry and the control of project budgets

Students should also demonstrate appropriate skills to:   

Take a critical position in relation to wider issues and objectives of sustainability and its expanding boundaries (including environmental, socio-cultural, political and economic responsibility) Formulate appropriate environmental design strategies for new or existing buildings and urban spaces informed by climate, site, culture, construction, materiality, building type, and occupancy Communicate their design explorations and solutions to a specialist and non-specialist audience

5

At each stage of education, the term “students” could also include academics and building practitioners in the case of continuing professional development activities promoted by higher education institutions or regulatory bodies.


13

EDUCATE


STAGE 2: VALIDATION At the second stage of education, students should be induced to develop autonomy in design investigations and competence to resolve questions, researching those by appropriate techniques to yield knowledge that can be analysed, quantitatively and qualitatively. Students should be provided with, and should contribute to produce, the knowledge necessary to validate the concepts explored at the first stage of education, together with the abilities necessary to propose innovative strategies for architectural and urban design. The pedagogy should empower the students to develop personal understanding and motivation towards the framework of sustainability. In support of this, educational methodologies should be founded on problembased learning. A question is asked by the design project, the motivation comes from the need to acquire, and construct, the necessary knowledge, engaging in investigation and original interpretation. This approach should achieve the validation of issues of sustainable environmental design, so that students can creatively consolidate, combine, and develop knowledge by evaluating problems and proposing imaginative solutions. Students that are motivated are more interested in their task, and absorb/produce knowledge more readily. Similarly, the expectations that students have for themselves and that they perceive their tutors have of them also play an essential role in motivation. To foster a propositive attitude to the validation of principles and practices of sustainability, hence, tutors could play a key role, and they often need to be supported by the institution in terms of training, multi/inter/transdisciplinary cooperation, and allocation of financial and human resources tailored to the needs of the students. Theoretical teaching should be enriched by tangible exempla of best practice, so that students can obtain evidence of performance data, and perceive the opportunities inherent in a sustainable approach to design. Courses need to have an explicit direction and leadership that clearly focus (or re-focus) the personal agendas of the tutors to one that embraces sustainability as core to the pedagogy. Yet, even if permeated by a central ethos aimed towards sustainability, the course should leave space for individual expression to promote the development of creativity and original understanding. The role of design as a forum for investigation of sustainability should be reinforced. Design should become a way of producing knowledge, exploring the complexity of the interrelationships between the aspects at stake and the various disciplines and professions involved in shaping the built environment. Applied coursework should competently address key issues of environmental, social, and economic sustainability, which provide interconnected opportunities that can be creatively addressed in design. Design, simulation, and verification tools should be introduced to facilitate data analysis, assessment of performance and comparison of scenarios. Awareness of the opportunities and limitations of new materials and technologies, and their potential utilisation in the building industry, should be promoted. Knowledge of the application of regulations should be provided, yet - due to a rapidly changing legislative framework - the pedagogy should primarily offer an understanding of the concepts ‘behind’ regulations so as to stimulate design innovation.

Learning Outcomes of Sustainable Environmental Design at Validation Stage To facilitate Validation, higher education and post-professional programmes should consider embodying the following learning outcomes in their pedagogical development: Students should exhibit knowledge of: 

The legislative framework and building practices that include awareness of costs and complexity of execution within creative architectural and urban design

Students should also demonstrate appropriate skills to:    

Identify, compare and assess environmental impacts and performance of buildings Make use of on-site observations and measurements, as well as interpretation of performance data and calculated results, to inform design solutions Recognize the contribution of architecture and urban design in shaping sustainable environments, societies and economies Develop understanding and ability to interface with other professions within the design process

And competence to:  

Promote the propositive nature of design as a generator of new knowledge Embrace a multi/inter/transdisciplinary approach in tackling issues of sustainable environmental design


14

EDUCATE


STAGE 3: REFLECTION At the third stage of education, students should be encouraged to deepen and specialise their interests, critically linking learning with its applications to professional advancement, and committing to cutting-edge scholarly and/or design research, individually or as a leader or key member of a multi/inter/transdisciplinary team. The range of abilities acquired at the first two stages of education should be reinforced and utilised to look comprehensively at the built environment - and the overall architecture and urban design and construction process - in a holistic way, also engaging with continuing professional development in research and design, and advocating lifelong learning. Courses could clearly differ according to their specific streaming of specialisation, therefore promoting differentiated knowledge, skills, and competence. At the third stage of education, the favoured teaching methodology remains that of the one-to-one tutorial or the seminar group, so as to support a research-based approach to design and also promote direct multi/inter/transdisciplinary exchanges. The curriculum should be reinforced by transfer of experience, knowledge, methods, and results of advanced scholarly, practice-based, and pedagogical research between academic institutions and with professional bodies, so as to also contribute to bridge the gap between higher education and the practice of design. The role of research as a learning and design tool should be emphasised, as well as the analysis, verification, and critical reflection on the outcomes achieved, thus promoting a pedagogical approach based on performance-based learning and design research. Where relevant, advanced tools for simulation and authentication of performance data should be provided - with external resources scientifically listed and theoretical knowledge supported by comprehensive case studies so as to initiate new avenues of research, as well as the development of inventive products and/or designs. Students need to develop reflection and originality in tackling design issues, and this can be supported by the direct measurement and/or verification of built case studies that can inform the development of innovative ideas of design and research. Students are expected to demonstrate skill-proficiency and leadership in interaction with other professions, and competent understanding of the performance targets related to the built environment at the various scales of design (from building, through urban design and landscape, up until consideration of the wider environmental, economical and socio-cultural context). Students should be able to take informed and holistic judgements on the nature of knowledge, and should be encouraged to challenge existing cognitive boundaries of sustainability through design explorations or thorough scholarly and/or applied research.

Learning Outcomes of Sustainable Environmental Design at Reflection Stage To facilitate Reflection, higher education and post-professional programmes should consider embodying the following learning outcomes in their pedagogical development: Students should exhibit skills to:   

Take informed and holistic judgements and think critically about the nature of knowledge and how it is produced, validated and expanded Relate the knowledge acquired to professional development at the various scales of architectural and urban design Analyse and originally interpret environmental codes and performance targets so as to lead to innovative design and/or research solutions

And competence to:  

Commit to cutting-edge scholarly and/or design research, investigating aspects of sustainability individually or as a key member of multi/inter/transdisciplinary international teams Engage in life-long learning and continue expanding the boundaries of the existing knowledge of sustainable design


15

EDUCATE

Programme Structure and Methods for Teaching and Learning

Programme Structure and Methods for Teaching and Learning The broad nature of a curriculum in architecture and urban design should equip students with the abilities needed to express their design creativity, whilst providing for the comfort and well-being of users - as well as for an adequate management of energy and other resources - and making knowledgeable decisions in response to technical and regulatory demands. An integrated cognitive framework can be proposed to systematise the contents to be delivered in academic programmes, where the notions and practices of sustainable environmental design can be categorised under the three domains of theoretical (issues and principles), experiential (applications and case studies) and analytic (tools). The methods for teaching and learning could obviously vary, but they should build the knowledge, skills, and competence in layers, starting from the initial stages of the education, and incorporating both qualitative as well as quantitative information. The knowledge should be provided with clear terminology and definitions, concise explanations, favouring direct application and exploration to complement the acquisition of theoretical principles. Seminars on current challenges should promote discussion and debate. A database of case studies drawn from reliable sources - as well as from direct experience - should support the pedagogy, featuring various typological and climatic applications, with their performance attributes. Presentation of built exempla given by guest professionals and site visits should be encouraged, so that the illustration of prediction and performance data can reinforce the acquisition of knowledge and engage students in a multi/inter/transdisciplinary approach to design. Workshops should combine both experiential and computational components and be followed by testing of the analytical methodologies applied. Tools and/or software for analysis of environmental phenomena can, at first, foster empirical methods of learning, for then supporting verification, simulation, and direct field measurements. Parametric studies can provide an essential support to the learning process, whilst more complex software can facilitate the evaluation of the performance achieved. A plurality of approaches in terms of programme structure could be adopted to accommodate such cognitive framework. In fact, programmes should be arranged to respond to the specific teaching and learning culture and organisation of the institution concerned, accordingly managing: the delivery of contents, i.e. the stages of the curriculum where knowledge of sustainability is delivered and/or explored; the staff-to-student ratio (SSR), including both theoretical and studio modules; the methods for knowledge transfer, e.g. ex-cathedra lectures, seminars, workshops, etc.; the pedagogical tools, e.g. experiential tools, software, etc.; and the assessment criteria, i.e. stand-alone examination or integrated with other coursework. Founded on a review of higher education curricula6, five models of programme structure can be identified7 (Fig. 2): Linear / Parallel

