End of Fall 2008 Schedule

Please adjust your semester's end schedule to the following:

Tuesday, November 25th:
Last Class Meeting for All Tuesday/Thursday Course Sections

THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY

Monday, December 1st:
Last Class Meeting for ARCH2501, ARCH3501, & all Monday/Wednesday/Friday Course Sections

Tuesday, December 2nd:
All Day Studio Reviews for ARCH2501 & 3501 - No Meeting for Other Classes

Wednesday, December 3rd:
All Day Studio Reviews for CompBuildDesign (Grad Studios) - No Meeting for Other Classes - Last Day to Submit Work to a course

Thursday, December 4th:
Student Dead Day - All Faculty Internal Reviews (focusing on CompBuildDesign)


If you feel it will be necessary for your course section to meet on either the 2nd or the 3rd then you should inform the Associate Dean for Academics, Michael Peters of the course number, section, #, the meeting time, and your written intention to hold class on one or both of these dates.

Outline for ARCH3341

The purpose of the adjunct course is to develop a comprehensive ability to model architectural projects through solid and parametric modeling technologies. The analogy we could use for such work is "building in a virtual jobsite".

Each section of the adjunct will have a roster identical to a concurrent studio section. They will be taught in association wherever it is deemed useful and appropriate by the studio instructor. Where the studio instructor sees the adjunct as irrelevant or unmanageable for the studio I have a schedule and curriculum that can be inserted (see below).

The TAs will be responsible for every in-class aspect of their particular section of this adjunct course. Kuhn Park and I, in tandem, will act as coordinator- setting up a common syllabus at the beginning, shared assessment matrices as assignments are given, and an outline for the curriculum of the course- which the associated studio professor can modify and adjust unilaterally to meet your desired level of coordination with your studio schedule and the agenda of your pedagogy. The TAs will work in this class under the clear instruction that they are to support the studio's expressed agendas when invited, take instructions from the studio professor as primary directive, but to not interfere with studio teaching. This is not designed to be an intensive course or a "mini-studio" in anyway. It should be loaded like a regular CoA@TTU 3 credit hour course. The students should not be working and studying this material more than 12 hours outside of class each week.

We expect the depth of studio faculty direction and "hand" in adjunct course reconfiguration and intervention to vary greatly from faculty to faculty. The base intervention of attending studio faculty will be to plug in the subject for each of the first of three phases of the course and to allow the adjunct TA access to the ongoing studio work in their studio. The extreme is that a studio professor can consider this curriculum to be nothing more than a straw man and instruct them to operate the course completely otherwise- as long as its goals and time requirements are still the purpose stated above and there are no more than 12 hours outside of class each week (not on average but in each week). The TA will provide a tentative course syllabus and schedule drawn up for your consideration and editing. 3501 faculty can redirect the class as much as they see fit as long as they notify the TA of adjustments so that the TA can incorporate them into their syllabus.

Our suggested outline for this course looks like this:
a) 3 weeks of studying the techniques and principles of the software while making a catalog of simple models of structural forces and systems in buildings.
b) 4 weeks of developing digital modeling skills and project management while creating a comprehensive building model of a precedent or case study. This model should be "built analogous to the way the building was built and should demonstrate material and trade phasing in construction. This model should be detailed down to differentiating overall bodies of material components (i.e.- a panel of brick veneer or a reinforced concrete slab).
c) 4 weeks of developing a "detailed bay model" showing each actual component element in the material construction (i.e.- each brick, structural member, fenestration frame, etc.).
d) 2 weeks of final production and summary representation of the semester's work.

Grade Inflation in Studios

Of 2723 studio seats taken in this college in the last three years:
48% of the students have made an A level grade
2.7% have failed (75 of 2723)
3.3% have dropped (90 of 2723)
94% of the students enrolling in our studios pass the studio
84% of those make an A or a B level grade
10% were average and made C levels

I've sensed for a while now an upwardly creeping assessment level and a recalibration of how we grade collectively. Now, I've "crunched" the numbers. Here's proof of the interesting "crawl" up in inflation in studio marks:
In Fall 2005 we gave out 42% As, 35% Bs, 17% Cs, 01% Ds, 02% Fs
In Spring 2006 we gave out 46% As, 37% Bs, 10% Cs, 02% Ds, 02% Fs
In Fall 2006 we gave out 50% As, 29% Bs, 12% Cs, 02% Ds, 01% Fs
In Spring 2007 we gave out 55% As, 33% Bs, 08% Cs, 00% Ds, 01% Fs
In Fall 2007 we gave out 56% As, 31% Bs, 07% Cs, 01% Ds, 01% Fs
In Spring 2008 we gave out 57% As, 32% Bs, 07% Cs, 00% Ds, 01% Fs

Personally, I think it is important that I use the full range of grades to best assess and signal a range of qualities to my students. I started grading more broadly across the spectrum of grades last Spring and intend to continue to do so in my own teaching in the coming semester.

The university catalog says an A level grade is for an "Excellent" demonstration of learning, a B level grade is for "Good" demonstration of learning, a C level grade is for "Average" demonstration of learning, a D level grade is for "Poor" demonstration of learning, and an F is for "Failure" in demonstrating learning.

That in mind, In Spring 2008 90% of all the students who took a studio performed above average (A or B) in assessment and only 01% of the total number of seats failed a studio. I think we all should consider reigning in this situation because it raises a question of academic integrity but on the other hand for each instructor there has to be respect for academic freedom in assessment. Share this data with colleagues as you think relevant for discussion. All of this is public record.

CompBuildDesign Examples

Student work from comprehensive design studios taught by B.Neiman, J. Bermudez, T. Castillo, & C.MacBride at U of Co: