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
3-2 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
Horizontal Design Studio versus Vertical Design Studio: A Tale of
Two Architecture Schools
7th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation
Slide 2/38

1- Introduction
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.
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

• 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.
Slide 11/38

• 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

• 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.
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

Design Studio
• 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.
Slide 21/38

Design Studio
• 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.
Slide 22/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 1 – Students
(a) Same educational level (HDS)
Slide 23/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 1 – Students
(b) Multiple educational levels (VDS)
Slide 24/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 2 – Instructors
(a) Fixed teaching team (VDS)
Slide 25/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 2 – Instructors
(b) Multiple teaching teams (HDS)
Slide 26/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 3 – Teaching/Learning Environment
(a) One teaching/learning environment (VDS)
Slide 27/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 3 – Teaching/Learning Environment
(b) Multiple teaching/learning environments (HDS)
Slide 28/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 4 – Evaluation/Assessment
(a) Evaluation/assessment in the VDS
Slide 29/38

Design Studio
Key Ingredient 4 – Evaluation/Assessment
(b) Evaluation/assessment in the HDS
Slide 30/38

Design Studio
Social Relationships within the HDS and VDS
(a) Social relationships within the HDS
Slide 31/38

Design Studio
Social Relationships within the HDS and VDS
(b) Social relationships within the VDS
Slide 32/38

Design Studio
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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

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

Similar to Horizontal Design Studio versus Vertical Design Studio:A Tale of Two Architecture Schools (20)

More from Khaled Ali

More from Khaled Ali (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)