Partially Integrated

Fully Integrated

Iterative

Elective / Minor

Figure 2: Paradigmatic Models of Programme Structure

 Linear / Parallel: Each disciplinary domain runs in parallel and knowledge is delivered autonomously, with ex-cathedra lecture modules and studio being assessed independently. This ‘satellite’ structure may allow a coherent education on issues of sustainability, although an unclear integration between studio and other coursework could make such principles and values be considered as divorced from design. 6

See the report “State of the Art of Environmental Sustainability in Academic Curricula and Conditions for Registration” downloadable from http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/state-of-the-art 7 The five models of programme structure here described are presented in detail in the “EDUCATE Framework for Curriculum Development” downloadable from http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/educate-framework


16

EDUCATE


 Partially Integrated: Taught modules of environmental science / design can represent the link between studio and other core teachings. Although these modules can be taught as stand-alone units, they are generally, at least in part, integrated with other subjects in delivery or in assessment. This structure allows the introduction of principles of environmental sustainability and their simultaneous design exploration.  Fully Integrated: Studio modules are conceived as working spaces, where contents of different domains converge around the central role of the design project. Theoretical knowledge is delivered in accordance with the requirements, timing, and pace of studio to inform and support the design development. This structure requires adequate resources, careful management, cooperation, and dialogue amongst staff.  Iterative: Rather than following a linear sequence of knowledge delivery, acquisition, and application, this structure is based on a series of interlinked phases, where the contents delivered at one stage inform the competence acquired in the following. At each stage, knowledge is deepened and complexity of exploration grows through a series of cognitive ‘loops’. This model emphasises critical reflection and is built on a clear dependency between environmental science, design studio and other core modules.  Elective / Minor: This structure is characterised by various electives - eventually from different degrees and/or Departments - that students can include in their study programme (e.g., a Minor degree). Delivery and assessment is similar to the linear / parallel structure. Such flexibility encourages multi/inter/ transdisciplinarity and offers the possibility to investigate sustainability from many points of view. Each programme structure brings its challenges and opportunities, so it is necessary that the curriculum is supported by adequate approaches to teaching and learning to facilitate knowledge exploration and transfer. Among the potential strategies that can enhance education for sustainability in each model, are the following:



Develop interconnections between theoretical lectures and design studio

The interconnections necessary to acquire and practice a multi/inter/transdisciplinary approach to design, as well as to foster teamwork and communication, can be promoted by environmental / architectural science lectures and design projects (possibly to be developed in small groups) that create a direct link between theoretical principles and their exploratory applications. The pedagogy could incorporate mandatory or elective seminars and workshops directly related to environmental strategies, practical investigations, as well as specific topics such as water and resources management, energy performance, advanced technologies, use of software, assessment methods, etc. Analysis of cases studies, visits to building sites and talks given by invited professionals could further reconcile the various disciplinary domains of the curriculum.



Promote a research-based, analytic and holistic approach to design

Sustainability is more than just meeting environmental targets, since it is also part of a socially, culturally, economically, and ethically responsible design practice. Although stemming from a process based on intuition and creativity, the design and construction of the built environment should be also founded on a systematic and holistic methodology, where each parameter at stake needs to be analysed, critiqued, and evaluated. The influence of every design choice should be measured with respect to the wider environment and the well-being of users. A methodical and research-based approach to design should be promoted to students throughout their education. Students should be able to critically appraise data, evaluate arguments, make judgements, elaborate and verify hypotheses, and to frame appropriate questions within their designs.



Increase competence of sustainability at the various stages of the programme

Principles of sustainability should not be merely seen as a separate ‘specialism’ to be delivered as satellite components of the education but rather they should be integral to the curriculum as an effective inspiration to the design process. This pedagogical approach could move towards integration of sustainable environmental design / science in the studio, where theoretical knowledge provides a support to the design development.



Promote the central position of the design studio throughout the curriculum

A close relationship between lectures and studio should encourage critical and creative thinking, initiating a properly organised series of projects that evolves throughout the curriculum. Students should be encouraged to develop a meaningful level of abilities, where notions are synthesised within the design project, the natural


17

EDUCATE


forum for creative exploration and applications of knowledge. The central position of the studio could give the opportunity to coordinate the competence acquired and develop a holistic vision. It is also an opportunity to reposition the human being and its environment at the core of the design reflections and decisions.



Foster student-centred learning (including the use of e-learning tools)

The prospect of stimulating student-centred pedagogies - in which collaborative, problem-based or experiential learning play a central part - resonate strongly within a sustainable environmental education. In this context, Information and Communication Technologies and e-learning offer significant opportunities to motivate learners through interactive exchanges with tutors and peers, whilst providing easy and open access to didactic material. The application of e-learning in various disciplines gives proof of its ability to enhance collaboration between specialists in distinct areas, skills that are fundamental to an integrated education in sustainable environmental design. Virtual studio environments and advanced tools such as BIM (Building Information Modelling) - particularly from the second stage of education - could engage students in tasks from remote locations, expanding the boundaries of learning beyond the confines of the institution, developing skills in team-working, and supporting discussion and communication. E-learning may also provide the opportunity to create a broad network of contacts at both academic and professional level. The implementation of the above strategies within each of the five paradigmatic models of programme structure could be facilitated by the pedagogical methods described in the following diagrams (Fig. 3): LINEAR / PARALLEL MODEL The interconnections among disciplinary domains could be promoted by a transversal integration of seminars, workshops, and case studies that bridge theoretical lectures, environmental science/design, other core modules and design studio. Seminars and focused workshops could foster Sensitisation at the early stages of the education. At the second stage, the Validation, environmental science teaching could be supported by elective courses, whilst at the third stage, the Reflection, priority should be given to design studio, supported by guest lectures, investigation of case studies and researchbased analysis of design applications. PARTIALLY INTEGRATED MODEL The interconnections could be promoted by the “bridging” position of environmental science/design modules, reinforced at the second and third stages of education by elective teachings and dedicated studios. Links between environmental aspects could be created by focused workshops, seminars, or case studies, directly connected to theoretical courses, design studio or to both. It is through seminars and workshops that questions could be stimulated and new topics introduced, allowing the development of a holistic approach to sustainability. At the third stage, priority should be given to design studio and research-based investigations.


18

EDUCATE


FULLY INTEGRATED MODEL Interconnections could be reinforced by workshops and seminars on new, specific topics proposed to deepen the knowledge, so as to pose gradually more complex questions and strengthen the competence acquired. The Validation stage could include environmental science lecturers and design projects supported by elective modules. At the third - Reflection - stage, theoretical and environmental science lectures could provide additional support to design studio projects. Workshops and seminars at this stage could be principally dedicated to the presentation of case studies and the learning / application of tools for analysis and verification. ITERATIVE MODEL Although in this structure there is a clear interdependency between environmental science and design studios across the various stages of education, correlations and interconnections could be reinforced by theoretical lectures and integration of dedicated seminars and workshops. These could be an opportunity, at the second stage, to introduce new issues of sustainability (not directly part of the curriculum) or to link, and explore within studio applications, different topics. The third stage could converge to a fully integrated curriculum, where theoretical courses and environmental science lectures are considered as a support to the design. ELECTIVE / MINOR MODEL This structure offers the possibility to create links between the ‘traditional’ curriculum and specialised modules that students can elect to study, for example in the form of a Minor degree, at any stage of their education. Interconnections amongst disciplinary areas could be promoted by the integration of seminars, workshops, and analysis of case studies that can bridge theoretical contents and design applications. These activities, together with different research-based experimentations - possibly deriving from, or delivered in conjunction with, modules elected by the students - could be integrated with the main design studio projects. Figure 3: Pedagogical Methods in support of Education for Sustainability under each Programme Structure


