teaching the practice: comparing the traditional, …
TRANSCRIPT
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Arts and Architecture
TEACHING THE PRACTICE: COMPARING THE TRADITIONAL, MODIFIED, AND
ADDITIONAL COURSE APPROACHES FOR TEACHING PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE IN UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE.
A Thesis in
Architecture
by
Ross E. Weinreb
© 2013 Ross E. Weinreb
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Architecture
May 2013
ii
The thesis of Ross E. Weinreb was reviewed and approved* by the following: Scott W. Wing Associate Professor of Architecture Thesis Adviser Robert J. Holland Associate Professor of Practice of Architecture and Architectural Engineering Jodi La Coe Assistant Professor of Architecture Alexandra Staub Associate Professor of Architecture Talat Azhar Affiliate Assistant Professor of Education Mehrdad Hadighi Head of the Department of Architecture Professor of Architecture *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
iii
ABSTRACT: Architectural schools in the United States have changed significantly since they began in the
mid-nineteenth century. As educational ideology, building systems, and technology have
changed, so have the schoolsʼ curriculum and courses. Today, there is increasing pressure
from practitioners, educators, and organizations such as the American Institute of Architects
(AIA), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), and the National Architectural Accrediting Board
(NCARB) to include more professional coursework into architecture curricula. The concern
about recent graduates of architecture schools not being professionally prepared has been
documented through several publications and data. To address this issue, schools are
experimenting with new courses and curricular modifications. This research will examine some
of these innovative approaches that bolster professional education coursework.
Traditionally, a stand-alone professional practice course has been used to meet accreditation
requirements grouped in the Leadership and Practice category for student performance criteria
as defined by the NAAB. This course has been a part of U.S. architectural pedagogy for
decades. Its purpose is to familiarize students with the pragmatics of working in an architecture
office as well as different aspects of the profession that are not learned in traditional
architectural coursework and studios. These include the Intern Development Process (IDP),
codes, contract documents, client/user relations, and the process to become a licensed
architect. This lecture course is commonly placed at the end of a five-year undergraduate
curriculum and is normally between three and six credits. This research shows that a
disproportionate amount of the accreditation criteria is being met by this stand-alone course.
iv
With pressure to increase topics relating to professional preparedness in the curriculum, it is
becoming necessary for schools to add courses, or modify the existing professional practice
course in response to the accreditation criteria. The research begins with an overview of forty-
seven accredited U.S. undergraduate programs of architecture and how they respond to
professional preparedness requirements. Then an analysis of eighteen reports for (and from)
accreditation reviews will describe how schools demonstrate compliance with the accreditation
criteria. Finally, a more detailed look into two different types of innovative approaches will
follow. Virginia Tech uses a modified professional practice course, while Penn State uses an
additional course in conjunction with the traditional professional practice course. This research
compares and contrasts how the two approaches address the NAAB accreditation requirements
for Leadership and Practice in comparison to a traditional professional practice course. The
results show that both approaches provide architecture students a greater understanding and
applicability of the topics in professional preparedness.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
List of Figures vi
List of Abbreviations vii
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Professional Organizations 1 Accreditation 3 Realm-C SPC and the Professional Practice course 4 Research Question 5
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Critiques of architecture studentsʼ professional preparedness 6 Surveys and data that support increasing the emphasis of Realm-C criteria 8
Chapter 3. DATA 15 The Professional Practice course in B.Arch. programs 15 Architecture Program Report (APR) data 16 Visiting Team Report (VTR) data 18 The Additional Course Approach 25 The Modified Course Approach 31
Chapter 4. ANALYSIS 34
Chapter 5. RESULTS 49
Chapter 6. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION 55
Appendix A: B.Arch. Professional Practice course data 63
Appendix B: Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course syllabus/assignments 66
Appendix C: Penn Stateʼs “Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM studio” syllabus 69
Appendix D: Virginia Techʼs “Designing Practice” syllabus 72
Appendix E: Nine SPC matrices from APRs 74
Appendix F: NAAB Conditions for Accreditation Realm-C SPC 83
Bibliography 84
vi
List of Figures:
Figure 1: 2009 Conditions for Accreditation SPC by realm 13
Figure 2: Comparisons of Realm-C criteria and the Professional Practice course 14
Figure 3: Placement of Professional Practice course in curriculum 17
Figure 4: APR and VTR data 26
vii
List of Abbreviations: ACSA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
AIA: American Institute of Architects
AIAS: American Institute of Architecture Students
APR: Architecture Program Report
ARE: Architect Registration Examination
B.Arch.: Bachelor of Architecture degree
M.Arch.: Master of Architecture degree
NAAB: National Architectural Accrediting Board
NCARB: National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
SPC: Student Performance Criteria
VTR: Visiting Team Report
1
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION: Professional Organizations Four of the main organizations that oversee the education, practice, and licensure of architects
are the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Association of Collegiate Schools of
Architecture (ACSA), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and
the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB).
The American Institute of Architects (AIA):
The AIA was established in the United States in 1857 by a group of thirteen architects. The
main reason for the establishment of the organization was to “elevate the standing of the
profession”1 because at the time anyone could claim to be an architect. Previously architecture
was a master-apprentice field because one could learn everything he or she needed to under
the tutelage of another architect. With the population growing, the technologies advancing, and
the increasing regulations for public health and safety, there became an overwhelming need for
the establishment of schools to professionally train architects before entering the field. Today,
the AIA sets the (design and construction) industry standard for contract documents, sponsors
continuing education seminars, as well as conducts market research and analysis of the
profession and business of architecture.2
The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA):
Because of the expansion of schools across the country, the ACSA was formed in 1911 to
oversee and regulate architectural pedagogy. The ACSA established national standards in
1 AIA, 2010 (June), p.3 2 http://www.aia.org/about/index.htm (accessed January 13, 2013)
2
architectural education known as the “standard minima.”3 Schools of architecture would have to
meet these requirements in order to be granted membership, which today would be the
equivalent of an accredited school. Today, the ACSA is not responsible for accreditation
standards, but maintains its mission to advance the quality of architectural education by
publicizing about critical issues in architectural education.
The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB):
In 1919, fifteen architects from thirteen states established the NCARB during an AIA convention.
NCARBʼs goals are “to facilitate the exchange of information on examining, licensing, and
regulating architects” and “to strive to improve the general educational standards of the
architectural profession in the United States.”4 Today, NCARB oversees three categories in
architecture: education, experience, and examination. This includes the Intern Development
Program (IDP), which is required in order to sit for the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE).
Once an individual passes all seven sections of the ARE,5 he or she can be legally called an
Architect.
