Horizontal Design Studio versus Vertical Design Studio:A Tale of Two Architecture Schools

Horizontal Design Studio versus Vertical

Design Studio:

A Tale of Two Architecture Schools

Dr. Khaled Ali Youssef Department of Architecture, King Abdulaziz University,

Jeddah, SAUDI ARABIA

Department of Architectural Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, EGYPT

7th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation Seville - 17th-19th November 2014

Paper/Presentation Outline

1- Introduction 1-1 Aim and Objectives 1-2 Methodology

2- Horizontal Design Studio 2-1 Theory and Application 2-2 Department of Architectural Engineering, Assiut University: A Case Study

3- Vertical Design Studio 3-1 Theory and Application 3-2 Smart Growth Unit: A Case Study

4- Horizontal Design Studio Versus Vertical Design Studio 4-1 Design of the Questionnaire 4-2 Results of the Questionnaire

5- Conclusion Remarks

Dr. Khaled Ali Youssef Horizontal Design Studio versus Vertical Design Studio: A Tale of Two Architecture Schools


Slide 2/38



1- Introduction

1-1 Aim and Objectives

1-2 Methodology

Slide 3/38

1- Introduction

Design studio is ..

• the heart of architectural curriculum. • the connective tissue of most architectural

courses, and • the main forum of creative exploration,

interaction and assimilation



Slide 4/38

1- Introduction

In an ideal design studio, students ..

• investigate needs, • define problems, • explore concepts, • generate alternatives, • determine resources, • make decisions, and • take actions



Slide 5/38

1- Introduction

Ideal design studio settings allow for successful collaboration that can be classified into two types:

• ‘soft collaboration’ .. i.e. less staff intervention

and more students’ self-dependence, and

• ‘hard collaboration’ .. i.e. more structured, process-oriented, methodical, and formal collaborative learning



Slide 6/38

1- Introduction

Advantages of collaboration in design studio include:

• better clarification of tasks, • more intensive analysis, • more diverse and creative solutions, • more work in shorter time, • higher quality and overall performance, • more tacit and explicit knowledge, • new work strategies, • more managerial skills, and • shared responsibility for success.



Slide 7/38

1- Introduction

To enable these advantages, architecture schools adopt different studio settings, falling under two main approaches:

(1) Horizontal Design Studio (HSD) …. students of the same educational level study together, separately from those of other educational levels

(2) Vertical Design Studio (VSD) …. students of multiple levels, and sometimes of different disciplines, study design courses altogether.



Horizontal Design Studio (HSD)

Vertical Design Studio (HSD)

Slide 8/38

1- Introduction

The aim is to trace and further verify the advantages and disadvantages of both HDS and VDS systems, and highlight the transformations needed to help schools of architecture maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages. Objectives are to be accomplished:

• Understanding the major differences between HDS and VDS approaches.

• Tracing and verifying the advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

• Highlighting the transformations needed to enable the offered opportunities and rationally react to challenges.



1-1 Aim and Objectives

Slide 9/38

1- Introduction

• A review on architecture schools that adopt the two teaching systems (HDS and VDS)

• A case study approach was prompted • The Department of Architectural Engineering

(DAE), Assiut University, Egypt (HDS system) , and • The Department of Architecture (DA), King

Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia (VDS system)

• A questionnaire was applied at both schools (a sample of undergraduate students, graduates, and instructors was targeted).

• Rationally reacting to the complexity of HDS and VDS paradigms, both systems were dissembled into their constituent key ingredients

• Illustration and analysis of results



1-2 Methodology

Slide 10/38

2- Horizontal Design Studio

• In the HDS (adopted by most architecture schools) students of the same educational discipline and level tackle the same design problems.

• Instructors of design courses are responsible for:

• the objectives of the course, the skills that the course should support students to develop, expected learning outcomes, presentation requirements, and the evaluation/assessment method.

• the selection of design projects.

• After successfully passing a design course, students apply for the following one under the supervision, in most cases, of other design studio instructors.



2-1 Theory and Application

Slide 11/38

2- Horizontal Design Studio

• Adopting the HDS system, about 200 students are enrolled in four academic years/levels.

• To be granted the B.Sc. degree, students are to pass a total of 8 design courses.

• The concept of the DAE’s HDS is to introduce students to a step-by-step, serial learning process, through an ordered scheme of sequential design projects.

• By the end of each design course, a jury takes place, and internal and external jurors are invited to evaluate/assess the educational design products.



2-2 Department of Architectural Engineering, Assiut University: A Case Study

Slide 12/38

3- Vertical Design Studio

• There is no agreed upon definition of the term ‘Vertical Design Studio’ (VDS) nor a unified method to apply it.

• For the VDS system to succeed, a comprehensive set of common values, skills and techniques should be acquired.

• Institutions should be willing to deal with students with various educational levels within one educational environment.




Slide 13/38


• The VDS system might be applied

• … at the undergraduate level only (The New School, New York)

• …. at post graduate level (School of Architecture, University of Texas at Austin, and the Department of Architecture at Cornell University).

• …. to both undergraduate and post graduate students (Department of Architecture, King Abdulaziz University, KSA)

• …. to certain educational levels; e.g. to 3rd & 4th year arch. (Department of Architecture and Design, American University of Beirut)




Slide 14/38


• Further, VDS system is applied to students of …

• the same specialization/discipline (in most cases), or to…

• more than one discipline (e.g. The School of Architecture, Louisiana Tech University; and University of Bedfordshire)




Slide 15/38


• In the DA, King Abdulaziz University, KSA,

• 2 preparatory years..

• About 54 students are enrolled in 9 VDSs.

• Each VDS accommodates an average of 24 students of 4 different educational levels (6 students in each level).