19

EDUCATE

Priorities for Transfer of the Pedagogy

Priorities for Transfer of the Pedagogy Any investigation into how sustainable environmental design can be meaningfully embedded, integrated, and transferred in curricula of higher education across European and non-European countries needs to consider the role of qualification frameworks, subject benchmarking, and accreditation and qualification criteria. The descriptors of learning outcomes, knowledge, skills and competence, herein utilised, stem from the European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF), so as to emphasise the results of learning rather than the inputs or length of study, and facilitate comparisons among national qualifications (EC, 2008). These descriptors differ only marginally from those used in other frameworks. For example, in Europe, the Dublin Descriptors of the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (FQ-EHEA, 2005) describe attainments of learners following completion of each higher education cycle (undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate) in terms of knowledge and understanding (devising arguments and developing or applying ideas), making judgments (interpreting data and engaging in critical analysis), communication (disseminating knowledge to specialist and non-specialist audiences) and learning skills (developing autonomy and promoting advancements) (JQI, 2004). Although the taxonomy of learning outcomes is to some extent different in terms of nomenclature of the descriptors, the educational achievements described remain largely similar. For example, the descriptors utilised in the EQF and in the FQ-EHEA both follow a progressive organisation of educational levels, although the FQ-EHEA shows a larger link and dependence between cycles. However, the EQF descriptors are broader and are clearly oriented towards academic learning, whilst also recognising the requirement for achievement of professional abilities. To guarantee the acquisition of adequate knowledge, skills, and competence in sustainable environmental design by graduates, it should however be considered that - in parallel with educational frameworks teaching and learning at university level needs to respond to subject benchmarking, and to conditions for accreditation and qualification criteria set by national and international institutions. In the case of architecture, regulatory bodies establish specific prescriptions for validation, augmented in some cases by regular and mandatory visits to schools. As far as subject benchmarking in architecture is concerned, the European Directive 2005/36/EC on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications, in its Article 46 Training of Architects, presents in 11 points, (a) through to (k), the “knowledge and skills” to be provided in architectural programmes of higher education (EC, 2006). These 11 points are at the basis of accreditation and qualification frameworks in architecture in all European Member States (e.g., in United Kingdom: ARB Criteria at Parts 1, 2 and 3, 2010, and QAA Subject Benchmark Statement - Architecture, 2010; in Spain: Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación, 2005; in Italy: DLGs 206/2007, etc.)8. All educational frameworks and subject benchmarking here mentioned are not intended as a specification of a detailed curriculum but should allow for “flexibility and innovation in programme design and stimulate academic discussion and debate upon the content of new and existing programmes within an agreed overall framework” (QAA, 2010). Therefore, the pedagogical objectives and learning outcomes herein proposed, and the descriptors utilised for their characterisation, should not be considered as a substitute for existing educational frameworks, but rather should be read in conjunction and in addition to those. In terms of programme structure, almost all European countries follow the organisation of three cycles for higher education curricula proposed as part of the Bologna process (FQ-EHEA, 2005), although not all of them are based on the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). In some countries, an integrated Master-level programme of 5 years’ duration is still offered, even if, in most cases, the curriculum is structured in similar progressive stages to those proposed by the FQ-EHEA. Most European programmes in architecture and urban design concentrate the delivery of general knowledge and the acquisition of the main design skills during the initial level of studies, investing the graduate cycle (or the last 2 years of the Master-level integrated programme) in the application of know-how, specialisation, enhancement of life-long learning and research (EDUCATE, 2010a). A global and truly integrated approach towards education for sustainable environmental design is however yet fragmentally adopted in European schools of architecture. 8

For an extensive analysis and contextualisation of the European Directive 2005/36/EC, please see the EDUCATE white paper on “Criteria for Professional Qualification” downloadable from http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/white-papers


20

EDUCATE


These contents are, at times, proposed uniquely as elective subjects not available at the beginning of the curriculum, or as modules for specialisation offered in graduate or postgraduate degrees. In some cases, sustainability is valued as a compulsory component of the education, but usually not during the early stages of the undergraduate cycle. When such contents are effectively delivered, they are seldom comprehensively integrated with design studio or other coursework. Together with the lack of awareness and training of tutors in this disciplinary domain, this shows some of the current limits for implementing sustainable environmental design in an integrated way, and explains the reasons why sustainability is often considered as an added quality to the competence acquired by students, rather than being a fundamental asset of the curriculum. In general, however, higher education institutions in Europe (and beyond) demonstrate serious awareness of the necessity for embedding sustainability in their educational provisions. Also, the notion of multi/inter/ transdisciplinarity and the instigation of a research-based approach centred on the core role of design are commonly valued. Conversely, the promotion of sustainability from the very beginning of the professional training is often aspired to as a priority also for subject benchmarking and accreditation and qualification criteria, so as to effectively foster the idea of transcending disciplinary boundaries and supporting an integrated model of education where the knowledge is acquired, tested and validated within a holistic and research-based approach to the design process. This should equally include the development of ethos and ‘sustainability literacy’ for academics and practitioners, feeding into continuing professional development. As a consequence, the following priorities can be advocated so as to effectively transfer the pedagogical principles and practices here described to academic and professional institutions across Europe and beyond:



Promotion of studio culture centred around the challenges of sustainability

A promotion of studio culture towards the embracement of ethos and values of sustainability is needed, where the imperatives of sustainable development should be widely shared - and embraced - by all students and educators, in the environmental laboratory as in the lecture theatre and in the design studio. To address the ‘sustainability challenge’ in higher education, the actions to put in place should encompass: At the institutional level: • • • •

Emphasise the ethical and the socio-cultural values of sustainability across the entire organisation; Endorse an institutional vision encompassing sustainability and informing enrolment of staff and students; Promote professional development towards sustainability amongst full-time and part-time staff; Engage with external experts and the wider community to promote participatory initiatives (live projects).

In terms of curriculum development: • • •

Define learning outcomes of modules explicitly embedding consideration of sustainable mandates; Support interconnections and cross-fertilisation between different disciplinary domains; Establish clearly identifiable criteria and qualitative and quantitative benchmarks for assessment.

To foster engagement and commitment in the design studio: • • •



Promote experiential learning in support of ex-cathedra delivery of information; Encourage students to embark on peer- and self-reflection and rigorous evaluation of their design work; Adopt integrated teaching and learning methods that reinforce dialogue, communication, and collaboration within multi/inter/transdisciplinary teaching staff teams.

Dissemination of knowledge and exempla of best practice (EDUCATE Portal)

Due to the vast and increasingly growing literature on sustainable environmental design, the EDUCATE project has engaged in the creation of an online Portal to facilitate the transfer of information, know-how, results and methodologies to educators, students, practitioners and the public. Among other features of this e-learning system, the EDUCATE Portal includes a comprehensive Knowledge Base presenting theoretical, empirical and analytic knowledge of sustainable environmental design. Each of these domains is divided in categories and clusters grouping a related set of topics (Issues and Principles), case studies (Applications and Case Studies) and practical resources (Tools). The material relating to each topic, case study and tool, is presented in the form of aspects or ‘tabs’ which illustrates different views of the contents.


21

EDUCATE


The Knowledge Base is not limited to a tree structure (i.e., sections and subsections) but links between parts and to external contents - where appropriate - are provided (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. The free online EDUCATE Knowledge Base available on www.educate-sustainability.eu/kb Following extensive testing - which has also included the organisation of an international student award under the banner of EDUCATE Prize (see Appendix to this document)9 - the use of the EDUCATE Portal has proven to be effective in fostering knowledge, skills, and competence in sustainable environmental design, as well as guaranteeing dissemination of best practice in support of continuing professional development. The use of e-learning tools such as the EDUCATE Portal may also offer a solution to address some of the current dichotomies within higher education and the practice of architecture, providing the potential to fill the gap between creative design and the application of technical knowledge, and offering new and interactive ways to learn, work, and communicate to both expert and novel users. Such tools can also present a timely response to the challenges that academic institutions are currently facing, with particular reference to: • • • • •



The need to broaden the geographical boundaries of education and support lifelong learning; The increase in enrolment in university programmes, with more pressure on space and staff time; A diverse student body (e.g., international students, professionals based in the workplace, etc.); New financial challenges, including evolving expectations within academia and practice; Changes in the building industry, with more integrated teamwork and communication between disciplines.

