Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 17, Nos. 4 and 5, pp. 349±352, 2001 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00 Printed in Great Britain. # 2001 TEMPUS Publications.

Learning from the Architecture Studio: Implications for Project-Based Pedagogy*

SARAH KUHN Department of Regional Economic and Social Development, University of Massachusetts, MA 01854 Lowell, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Architects are educated through a process that revolves around the `studio course', and an attempt to apply the studio method of teaching to the education of software designers reveals much about education and practice in both professions. Characteristics of the architecture studio include: project-based work on complex and open-ended problems, very rapid iteration of design solutions, frequent formal and informal critique, consideration of a heterogeneous range of issues, the use of precedent and thinking about the whole, the creative use of constraints, and the central importance of design media. Experience from a studio course in software design provokes creative reflection on engineering design education, and on how it might be improved.

THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO the site, a list of some client requirements, and perhaps a rough budget or other constraint. In STUDIO EDUCATION, central to architectural the Software Design Studio, students began the training in the US for most of the twentieth semester with the very general charge to `rein- century, is a provocative and fruitful model for vent the community weekly newspaper for the engineering and software design education. The digital electronic era'. They were expected to architecture studio, an American adaptation of the have a partially-working prototype to demon- atelier-based training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts strate by the end of the semester, using either in 19th Century Paris [1], offers us a teaching model existing technology, or justifying why the tech- from a design discipline in which the functional nology they chose would be readily available and the structural, the social and the technical, within five years. Students were permitted very must be successfully blended [2, 3]. A look at the broad latitude in their approaches, and they central features of the architecture design studio chose to focus on a variety of aspects of the indicate some interesting possibilities for design problem: some concerned themselves with creat- education in other technical fields. ing a vehicle for delivery of conventional wire service reports and the like, while others branched off in novel directions, creating every- FEATURES OF THE DESIGN STUDIO thing from a handheld device for news reading to a newsgroup browser that represented post- At MIT in Fall 1995, a Software Design Studio ings as colorful spheres arranged in a DNA-like Course explored the use of the studio approach in strand. Faculty set the expectation that students teaching software design to graduate and under- would do overall conceptual design and be able graduate students. Organized and taught by Bill to answer questions about who would use their Mitchell, Dean of Architecture and Planning at creations, in what settings, using which hard- MIT, and Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Devel- ware platforms, and so forth, but that students opment Corporation and designer of Lotus 1-2-3, might choose only one aspect of their design for the course borrowed many aspects of architecture detailed exploration. studio teaching. Key features of the course reveal . Students' design solutions undergo multiple and some of the essential characteristics of architec- rapid iterations. A distinctive feature of archi- tural education that may be portable to education tectural educationÐand architectural practiceÐ in other technically-based design fields: is the rapid proliferation of potential design solutions. It is not unusual for a student, sitting . Student work is organized primarily into semester- alone or with a teacher or colleague, to quickly length projects, responding to a complex and sketch a series of possible approaches to a design open-ended assignment. In the architecture problem. In the architecture studio, faculty often studio, students start with an assignment, or enforce rapid iteration by requiring students to `program,' which usually describes the type of present in the first weeks of the semester a building they are to design, the size and shape of proposed solution to the given problem. This requirement is akin to `rapid prototyping,' and it * Accepted 25 November 2000. rewards experience and a facility for quickly