• Each design studio (also called a “unit”) has a ‘designation’ reflecting the architectural trend it adopts; e.g. ‘Green Architecture’, ‘Sustainable Architecture’, Human Architecture’, ‘Smart Growth’ etc.

• Design studio instructors are responsible for setting up a teaching plan for all levels.



3-2 Smart Growth Unit: A Case Study

Slide 16/38


• SGU teaching plan tackle 8 design issues:

(1) Rationality and minimalism,

(2) Beauty and experience,

(3) Flexibility and organization,

(4) Style and character

(5) Energy efficient design

(6) Housing

(7) Urbanity, and

(8) Integration (graduation project), respectively.




Slide 17/38


• Adopting the VDS system, SGU students are categorized into 6 vertical groups (to be assigned educational /managerial tasks).

• At the beginning of every year, senior students organize a three-week workshop to teach fresh students the computer skills and presentation techniques that they should achieve; e.g. Revit, AutoCAD, Adobe Photoshop, etc.

• Senior students assist their younger colleagues throughout the design process under the supervision of instructors.




Slide 18/38





Slide 19/38

4- Horizontal Design Studio versus Vertical Design Studio

• HDS & VDS hold vast potentials as models for integrated learning.

• Due to the dissimilarity between architecture schools in applying HDS and VDS systems, advantages and disadvantages differ from a school to another.

• To verify the advantages and disadvantages, two case studies, namely: DA and DAE, were selected, and a questionnaire was applied

• 48 DAE respondents, and

• 41 DA respondents;

• a total of 89 DAE and DA associates have responded , out of approximately 200 recipients.

• Results are supported by the personal observation of the author.



Slide 20/38


• Due to…

• the complexity of HDS and VDS systems, and

• the richness of the issues that to be investigated,

…… the design of the questionnaire dealt with the key ingredients that constitute both studios, rather than dealing with the studio model as a whole.



4-1 Design of the Questionnaire

Slide 21/38


• The 5 key-ingredients are:

• students (same-level versus multiple-level),

• instructors (multiple versus same instructors),

• teaching/learning environment (a changeable place versus a fixed place),

• the evaluation process (changeable jurors versus same jurors), and

• the social relationships among students, and between students and instructors

• Responding to that, the questionnaire is divided into 5 sections; each part focuses on one key ingredient.



4-1 Design of the Questionnaire

Slide 22/38




4-2 Results of the Questionnaire

Key Ingredient 1 – Students

(a) Same educational level (HDS) Slide 23/38





Key Ingredient 1 – Students

(b) Multiple educational levels (VDS) Slide 24/38





Key Ingredient 2 – Instructors

(a) Fixed teaching team (VDS) Slide 25/38





Key Ingredient 2 – Instructors

(b) Multiple teaching teams (HDS) Slide 26/38





Key Ingredient 3 – Teaching/Learning Environment

(a) One teaching/learning environment (VDS) Slide 27/38





Key Ingredient 3 – Teaching/Learning Environment

(b) Multiple teaching/learning environments (HDS) Slide 28/38





Key Ingredient 4 – Evaluation/Assessment

(a) Evaluation/assessment in the VDS Slide 29/38





Key Ingredient 4 – Evaluation/Assessment

(b) Evaluation/assessment in the HDS Slide 30/38





Social Relationships within the HDS and VDS

(a) Social relationships within the HDS Slide 31/38





Social Relationships within the HDS and VDS

(b) Social relationships within the VDS Slide 32/38





General Preferences

• Single versus multiple levels (which levels)

• Fixed versus multiple teaching teams

• Fixed versus multiple teaching environments

• Fixed versus multiple evaluation teams

• HDS versus VDS as a general preference Slide 33/38


• Differences between HDS and VDS systems can be briefly characterized by the contrast between:

• Homogeneity and diversity,

• sameness and multiplicity, and

• multiculturalism and mono cultural.

• HDS can be characterized by pluralism, consistency, clarity, and stability

• VDS can be characterized by continuous development, accumulation, and liberation.

• The segmentation of help both systems into their key ingredients would help architecture schools refine the systems they teach design studio according to, or even develop a new one; reaching at a compromise.



Slide 34/38


• The questionnaire results highlighted the satisfaction expressed by the majority of DA respondents of the system they are adopting (90%).

• This satisfaction is supported by almost one third of DAE respondents who claimed the VDS as a generally preferred system.

• While DAE students might be aware of the teaching plan of all design courses, their counterparts in the DA have a better chance to not only ‘know’ but also ‘participate’ in the teaching plan.

• The quality of VDS products is expected to be much better than in HDS, since skilled students, right or wrong, can give a hand.



Slide 35/38


• The VDS is considered a micro knowledge society, in which tacit and explicit knowledge can be better generated, transferred, and applied.

• The VDS model is in consistence with teaching to small groups of students, whereas, it needs more effort from the HDS instructors to do.

• Hard collaboration; i.e. more structured, formal and process oriented collaboration, is strongly recommended for VDS system, and instructors are therefore to play more roles in the studio.

• VDS instructors have greater opportunities to develop the teaching paradigm

• VDS system allows instructors to, not only apply the ‘given’ curriculum, but also to define their ‘hidden’ curriculum.



Slide 36/38


• It is strongly recommended to have a fixed place for all design courses.

• The evaluation system of VDS, as applied in the DA, is strongly recommended to benefit from the experience of the DAE, since DAE respondents showed a higher degree of satisfaction.

• Most DA respondents and two thirds of the DAE respondents showed their gratification for the atmosphere created by the VDS model which promotes better social relationships.

• The VDS system, as applied in the DA, is not just a traditional classroom for pedagogical and ideological learning. It can be considered as a complex social organization.



Slide 37/38

Thanks for attention

Date post:	05-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	khaled-ali
View:	137 times
Download:	0 times