Ac 2007-216: Independent Student Design Competitions and the Assessment Dilemma

One of the most difficult assessment problems for faculty is student design competitions where only one or maybe two teams participate for independent study. Students are excited and focused on the possibility of winning. The faculty is usually concerned with process and assessment in the context of a project and program not of their design. The issues are multiplied when you combine the problems of team assessment with a small sample pool of participants. This paper presents a case study in process and assessment for a single team of four independent study students that entered the 2005-2006 Airport Security Circulation International Student Design Competition by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Team dynamics and potential pitfalls are discussed. This paper should have broad appeal for faculty looking to go beyond the traditional design studio and engage students in meaningful independent study. Introduction National design competitions always produce excitement and the chance for students to test their design ability in a more worldly, although structured academic setting. There are two important issues facing the mentoring faculty: (1) what exactly does one assess and, (2) how does one assess it? The first question of what to assess, is related to the quality of the design process used. Since faculty typically establish the design process or work plan for students, by default, they set the framework for what to assess. The second question of how to assess is more problematic and represents the very nature of the dilemma. This is because design assessment is based on several factors including: past experience with this type of problem, comparing several projects in context and measuring particular aspects of performance. All of these factors are usually very limited or unknown in independent student design competitions where only one solution is produced. This paper will offer a case study on these two important issues of what and how to assess from the experience of competing in an independent student design competition. It will map out a conceptual process, outline a work plan and challenge the reader about the dilemmas faced with assessment. Mapping out a successful design process to solve a complex and unfamiliar architectural design competition program is difficult. This is because architectural design remains predominantly a craft oriented process. It relies heavily on experience, subjective decision making, multivariable selection, taste, ability, perspective and balance. Most of the architectural theory throughout history has struggled with this issue of getting this decision making process right; what and how much do we consider in the design process. [1] Architectural design can be seen in terms of defining the means and ends to problem solving. The means is loosely defined as a dynamic and creative sequence of problem interpretation, initial starting strategies, contextual understanding, development, continual assessment and refinement. The ends are the correct solutions to the problem. The challenge is to try to design a means process that will result in a successful but yet unknown ends. [2] Since this is a learning activity for students, the means is not the shortest path but rather one the emphasizes a qualitative and comprehensive design experience. Assessing a single design project usually creates a dilemma for faculty because design projects are typically graded holistically. In this case, holistically is defined a assessing the entire class comparatively in terms of good, better and best. How can we define what is, “good, better and best,” when there is only one sample? There is also another is concept of holistic grading and it is one that is typically used in the humanities. [3] Holistic grading is a form of assessment used to evaluate an entire work that includes the interrelationship of the components and the process used rather than simply the summation of individual components or the final outcome. The issue of how to assess an individual in a team has plagued faculty members for a very long time. Unless the faculty wants to manage a team there is no way for certain to know how much work each individual does on a joint project. Only the students will be in a position to manage and assess some aspects of the project and their peer’s performance. The faculty member must come to accept that this not a shedding of responsibility but rather as a legitimate form of mature student learning and thinking that can take place in the academy. This paper presents a narrative of this case study and should be taken as a craft discussion on teaching. [4] It will not present a scientifically test hypothesis or use text and control groups. It will present a conceptual framework and work plan to be used in a comprehensive design competition. It will focus on the design process used and the assessment tried as a case study and as a road map of ideas for faculty to use and modify. This paper will rely heavily on diagrams and charts giving the reader a clearer overview of the process and strategies used. Background In the spring of 2006, a group of four students approached me about entering one of the national design competitions to as a way gaining an additional design studio experience above and beyond the required design studios in the curriculum. We looked at several competitions and selected, for a number of timing and personal interest reasons, the 2005-2006 Airport Security Circulation International Student Design Competition by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. A complete description of the competition along with the Program Brief can be found on the web at: https://www.acsaarch.org/competitions/airport.aspx. The students in this competition had the following characteristics: they were all very strong students in design studio, energetic and mature. All of the students in the team had taken Architectural Design I – IV, Construction Design, Site Design, History of Western Architecture and Architectural Theory [5] in an undergraduate pre-professional architectural technology program. Three of the four were working full or part time for an architectural firm and one student was a retired New York City police officer with twenty years experience. They also had a lot of individual self-confidence in their ability and thought they had a good chance as a group of winning. The group was diverse in their strengths and interests which was key (see Table 1: Initial Starting Strategies for diversity of student interests). They had some interest in the process but only as it was related to a strategy for winning; winning was the main goal for students. They also wanted to know up front how they would also be graded. Since the team would submit only one team solution, and there was no way to comparatively evaluate or measure it against other submissions, it was agreed that assessment would be based mainly on the process by which they developed the design and not the actual design itself. A work plan was developed and is presented under, “The Work Plan: A Contract.” It was purposely left vague as to how each would be individually assessed on the team but they were told that blind peer assessment may be used. [6] Simple Design Process Models The architectural design process can be diagrammed in many ways: linear, causal, circular, ideal values, without a connected path, etc. There is a fundamental problem with trying to develop a universal diagram, and it’s two fold: one, diagrams are highly reductive and boxes and arrows cannot accurately relate to the complex or creative sub-processes within; and two, each type of design problem requires a different process with a different set of variables based on experience and intuition of the designer. With this in mind as designers, we use diagrams anyway for the same reason we use graphic diagrams to represent architecture in the design process: it gives meaning to us and provides a simple map for more complex ideas and thought. Two architectural design process diagrams are presented below. Each represents the relative importance of the process from the perspective of the designer. The first, Diagram 1, is a simple diagram of an introductory architectural design studio with the emphasis on formulating the idea, creatively developing a graphic diagram and the transformation of that diagram into architecture with a review process. The second, Diagram 2, is a simple diagram of a professional architectural design process with the emphasis on stages of the process. Diagram 1 represents primarily the schematic design phase and maybe part of the design development phase of Diagram 2. In a design studio setting the program is usually given and the construction documents are done in another course. This is also typical of nearly all academic and professional design competitions so Diagram 1 will form the basis for the competition design process. [7] Diagram 1: Academic Architectural Design Studio Process: Diagram 2: Professional Architectural Design Process: Problem Interpretation One of the most critical components of starting the design process is problem interpretation. This aspect of the design process is highly intuitive and craft oriented because it’s the very essence of where an idea starts. Typically, a designer is given an explicit list of programmatic requirements and a brief narrative. [8] From this, one formulates a sense of the problem, an idea, and the design directions to take to solve the problem. In the real world, the owner usually confirms the architect’s sense of the problem and ideas. In a student design competition, this becomes a process of lonely soul searching of where to start because the mechanism of social confirmation is missing and their experience is limited. How does a student start the process of problem interpretation? Coming to a sense of what the problem is really about is more than the sum of a list of function requirements. It involves many unseen and unknown variables that result in a guess of what direction to start. In many cases, a student’s initial interpretation may be either naïve, too narrow or too limited based on their experience. In some cases they may not have any sense at all of the essence of the problem. One option is for a student to look at several initial starting strategies and use them as part of a multipronged dialectical strategy in formulating problem interpretation. The process used by students for problem interpretations is outlined in Diagram 3 below. Diagram 3: Process used for Problem Interpretation Read/Review Competition Program Brief Reflect, journal, informal discussion on problem Formal group discussion & consensus on problem Start research formulate heuristic/ initial starting strategies Discuss & reassess problem interpretation