The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB):
After a brief hiatus of the ACSAʼs “Standard Minima”, in 1940 the AIA and the NCARB
established the NAAB.6 Still in use today, the NAAB sets “conditions” and “procedures” for
schools of architecture to follow in order to become an accredited school. Being an accredited
program allows the school to issue professional degrees, which in turn enables a graduate to
become a licensed architect (after completion of the IDP and ARE). There are three types of
3 NAAB (no date), p.1 4 NCARB, 2004, p.1 5 Programming Planning & Practice, Site Planning & Design, Building Design & Construction Systems, Structural Systems, Building Systems, Construction Documents & Services, and Schematic Design. 6 NAAB (no date), p.1
3
accreditation: Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.), Master of Architecture (M.Arch.), and Doctor of
Architecture (PhD). “The primary reason for NAAB accreditation is the establishment of criteria
to ensure that students are prepared as future licensed professionals.”7
Accreditation
The NAAB has established Conditions for Accreditation that must be followed by architecture
schools in order to gain or maintain accreditation status. The process begins with an
“Architecture Program Report” (APR), which is “a narrative document that is comprehensive and
self-analytical. It is expected to succinctly describe how a program meets each of the Conditions
for Accreditation.”8 The report is assembled by the school seeking accreditation and submitted
to the NAAB within a year of the schoolʼs accreditation review. The report includes an SPC
matrix that describes how, and in which course the thirty-two SPC requirements are met by the
schoolʼs curriculum (See Appendix E for examples).
Accreditation reviews are generally conducted every six years. However, if a school does not
sufficiently meet accreditation requirements, the next review could be two or three years from
the last review. A review of an architecture program is conducted by a team “composed of at
least four individuals, each of whom represents one of the four constituent organizations of the
NAAB: the AIA, AIAS, ACSA, and NCARB. One member of the team will be nominated by the
NAAB Executive Committee to serve as the team chair.”9 Tasks for the team include: reviewing
the schoolʼs APR, taking tours of the school, reviewing student and faculty exhibits, and
ultimately submitting a “Visiting Team Report” (VTR):
7 NCARB, 2008, p.4 8 NAAB, 2009, p.6 9 NAAB, 2010, p.10
4
“The VTR conveys the visiting team’s assessment of whether the program meets the Conditions for Accreditation, as measured by evidence of student learning, the overall capacity of the program to fulfill its obligations to ensure student achievement, and the overall learning environment. It establishes the degree to which the program is functioning in the manner described in the APR.”10
The 2009 Conditions for Accreditation include thirty-two “Student Performance Criteria” (SPC)
within three different realms. Those realms are: “Realm-A - Critical Thinking and
Representation,” “Realm-B - Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills and Knowledge,”
and “Realm-C - Leadership and Practice.”11 Realm-C covers 30% (9/32) of the conditions
focusing on studentsʼ professional preparedness. The nine Realm-C SPC are: Collaboration,
Human Behavior, Client Role in Architecture, Project Management, Practice Management,
Leadership, Legal Responsibilities, Ethics and Professional Judgment, and Community and
Social Responsibility (See Appendix F for NAAB definitions).
Realm-C SPC and the Professional Practice course
Typically, schools of architecture demonstrate compliance with the Realm-C SPC in a course
called “Professional Practice.”12 As an example, Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course is
described as follows:
“ARCH 451 [Professional Practice] reviews internship, architectural licensing procedures and requirements, professional development (life-long learning), architectural practice including office organizational structures, the architect’s administrative role, construction cost control, professional organizations, the architect’s professional, legal and ethical responsibilities (including life-safety and accessibility), leadership in the profession and the community as well as alternative architectural / design related careers.”13
This one-semester, three-credit lecture course is offered during the fifth year of the B.Arch.
program. According to the schoolʼs NAAB matrix, 78% (7/9) Realm-C SPC are fulfilled with this
10 NAAB, 2010, p.19 11 NAAB, 2009, pp. 22-25 12 Also known as: “Issues of Practice”, “Architectural Practice”, “Office Management and Finances”, or a variation of these. 13http://bulletins.psu.edu/bulletins/bluebook/university_course_descriptions.cfm?letter=A&courselong=ARCH%7c451%7c201112FA (accessed February 10, 2011)
5
course.14 This is consistent with many other B.Arch. programs15 that rely heavily on the
Professional Practice course to demonstrate compliance with the Realm-C criteria. The course
almost always meets accreditation criteria, however visiting teams have shown concern about
the disproportionate percentage of requirements that are being met by one course. This,
coupled with survey results from the AIA and NCARB of young professionalʼs dissatisfaction
with their professional preparedness has raised awareness to try new and innovative
approaches to teaching the practice of architecture.
Some schools have begun reevaluating their professional practice course due to the increased
emphasis of Realm-C criteria, and this research has found two emerging approaches. The first
is one or two additional courses focusing on the Realm-C criteria spread throughout the
curriculum in order to diversify the SPC. This will be called the “additional course approach”.
The second approach is a rethinking of the traditional professional practice course, and
modifying it to respond to the criteria in an innovative way. This will be called the “modified
course approach”.
Research Question With increasing emphasis and importance of Realm-C accreditation SPC, two course
approaches (the Modified and Additional course) have emerged to address professional
preparedness in undergraduate schools of architecture. Do these two approaches meet and/or
exceed the current NAAB Conditions for Accreditation Realm-C criteria? The thesis documents
and compares the two approaches with a traditional (Professional Practice course) approach in
order to answer this question.
14 http://www.arch.psu.edu/programs/documents/NAABcurriculummatrix.pdf (accessed April 10, 2011) 15 See Appendix A.
6
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW: Critiques of architecture studentsʼ professional preparedness The Boyer Report:
In 1996 Dr. Ernest Boyer and Lee Mitgang conducted a two and a half year study commonly
referred to as “The Boyer Report.” This study examined architecture schools and practices
through surveys of students, faculty, administrators, alumni, interns, and architects. “The study
was significant because it drew attention to ʻthe gulf dividing architecture schools and the
practice world that has grown perilously wide.ʼ”16 In the report, Dr. Boyer discusses a “landmark
change” that occurred in the NAABʼs 1983 accreditation standards in which “the focus of the
criteria shifted from programs per se to student performance.”17 At this point there were fifty-
three criteria grouped into four broad headings: “Fundamental Knowledge,” “Design,”
“Communication,” and “Practice.” Because this study occurred in 1996, there were thirteen
years of APR and VTR data to review as well as the interviews and surveys conducted by Dr.
Boyer and his team.
While discussing the Practice heading of the NAABʼs accreditation standards, there was
concern about schools failing to accommodate both technical and theoretical aspects of
architecture resulting in “critical gaps in the professional preparation of many students.”18 Dr.
