Anton Harfmann, Peter Akins, Michael Hatter
Janelle Kelpe. Sarah Krivanka, D. Anthony Schonhardt
College of Design, Architecture Art and Planning University of Cincinnati
The paper begins by charting the curricular context of the architecture program then parses co-op employer comments, both anecdotal and statistical, to serve as a new force to help guide curricular adjustments. The feedback was used to calculate course corrections that would be mutually beneficial to students' academic and practice experiences. Navigating co-op evaluation data illuminated the winter quarter of the sophomore year as a pedagogical/practice conundrum-the quarter before the students' first co-op and the end of the foundation sequence. The conflict during this quarter is between the need to provide students with the skills they need to excel in co-op employment versus the pedagogical desire to continue to concentrate on design and theory. The paper focuses on the merging of two courses during this critical academic term and plots a new direction with the intent to improve the students' first and subsequent crossings of the academic-practice divide. The paper concludes with comparing work from pre and post course adjustments and an initial evaluation based on student work and graduate assistant feedback.
Index Terms - Construction Technology, AutoCAD, Detailing, Building Information Modeling, Architecture, Pedagogy.
At first glance, the premise of using co-op employer evaluations to drive curricular change is entirely offensive to academics who see their role as teaching students to become co-op employers themselves rather than remaining employees. The concept of having employers indirectly drive curriculum also seems self-serving, as their concerns and evaluations will by default be driven by practice as it currently is while faculty are compelled to prepare students for a practice environment that will be. This dichotomy creates an interesting challenge-to search for an overlap between academic areas within the curriculum that could benefit from modifications while simultaneously addressing a concern uncovered by parsing co-op employer feedback. Ideally, any adjustment made in response to feedback should be mutually beneficial to the students' overall architectural education and to their co-op employer. Suspending skepticism about the premise of using co-op employer feedback as a force to drive curricular change we set out to identify an area where intervention would satisfy the academic concerns as well as address an area of apprehension expressed by employers.
To frame the argument, we begin by setting the pedagogical and curricular stage of the architecture program in the School of Architecture and Interior Design at the University of Cincinnati. The review of the program is followed by an analysis of the winter quarter sophomore curriculum as an area where modifications might enhance the overall pedagogy as well as address employer concerns focusing primarily on two specific courses-namely, the sophomore construction class and the introduction to CAD class. Analysis of co-op employer evaluations were used to verify that this area of the curriculum did indeed warrant some type of intervention and that adjustments made to these two courses would directly benefit the students in both academic and practice realms. The curricular corrections identified through this process are outlined, comparing examples of work from both pre- and post-altered courses. Finally, comments from the course's graduate assistants who took the courses prior to the redesign are used as initial feedback while we wait for more formal responses from employers to verify whether the changes have any effect in the practice environment.
In 2000 the School of Architecture and Interior Design at the University of Cincinnati used the conversion from five-year BArch degree to a six-year MArch degree as an opportunity to reevaluate and reinvent the curricula in Architecture and Interior Design. The reformulation challenged old habits and methods of delivering design and technical knowledge. The resulting curriculum suspends conventional building design education for the first year focusing instead on intensive skill building and developing design vocabulary and compositional skills. Projects include the dismantling, documenting (in drawing and electronic forms) and reconfiguration of appliances (refrigerators, stoves and dishwashers) into robots and musical instruments. Students emerge from the first year with general drawing, computer modeling/rendering, physical modeling and compositional abilities (See Figure 1 in Appendix A).
Based on a concept introduced by Dr. Daniel Friedman, the director of School of Architecture and Interior Design at the time, the first quarter of the second year immediately casts students into the immersion quarter-an experience in which students are engrossed in a building design for the entire academic term with an intense coordination of all other course work. By suspending the design of a building for a full year we are able to capitalize on the high level of energy and anticipation on the part of the students and introduce them to the choreographic and integrative nature of design.
During the middle years, students begin the sequence of traversing between an 11 week academic term, followed by an 11 week cooperative education term. Early on in year two the primary focus is on building specific architectural knowledge and technical skills to prepare students for their first co-op employment position with more elective opportunities available in year three.
The fourth year serves as the capstone year during which students complete an intensely integrated structures/construction/environmental technology studio that spans two quarters and integrates coursework in all three technical areas that comprise its title. Student receive a non-professional Bachelor of Science degree at the end of year four then apply to an March graduate program to continue their studies.