Engagement of professional practice with academic teaching and research

In terms of engagement of professional practice with academic teaching and research, a long-term vision and the promotion of opportunities to foster continuous exchanges of expertise, data from scholarly and practice-based research, and know-how should be emphasised. This would provide significant opportunities for the curricula to be permeated by a real and holistic view of current challenges, influencing and focusing the learning process and pedagogical approach, and contributing to the success of the students’ future careers, whilst also allowing the development of programmes of higher education directly informed by the demands of the professional market. At higher education level, students need to acquire not only knowledge, skills, and competence, but also ability to control the complexity of the building design and construction and deconstruction process in all its interrelated aspects, in order to be able to anticipate the problems of realisation, and approach their design work in an innovative way, but also within a real perspective. 9

For a detailed illustration of the results of the testing, see the EDUCATE report “Results of Course and Curriculum Development” downloadable from www.educate-sustainability.eu/download


22

EDUCATE


To this aim, the following priorities should be considered by academic and professional institutions:  Support a direct engagement of building practitioners (e.g., architects, engineers, project managers, quantity surveyors, etc.) with academic teaching and learning (e.g., guest lectures, part-time tutoring, visits to exemplar case studies, monitoring of performance data, etc.);  Promote collaboration of professional practices with scientific and evidence-based research (e.g., via the allocation of appropriate funding and/or scholarships);  Strengthen the link between practice and academia via the organisation of joint events (e.g., seminars, exhibitions, road shows, design competitions, etc.) involving educators, students and professionals10. Simultaneously, the enhancement of sustainable environmental design in the practice of architecture should become a core issue within the development of expert competence and ethos of practitioners, feeding into the continuing professional development of architects and other figures involved in the building industry. Educational and professional legislative frameworks that create real drivers and demands for sustainability beyond the unique meeting of carbon-reduction targets - should be promoted, so as to also identify gaps in knowledge and build the requisite know-how, skills, and demands amongst stakeholders and actors of the building market (including public and private clients). In this direction, it is important that:  Subject benchmarking, and accreditation and qualification criteria, embed unambiguously the principles and values of sustainable environmental design among the knowledge, skills, and competence expected of graduates and practitioners at the end of each cycle of academic and post-professional studies;  Such knowledge, skills and competence are furthered by compulsory continuing professional development in the multi/inter/transdisciplinary domains of sustainability;  Professional institutions promote discussion and debate on sustainable environmental design by the creation of knowledge communities, interactive networks, social media, etc., that engage the wider public in the requirements for the responsible advancement of architecture and urban design.

10

The engagement of practitioners with academia could, for example, be encouraged from the part of professional institutions by awarding points or credits towards continuing professional development in recognition of involvement with university teaching or research activities.


23

EDUCATE

Conclusions

Conclusions There seems to be a lack of consensus regarding the impact of sustainability upon teaching and learning in programmes of higher and post-professional education. At one level, one might question if it is in danger of becoming a modern super-brand readily deployed to promote the green credentials of academic institutions, or rather to insinuate innovative pedagogies centred upon the need for a sustainable development of human activities. Sustainability has been conceived as paradigmatic, but also as requiring a paradigm shift in pedagogy to approach it in an effective and meaningful way. So, does it present a golden opportunity to stimulate pedagogical reform? Or is engagement with sustainability too often tending towards a technicist approach, underpinned by a narrow conception and satisfying quantifiable outcomes? And how do educators, in diverse contexts, interpret the meanings and objectives of sustainability and assess its impact upon the processes of teaching and learning? Does the plethora of calls to better integrate sustainability into the curricula have substantive or, looking behind the rhetoric, relative modest implications for pedagogy? It would be wrong to assume that educators exhibit a single interpretation of the sustainability agenda and its impact upon teaching and learning. This is hardly surprising, given that the central concept has elicited several hundred definitions, and initiated multiple efforts and endeavours in terms of educational practices and the drawing up of national and international regulations. It has, however, been argued in this paper that there is value in exploring the evolution of curricula and pedagogical responses in the effort to interrogate, interpret, and integrate the powerful - albeit yet relatively contested - concept of sustainability. It has also been suggested here that there is value in trying and discern the extent to which engagement is characterised more by pragmatism or by an ethically-driven commitment towards sustainability. Significantly, this ambition does not just involve a change in the content of current educational frameworks and programmes, but rather requires asking deep questions about what, in the context of sustainability, the actual purpose of education is. As a matter of fact, change requires more than mere content: as it has been described throughout this paper, it is by looking beyond uniquely the knowledge delivered that successful education in sustainable environmental design can be achieved.


24

EDUCATE

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements EDUCATE is a project funded by the European Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) of the European Commission under the ‘Intelligent Energy Europe’ Programme 2008 (Contract n. IEE/08/635/SI2.528419). The work of all the staff from the EDUCATE partner institutions is herein heartily acknowledged. The full list of contributors to the EDUCATE project is as follows: Sergio Altomonte, Peter Rutherford, Robin Wilson, Brian Ford, Mirentxu Ulloa, Lucelia Taranto Rodrigues, Brian Logan, Markus Feisst, Neil Madden, Julian Zappala, Robert Thomas, Andrew Gibson (UNOTT); Simos Yannas, Paula Cadima, Mili Kyropoulou, Jorge Rodríguez Álvarez, Alberto Moletto, Juliane Wolf, Mania Ampatzi (AA); Andre De Herde, Sophie Trachte, Magali Bodart, Olivier Dartevelle, Arnaud Evrard, Coralie Cauwerts, Jade Deltour (UCL); Hana Riemer, Barbara Hausmann, Dietrich Fink, Gerhard Hausladen, Sebastian Massmann (TUM); Eliana Cangelli, Giorgio Peguiron, Lukia Fais, Blerina Celniku, Manuela Cagliozzi, Serena Baiani (DATA); Maria López de Asiain, Jaime López de Asiain, Celina Escobar Burgos, Pilar Pérez del Real, Ana López de Asiain, Asuncion Salas Casado (SAMA); Sára Horváth, Gábor Becker, Zsuzsanna Fülöp, Lajos Takács, Csaba Szikra (BME). To be acknowledged is also the continuous advice to the developments of the EDUCATE project given by international architects, including: Peter Clegg (Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios), Mario Cucinella (MC Architects), Bill Gething (Bill Gething: Sustainability + Architecture), John Pringle (Pringle Richards Sharratt Architects), Jörg Heiler (Heiler Geiger Architekten) and Elena Marco (University of West of England). Finally, to mention is the support provided to EDUCATE throughout its duration by representatives of European Chambers of Architects: Richard Hawkes (UK), Richard Delviesmaison (Belgium), Oliver Heiss (Germany), Patrizia Colletta (Italy), Nieves Mestre and Eduardo Roig (Spain), Jolan Racz and Attila Ertsey (Hungary).


25

EDUCATE

Bibliography

Bibliography The Challenges of Education for Sustainability •

• •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., and Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5: 243-260. Cascio, J. (2009). The Next Big Thing: Resilience. [Online] Available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/15/the_next_big_thing_resilience Dawe, G., Jucker, R. and Martin, S. (2005). Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Current Practice and Future Developments. [Online] Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/sustainability/dawe_report_2005 EDUCATE (2011). Framework for Curriculum Development. Work Package 3 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/educate-framework.php Gelernter, M. (1988). Reconciling Lectures and Studios. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(2): 46-52. Graham, P. (2008). Sustainability and the struggle for hegemony in Australian architectural education. University of New South Wales: PhD thesis. Guy, S., Farmer, G. (2001). Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: the place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, 54(3): 140-148. Guy, S., Moore, S.A. (2007). Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination. Journal of Architectural Education, 60(4):15-23. HEA - Higher Education Academy (2005). Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Current Practice and Future Developments. [Online] Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (2010). More than the Sum of their Parts? Interdisciplinarity and Sustainability. In: Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (eds.) Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice across Higher Education. London: Earthscan. López de Asiain, M., Cuchí Burgos, A. (2005). Implications of the Term ‘Sustainability’ in Architecture. Teaching Tools for Lecturers. Proceedings of PLEA (Passive Low Energy Architecture), Beirut, Lebanon. Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: education and the transition to the postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rice, L. (2011). Black-Boxing Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4): 32-37. Salama, A., Amir, A. (2005). Paradigmatic Trends in Arab Architectural Education: Impacts and Challenges. Proceedings of XXII World Congress of Architects, UIA-International Union of Architects Congress, Istanbul, Turkey. Timmerman, N. & Metcalfe, A. (2009). From Policy to Pedagogy: the implications of sustainability policy for sustainability pedagogy in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(1): 45-60 UNESCO (2009). Review of Contexts and Structures for Education for Sustainable Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.unesco.org/en/education-for-sustainable-development/publications United Nations (2002). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 57/254. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/a57r254.htm Wals, A., Jickling, B. (2002). Sustainability in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(3): 221-232. Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(1): 44-56. WCED - World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland Report). Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International Co-operation: Environment.

Agenda for Sustainable Architectural Education • • • •

AA, Architectural Association (2010). MSc & MArch Sustainable Environmental Design, Programme Guide 2010-11. Environment & Energy Studies Programme. [Online] Available at: http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/ee Albrecht, J.G. (1990). Architecture and the Disproportionate Development of Human Faculties. Journal of Architectural Education, 43(3): 20-25. Altomonte, S. (2009). Environmental Education for Sustainable Architecture. Review of European Studies, 1(2):1224. Altomonte, S. (2010). Enhancing Teaching and Learning of Sustainable Design through ICTs. ICETC International Conference on Education Technology and Computer, Shanghai, June 2010.