Boyer goes on to say:
“We found that the curricular area of greatest dissatisfaction was ‘professional practice.’ Nearly eight of out ten alumni we surveyed disagreed that the curriculum at their alma mater dealt effectively with contract negotiation and financial management, and nearly 60 percent disagreed that architecture students leave school ‘well prepared as entrepreneurs.’ […] Architecture students generally have a good grasp of design but too often leave school with ‘little knowledge of business, economics, and management and that this adversely affects their ability to serve their clients, to understand the concerns
16 NCARB, 2011, p.1 17 Boyer, 1996, p.65 18 Boyer, 1996, p.67
7
of their employers, to manage projects effectively, …and to qualify for more responsible positions.’”19
The data collected in the report indicated that a majority of the graduates surveyed were
dissatisfied with their professional preparedness. This was a very important finding of the study
because it began to describe the gap between education and practice and pointed at schools to
better prepare students for the profession.
Robert Gutman:
In 1996, Robert Gutman, a sociologist and lecturer in architecture, wrote an article called
“Redesigning architecture schools.” In it he said, “The current [architecture] curriculum actually
conveys a smaller fraction of the totality of knowledge and skill required for practice than in any
period since professional programs were established […] It is often difficult for the schools to
keep up-to-date with the changing requirements of practice.”20
Thomas Fisher:
In 2000, Thomas Fisher (Dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Minnesota)
published a book called In the Scheme of Things. The bookʼs purpose was to discuss
alternative thinking on the practice and education of architecture. One of his main arguments
expressed the need for substantial rebuilding of the bridge between education and practice.21
He also argues that leaving practice courses to the end of a curriculum does not allow for a
connection of what students learn in design studios with the information needed to practice.
“Most schools encourage us to think of design and practice as separate realms, relegating the practice “support” courses to the end of the curriculum, long after students have come to think of design as the making of form and shaping of space. Likewise, the specialization so characteristic of higher education discourages those who
19 Boyer, 1996, pp. 68-69 20 Gutman, 1996, p. 89 21 Fisher, 2000, p.117
8
teach the practice courses from connecting their subject to what students learn in design studio.”22
These are just three examples (from the last two decades) of the many critiques about the lack
of professional preparedness of recent graduates of architecture schools. The criticism has
been going on for several decades and has resulted in many changes to the accreditation
standards of architecture schools. The most recent changes occurred in 2009 when the NAAB
introduced a new version of the Conditions for Accreditation. This version of the conditions
includes the aforementioned three realms and thirty-two SPC, nine of which are the Realm-C
Leadership and Practice criteria.
Surveys and data that support increasing the emphasis of Realm-C criteria In addition to the critiques about professional preparedness of architecture students and
professionals, the AIA, ACSA, NCARB, and NAAB regularly conduct surveys and studies to
gather evidence of their own. The results of these studies reinforce the need and value of
increasing professional preparedness topics into the curriculum of architecture schools.
“The profession and practice of architecture have recently been subject to dramatic changes. The extent and scope of these changes have radically impacted all aspects of the architecture profession […] If architects are to adapt, it is essential that the academy develop effective ways to adjust to these critical transformations […] Much of the knowledge and many of the skills necessary for success in this new environment remain out of the purview of architectural education and internship. This shortcoming leaves emerging professionals without the appropriate knowledge and skills that should be acquired in an accredited program.”23 ~From NCARB’s position paper for the NAAB 2008 Accreditation Review Conference
The following is a compilation of surveys, data, and publications (in chronological order) by
professional organizations that played a significant role in the 2009 revisions to the NAABʼs
Conditions for Accreditation.
22 Fisher, 2000, pp.91-92 23 NCARB, 2008, p.2
9
The 2003 AIA Internship & Career Survey:
The AIA conducts the Internship & Career Survey every two years; and, in 2003, it surveyed
over 4,800 young professionals in the field of architecture. The main findings were:
• The average time to complete the Intern Development Process (IDP) took significantly longer than three years.
• Most found the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE) more difficult than anticipated. • Over half (55%) of those surveyed said that their education did not adequately prepare
them for the ARE.24
When discussing the results of preparedness for the ARE, the AIA asserts, “This does not
indicate a failure of education or internship necessarily, as much as an apparent disconnect
between the exam, its content and/or structure, and the competencies honed during education
and internship for which it is designed to test.”25 This is one of the only places that an
assumption is inferred from the results of the survey. The question was asked if education
adequately prepared the individual for the ARE, and more than half responded with “no.”
The 2007 NCARB Practice Analysis of Architecture:
The NCARB conducts a Practice Analysis of Architecture every five to seven years. The 2007
analysis surveyed over 9,800 practicing architects in an effort to “identify the tasks and
knowledge/skills that are important for competent performance by recently licensed architects
practicing independently.”26 Two of the surveyʼs open-ended questions were:
1. “What additional professional development (including training and experience) could you use to improve your performance in the field of architecture”
2. “If you could change the field of architecture, what is the most important change you would make?”27
“The business side of architecture/construction administration was the most frequently
mentioned topic area for professional development and the change most desired in the
24 AIA, 2003, p.3 25 AIA, 2003, p.17 26 NCARB, 2007, p. 1 27 NCARB, 2007, p. iii
10
profession of architecture.”28 Also of interest, over 60% of respondents said that practice
management skills such as business planning, marketing, contract negotiation, financial
management, and legal and ethical issues were not acquired until after licensure. This means
that an individual went through school, the IDP, several years in the profession, along with the
tedious ARE to become a licensed architect and yet did not possess the skills necessary for
managing a practice. This is important to note because the professional practice course is
intended to cover a large portion of these topics. In fact, when asked, “How well architectural
education is preparing interns to become architects,”29 over 75% of the respondents answered
adequately, poorly, or very poorly (only 25% said well or very well). Much like the AIA
Internship & Career Survey, responses about education and professional preparedness were
not positive.