Immediately following the intensity and holistic approach of the immersion studio, the winter quarter of the sophomore year returns to a more conventional pattern of course work with students enrolled in five discreet courses: Design Studio, Construction Technology, Architectural History, Structures & Computer Skills. This quarter is also the last quarter of the undergraduate curriculum before students begin their mandatory co-op rotation. As such, there is considerable pressure to provide students with as many skills as possible in order to increase their employment opportunities and productivity. In particular, co-op employers benefit the most from students who exhibit technical proficiency in two specific areas; an understanding of construction technology and the ability to use computer-aided drafting programs, such as AutoCAD. Consequently, the curriculum includes a computer skills class during the winter quarter to give students critical CAD skills prior to their first co-op experience. This course and skill development has always been viewed as somewhat of a misfit in its position in the curriculum since the specific skill of using AutoCAD to produce conventional 2-D drawings is pedagogically opposite to the intentional and concentrated focus on designing and communicating in three-dimensions. However, proficiency in the use of AutoCAD is perhaps the single most important skill that ensures that a student can secure a reasonable first co-op position. This course has been somewhat ostracized as the 'necessary evil' of the sophomore year and has experienced several iterations for delivering instruction ranging from an on-line self-taught course to a structured course with its own assignments. Furthermore, out of necessity, the CAD class focuses primarily on skill development and does not offer any exposure to the use of the software to produce construction documents.
Parallel to the CAD class in the winter quarter, students take their first comprehensive construction class. This course focuses on exposing students to various types of building construction, from wood frame to steel frame, recognizing that this is also a critical area of knowledge that can increase a student's success in co-op. The construction class and CAD class have evolved as independent courses over the years with no interaction between them. This is in large part due to the fact that there was no standard curriculum, regular faculty member or method of teaching this CAD class for years. With a move to offer the class regularly and to hire a faculty member to teach it we could explore an adjustment in the curriculum. An intervention that addresses the isolated AutoCAD class by relating it more directly with the construction class is viewed as a potentially beneficial modification to the curriculum. It is also anticipated that a closer relationship between these two classes might address co-op employer concerns as well.
Initial evaluation of the statistical and anecdotal feedback from employers revealed a clear, albeit minor, concern about students' limited ability to navigate the complexity of technical aspects of building. Also implied was a concern about limitations in the student's ability to communicate this complexity in drawing and model form. While the data is not abundantly clear about these issues, the overlap between our own academic concerns warranted a closer investigation. This led to the development of additional and much more specific questions about the technical proficiency of a co-op student in their early years. Four additional detailed questions were developed as a means to confirm our suspicions that the student's knowledge of building technology and their ability to represent complex construction assemblies are indeed areas of mutual concern. The questions were sent to co-op employers employing first time sophomore students. The supplemental web-based questionnaire and is shown in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
While the general category of technology in the overall evaluation form received relatively high marks, employers were much more critical when answering the more detailed questions. The responses supported our suspicions that students struggle more in the specific areas of building construction and detailing as well as developing proficiency in technical drawing and representation using digital technology such as AutoCAD. The summary analysis of the four detailed questions is shown in the chart in Table 1 (See Figure 3, Appendix C).
The supplemental questions confirmed that both construction technology and CAD skills are areas where laying a stronger foundation in school could return substantial short and long-term benefits in practice. More importantly, the overlap with curricular concerns makes any modification to these courses mutually beneficial. It is important to note that all respondents did not answer all questions. Consequently, the N, at the bottom of the chart is the number of respondents that answered all questions. It is also worth noting that the relatively small N is due to the fact that we sent the new questions to employers with first time sophomore co-op students only. In a cohort of 75 architecture students, approximately half of which are on co-op term at any given time, the maximum N could only be about 38.
In response to the academic and co-op employer concerns, it appeared obvious to the construction and CAD faculty that an intervention that results in a better integration of course work between the construction and CAD classes could be pedagogically advantageous. Both classes have well defined course outlines and a clear, logical sequence of introducing material. The construction class follows a sequence beginning with light wood frame construction and culminates in steel frame structures and interior assemblies. The CAD class follows a sequence that gradually introduces students to more features and complex operations in AutoCAD beginning with basic concepts and menus and culminating in relating drawings to each other and plotting. While there is little to no overlap in the specific lecture material, the projects in both classes do follow a similar path. The construction class has focused heavily on the production of wall sections to exercise the students' ability to choreograph materials into a functional and 'poetic' assembly. The students produced a series of these wall sections incorporating various materials during the course of the quarter. All sections were hand-drawn and included a three-dimensional sketch overlay of the assembly. An example of one of the four wall section projects is shown in Figure 4 (Appendix D).
The projects in the CAD class focused on producing traditional 2D drawings with dimensions and notes. Students were asked to use their own house as their subject and were expected to produce plans, elevations, interior elevations and sections, then plotting them out by the end of the quarter. With limited time in the class and the need to offer sufficient exposure to the depth of AutoCAD, the class has been unable to focus on using the software to produce construction documents. Consequently, the drawings produced exhibit technical proficiency in the use of CAD with little attention paid to construction. An example of a typical plan drawing produced in the class is shown in Figure 5 (Appendix E).