349 350 S. Kuhn

sizing up the situation, as well as allowing early studio can be a powerful venue for educating and frequent critique by others of a student's expert software practitioners. design. The requirement for early commitment . Critique is frequent, and occurs in both formal and to a solution has its origins in the practices at the informal ways, from faculty, peers, and visiting Ecole des Beaux-Arts, where students advanced experts. One of the hallmarks of studio educa- in their education by doing well in design com- tion is the creation of a `culture of critique,' in petitions. Each competition began with students which students, who spend long hours working receiving an assignment and remaining in the side by side at their projects, give each other Ecole building for a set period of several hours, frequent feedback, and also get both formal and during which they were to sketch out their informal feedback from the faculty in charge of solution to the assigned design problem. At the the studio. Architecture students also participate end of the period they handed in their sketches, in `pin ups,' in which they literally pin their then spend the ensuing weeks working out the drawings to the wall and discuss their work details of the solution which they had sketched. with critics, and submit to `desk crits,' a discus- Their final design, on which their work was sion with a faculty supervisor at the student's judged, was not permitted to vary significantly desk. In the software course, interactions were in overall approach from the sketch they had more limited because the students did not share submitted on the first day. American studio a common physical space, but instead worked in education is not so rigid, and students may their departmental laboratories or their own change their designs significantly over the personal workspaces. The group met for three course of the semester, allowing them to learn hours a week in a classroom with electronic from their own continued work and the feed- projection capabilities, and after the first back of others. In the Software Design Studio, weeks of the semester, most of the time was students submitted a one-page description of devoted to group reviews of each student's their approach at the fourth class meeting, and work-in-progress. In the software studio, as in reviewed their plans with a faculty member the traditional architecture studio teaching, a `jury' following week. By mid-semester, the practice of composed of faculty and outside experts having students present their work-in-progress reviewed and judged the students' projects. In to the group every few weeks was well estab- some studio courses, outside experts or clients lished. Most students set a general direction may participate in intermediate reviews or early on, but some student projects changed discussions as well. dramatically in the last weeks of the semester. . Heterogeneous issuesÐranging from structural The ability to work quickly, and to draw effec- integrity to the social impact of the designÐare tively on past experience, are key features of considered, often in the same conversation. A professional expertise. In their discussion of the characteristic feature of design discourse is its difference between the expert and the merely dense interweaving of heterogeneous issues, and competent chess player, Hubert and Stuart its odd method of progressionÐraising topics, Dreyfus describe Stuart's experience on his considering them, and then often moving on to college chess team [4]: other issues without clear resolution of earlier concerns. Observers have commented on the `At some point, a few of his teammates who were not linked and contingent nature of design decisions, mathematicians began to play fast five- or ten-minute reflected in design conversations [5], and one games of chess, and also began eagerly to replay the games of the grand masters. But Stuart and his author has compared design conversations to mathematical colleagues resisted because fast chess jazz improvisation [6]. In the Software Design didn't give them the time to figure out what to do. Studio, a conversation might range from such They also felt they could learn nothing from the grand issues as what it really means to be a community master games, since the record of those games seldom newspaper, to details of interface design, to what if ever provided specific rules and principles. Some of the right software tools are for implementing his teammates who played fast chess and studied the design. One special strength, then, of studio- grand master games . . . went on to become chess based teaching is its ability to support multi- masters. Yet Stuart and his mathematical friends disciplinary and integrative education. The never got beyond the competent level.' studio can act as a forum for debate and discus- The parallel to student activities in the design sion of a wide variety of issues. The instructor studio is striking: students are exposed to rele- is responsible for making sure that the most vant precedent (community newspapers or important issues are covered during the course historic buildings are the games of the grand of the semester. masters) and to rapid iteration of design solu- . Students study precedents (past designs) and are tions (fast chess). In the design studio, students encouraged to think about the big picture. Archi- of software design can learn to combine tecture students study precedents both in separ- instrumental reason (`figuring out what to do') ate courses devoted to architectural genres with a more tacit `knowing-in-action' [5]. It (The Modern Movement, Renaissance and Bar- is this combination which is essential to the oque Architecture) and within the context of a development of true expertise, and the design specific studio course. If, for example, the studio Learning from the Architecture Studio 351

