Explanation of the New Graduate Professional Studio Sequence

The courses in question, though graduate courses, are part and parcel of a total package of professional study in our college and are best understood holistically as part of a continuous and cumulative professional building design studio sequence that begins at "Studio 1" (ARCH1412) taken in the spring semester of the freshman undergraduate year.
Our last professional architecture curriculum incorporated an additive and incremental building design studio sequence of ten courses totaling 54 credit hours- 6 undergraduate courses adding up to 30 credit hours and 4 graduate level courses adding up to 24 credit hours. These changes do nothing to change that level of distribution. The sum will still be 6 undergrad courses of 30 hours and 4 grad courses of 24 hours. What is proposed is a pedagogical shift in the way we deliver content in individual coursework and how we define the stream of studios. To do so we made a shift in the coursework in the graduate level of study:
2007-08 Studio Curriculum Model: The sum ten studios form a sequence of eight studios (6 undergrad (1412, 2501, 2502, 3501, 3502, & 4601) and 2 grad (5604 & 5605)) leading to a two semester single project M.Arch. culmination or capstone (5691 & 5692), the "Master's Design Studio".
2008-09 Studio Curriculum Model: A sequence of seven core building design studios followed by a non-sequential set of three graduate topical (required elective) studios. The seven studio core building design sequence includes the sum six undergraduate studios (1412, 2501, 2502, 3501, 3502, & 4601) and culminates in the first graduate studio experience (5901) as an intensive compilation of the content areas covered in the six undergraduate courses (intro, form, program, structure, envelope, urbanism) and it meets or exceeds the requirements of the NAAB student performance criterium on "Comprehensive Design".
Comprehensive Design Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life-safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies and the principles of sustainability.
The nine credit hour comprehensive building design studio set at the beginning of the graduate experience is a highly regulated and rigorous course with a narrow and focused set of expectations. It acts as both culmination and gateway in the overall program. Once that course (5901) is completed the student will have demonstrated a standardized and expected level of professional and disciplinary acumen.
After the nine-credit hour comprehensive studio the students then move into a set of three non-sequential open ended required elective five credit hour research and advanced practice related specialized studios whose content is designed to accommodate the integration of faculty areas of specialization and the introduction of advanced issues in contemporary practice in the architectural profession. In these changes the capstone "Master's Design Studio" is dissolved and replaced with a comprehensive (less independent and individual) nine credit hour building design studio at the entry point into graduate studies.
The content of the required elective graduate topical studios at the end of our professional curriculum is based on the topics that particular faculty will bring to the coursework. A key part of the implementation of these changes is the intention to rotate virtually all interested graduate faculty teaching in the core building design studios through these courses (the first seven studios) so that all qualified colleagues teach in this level from time to time. That will include 20+ faculty passing through the coursework each one bringing a highly focused and changing expertise. Our college curriculum committee will vet each proposal for a graduate topical studio based on relevance to contemporary practice, qualification and credentials of the proposing faculty, and potential to advance research and creative activity in the college and then forward their recommendations to the Associate Dean for Academics as they make final staffing decisions.

Summer Course Offerings

After yesterday's great morning of discussion Andrew, Michael, and I retreated to Schlotsky's to consider the matters raised relative to the coursework that the college can offer in our summer study abroad programs. We have these proposals for you:

Let's frame the ARCH4601 studio as an introduction to building design as a fundamental act of civics, place-making, and city craft thoroughly rooted in the tradition that understands the building as the primary component of the city- regardless of how "old-fashioned" that may seem while cozy in our Lubbockian world where the street is king. Issues in contemporary urbanism, like Landscape Urbanism or Social Advocacy or Community Design or Suburbanism or Agrarianism or Infrastructuralism or Eco-Tourism or Exurbanism or even Planning and Functional Consumerism (mixed use-ism), are best left to the three Topical Graduate Studios we'll be teaching in on a rotating basis. I'll be tapping a few of you to join me in fleshing out more explicit guidance for this summer's course in the near future. If you'd like nominate yourself for this task then send me an email.

Let's offer the ARCH4000 course in the same format planned- one credit hour here in the spring coordinated by Clifton Ellis and two credit hours offered by each program in their own way in the summer programs. The course be an architecture elective and WILL NOT count as either Architectural Theory (ARCH363) or Contemporary Issues (ARCH3341).

If you'd like to talk more about these issues we can plan a meeting in the near future. I found our discussion yesterday very, very useful and open. Thank you for your patience and support.

Student Evals- summer question

TTU, as an institution, does not support summer course student evaluations. Courses taught in the summer are not expected to be evaluated. Units within the institution can conduct their own evals but they would have to be hand marked and will not become part of the university's data warehouse.

This seems problematic considering the amount of summer teaching we do in the study abroad courses. We have a required studio course that is ONLY taught in the summer in ARCH4601. I've asked the Dean's Council to add this issue to their agenda to seek advice and possible petition frmo the Dean to the Provost's office to reverse this choice to ignore our teaching in the summer institutionally. The institution compels us to teach in the summer and looks for year round use of facilities and other resources. Some great teaching and very satifying teaching goes on in our summers. It seems a shame to not get student feedback on this academic experience and to make that feedback part of the institutional memory.

Any thoughts, questions, or comments?

Student Evals- delivery question

Anna Martinez and I just attended a session on Student Course Evaluations put on by OIM (Office of Information Management). They explained the various procedures for administrating this task in detail. One issue that came up in the meeting was that recently there have been a series of compromising situations in the university surrounding the administration of these evaluations. Faculty have coached students. Faculty have delivered the evals during an instructor paid pizza party. Students have openly coached fellow students in how to fill out the documents in a negative light. Students have filled out multiple highly negative evals. These and more issues have raised the question of how we safely and accurately deliver these evals in the classroom.