What appears clearly when comparing the independent work from the two courses is that merging the two assignments into a single project for both classes would bring greater meaning to the CAD project and bring a much needed skill development aspect to the construction class. Rather than discrete, unrelated exercises, a holistic single project could also enhance the students' ability to grasp construction assemblies and improve their ability to represent them. Combining projects allows the structure and schedule of the courses to remain largely unchanged with construction lecture meeting twice a week and the CAD class meeting once a week for a one-hour lecture and once a week for a two-hour practical class. Since students are required to take both classes they can be divided equally between four graduate assistants who serve both the construction and CAD classes. This union of the two courses around a single shared project has resulted in three distinct and immediate benefits;
The focus of the CAD class has shifted toward a more meaningful project that directly relates to another class the students are taking. This also reduces the amount of 'busy work' as students are fulfilling requirements for two classes with one effort. The graduate assistants are able to use the CAD practical class time to reinforce lecture topics and to answer both construction and CAD questions. This essentially provides a practical class for the construction class without compromising the CAD requirements and brings a construction aspect to the CAD class, which more closely emulates the practice environment.
With better integration, access to graduate assistants and common project requirements, the construction and CAD classes are able to add depth and content to their existing course outlines. In particular, the construction class is able to introduce the concept of building information modeling to the curriculum and include a strong 3D component to the project and the CAD class is able to introduce students to alternative software for producing construction documents.
The building chosen for the combined project is the 'half-house' designed by a student in the class. The house consists of three primary shapes, a triangle, semi-circle and rectangle connected by a common circulation spine. The plan and axonometric view of the house is shown in Figure 6 (Appendix F).
The shared project requires students to develop a set of documents describing the construction of the building using both 2D and 3D electronic representation. To ensure that students have unique and broad exposure to various construction types each portion of the building is assigned variables for the structural system, materials, dimensions and foundation. For example, one student may be assigned a steel frame over a slab on grade for the semicircle while another may be assigned a wood frame over a full basement for the same portion of the building. The project begins with students producing a simple 3D model of the form and a 2D plan of the first floor according to their unique parameters. This is followed by the production of two wall sections through the wood frame and masonry bearing portions of their building. By mid-term, students submit plots of the foundation plan, first floor plan, elevations and two wall sections. The midterm plots are 'red-lined' by the four graduate assistants and returned to students for corrections. An example of a portion of a red-lined submission of a section and partial red-lined plan is shown in Figure 7. While the drawings in the figure may be confusing to most non-architects, the intent of including these images is to point out that the new, combined course offers an unprecedented opportunity to offer feedback to students during the project. Under the separate class structure there simply was insufficient time to incorporate this valuable teaching method (see Figure 7 in Appendix G).
For the final submission, students are required to correct their drawings and include a detailed 3D digital model of the steel frame portion of their building. The 3D model is a new requirement and introduces students to the concept of building information modeling. While the vast majority of practice continues to utilize 2D drawing for conveying construction intent, the emerging 3D building information modeling strategy will radically transform practice by replacing drawings with models. By consolidating projects the course can fulfill its obligation to prepare students for practice in the future while simultaneously giving them the skills they need to practice in the present. Students are introduced to the building information modeling concept in lecture where the same half-house building is used as a case study to illustrate construction principles of wood frame and masonry bearing walls. This lead by example modeling during class sets students up to model the steel section of their own project. Furthermore, having students navigate between 2D and 3D will hopefully increase their understanding of complex assemblies as well as their ability to represent them in 2D or 3D. An example of part of the 3D class model of the half-house is shown in Figure 8 (Appendix H).
Evaluating the final projects from the first offering of the modified classes reveals very interesting academic benefits. While AutoCAD skills may have improved only slightly, the difference in the work performed for the construction class resulting from the merger is astounding. The quality of drawings and depth of construction understanding exhibited in them far exceeds the level of work from previous years of that class. The inclusion of the 3D component modeling of the steel frame portion of the building yields even greater benefits. From the 3D model it is abundantly and immediately apparent whether a student understands the basic principles covered in class since the accurate 3-D modeling process reveals issues that cannot be illuminated in a 2D drawing. Figures 9 - 12 illustrate the outcomes of the pilot shared comprehensive project for the courses and show the greater level of detail of the work. All images are taken from the work of a sophomore student who was enrolled in both classes. Figure 9 shows his foundation plan of the half-house (see Figure 9 in Appendix I).