26

EDUCATE

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

Bibliography

Altomonte, S., Rutherford, P., Wilson, P. (2012). Mapping the Way Forward: Education for Sustainability in the Built Environment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (in publication) Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning. Educational Research Review, 5: 243-260. Barraza, L. (2001). Perception of Social and Environmental Problems by English and Mexican School Children. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 6, Spring 2001. Biggs, J., Tang, C. (2007). Teaching For Quality Education at University: What the Student Does. 3RD Ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. [Online] Available at: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uon Bloom, B. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the classification of educational goals - Handbook 1Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co. Brikhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' Beliefs About the Nature of Science and Their Relationship to Classroom Practice, Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3): 53-62. Chapman, D. (2009). Knowing our places? Contexts and edges in integrating disciplines in built environment education. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(2): 9-28. Child, D. (2004) Psychology and the Teacher, Continuum, London. Cole, R.J. (1980). Teaching Experiments Integrating Theory and Design. Journal of Architectural Education, 34(2): 10-14. Cotton, D. et al. (2007). Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: a study of lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 13(5): 579-597. Crinson, M., Lubbock, J. (1994). Architecture: art or profession? (Three Hundred Years of Architectural Education in Britain). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Crysler, C. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4): 208-217. Darder, A., Baltodano, M., Torres, R. (eds.) (2003). The Critical Pedagogy. London: Routledge. Datta, A., (2007). Gender and Learning in the Design Studio. Education in the Built Environment, 2(2): 21-35. Douvlou, E. (2006). Effective teaching and learning: integrating problem-based learning in the teaching and learning of sustainable design. CEBE Transactions. 3(2): 22-37. EDUCATE (2010a). State of the Art of Environmental Sustainability in Academic Curricula and Conditions for Registration. Work Package 2 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educatesustainability.eu/downloads/state-of-the-art EDUCATE (2010b). State of the Art of Environmental Sustainability in Professional Practice. Work Package 2 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/downloads/state-of-the-art EDUCATE (2011). Framework for Curriculum Development. Work Package 3 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/educate-framework.php EDUCATE (2012a). Results of Course and Curriculum Development. Work Package 4 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/downaloads Fenner, A., Ainger, C., Cruickshank, H., Guthrie, P. (2005). Embedding sustainable development at Cambridge University Engineering Department. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6 (3): 229-241. Filho, W. L. (2000). Dealing with Misconceptions on the Concept of Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1): 9-19. Fortuin, K., Bush, S. (2010). Educating students to cross boundaries between disciplines and cultures and between theory and practice. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1): 19-35. Gelernter, M. (1988). Reconciling Lectures and Studios. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(2), 46-52. Graham, C. W., Geva, A. (2001). Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Studio Experience to Teach Architecture and Construction Science Students the Design-Build Project Delivery Method. Journal of Construction Education, 6(2): 75- 90. Graham, P. (2002). Building Ecology: First Principles for a Sustainable Built Environment. WileyBlackwell. Grosskpf, K. R. (2004). Teaching Methods Improvement Using Industry Focus Groups: A Case Study in Construction Financing, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 1(1): 13-25. GUNI (2010). 5th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education. 23-25 November 2010. [Online]. Available at: http://www.guni-rmies.net/conference2010/poll/ Hall, M., Ramsay, A., Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4): 489- 505. Harris, J. (1998).The Nurture Assumption, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, London. Haskins, W. (2000). Ethos and pedagogical communication: Suggestions for enhancing credibility in the classroom. Current Issues in Education, 3(4). Harackiewicz, J., Hidi, S. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2): 151-179.


27

EDUCATE

•

•

• • • • • • •

• • •

• • •

• • • • •

• •

•

• •

• •

Bibliography

Hausladen, G. Riemer, H., Drittenpreis, J. (2010). Entwicklung eines energetischen und raumklimatischen Planungswerkzeugs für Architekten und Ingenieure in der Konzeptphase bei der Planung von Nichtwohngebäuden sowie Erstellung eines Anforderungs- und Bewertungskatalogs für Architekturwettbewerbe. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag. Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (2010). More than the Sum of their Parts? Interdisciplinarity and Sustainability. In: Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (eds.) Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice across Higher Education. London: Earthscan. Kincheloe, J.L. (2008). Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Springer. King, K. (2005). Bringing transformative learning to life. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Kirk, W.M. Mulligan, D. (1996). Teaching Right-Brain Thinking in a Construction Curriculum. Journal of Construction Education, 1(1): 11-22. Kock, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton T.A., Smith, D. (2002). The Redesign of Studio Culture. A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Force. Washington: AIAS-American Institute of Architecture Students. Kolb, A. Y., Kolb D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2): 193-212. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., Cascallar, E. (2011). The direct and indirect effect of motivation for learning on students’ approaches to learning through the perceptions of workload and task complexity. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(2): 135-150. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. London: Architectural Press. Lepper, M. R., Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic Motivation in the Classroom. In: C. Ames and R. Ames, Research in Motivation in Education, pp. 73-105. San Diego, CA Academic Press. Leroy, P., van den Bosh, H., Ligthart, S. (2001). The Role of Problem Based Learning in the “Political and Social Sciences of the Environment” Curriculum at Nijmengan University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(1): 8- 20. Levy, A. (1980). Total Studio, Journal of Architectural Education, 34(2): 29-32. Locke, E. (2001). Motivation by Goal Setting. Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. Golembiewski: CRC press. López de Asiain Alberich, M. (2004). Extrapolation of European Experiences in Environmental Architecture Teaching Programmes. International Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable Development, EESD2004, CIMNE and UPC Barcelona. Maclellan, E. (2008). The significance of motivation in student-centred learning: a reflective case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4): 411-421. Orr, D.W. (1991). What is Education For? Six myths about the foundations of modern education, and six new principles to replace them. The Learning Revolution, 27. Context Institute. Orr, D.W. (2002). The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture and Human Intention. New York: Oxford University Press. Peel, D. (2009). Self- and Peer-Assessment for Built Environment Students. CEBE Briefing Guide Series, no. 14. Research Group Complex (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (2010). Professional Competencies on Education for Sustainability: Looking for Evaluation Strategies. [Online] Available at: http://147.83.97.154/repositori/posters/155_Cebri%C3%A1n.pdf Rice, L. (2011). Black-Boxing Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4): 32-37. Rowe, K. (2003).The Importance of Teacher Quality as a Key Determinant of Students’ Experiences and Outcomes of Schooling. In: M. Meiers (ed.), Building teacher quality: research conference 2003 Proceedings, pp. 15-23, Melbourne: ACER. Rutherford, P., Wilson, R. (2006). Educating environmental awareness: creativity in integrated environmental design teaching. In Shannon, S., Soebarto, V., Williamson, T. (Eds.) Challenges for architectural science in changing climates: Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the Architectural Science Association ANZAScA. Adelaide: School of Architecture. Salama, A. M. (2005). A Process Oriented Design Pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore Studio. CEBE Transactions, 2(2):16-31. Savage, N., Birch, R. (2008). An evaluation of motivation in engineering students, employing self-determination theory. The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre and the UK Centre for Materials Education. [Online]. Available at: www.engsc.ac.uk/ Schon, D.A. (1984). The Architectural Studio as an Exemplar of Education for Reflection-in-Action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1): 2-9. Schwarzin, L., Wals, A., Ateljevic, I. (2011). Collaborative curriculum innovation as a key to sprouting transformative higher education for sustainability. In: GUNI Global University Network for Innovation – Higher Education in the World 4, Higher Education committed to Sustainability: from Understanding to Action. Basingstoke, UK: PalgraveMacmillan.


28

EDUCATE

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Bibliography

Shephard, K., S. Mann, et al. (2009). Benchmarking the environmental values and attitudes of students in New Zealand's post-compulsory education. Environmental Education Research, 15(5): 571-587. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human behaviour, New York: Macmillon. Skinner, B.F. (1971). Verbal Behaviour, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Smith, R. (2009). Guidelines for the Design of a ‘Sustainable’ Curriculum in Architecture and Architectural Engineering. MEng Dissertation, University of Nottingham. Springett, D.V. (2005). Education for Sustainability in the Business Studies Curriculum: A call for a critical agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(3): 146-159. Sterling, S. (2004). An analysis of the development of sustainability education internationally: Evolution, interpretation and transformative potential. In: Blewitt, J., Cullingford, C. (eds.), The sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education. London: Earthscan. Stevens, G. (1998). The Favoured Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Tilbury, D., Wortman, D. (2004). Engaging people in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication. [Online]. Available at: http://www.unece.org/env/esd/information/Publications%20IUCN/engaging%20people.pdf Trebilcock, M. (2008). Learning from practice: a model for integrating sustainable design in architectural education. In: PLEA Passive and Low Energy Architecture Conference, 22-24 October 2008, Dublin, Ireland. UNEP-United Nations Environment Programme (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 Wals, A., Jickling, B. (2002). Sustainability in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3 (3): 221-232. Warburton, K. (2003). Deep Learning and Education for Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(1): 44-56. Williamson, K. C., Grankowski, P. (1997). Measures of Student Empowerment, Attitude, and Motivation Toward Construction Education and the Profession. Journal of Construction Education, 2(2): 84-90. Wood, G. (1999). Interdisciplinary working in built environment education. Education + Training, 41(8): 373-380. Wright, J. (2003). Introducing sustainability into the architecture curriculum in the United States. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(4): 100-105. Yannas, S. (2005).Towards Environmentally Responsive Architecture. In: PLEA Passive Low Energy ArchitectureConference 2005, 13-16 November 2005, Beirut, Lebanon.