The NCARB Position Paper for the NAAB 2008 Accreditation Review Conference:
In this paper, the NCARB summarized its findings from the 2007 Practice Analysis and made
recommendations for the upcoming Accreditation Review Conference (ARC). The paper was
weighted very heavily on making changes to the Conditions for Accreditation based on the
professional practice of architecture: “The academy must be ready to implement important
changes in order to continue to educate and prepare architects for the challenges and demands
of tomorrowʼs architectural practice.”30 One of the main points of the paper is the need for a
collaborative “team approach” to projects in the academy. The NCARB argues that
“architecture is inherently an interdisciplinary activity […] a new instructional paradigm that
includes owners, engineers, construction managers and contractors, developers, system
28 NCARB, 2007, p. 19 29 NCARB, 2007, p.17 30 NCARB, 2008, p.2
11
suppliers, and other members of the building delivery system would reflect a more realistic
model of the professional context of practice today.”31
In more prescriptive terms, the NCARB discussed “17 deficient knowledge areas and skill sets
out of 100 […] have been quantitatively demonstrated to be necessary skills for a recently
licensed professional to practice independently.”32 The deficiencies resulted from the 2007
Practice Analysis and the NCARB determined that twelve of the seventeen must be addressed
during education. The deficiencies include:
1. Project financing and funding 2. Project budget management 3. Construction conflict resolution 4. Legal and ethical issues pertaining to contracts 5. Legal and ethical issues pertaining to practice 6. Business planning 7. Strategic planning 8. Financial management 9. Risk management 10. Marketing and communications 11. Contract negotiations 12. Entrepreneurship33
The paper strongly encourages the NAAB to make accreditation changes adapting to the
changing profession or “there is a great risk that other building industry professionals will take
responsibility for charges that architects are unable or unwilling to assume.”34
NAAB 2009 Conditions for Accreditation:
“The 2009 NAAB Conditions for Accreditation and the NAAB Procedures for Accreditation outline, respectively, the requirements that an accredited degree program must meet and procedures that they and the visiting teams must follow in order to demonstrate (a) the achievement of minimum standards and (b) a uniform accrediting process. These documents also contain suggestions that programs and teams are encouraged to follow.”35
31 NCARB, 2008, p.4 32 NCARB, 2008, p.2 33 NCARB, 2008, p.3 34 NCARB, 2008, p.8 35 NAAB, 2009, p.6
12
In addition to the surveys and data published by the AIA and the NCARB, the NAAB conducted
its own research in the form of task groups to summarize what changes would be needed for the
new Conditions for Accreditation. After the 2008 Accreditation Review Conference, the
conditions were modified to include three realms of Student Performance Criteria (SPC). The
three realms are: “Realm-A: Critical Thinking and Representation,” “Realm-B: Integrated
Building Practices, Technical Skills and Knowledge,” and “Realm-C: Leadership and Practice.”
The previous conditions, from 2004, had thirty-four SPC that are now condensed to thirty-two
SPC separated into the three realms. Realm-A has eleven (34%), Realm-B has twelve (38%),
and Realm-C has nine (28%) (See Figure 1).
The NAAB asks schools to demonstrate that graduating students have “Understanding” or
“Ability” in each of the SPC during an accreditation review:
• “Understanding—The capacity to classify, compare, summarize, explain and/or
interpret information.
• Ability—Proficiency in using specific information to accomplish a task, correctly
selecting the appropriate information, and accurately applying it to the solution of
a specific problem, while also distinguishing the effects of its implementation.”36
64% (7/11) of the Realm-A criteria have an “Ability” designation, 50% (6/12) of the Realm-B
criteria have an “Ability” designation, and only 11% (1/9) of the Realm-C criteria have an “Ability”
designation.37
As shown in Appendix F, the nine Realm-C criteria include “Collaboration,” “Client Role in
Architecture,” “Project Management,” “Practice Management,” “Legal and Ethical
Responsibilities,” among others. The twelve deficiencies prescribed from the NCARB Position
36 NAAB, 2009, p.21 37 NAAB, 2009, pp.22-25
13
Paper align with the Realm-C criteria scope and definitions. This, along with the critiques of
studentsʼ professional preparedness, emphasizes a need for new approaches to bolster the
response to the accreditation requirements for Leadership and Practice.
Figure 1: 2009 Conditions for Accreditation SPC by realm
Currently, the traditional stand-alone professional practice course in undergraduate schools of
architecture is heavily relied upon to demonstrate compliance with Realm-C criteria. This one or
two-semester course is responsible for an overwhelming amount of information regarding
professional preparation (see Figure 2). Because of the increasing emphasis of Realm-C
criteria, some schools are attempting new and innovative ways to teach professional practice.
The “Designing Practice” course at Virginia Tech transformed the traditional Professional
Practice course into an interactive studio-style course. Other schools like Penn State have
A B C1
234
567
8
9
101112
Nu
mb
er
of
Crite
ria
Realm
AU
AU
AU
34% 38% 28%
Percentage of Accreditation Criteria
CriteriaDesignation
A
U Understanding
Ability
14
introduced Building Information Modeling/Integrated Project Delivery (BIM/IPD) courses, in
addition to their traditional Professional Practice course to address the Realm-C criteria. These
two approaches will be called the modified course approach and the additional course
approach. This research aims to measure the effectiveness of the two approaches in
comparison to a traditional approach in preparing students for the profession of architecture.
Figure 2: Comparisons of Realm-C criteria and the Professional Practice course
Percentage of Accreditation CriteriaBy Realm
Realm-A34%
Realm-B38%
Realm-C28%
Average Percentage ofProfessional Practice Course(s)
in Curriculum of 47 UndergraduateSchools of Architecture
Rest of Curriculum97.18%
Professional PracticeCourse(s) 2.82%
Percentage of Realm-CCriteria Met by Professional
Practice Course(s)
Chart A Chart B Chart C
ProfessionalPractice
75% Realm-A34%
Realm-B38%
Realm-C
15
Chapter 3. DATA: The Professional Practice course in B.Arch. programs The research began with a compilation of data from forty-seven undergraduate schools of
architecture with NAAB-accredited Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) degrees. B.Arch.
programs were selected because they are more consistent in credit hours and semesters than
M.Arch. programs allowing a better means of comparison. The data was collected online from
the NAAB, ACSA, and each schoolsʼ websites.38 A summary of the results is as follows:
1. 100% of the schools have a Professional Practice course.
2. 64% (30/47) of the schools offer a one-semester Professional Practice course.
a. This one course averaged to be 1.9% of the required course curriculum.
b. 97% (29/30) of the one-semester Professional Practice courses occurred
between the spring semester of the fourth year and the spring semester of
the fifth year (in a five-year curriculum). The other course occurred in the
spring semester of the third year.
3. 23% (11/47) of the schools offer two semesters of Professional Practice. The
second course would either be sequential (Professional Practice II), or a class
devoted to ethics, human behavior, codes, construction management, or other areas
of the Realm-C criteria.
a. These two courses averaged to be 3.64% of the required course curriculum.
b. All courses occurred between the spring semester of the fourth year and the
spring semester of the fifth year (in a five-year curriculum).
4. 13% (6/47) of the schools offer three or more semesters of Professional Practice or
practice related courses. The second and third course would either be sequential
(Professional Practice II and III), or a class devoted to ethics, human behavior,
codes, construction management, or other areas of the Realm-C criteria.
a. These three or more courses averaged to be 5.9% of the required course
curriculum.
38 See Appendix A.
16
b. These courses occurred anywhere throughout the five-year curriculum. The
primary Professional Practice course was still between the fourth and fifth
years of the five-year curriculum.
In summary, all forty-seven schools had one or more semesters of Professional Practice or
practice related courses. These courses averaged to be 2.82% of the required course
curriculum. The primary Professional Practice course always occurred sometime in the fourth or
fifth year of the five-year program (see Figure 3).