The project shows its depth and holistic nature in the elevation and wall section in Figures 10 and 11 respectively. The elevation reveals that the student is beginning to understand the complexity of his building. His acknowledgement of the sloped site is evident in the stepping foundation wall. Furthermore, the consistency between the plan representation and the elevation with respect to the various foundations types indicates a 3D understanding of the complexity of construction and design. Figure 11 is an image of a wall section of the same final project. While this wall section is technically on-par with sections produced in previous years, it stands apart as it is not a stand-alone project but rather a section describing a particular portion of the half-house project. Furthermore, it successfully integrates the use of AutoCAD as part of the process giving the student more opportunity to practice their skills while solving construction and design related issues (see Figures 10 and 11 in Appendix J).
Perhaps the most compelling evidence of enhanced learning is the three-dimensional model describing a portion of the half-house project. Figure 12 includes two images of a series of 3D images extracted from the final project showing the complexity of the assembly recognizing the construction sequence of building systems and components. Once again, the focus on these complicated images should be less on the actual information contained in the model, but on the fact that sophomore students were able to produce this level of complexity in the short time of one quarter. This would not have been possible in the previous split course scenario (See Figure 12 in Appendix K).
First-hand accounts from the four graduate assistants also confirm that the course corrections significantly improve the experience in both classes. They also report that the sophomore students' depth of understanding of construction principles is superior when compared with their own sophomore experience. Comments recorded by an external evaluator further confirm the initial success achieved by the course adjustments, a few of which follow:Graduate assistants are more accessible;
Available four hours per week to talk about AutoCAD and construction:
Finally, the initial returns from co-op employer evaluations comparing the sophomore class that took to the two separate classes to the sophomore class that experienced the merged classes also points in a positive direction. While the response rate is relatively small (due to the cohort class size), the improvement in performance is evident. Figure 13 illustrates the analysis of initial responses for Section 1 students (pre-course modification) to Section 2 students who took the new merged courses. While the improvement is small it is consistently higher across all four questions suggesting that the merged classes had a positive effect on their first employment experience (see Figure 13 in Appendix L).
Based on the success of this initial effort it seems that asking employers for curricular advice is rather obvious. What are not evident from this paper are the difficulties convincing faculty to participate. The suspicion that faculty would be wholly offended by any process that allowed employers to affect curriculum was absolutely true. This hurdle was actually overcome while working on the project. Temporarily suspending skepticism allowed the work to progress and it soon became apparent that employers were much more interested in larger educational issues than making specific demands. Based on this effort several observations can be made to help other academics considering a similar strategy:
Hold roundtable discussions with employers early on to get initial feedback on curricular issues. It was quite a surprise to learn that employers are far more interested in broad educational questions instead of satisfying their specific needs. This became clear during roundtable discussions with several employers. Their enthusiasm and dedication to education is immediately apparent and will serve to alleviate most faculty apprehensions about including their feedback as part of curricular discussions;
Ask broad level questions instead of specific questions. Faculty is most concerned that employers will make specific curricular demands such as, 'students need to know how to use XYZ software'. While some employers will make such specific requests most employers reported that they can easily teach software XYZ if the student understood principles ABD. Consequently, a question such as, 'should students be familiar with principles of ABC?', is considerably less threatening to a faculty member and gets at the root academic question as well;
Include students in the development of survey instruments and course modifications. While students may not be able to appreciate larger pedagogical issues they are the ones regularly traversing the theory-practice chasm. Their insight during the process can stimulate fresh ideas and help faculty develop an appreciation for practice by serving as a common link between the academic and practice realms. In particular, involving graduate students who are product of the curriculum is extremely helpful since they have a mature and experienced point of view that can yield tremendous insight and are less threatening to faculty than employers; and
Change is good. While there is considerable investment in altering curriculum or coursework, the lessons learned far outweigh the effort to institute the changes. In our case, one of the course modifications was not very successful but its failure led to a more sophisticated approach for the following year. This would not have been possible had we not forged ahead with the original course alteration.
As we continue to collect responses from the sophomore employment experience we will monitor comments and consider additional changes in response to the feedback. We are also addressing some shortcomings with the current modifications; in particular, we are searching for a way to focus more on detailing and developing a better holistic understanding of the relationship between the various technical systems in building. From various conversations with local architectural firms we are witnessing a strong desire to incorporate building information modeling techniques into practice. As more firms adopt this paradigm and expect students to be prepared for practice in this environment, we will use employer feedback to better prepare our coursework in these areas. We are also expanding our review of the curriculum in the area of sustainable design and are using the methods established through this pilot effort to evaluate new curricular adjustments. The base questions on sustainable design are currently being collected from employers and the curriculum has been modified with significant new focus on sustainability. Once these students enter their co-op terms we will analyze the affects of the new course material relative to those students under the previous curriculum.