assignment involves designing a community designer's decisions are influenced by the unex- center, students may look at pictures of ancient pected `backtalk' that comes from developing marketplaces, rural Grange halls, modern com- the design. A sketch of a building may reveal an munity buildings by named architects, and so unanticipated problem or a surprise opportu- forth. Faculty make presentations about rele- nityÐor an unanticipated problem that becomes vant issues of precedent and method on an `as a surprise opportunity. A three-dimensional needed' basis during the course of the semester. model of the building, or a visit to the site, In the Software Design Studio, students partici- may offer a fresh way of seeing the problem pated in discussions about Fishwrap (an electro- and of approaching a solution. Design mediaÐ nic daily for MIT undergrads), the Vineyard whether they are electronic, paper, modeling Gazette (from Martha's Vineyard), and the clay, or any other materialÐhave affordances Boston Phoenix weekly. Precedents exemplify and constraints [8]. Like other everyday objects, particular solutions to design problems; students they allow or encourage (afford) certain kinds of are challenged not to imitate but to use the use and prohibit or discourage (constrain) precedents as inspiration and to stimulate a others. Pens are for writing, and for poking rethinking of the problem at hand. One of the things with, but do not make good cups. Cups challenges for students, and for faculty, is to are good containers for beverages, pencils, and avoid a sole focus when thinking about a design fresh flowers, but you cannot use them to write problem: students must be able to think at a with. Some design media are more pliable than high level of abstraction about the overall others, and some are easier for a novice to use problem (`What is a community? What fosters readily, but all design media encourage certain community?') but also be able to shift focus to kinds of design exploration and discourage detailed design. The move from big picture to others. A paper and pencil afford rapid sketch- detail should be iterative, and students may need ing, and rapid modification by erasing or writing help to move back and forth. In the Software over. Building blocks let us see three dimen- Design Studio, some students had a tendency to sional forms more readily. A PowerPoint become obsessed with the details of implementa- presentationÐtext organized into phrasesÐcan tion, and it could be challenging to bring them also be a medium for presenting design ideas, back to higher level of conceptual thinking. and this medium favors things that can be . Faculty help students to impose appropriate con- expressed explicitly, using words. A prototype straints on their design process in order to navi- built in Java will support exploration of inter- gate a complex and open-ended problem and find action, while a wall poster helps a group of a satisfactory design solution. An important people to focus on and discuss issues that lend faculty obligation that accompanies assigning themselves to visual presentation. Because dif- students a complex, open-ended problem is help- ferent design media have different affordances ing them to converge on a solution. Students and constraints, designers can productively may easily be overwhelmed by the enormity of exploit these differences by using different the task set for them, and the number of possible media at different points in the design process. directions in which their designs might head. Adopting a new medium can allow a designer Judicious and timely intervention can help a who is stuck to see the problem in a new way, or student focus or, when too focused, open up to explore previously unexplored aspects of a their thinking to explore new possibilities. The design situation. In the Software Design Studio studio project is constrained at the outset in a we made only limited use of multiple media, but variety of ways: by the limits specified in the by the end of the semester we became convinced initial assignment, by the amount of time allo- that enforcing the use of a variety of mediaÐfor cated to the studio course, by the materials and example by requiring a verbal presentation using methods available to students, and so forth. overhead slides at the beginning of the semester, Additional direction is likely to be needed, followed by a storyboard on a wall poster or however, in order for a student to successfully using Director software, followed at last by an complete their project. In the case of the Soft- electronic prototypeÐwould encourage students ware Design Studio, for example, a student was to focus on different aspects of their project at proposing an electronic newspaper for an island different points in its evolution. This would, we community. He seemed particularly interested in felt, allow more experimentation and design the problem of how to design and sell advertis- exploration than had taken place for some ing, so the faculty suggested that, in the context students who moved directly into creating an of sketching out the overall solution, he also go electronic prototype. into detail about an advertising plan. . The appropriate use of a variety of design media over the course of the project significantly sup- USING THE STUDIO AS A ROAD MAP TO ports and improves students' insight and designs. DESIGN PEDAGOGY Donald SchoÈn has described the design process as, in part, `a reflective conversation with the Studio teaching represents one point on the materials of a design situation' [7]. Often a spectrum of activities that constitute hands-on 352 S. Kuhn student work. It is fruitful to explore to what . heterogeneity of issues addressed; extent individual features of studio education are . variety of student skills required; also found in other project assignments, large and . use of diverse media for design and presentation; small. Students can be given open-ended assign- . use of precedents/exemplars; ments that require quick solutions (say, a proposed . collaborative development of a problem defini- solution 24 hours later, or even an in-class exer- tion or use of a pre-existing design specification. cise); they can be given assignments that require One final aspect of studio teaching deserves solutions drawing on multiple disciplines, with reiteration: it lends itself well to multidisciplinary multiple brief iterations; they can have faculty teaching and learning. Because of the heterogene- and peer critique and help constraining a complex ity of issues considered in studio courses, and they problem; and they can experiment with multiple way in which students are encouraged to look at design media and how different media draw atten- the totality of what they are doing, multiple tion to different aspects of a design problem. perspectives on the problem at hand are more Using the key features of a studio course as our easily introduced and assimilated into the flow of jumping off point, we as educators may want to the course. Faculty may teach in multidisciplinary ask ourselves where our current assignments to teams, students may work in multidisciplinary students fallÐand where we would like them to teams, and judges, critics, and clients may fallÐalong a number of dimensions: introduce multiple perspectives. . complexity of the problem; . open-endedness of the problem; . duration of the assignment; AcknowledgmentsÐThis work was supported in part by a . rapidity of iterations required; Career Advancement Award from the National Science Foundation's Ethics and Values Studies program. Thanks . collaboration encouraged or discouraged; also to Anne Beamish, Turid Horgen, Mitchell Kapor, William . explicit incorporation of reflection; Mitchell, the late John Schumacher, and Carol Strohecker.

REFERENCES

1. R. Chafee, The teaching of architecture at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, in A. Drexler, ed., The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, (1977). 2. S. Kuhn, The Software Design Studio: an exploration, IEEE Software, March/April, 1988. (This earlier article about the studio emphasizes the implications for software design practice.) 3. D. W. Shaffer, Understanding Design Learning: The Design Studio as a Model for Education, http://dws.www.media.mit.edu/people/dws/papers/designstudio. 4. H. Dreyfus and S. Dreyfus, Why computers may never think like people, in Forester, Tom, (ed.) Computers in the Human Context. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1989) p. 128. (Emphasis in the original). 5. D. A. SchoÈn, The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York (1983). 6. D. Cuff, Architecture: the Story of Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991). 7. D. A. SchoÈn, Design as a reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation, Research and Engineering Design, 3, 3 (1992). 8. D. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York (1988).

Sarah Kuhn is an Associate Professor in the department of Regional Economic and Social Development at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. She received her Ph.D. in Urban Studies and Planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1987. Her research interests include the design process and design education in software, mechanical engineering, and policymaking; the workplace and community impacts of information technology; and user participation in the design process. She is currently serving as a member of a US National Research Council committee on `Workforce Needs in Informa- tion Technology.' She is also coordinator of the Technology, Society, and Human Values Program at Lowell.