Architecture Program Report (APR) data
After the initial data was collected, Architecture Program Reports (APRs) were gathered from
nine of the forty-seven schools.39 The nine were chosen because they were submitted between
2010 and 2011 in response to the 2009 NAAB Conditions for Accreditation. In each APR, the
school demonstrates compliance with the Student Performance Criteria (SPC) with a curricular
matrix (see Appendix E). The matrix indicates how the SPC are met by which course(s). A
summary of the data is as follows:
1. Six of the nine APRs are from schoolʼs that offer a one-semester Professional
Practice course (Auburn University, North Carolina State University, Penn State
University, Tuskegee University, University of Miami, and Virginia Tech).
a. On average, 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional
Practice course. The range was between 56% (5/9) and 89% (8/9).
b. Design studios or technology courses generally met the remaining Realm-C
criteria during the five-year program.
39 The selected schools were: Auburn University, Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University, Penn State University, Tuskegee University, University of Miami, and Virginia Tech
18
2. Two of the nine APRs are from schoolʼs that offer two semesters of Professional
Practice coursework (Florida A&M University and Oklahoma State University).
a. On average, 67% (6/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the two
Professional Practice courses. The range was between 56% (5/9) and 89%
(8/9).
b. Design studios or technology courses generally met the remaining Realm-C
criteria during the five-year program.
3. One of the nine APRs is from a school that offers three semesters of Professional
Practice coursework (Florida Atlantic University).
a. 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria are met by the three Professional Practice
courses.
b. Design studios met the remaining Realm-C criteria during the five-year
program.
On average, the nine APRs indicate 76% of the Realm-C criteria are being met by the
Professional Practice course(s). While design studios or technology courses met the remaining
criteria (see Figure 4), the Professional Practice course(s) do not meet any other criteria except
Realm-C according to the APRs.
Visiting Team Report (VTR) data
After reviewing the nine APRs, nine Visiting Team Reports (VTRs) from 2011 were gathered
from the NAABʼs website.40 These are the only public VTRs available from the NAAB that use
the 2009 Conditions for Accreditation.41 In each report, the visiting team analyzed each SPC
and indicated how and where the school met (or did not meet) the criteria in the curriculum. The
data is as follows:
1. Auburn University (February 16, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by design studios in the first, third, and fifth year.
40 http://www.naab.org/documents/ (Accessed October 1, 2012) 41 The 2012 VTR’s have not been published on the NAAB’s website as of October 4, 2012.
19
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by third year design studio.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] throughout curriculum.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by various design studios throughout curriculum.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by design studios and
Professional Practice course.42
Summary: 56% (5/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team noted that the Realm-C criteria were adequately met, “with
superior achievement in some areas.”43 Those areas met with distinction were
criteria C.1, C.6, and C.9, all of which were met by design studios.
2. California College of the Arts (January 26, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by Comprehensive Design studio.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by 3rd year design studio.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course and various other
courses throughout curriculum.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by Professional Practice
course and various other design studios throughout curriculum.44
Summary: 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team noted that all nine of the criterions were met. C.1 and C.9
were “well met” by design studios.
42 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (Auburn), pp.21-23 43 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (Auburn), p.23 44 NAAB, January 26, 2011 (California College of the Arts), pp.26-29
20
3. Cal-Poly, San Luis Obispo (February 16, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by various design studios throughout curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by various courses throughout curriculum.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by Professional Practice course and
various other design studios throughout curriculum.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course and various other
courses throughout curriculum.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by Professional Practice
course and various other courses throughout curriculum.45
Summary: 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team noted that the Realm-C SPC were demonstrated to be
“mastered” by the Cal-Poly students. C.1 was met with distinction by design studios.
4. Florida Atlantic University (March 2, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by various courses throughout curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by Professional Practice course and various
other design studios throughout curriculum.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by Professional Practice courses and
various other design studios throughout curriculum.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice courses.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice courses.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course and a design studio.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice courses.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by various design studios
throughout curriculum.46
45 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo), pp.21-23 46 NAAB, March 2, 2011, pp.24-26
21
Summary: 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team noted, “The work shown in this realm is sound.”47 There
were no conditions met with distinction in this realm.
5. New York Institute of Technology (February 16, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by various design studios throughout curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by Environmental Site Planning course and
other courses throughout curriculum.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by Professional Practice course and
fourth year design studio.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course
and environmental site planning course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by Professional Practice
course and Environmental Site Planning course.48
Summary: 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team noted that the schoolʼs location provided excellent sources
for case studies. They also said having many experienced and practicing faculty
clearly contributed to the success in this realm.49 Criterion C.1 was met with
distinction by design studios.
6. Oklahoma State University (February 16, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by Professional Practice course, Project
Management course, and other design studios throughout curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Not Met]
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by various design studios throughout
curriculum.
47 NAAB, March 2, 2011, p.26 48 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (New York Institute of Technology), pp.28-30 49 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (New York Institute of Technology), p.30
22
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Project Management Course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Project Management course.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course and
Project Management course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by various design studios
throughout curriculum.50
Summary: 67% (6/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course and/or project management course. The visiting team noted the school
addressed objective criteria like financial management and contract very well, but
could use improvement in subjective criteria like human behavior and ethics.51
Criteria met with distinction were C.1, C.4, and C.5.
7. Temple University (February 16, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by various studios and courses throughout
curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by various design studios throughout curriculum.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by Professional Practice
course and other courses throughout curriculum.52
Summary: 78% (7/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team said ALL Realm-C criteria were met with distinction and
“The practice management component of the professional practice class Arch 4096,
50 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (Oklahoma State University), pp.21-23 51 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (Oklahoma State University), p.23 52 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (Temple University), pp.20-21
23
which incorporated office visits, development of case studies, and interviews with
firm principles, was seen as particularly strong.”53
8. Tuskegee University (February 2, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by various design studios throughout curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by People and the Built Environment course.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Structures and Professional Practice
courses.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by various design studios throughout curriculum.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice and Urban
Planning courses.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice and
people and the built environment courses.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by various courses
throughout curriculum.54
Summary: 67% (6/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team wrote: “Of the nine criteria in Realm C, the Professional Practice course covers six of them, and four of those (according to the SPC Matrix: C.3, C.4, C.5, and C.6) are addressed nowhere else in the program. The team notes that undue pressure is being placed on a single course to satisfy a disproportionate number of SPC’s with student attendance/absence (even for just a select few days) critical in whether said student is ever exposed to the issues addressed in these four criteria. Accordingly, the ‘SPC density’ of this course in relationship to other courses in the curriculum should be reconsidered to assure broader student exposure to these important issues.”55
9. University of Miami (January 26, 2011):
C.1 – Collaboration: [Met] by various design studios throughout the
curriculum.