OIM and the Provost's Office representative present strongly recommend (and will probably require soon) that an outside party PROCTOR the administration of these evaluations. The goal is to have an unbiased representative of the College deliver the forms to the students, explain the instructions, watch over the assessment, and collect the results. They would rather the instructor not even come in contact with the forms and process until after grades have been delivered and student course evals have been returned to the department (college).

This is a radical break from our current method of delivery. I have always received these forms in my box for each course I'm teaching. At an appropriate date near or at semester's end I've taken time in my class where I've explained the instructions, asked a student in the course to act as a proctor, distributed the forms and left the room until the proctor had collected and taken a packet of the completed forms up to the 10th floor offices (Anna).

I've asked the Dean's Council to add this item to the agenda for discussion in that venue. We should find an outside proctor in the college for each course we teach- somehow and someway. I'll keep you informed of the progress on this matter that is important to each of us working in the classroom.

Any comments or suggestions on how to handle this matter?

CurricComm Agenda 07 Oct 2008

The Curriculum Committee today will be reviewing more faculty proposals for required elective course teaching in the Media Elective, Contemporary Issues, and Graduate Topical Studio courses. Once that is done we'll begin a study of an overlooked but key component of our professional curriculum, the technology sequence. If that discussion is diverted we'll either start looking at the role and place of Research Methods and Programming in light of the new graduate studio sequence OR we'll review a proposal for a Pedagogical Model for Studio Instruction.

Prospectus for ARCH4000-Sum '09

COURSE GOALS
The course is the Summer ’09 adjunct course in the study abroad programs in Belgium, Spain, France, Quebec, Mexico, and Central America. Matriculation through the course is designed to count for credit as either the required contemporary issues in architecture course (ARCH3314) or the required undergraduate theory course (ARCH4363) or a general architecture elective. The course is taught in a manner that meets the university’s expectations of a writing intensive course. It is designed to provide a brief shared overview of historical thinking in architectural theory and contemporary issues in urbanism for all students participating in the summer programs while supporting the particularized and heterogeneous experiences of the summer programs.
Course Catalog Descriptions:
3314. Contemporary Issues in Architecture (3:3:0). Prerequisite: ARCH 2311 and 2315. Contemporary issues in architectural theory and history utilizing precedents from early 20th century to present. (Writing Intensive) 4363. Architectural Theory (3:3:0). Prerequisite: ARCH 2311 and 2315. Examination of the theoretical issues in architecture through critical reading of texts selected from Vitruvius to the most contemporary thinkers in relation to the emerging design challenges. (Writing Intensive)

COURSE STRUCTURE
The course is accomplished in two semesters
SPRING ’09: a one credit hour component overseen by a course coordinator and taught to the full cohort of students going abroad in the following summer that is made up of two components:
Theory Studies: a set of eight lectures and readings each delivered by various participating ’09 study abroad faculty with expertise in delivering individual components of the subject matter, a final multiple choice exam over these lectures and readings, and four essay writing assignments spread across the semester and graded by the individual program faculty
Organizational Meetings: a set of four break out sessions for individual study abroad programs to make arrangements and preparations for the ensuing summer’s travels and one joint session of all programs in which university and college expectations of travelers are outlined
All students enrolling in the summer programs will participate in this one credit hour component.
SUMMER ’09: a two credit hour component taught by program faculty in their respective locales in the manner best suited to individual faculty expertise and location qualities. The component must include a significant writing component (i.e.- a paper, journal, or essay) that is submitted, edited, and resubmitted at least twice in the summer to meet the university’s writing intensive course requirements. The writing component may extend past the student’s on-site study experience but all work must be complete and a final grade submitted by the Summer II session grading deadline. Only students wanting credit for ARCH4363, ARCH3314, or an architecture elective will enroll in this two credit hour component.

COURSE CALENDAR
COURSE ASSESSMENT
At the end of the spring a grade for 1/3 of the course will be given. It will be 1/2 based on a writing grade supplied by the attending faculty and 1/2 on a grade from the exam.

OLD NOTES
In the Spring one hour lecture course we do the following:
a) The cohort registers for a single section of the class and all meet at the same time in the, preferably the end of studio on Wednesday.
b) We have four program preparation and organization meetings between the program instructors and their students. These meetings are on the last class meeting of the months of January, February, March, and April. Any further program organizational meetings will be outside of class time.
c) The other 12 class meetings will be large format lectures rotating among faculty going abroad. The subject matter will focus on two issues: Relevance and Roles of Theory in Architectural Practice and Theoretical links between Architecture and the City. Short supplementary readings and simple writing assignments will be given with each lecture. The writing assignments will be handed in to and assessed by the particular program faculty (i.e.- students going to Paris will get feedback from Clifton and the Dean).
d) At the mid-term and end of the one hour course a multiple choice exam will be delivered over questions submitted by lecturing faculty.
e) At the end of the spring a grade for 1/3 of the theory course will be given. It will be 1/2 based on a writing grade supplied by the attending faculty and 1/2 on a grade from the exam.

In the Summer two hour course we press program faculty to adhere to the course catalog description and meet the expectations of the writing component of the class but we should let the attending faculty shape their method of meeting the expectations of the course. Different faculty with different areas of expertise and different cities with different urbanisms and building sets will provide excellent case studies and tours. We can't really unify or police this component of the curriculum. We can ask for work samples from the theory writing component from each program. That's about it.