Pedagogical Objectives and Learning Outcomes • • •

• • •

American Institute of Architects (2006). Ecological Literacy in Architecture Education. COTE Report and Proposal. ARB, Architects’ Registration Board (2010). Final Draft of Criteria at Parts 1, 2 and 3. [Online] Available at: http://www.arb.org.uk/consultations/criteria/default.php Auchey, F.l., Kills, T.H., Beliveau, Y.J., Auchey, G.J. (2000). Using the Learning Outcomes Template as an Effective Tool for Evaluation of the Undergraduate Building Construction Program. Journal of Construction Education, 5(3): 244-259. EC - European Commission (2003). Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the Energy Performance of Buildings. Official Journal of the European Union, 4 January 2003. EC - European Commission (2008).The European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). [Online] Available at: ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/broch_en.pdf FQ-EHEA (2005). A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Working Groups on Qualification Frameworks. Ministry of Science, Technology and innovation, Copenhagen (Denmark). [Online] Available at: http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050218_QF_EHEA.pdf

Programme Structure and Methods for Teaching and Learning • • • •

• •

Bakman, A. (2008). Algoryx - Interactive Physics. Proceedings of SIGRAD Graphic Data Processing Conference, Stockholm. EDUCATE (2011). Framework for Curriculum Development. Work Package 3 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/educate-framework.php JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee (2009) Effective Practice in a Digital Age, HEFCE. JQI, Joint Qualitative Initiative (2004). Shared ‘Dublin’ descriptors for Short Cycle, First Cycle, Second Cycle and Third Cycle Awards. [Online] Available at: www.jointquality.org/content/descriptors/CompletesetDublinDescriptors.doc Mizban N., Roberts, A. (2008). A Review of Experiences of the Implementation of E-learning in Architectural Design Education. CEBE Working Paper, n. 13. Shah, A. et al. (2010). E-Learning and the Integration of Environmental Science in the Architectural Curriculum. iSPACE[e-learning]). University of Nottingham (unpublished).


29

EDUCATE

Bibliography

Priorities for Transfer of the Pedagogy • • • •

• •

•

• • • • • •

• • • • • •

Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (2005). Libro Blanco. Título de Grado en Arquitectura. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. ARB/RIBA (2002). Prescriptions of Qualification. London: Architects Registration Board. ARB - Architects’ Registration Board (2010). Final Draft of Criteria at Parts 1, 2 and 3. [Online] Available at: http://www.arb.org.uk/consultations/criteria/default.php Berlin Communiqué (2003). Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003. [Online] Available at: http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1.pdf CEBE, Centre for Education in the Built Environment (2003). Report of the Sustainability Special Interest Group (Architectural Education). [Online] Available at: http://ctiweb.cf.ac.uk/learning/sig/sustainability/report.php DLGS 206 (2007). Attuazione della direttiva 2005/36/CE relativa al riconoscimento delle qualifiche professionali, nonche' della direttiva 2006/100/CE che adegua determinate direttive sulla libera circolazione delle persone a seguito dell'adesione di Bulgaria e Romania. Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 261, 9 Novembre 2007, Supplemento ordinario n. 228. EC - European Commission (2006). Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/future_en.htm#dir EC - European Commission (2008).The European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). [Online] Available at: ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/broch_en.pdf EDUCATE (2011). Framework for Curriculum Development. Work Package 3 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/educate-framework.php EDUCATE (2012a). Results of Course and Curriculum Development. Work Package 4 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/downaloads EDUCATE (2012b). Criteria for Professional Qualification. White Paper. Work Package 6 Report, Intelligent Energy Europe. [Online] Available at: http://www.educate-sustainability.eu/white-papers EHEA, European Higher Education Area (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. [Online] Available at: www.magna-charta.org/pdf/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.pdf FQ-EHEA (2005). A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Working Groups on Qualification Frameworks. Ministry of Science, Technology and innovation, Copenhagen (Denmark). [Online] Available at: http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050218_QF_EHEA.pdf JQI - Joint Qualitative Initiative (2004). Shared ‘Dublin’ descriptors for Short Cycle, First Cycle, Second Cycle, Third Cycle Awards. [Online] Available at: www.jointquality.org/content/descriptors/CompletesetDublinDescriptors.doc López De Asiain, M., Pérez Del Real, P., López De Asiain, J. (2011). New Opportunities in Teaching Sustainability in Spain by Competences. Proceedings of PLEA (Passive Low Energy Architecture), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. NAAB - National Architectural Accrediting Board (2004). NAAB Conditions for Accreditation for Professional Degree Programs in Architecture. New York: AIA. NAAB - National Architectural Accrediting Board (2009). NAAB Conditions for Accreditation. New York: AIA. [Online] Available at: http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2009_Conditions.aspx QAA - Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008). The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. [Online] Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/fheq/ QAA - Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2010). Subject Benchmark Statement – Architecture 2010. [Online] Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/architecture2010.pdf

Conclusions • •

• • •

•

Goodman, B. (2011). The need for a ‘sustainability curriculum’ in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 31: 733737. Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (2010). More than the Sum of their Parts? Interdisciplinarity and Sustainability. In: Jones, P., Selby, D., Sterling, S. (eds.) Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice across Higher Education. London: Earthscan. Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: education and the transition to the postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rice, L. (2011). Black-Boxing Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4 (4): 32-37. Salama, A., Amir, A. (2005). Paradigmatic Trends in Arab Architectural Education: Impacts and Challenges. Proceedings of XXII World Congress of Architects, UIA-International Union of Architects Congress, Istanbul, Turkey. Sterling, S. (2004). An analysis of the development of sustainability education internationally: Evolution, interpretation and transformative potential. In: Blewitt, J., Cullingford, C. (eds.), The sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education. London: Earthscan.


30

EDUCATE

Appendix

Appendix - Best Practice in Sustainable Architectural Education UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL Environmental Science for Architects 1 – University of Nottingham st This year-long module is delivered in the 1 year of the curriculum and introduces students to the environmental agenda as it applies to the architectural profession. The module encourages consideration of environmental issues from the outset of a project and explores the key bioclimatic strategies used to maintain appropriate conditions for the occupants of buildings, tying together comfort, building programme and climate. The module also introduces simple analytical tools and techniques to explore and understand environmental strategies within design projects. Founded on a learning by doing approach, notions and principles are presented simultaneously with their application in practical exercises. In the first semester, lectures focus on the framework for sustainability in the context of architectural design, and introduce issues of environmental psychology and thermal, acoustic and visual comfort. The second semester is devoted to the exploration of daylighting in buildings. The delivery of knowledge is supported by a series of group projects and a final individual assignment. Initially, students engage with the MovieSTAR project, where groups of 3-4 students are asked to produce a short movie exploring the complex dimensions of sustainability. In the second semester, groups of 3-4 students complete two assignments: the Sunrose project asks students to build 3 sunroses (a 3-dimensional version of the sunpath) for Nottingham and 3 sunroses for another location of their choice, analysing and comparing solar characteristics; the Daylight Filter project asks students to explore a technique for modifying flows of light and then design, build and test a small test sample that demonstrates their concept and the obtained light/shadow effects. The module is concluded by an individual assignment, Daylight Design, where students, basing on their current design studio project, are asked to produce an individual 10-page A3 report exploring how daylight (direct and diffuse) influences the creation of their designed spaces, providing evidence of their proposed daylight strategy via calculations (e.g., shadow masks, average daylight factors), direct measurements (e.g., artificial sky) and rigorous testing (e.g., heliodon).

Extract from a Sunrose project

Extract from a Daylight Filter project

Extract from a Daylight Design project Workshop I – University of Seville nd The main objective of this design studio, taught in the 2 year of the curriculum, is the simultaneous and comprehensive integration of competences that students acquire during the learning process through the development of an architectural proposition. The project deals with the concept of habitation and introduces students to the interdisciplinary reality of the architectural work. For that, the concepts of social cost and environmental adaptation are taken into account, developing critical capacity and ethical commitment to society and to current living conditions. The work is carried out in a cyclical rather than in a linear way, synchronising the processes of formal and spatial configuration with the design of the


31

EDUCATE

Appendix

structural and construction system at a schematic level. At the same time, students discover and work with all kind of materials and product families, enhancing their suitability from the analytical phase, to adapt the proposal to contextual conditions. Passive environmental strategies to improve comfort and living conditions need to be considered according to their effect on the energy balance and environmental impact, and have to be based on mathematical models to verify the results of the proposals developed. The Workshop promotes learning through the development of an architectural project, supported by a group of tutors from different Departments. Simultaneously to the lectures, tutorial sessions are organised to deal with the problems that students find in developing their design propositions, and can be supported by visits to the site of the project or to other buildings relevant to the students’ design progress. Architecture, Technology and Sustainable Development Studio – Catholic University of Louvain rd The aim of this 3 year design studio is, qualitatively, to address themes of sustainable design such as energy conservation, use of environmentally friendly resources, management of water, mixed programmes, mobility, etc., and, quantitatively, to integrate in the architectural project the basic physical concepts that allow control of the visual/lighting comfort and atmosphere/ambience of spaces. Both direct measurements and computer simulation are used to gain a better understanding of the strategies involved and their relationship with building design. The design studio concentrates on empirically illustrating how natural light can support architectural design in terms of composition of spaces, whilst also providing rigour in design development. However, although the focus is mainly on the study of natural light and its impact on spaces and atmospheres, students should have a comprehensive approach to sustainable architecture. The design development, finalised on the design of a library in an inner city location, includes a significant assessment phase in the laboratory. Theoretical data are introduced at an early stage of the design progression, explaining techniques related to sustainable architecture, the use of daylight simulations tools such as the VELUX Daylight Visualizer software, the construction of physical models for laboratory study, and the analysis of methodologies for direct measurements under an artificial sun and sky. The progresses and results of the students’ work are presented twice, during a pre-Jury critique where the lighting and sustainability aspects are reviewed, and at a final Jury that concludes the studio. The project and laboratory evaluation is conducted in groups of two students. Each student is asked to present, together with the final design, a report explaining the design development, the simulations undertaken, and the results obtained.

Students work with the Mirror Box Artificial Sky History, Theory and Architectural Composition I – University of Seville st This 1 year module seeks to establish the general context regarding the historical processes of architectural design, emphasising its cultural, social, political, economic, technological, and formal aspects. The contents include reference to


32

EDUCATE

Appendix

the conceptual basis of architecture, its culture, arts, the role of tradition, innovation and hybridisation in the shaping of contemporary design, including attention to technology, its relevance in design and construction, and its social and cultural implications. The pedagogical approach is centred on lectures, brainstorming sessions and individual research work. The main target is for students to develop knowledge through small exercises that provide the necessary training to acquire the competences needed for the main project. Lectures are organised to encourage interactions between the students and the tutor. Students work individually or in groups on projects and essays focused on the main topics presented by the programme. Tutorials are conceived to guide students on aspects such as conceptual structure, development of contents, resources, graphic expression, formal conception, and conclusions. Several teaching communication tools are promoted, such as oral presentations, discussions, recommended readings, criticism sessions, development of surveys, questions, etc. Students are encouraged to attend various activities from different areas of culture that can be part of their architectural training, such as exhibitions, concerts, book presentations, and conferences. Students are also introduced to the methods of research as a key activity, so as to establish the basis of a scientificallybased approach to architectural design to be further developed at the following stages of their education.

GRADUATE LEVEL Technical Immersion of Design Studio – Technical University of Munich Alongside the main studio projects, each student has to undertake an integrated studio module (Technical Immersion) during the last two years of their education. This design development must be carried out in collaboration with one of the Chairs of the Faculty of Architecture. Students can opt to take this module in collaboration with the ClimaDesign programme, Chair for Building Climatology and Building Services. ClimaDesign presents solutions for buildings that can achieve more while needing less technology. Its aim is to develop buildings that offer maximum comfort while using a minimum amount of energy. An integrated approach towards the building and urban design process is emphasised within the programme. Architecture and technology are not considered in a serial manner, but rather they form a balanced and concerted system holistically conceived within a multidimensional design process. Such design approach not only considers the form and geometry of the building, but also takes into account further parameters such as passive design, energy supply systems in buildings and urban structures, materials and water use and re-use, economical aspects and, of course, human/user needs and comfort requirements. The skills required of students include backing up design ideas with energy, comfort, daylight, and economic calculations. This is normally done by intuition based on experience of design and the systematic analysis of completed buildings, supported by the targeted use of design and computational tools. This module ultimately aims to give to students an interdisciplinary awareness of the numerous environmental factors relevant to architectural and urban design and preservation that are involved in the design development process, including the needs of the occupant, building programme and building and urban climatology. Knowledge transfer in practice is encouraged and plays an essential part of the pedagogical method promoted by the module through analysis and consultation of publications, guest tutoring and critiques, attendance at exhibitions, conferences, etc. Technology and Building Physics Studio – University of Rome La Sapienza th This module, taught at the 4 year of the architectural curriculum, aims to provide students with the technological and environmental knowledge needed to control the architectural design, construction, and management processes. The programme highlights the relationship between an environmental approach to the project, technical choices, and the expressive purpose of architecture, through the study and application of methods, tools and techniques of ‘integrated design’, here intended as an organic design process capable of handling the many specialisms involved in the contemporary building industry. Students develop the design of a small dismountable pavilion able to perform the function of social aggregation point in a flexible and adaptable way, so as to meet the practical needs of the context in which it is placed and, at the same time, be relocated in contexts with characteristics - partially or totally - different from the original one. The temporary pavilion must be an exemplar of sustainable design in its conception and its operation, utilising local materials, manufacturers, suppliers and labour where possible. It should also be energy self-sufficient and provide energy to the surroundings areas, focusing on renewable energy production through solar and photovoltaic systems. The module is conceived as an interdisciplinary working space, where the specific contents are delivered according to a cyclical and progressive syllabus, in which lectures ex-cathedra provide knowledge to meet the demands of studio. The theoretical contents, notions, and principles converge within students’ design projects basing on a problem-based learning approach, which engages students with specific problems, increases their interest levels in the subject, and makes the knowledge more memorable. The module includes interim reviews and common critiques. The lectures ex-cathedra deal with environmental design factors in the conception of temporary architectures, theories and principles of sustainable development, innovation and technology transfer, life cycle assessment, simulation techniques, hybrid technologies, low-impact materials, building physics and energy efficiency. The associated modules of "Building Physics" and "Automated Design", as part of a partially integrated structure, support the development of the project in terms of “integrated design” criteria, finalising their contribution to the verification of system solutions in relation to the environmental comfort, and to the design control through methods and techniques of representation.


33

EDUCATE

Appendix

Some extracts from students’ final designs Complex Design Studio 1 and 2 – Budapest University of Technology and Economics This module runs for the final year of the architecture programme and is composed of two stages, Complex Design Studio 1 and 2. The target of this module is for students to apply their theoretical knowledge, and practice the methodology of a complex design process through the creation of a contemporary building inspired by a sustainable ethos. Students work individually and the design is developed both in drawings and written specification documents under the supervision of architectural consultants and other tutors from the associated teaching Departments. The design must be verified from the point of view of construction technology, structural, mechanical, and environmental engineering solutions. To get from the initial idea to the final design, the project and all its technical details are formed by analysing their complex interactions. The requirements of a sustainable approach to design demand research work from the part of the students, so as to generate new and innovative solutions. Following a site visit, the first semester starts with introductory lectures to prepare the students for their design task. Throughout the semester, the students have to give three presentations of their preliminary design in front of the tutors. Once the initial concept is accepted, the students prepare drawings of their design up to a planning permission level, including the required schemes of structural and HVAC engineering, building construction and the organisation of the construction works. In the second semester, the module focuses on the development of the project. Students choose an area of the building to design at a much more detailed level. After presenting the draft project in the studio, students develop their design to a level that could be used as a production information document: plans and sections, accompanied by detailed drawings regarding interior design and landscape elements completed by an environmental impact study. In each semester, students need to take two 1day long design tests, which consist in the preliminary design of a small-sized building developed individually without the help of tutors. These tests are conceived similarly to architectural competitions and their purpose is twofold: to foster independent work and to develop creativity. The projects are evaluated at a final review at the end of the year. Diploma Design Thesis – University of Nottingham This year-long module allows students to identify and explore a topic of interest related to architecture and to develop a design thesis based on research carried out throughout their final year of study. Students are expected to plan and execute a programme of independent study and, with tutorial advice, to initiate, develop, and finalise a design thesis with an appropriate theme. The programme provides the opportunity for students to explore and research in depth those aspects of architecture that are of particular interest to them, and declare their intellectual and design position. The module is strictly interrelated with the design and research activities carried out in the context of a Design Research