C.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by Architecture and Behavior course and
design studios. 53 NAAB, February 16, 2011 (Temple University), p.21 54 NAAB, February 2, 2011, pp.20-21 55 NAAB, February 2, 2011, pp.22
24
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture: [Met] throughout curriculum.
C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.5 – Practice Management: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course.
C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by Professional Practice
course.56
Summary: 67% (6/9) of the Realm-C criteria were met by the Professional Practice
course. The visiting team said, “We look forward to the integration of [Realm-C
criteria] and for it to be more easily identified as part of the studio experience. This is
an area where more detailed documentation could better serve the program in future
NAAB Accreditation Visits.”57 Criteria C.1, C.6, and C.9 were met with distinction by
design studios or other program offerings.
According to the nine VTRs published in 2011, an average of 67% (6/9) of the Realm-C criteria
were met by the Professional Practice course(s). The most significant finding is that all (minus
one) Realm-C criteria of the nine schools were met, which suggests no problem in schools
meeting Realm-C standards according to the VTRʼs. This indicates a disconnect between the
findings of the NCARB and AIA with the outcome of the NAABʼs accreditation reviews. It is also
significant that most of the criteria met with distinction came from design studios, school specific
programs, or additional courses used in conjunction with the Professional Practice course (see
Figure 4). The visiting teams found it best when students applied the performance criteria in a
studio or group setting. Only the team from Temple University considered the Realm-C criteria
as met with distinction by the stand-alone Professional Practice course. Two of the teams (from
Tuskegee and Miami) felt apprehensive about the Professional Practice course being relied
upon to contain so much of the Realm-C requirements. 56 NAAB, January 26, 2011 (University of Miami), pp.30-33 57 NAAB, January 26, 2011 (University of Miami), p.33
25
These findings have demonstrated that a significant amount of the Realm-C criteria are being
met by the Professional Practice course(s) and the visiting teams usually find the criteria as
being “adequately met.” The nine VTRʼs demonstrate a pattern that one stand-alone course
does not elevate the professional preparedness of students as sought by the outside critiques
and findings from the NCARB and AIA. Even some of the visiting teams suggested alternative
(or additional) approaches to the traditional model of teaching the practice. This disconnect is
why the research has selected two emerging approaches that respond to the concerns about
the traditional Professional Practice course: The modified and additional course approaches.
The Additional Course Approach
The additional course approach can be as simple as adding more Professional Practice courses
throughout the curriculum. This strategy can prolong the studentsʼ exposure to the Realm-C
SPC and therefore reinforce the understanding of the criteria. Seventeen of the forty-seven
schools investigated already utilize this type of approach (see Figure 3). A disadvantage to the
additional course approach is that the courses are still lecture-based, only giving the students
an understanding of the criteria, which is the same as the traditional approach. This can be
addressed by adding another course that meets specific Realm-C criteria that are not always
met by the traditional approach (like collaboration). These types of courses can be taught in a
studio setting and give students an opportunity to apply the criteria, which is the biggest
advantage to the additional course approach. However, depending on the size of the school
and the recourses available, it becomes difficult to offer this course to all students.
27
One example of the additional course approach is a Building Information Modeling/Integrated
Project Delivery (BIM/IPD) studio. The use of BIM software has grown exponentially in the
profession. In response, schools have been adding these types of courses. BIM software
promotes interdisciplinary and collaborative workflows for the students. The University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee won a 2010 NCARB prize for their “Computation and Craft: The IP/BIM
Studio”. As described by the NCARB:
“Non-faculty architect practitioners provided a physical workplace and assisted Project Directors Gil Snyder, AIA and James Dicker to introduce Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology to students. Practitioners also worked side-by-side with students to enhance their understanding of daily project management and regularly participated in design critiques. The jury noted that the project utilized the expertise of outside architects to expose and teach BIM technology in a way that strongly connects practice with the academy.”58
The course enables students to work with practitioners and clients on a project using the
technology and project delivery methods utilized in the profession. One jury member said, “This
project utilized the expertise of outside architects to expose and teach BIM technology in a way
that strongly connects practice with the academy.”59
As described earlier, other types of additional course approaches simply diversify the Realm-C
criteria throughout the curriculum. Carnegie Mellon has an ethics course, a human factors
course, as well as an issues of practice course offered during the third and fourth years of their
undergraduate program. Woodbury University and Florida Atlantic University have three
different professional practice courses throughout their curriculum focusing on different Realm-C
criteria (like codes, ethics, project delivery methods, business, and client needs). This type of
additional course approach provides students with a broader range of coursework that can go
into greater detail in certain criteria and the only limitation for the school is finding resources and
58 http://www.ncarb.org/Studying-Architecture/NCARB-Award/Prize-Grant/NCARB-Prize/2010-Prize-Winners/PrizeWinner5.aspx (Accessed October 20, 2012) 59 NCARB, 2010, p.55
28
space in the curriculum. However, there is little opportunity to provide students with “Ability” in
the criteria since these courses are traditionally lecture-based.
Also, a type of additional course approach, many schools have co-op programs that send
students to work in firms during a semester in lieu of coursework. Combining the professional
practice course with the co-op program exceedingly meets the Realm-C criteria because the
students can apply the information learned in a real-world setting, which is a major advantage to
this type of additional approach. Schools like Cal Poly (San Luis Obispo), Drexel University,
and the New Jersey Institute of Technology offer these programs. A limitation to co-op
programs is a schoolʼs geographic location. If the school is not located near a city with multiple
firms, it becomes extremely difficult to offer this type of program.
The Illinois Institute of Technology offers the “Interprofessional Projects Program” (IPRO). The
IPRO “consists of teams of students, faculty and outside consultants working collectively on
professionally sponsored research projects. IPRO projects emphasize collaboration across
disciplinary and professional boundaries, and provide an environment for students, from a
variety of academic fields (engineering, business, psychology, etc.), to interact with a diverse
group of professional experts and organizations.”60 What makes this version of an additional
course approach stand out is that two 3-credit IPRO courses are required for all undergraduate
students at the university.
The additional course approach selected for this research is the Penn State “Interdisciplinary
Collaborative BIM studio.” The course is currently offered as an option to fifth-year
60 http://ipro.iit.edu/about (Accessed October 20, 2012)
29
undergraduate students to supplement the second semester of a traditional fifth-year thesis
project.
