Cooperative learning in design studios: A pedagogy for net-positive performance

Srivastava, M (2020) Cooperative learning in design studios: A pedagogy for net-positive performance. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 594-609. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

Students of architecture are often inadequately prepared to address the consequences of climate change. Among the factors contributing to this, traditional design studio pedagogies tend to privilege individual ownership of projects instead of promoting cooperation and collaboration. This traditional focus on individual projects has the effect of minimizing the cognitive diversity that can be brought to bear within the development of projects, and that new knowledge is created through interactive processes based on the sharing and integration of previously unshared knowledge. A new studio pedagogy is presented in which cognitive diversity is foregrounded by means of shifting away from individual ownership of work and towards groupings of works and students. Periodic discussions focus on works grouped by thematic commonalities and re-assigned ownership based on interest, self-identified strengths (skills they can contribute or teach), or deficits (skills they need to learn), rather than authorship. Evidence from implementation reveals this process supports the creation of new knowledge in a short period of time (a 6.5-week studio) and students learn skills related to quantification of performance measures and develop capabilities to transform existing buildings to be net-positive contributors to their communities. Practice relevance The presented pedagogical method, entitled 'Shifting Allegiances,' is easy to replicate and flexible for customization. It does not require larger curricular or program changes and is not bound to specific content. It can be implemented by an individual instructor in a single studio section. An emphasis on shared student authorship, cooperative structures, and collaboration led to a learning process based on productive comparisons of student work. Comparisons in students' energy modeling results due to in-depth knowledge of, and participation in, their colleagues' work became second nature to the students. This led to the acquisition of new capabilities enabling students to use a variety of strategies to achieve a 70% reduction in energy demand over the current baseline; this was augmented further with the use of photovoltaics. Other aspects (water, waste, resources), selected by the students are also actively reduced to meet net-zero goals.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: architects; climate change; design studio; education; energy; pedagogy; retrofit; zero carbon
Index terms: quantification, instructor, energy modelling, customization, energy demand, performance measure, strategy, acquisition, pedagogy, integration, privilege, program, collaboration, design studio, cooperative learning, studio, architect, ownership, evidence, photovoltaic, implementation, cooperation, climate change
Subjects: organizational analysis, measurement and scaling, sociology, management, design practice, performance measurement, software systems, economics, teaching methods, construction manufacturing, psychology, sustainability and energy, energy systems, contractual arrangements, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, profession, business, climate science, learning methods, practitioner
Topics: Procurement, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Education, Ethics, Quality Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here