34

EDUCATE

Appendix

Studio that students can join. The Design Research Studios are organised as collaborative groupings managed by a Studio Leader and a number of associated tutors that provide continuous support on the theoretical, design and technical (environmental and structural/construction) aspects of the design development. The Design Thesis allows the development of the core skills expected of architecture students at the final stage of their learning, as well as providing the opportunity for them to explore and research in greater depth particular aspects of architecture. Students are expected to exercise initiative and personal responsibility and continue to advance knowledge and understanding of architecture through an independent and research-led attitude to learning. The programme of the module is organised in monthly common reviews where students from all the Design Research Studios come together as a group to present and discuss critically their individual design developments, at the presence of mixed panels made up of tutors from different Studios and external guests. The module aims primarily to support students in articulating a philosophical approach that reveals an understanding of theory in a cultural context and generate and systematically test, analyse, and appraise design options, which display methodological and theoretical rigour. As part of the requirements for the Diploma Thesis, students need to show evidence of having critically appraised and formed considered judgements about the spatial, aesthetic, technical, and social qualities of a design within the scale and scope of a wider environment, and show knowledge and understanding of building technologies, environmental design, structural theories, construction techniques and processes, and the provision of building services within a framework of the knowledge of the physical properties of building materials and components, and the environmental impact of specification choices.

An extract from a student’s final Thesis

POSTGRADUATE LEVEL Project I: Urban Case Studies – Architectural Association School of Architecture This module of the MSc/MArch in Sustainable Environmental Design is the main vehicle for the application of the theoretical concepts and computational tools introduced by the taught programme in the first term of the academic year. The project involves fieldwork including measurements of environmental conditions and extensive analytic work using dynamic thermal modelling and solar, airflow and daylight simulation studies. It is undertaken in teams of four students, with each team focusing their project work on an existing residential or mixed-use development. The students’ teams are expected to look at how different microclimates form in cities and the effects these have on activity and environmental quality in and around buildings. The project combines mapping of activities in selected buildings and outdoor spaces with environmental measurements across sections of the city. These inform on the nature of environmental conditions, as well as providing numerical data with which to calibrate computational tools that are then applied to perform parametric studies as part of design research. The findings of these studies provide starting points for design projects that follow in the second term, exploring adaptive and performative strategies that can achieve autonomy from conventional energy sources addressing climate change and environmental quality. Weekly lectures and workshops introduce students to the


35

EDUCATE

Appendix

concepts and analytic tools that are to be applied on the project. Tools include scientific instruments for measurements, as well as survey techniques and software for environmental simulation. The sequence of project tasks follows that of topics covered by the formal teaching with a little time lag, so that students have time to practice the use of new techniques on small exercises before applying them on the project tasks. Team work is an essential component of project work and provides an additional source of learning. Studying how buildings work in practice provides an excellent vehicle for learning the principles and tools of sustainable environmental design. The findings of the fieldwork and simulation studies provide a diagnostic assessment of existing urban schemes, as well as highlighting potential for environmental improvements. The main outcomes accomplished by the Project I are: the undertaking of fieldwork involving the study of the urban fabric and that of buildings; interviews with inhabitants, with designers and site managers; measurements of key environmental variables; processing of fieldwork data; computer modelling and environmental performance studies; review of published sources and improvement proposals for the selected sites; comparison of findings from individual studies within the team, with the findings of other project teams and also with published benchmarks; the drawing of main lessons from the selected case study; reporting on progress in weekly tutorials and presenting regularly in class; writing, revising and illustrating the Project’s submission documents.

Some extracts from students’ projects Dissertation Project – Architectural Association School of Architecture The Dissertation Project is the final and most substantial piece of work for the MSc and MArch in Sustainable Environmental Design. It represents a significant piece of individual work that reflects the programme's areas of research and the students’ personal interests, background, special skills and plans for the future. For the MSc, the Dissertation Project combines critical investigation of a research topic with the help of case studies and analytic work aiming at better


36

EDUCATE

Appendix

understanding the underlying design principles and practical applications in a given context. For the MArch, the research must culminate in an original design application that must be developed in some detail. Submission is in the form of a bound thesis document of some 15,000 words. Project development is studio-based and is supervised on a weekly basis by tutors and consultants. Class presentations are held at regular intervals to obtain feedback from invited reviewers. In the first stage (Phase I) of the Masters programme, project briefs, contexts, and methods of work are predetermined as part of the student’s learning and research process. The Dissertation Project (Phase II) is a test of what each individual has learnt and how the knowledge and understanding acquired are applied to the formulation and investigation of an approved research project that represents 50% of the credit units for the Masters degree. The collaborative ways of team project work of the first two terms can be continued into Phase II, if the students find such collaboration productive. However, the emphasis in this Phase is placed on individual initiative, judgment, and output. The main outcomes of the Dissertation are: the formulation of the project’s research topics; a critical review of relevant literature; study of built precedents; undertaking of fieldwork where appropriate; computer modelling and performing of simulation studies to compare and assess the effect of different parameters on environmental performance; reporting on progress in weekly tutorials and regular class presentations; writing, revising and illustrating the Dissertation’s submission documents.

Overview of the ‘learning by research’ process

Some extracts from March Dissertations


37

EDUCATE

Appendix

THE EDUCATE PRIZE – INTERNATIONAL STUDENT AWARD The EDUCATE Prize was launched in July 2009 to celebrate outstanding student work that creatively investigates and reflects on the various dimensions of sustainability in architecture and urban design. The Prize also aimed to reward original and innovative ideas and pedagogical methods promoting sustainable principles and practices in curricula of higher education. The EDUCATE Prize has been structured in 3 Categories: Category 1: Student Design Projects (Years of study 1-3, Undergraduate Degrees) Category 1 rewarded design projects developed at the first level (e.g., Bachelor) of higher education. Design entries had to deal with the field of architecture, urban design and/or planning or building renovation. Category 2: Student Design Projects (Years of study 4-6 Graduate/Postgraduate Degrees) Category 2 rewarded design projects developed at the second and third level (e.g., Diploma and/or Master) of higher education. Design entries had to deal with the field of architecture, urban design and/or planning or building renovation. Category 3: Open Student Work (All Years of the curriculum) Category 3 rewarded all non-building design projects, including short essays, videos, artwork, etc., dealing with themes of sustainability in architecture, urban design and/or planning or building renovation in an original and innovative way.

Category 2, 1st Prize: The Ark - Continuous Productive Urban Landscape Market (Stavros Zachariades) The international character of the EDUCATE Prize, the free choice of the themes analysed, and the diversification between categories, have been arranged to reflect the flexibility, autonomy, individuality, cultural diversity and innovation of approaches that characterise contemporary architectural education. Academic members of staff from Faculties, Schools and Departments of Architecture (or related discipline) worldwide were eligible to register their module, course or design studio unit to the EDUCATE Prize and submit maximum one student work under each Category. Academics registering to the Prize were given access for themselves and their students to the EDUCATE Knowledge Base. By the set deadline, 122 academics registered to the EDUCATE Prize in representation of 64 Universities worldwide (48 from Europe, 6 from North America, 5 from Asia, 2 from South America, 2 from Australia and 1 from Africa). 86 entries under the 3 Categories of the EDUCATE Prize were received from 42 different Universities (34 Universities from Europe, 2 from the United States, 2 from Chile, 1 from Canada, 1 from Bangladesh, 1 from Singapore, and 1 from Malaysia). Under the coordination of the Bavarian Chamber of Architects (Germany), the assessment process involved an independent Jury composed by members of European professional institutions and international architects. The assessment methodology and criteria have been based on the contents of the EDUCATE Knowledge Base and on the results of a research project for implementation of sustainability within architectural competitions (Hausladen et al., 2010). The pedagogical methods and teaching & learning processes for supporting the design development, as well as the capacity of critical reflection and awareness of sustainable mandates, were also highly regarded amongst the rd assessment criteria. The Award Ceremony and exhibition was held in Rome (Italy) on the 23 February 2012 in the context of a Symposium on Education for Sustainability. For more information, see the EDUCATE Prize Catalogue available on www.educate-sustainbaility.eu/download or visit the webpage www.educate-sustainability.eu/prize


38

Sustainable Architectural Education White Paper Authored by: EDUCATE Edited by: Dr Sergio Altomonte Environmental Design in University Curricula and Architectural Training in Europe www.educate-sustainability.eu

Supported by: Intelligent Energy Europe ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent

ISBN: 978-0-9573450-0-3

© EDUCATE Press 2012