“I think what you [Penn State] are doing is the way we should be teaching our students. It is important that architecture students and [Architectural Engineering] students learn their craft individually for a while so that they can master their own portion of the work. However, NO project is done by just an architect (at least the bigger projects). All projects are the result of collaboration and interdisciplinary understanding. Any architect who emerges from school with an understanding of what the rest of the disciplines across the table are doing is far better off (and far more marketable) than those who emerge with purely theory and esoteric design wanderlust.” David Schrader, 2011 SchraderGroup Architecture LLC: Philadelphia, PA
The course won a 2011 NCARB (Honorable Mention) Prize as well as a 2012 AIA “Technology
in Architectural Practice” BIM award. The studio integrates six different fields of study, across
two colleges and three departments, into one shared course. Penn State has a School of
Architecture and Landscape Architecture as well as a Department of Architectural Engineering
(AE), which is why this example of an additive course approach was selected. The AE program
specializes Structural, Mechanical, Lighting, as well as Construction Management. The teams
of students work together on “real life” (current or recently completed) projects in order to
understand the workflows, constraints, and scheduling necessary to complete a project. During
the semester, actual industry consultants visit with each team of students and provide feedback
that greatly increases the real-world applicability of the course. As described in the course
syllabus, “The major focus of this studio is a collaboration and interdisciplinary design process.
Therefore, a significant number of the [NAAB] learning objectives will be accomplished by
collaborative learning and effort […] The course is organized as an interactive studio, requiring
studentsʼ participation not only in the design process but also in discussions, critiques, and other
group activities.”61
61 See Appendix C for syllabus.
30
Previously offered as a prototype optional studio, as of spring 2012 it has been fully integrated
as design studio sections into the undergraduate curricula of all three (Architecture, Landscape
Architecture, and Architectural Engineering) programs. Administrators and faculty made the
decision to include undergraduate fifth-year (architecture) thesis students in an effort to address
the NAAB Comprehensive Design and Realm-C requirements in an innovative way. The
students were expected to go through a traditional fall semester (to have a schematic level
project), and then switch into the spring collaborative BIM/IPD studio for a new project that
would involve production and technical documentation in a team setting with the architectural
engineering students. The biggest benefit of this course is its emphasis on interdisciplinary
collaboration. The “C.1 – Collaboration” criterion is almost never met by a traditional
Professional Practice course (11% according to the nine APRs and the nine VTRs) and is
designated to be met by a design studio (see Figure 4). The studio also covers other criteria
like “project and practice management,” as well as “client role” and “leadership” very well.
Because these criteria are learned in a project-based studio, the students are provided the
opportunity to apply these professional preparedness topics. A disadvantage to this course is
the limitation of expansion to include all students in the architecture program.
Overall, the additional course approach is beneficial because it gives students an opportunity to
apply the Realm-C criteria in a studio setting. This bolsters the studentsʼ ability in many of the
deficient professional preparedness topics discussed in the NCARBʼs Practice Analysis.
Providing the students with this ability elevates the standards for meeting accreditation criteria
and can exceedingly demonstrate compliance to the visiting accreditation teams. Even by
simply adding additional courses to reinforce the criteria can give students a greater depth of
understanding of the information. A limitation to this approach is a schoolʼs ability (and
resources) to introduce new coursework and curricular modifications.
31
The Modified Course Approach
The modified course approach combines a traditional lecture-based Professional Practice
course with a hands-on interactive seminar. This means a combination of lectures,
presentations, field trips, collaboration, and studio design project(s) are used to reinforce the
Realm-C SPC with the students. A major advantage to this approach is it pushes the
boundaries of the requirements from an understanding of the criteria to an application of them.
By the end of a traditional five-year undergraduate program, architecture students are
accustomed to learning through studio-style projects, therefore a traditional lecture-based
professional practice course does not enable the students to apply the information learned. A
modified course approach solves this problem. One significant disadvantage to this approach is
it remains a one-semester course that is relied upon heavily to cover a significant portion of the
Realm-C SPC. Subsequently, taking the time away from lectures and presentations for project-
based learning reduces the breadth of information that can be covered in the same time frame
as a traditional Professional Practice course.
One example of the modified course approach is the Cal Poly “Design Collaboratory (DC)”
course, which won a 2010 NCARB prize. As described by the NCARB:
“Students were provided the opportunity to fully engage in a studio design project that was enhanced by the support and collaboration of leading architect practitioners. Students from all disciplines participated in the building design to learn the fundamental principals of negotiation and building systems integration. Practitioners interacted with students during lectures, design critiques, and technology training. The jury noted that the project recognized that integration of architecture education and practice leads to more informed and better outcomes and showed ways architects lead teams of professionals to common goals.”62
One jury member said, “This project serves as an effective model for other schools of ways to
introduce a professional culture into studio work.”63
62 http://www.ncarb.org/Studying-Architecture/Educators/NCARB-Prize-Program/2010-Prize-Winners/PrizeWinner2.aspx (Accessed October 20, 2012) 63 NCARB, 2010, p.30
32
Drexel University uses a combination of the modified and additional approach by offering two
Professional Practice courses as well as an extensive co-op program in what they call a “2 + 4
option.” According to the schoolʼs website, “In this program two years of full-time coursework
address the basic principles of architectural design and satisfy university core requirements in
the arts and sciences. In the remaining four years students find full-time employment with local
architectural firms while continuing their academic program part-time in the evening.”64
According to the ACSA, Drexel has 330 part-time students in the program.
The modified approach selected for this research is Virginia Techʼs “Designing Practice”
course.65 It was selected because it is a rethinking of the traditional professional practice course
and it won the 2011 NCARB Grand Prize.
“The NCARB Prize was initiated in 2001 in response to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s report, Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice (The Boyer Report). […] The NCARB Prize Program was designed to encourage, reward, and showcase diverse programs and activities that wholly integrate practice and education in an academic setting.”66
The “Designing Practice” course is offered as one section (out of four) of Professional Practice
that meets once a week for three hours. “Each week is devoted to one of 13 topics. The
beginning of the class is reserved for intermittent studio style pin-ups. Each topic contains a
lecture by the faculty or a guest, a review of assigned readings, case examples including web
content or videos, and a short writing exercise.”67 The course becomes more engaging for the
students because they are asked to think of their future career as a design problem, much like
they would approach a design project (see Appendix D for course syllabus). Professor Marie
Zawistowski said, “We realized that linking business and design was key to getting the students 64 http://www.drexel.edu/westphal/undergraduate/ARCH/#a2 (Accessed October 20, 2012) 65 See Appendix D for syllabus. 66 http://www.ncarb.org/Studying-Architecture/NCARB-Award/Prize-Grant/NCARB-Prize.aspx (accessed October 6, 2012) 67 NCARB, 2011, p.13
33
excited about practice.”68 The students select an office location, put together a business plan,
decide on what size (and type) of office they will have, how it is laid out, etc. They also come up
with marketing materials like a firm logo, contract documents, letterhead, and Request for
Proposals (RFPs). The resulting products are a combination of presentations, pin-ups, and
booklets.
The course is described by the 2011 NCARB Grand Prize website as follows:
“Virginia Tech captured the grand prize for engaging students in the often “mundane” subject of professional practice by introducing it as a design problem […] The highly interactive academic course exposed architecture students to real and virtual aspects of running their own firms. The course involved architects, attorneys, business consultants, and registration board representatives. The course investigated topics such as the architect’s image in today’s culture, the internship and licensure processes, how registration boards work, entrepreneurship, compensation by clients, risk management, construction contract administration management, ethics, and people skills. Information was delivered through class discussions, firm visits, one-on-one interviews, guest lectures, writing assignments, and research.”69
When asked about suggestions for other schools interested in emulating the “Designing
Practice” course, Professor Marie Zawistowski said, “I think the subject of professional practice
should be presented as essential to the making of an architect—in professional practice courses
and in studio. Students should be challenged to think critically about their own professional
future throughout their educations.”70
Similar to the additional course approach, the modified course approach gives students ability in
many of the Realm-C criteria. This course provides an innovative solution to the concerns from
the NCARB Practice Analysis about professional preparedness of students. However, this
would not alleviate the pressure associated with only having one course responsible for so
many of the Realm-C criteria as noted by several of the visiting team reports.
68 NCARB, 2011, p.13 69 http://www.ncarb.org/en/Studying-Architecture/NCARB-Award/Prize-Grant/NCARB-Prize/2011-Prize-Winner/GrandPrize11.aspx (accessed October 6, 2012) 70 NCARB, 2011, p.14
34
Chapter 4. ANALYSIS: The following findings compare a traditional course (from Penn State),71 the additional course
approach Penn Stateʼs “Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM studio,” and the modified course
approach Virginia Techʼs “Designing Practice” course. The Penn State collaborative BIM/IPD
studio has been selected as an additional course approach because it is used in conjunction
with the Professional Practice course to demonstrate compliance with Realm-C SPC. The
Virginia Tech designing practice course has been selected as a modified course approach
because it is used in lieu of the traditional professional practice course to demonstrate
compliance with Realm-C SPC.
The research compares how the three courses respond to the Realm-C criteria as reported by
the schools, professors, syllabi, and VTRs. This will describe how effective each approach is
(or is not) in bolstering the professional preparedness of students. Each Realm-C criterion will
be defined and a comparison of the three approaches will follow.
C.1 – Collaboration NAAB description: “Ability to work in collaboration with others and in multi- disciplinary teams to successfully complete design projects.”72
• 11% (1/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 0% (0/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: Because a traditional professional practice course is lecture-based, the C.1
criterion is not typically met. The course does not include students from other majors (such as
engineering, construction management, etc.), so having multi-disciplinary teams as described in
the criterionʼs definition is not met. The APRs and VTRs indicate this criterion is generally
covered by a design studio offered later in the curriculum (see Figure 4). The ACSA recently
71 See Appendix B for syllabus. 72 NAAB, 2009, p.24
35
published recommendations for the 2013 Accreditation Review Conference saying the C.1
criterion should be modified:
“Reports from schools visited under the 2009 Conditions show that teams interpret C.1 Collaboration in uneven ways. Requiring students to demonstrate the ability “to work in collaboration with others and in multi- disciplinary teams to successfully complete design projects” is a laudable goal for education. However, in practice, not all schools are able to coordinate with other disciplines to fit collaboration into studio courses. We believe better ways of satisfying the need for collaboration must be found, taking examples from other disciplines, including business or affiliated design disciplines.”73
According to the schoolʼs SPC matrix, the Penn State Professional Practice course does not
demonstrate compliance with the C.1 criterion, however the students are required to work in four
to five person teams throughout the semester to create outlines and presentations for various
topics of discussion (like “Architects through History,” “Architecture as a Profession,” “Diversity
in Architecture,” “Social Responsibility,” and others). The students also work in teams for an
ADA survey in which they find three unique non-compliant conditions around campus and
propose design solutions to remedy the problem. There is also a cost estimate and ethics case
study (see Appendix B for assignment descriptions). The teams are not interdisciplinary, but
working together on a project is a form of collaboration.
Additional course: Penn Stateʼs Collaborative BIM/IPD studio strongly meets the C.1 criterion.
The studio integrates six different fields of study, across two colleges and three departments,
into one shared course. The students are assigned a real-life project (currently under
construction or recently completed) and begin in schematic design and finish with (simulated)
construction. One of the architecture students from the spring 2012 semester said, “I feel that
the level of structural, mechanical, lighting/electrical, and constructability integration is far and
above more comprehensive than any other design course I have taken. The amount of
information learned from other design disciplines was exceedingly unexpected in this regard.”
73 ACSA, 2012, p.5
36
The Collaborative BIM/IPD studio meets the C.1 criterion the strongest of the three investigated
approaches because of its interdisciplinary format. When used as an additional course to the
existing Professional Practice course, it reinforces the collaboration criterion as well as provides
the students with “Ability” in the criterion through direct application.
Modified course: Virginia Techʼs SPC matrix does not indicate the Designing Practice course
as meeting the C.1 criterion; instead it relies on a separate Building Analysis course to
demonstrate compliance (see Appendix E). The Designing Practice course provides some
collaboration between students during their presentations and projects, but like a traditional
Professional Practice course, it is not multi-disciplinary.
C.2 – Human Behavior NAAB description: “Understanding of the relationship between human behavior, the natural environment and the design of the built environment.”74
• 11% (1/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 22% (2/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: The C.2 criterion is not usually met by Professional Practice course(s) as
indicated by the APRs and VTRs. Topics in the Penn State Professional Practice course such
as social responsibility and diversity touch upon the criterionʼs description, but not in a primary
sense. According to the APRs, schools of architecture generally indicate this criterion as met by
history/theory courses, architecture and behavior courses, or design studios throughout the
curriculum (see Figure 4).
74 NAAB, 2009, p.24
37
Additional course: Penn Stateʼs Collaborative BIM/IPD studio is project-based, so any
understanding of human behavior is applied through design proposals. The design of the built
environment and natural environment is evident throughout the student projects, but not
necessarily enough to indicate primary compliance with the C.2 criterion.
Modified course: Much like the traditional Professional Practice course, the C.2 criterion may
be discussed in lectures like “People Skills,” but not enough to demonstrate primary compliance
with the criterion.
C.3 – Client Role in Architecture NAAB description: “Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to elicit, understand, and reconcile the needs of the client, owner, user groups, and the public and community domains.”75
• 100% (9/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 67% (6/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: According to the APRs and VTRs, the C.3 criterion is almost always
indicated as primarily met by the Professional Practice course(s) (see Figure 4). Penn Stateʼs
Professional Practice course uses lectures as well as student presentations to discuss the
“Client Role in Architecture.” One lecture on the practice of architecture covers evidence based
design versus artistic design to compare the extremes of the profession. Other topics in the
lecture include: The value of the architect to the client, issues of time management and billing to
the client, office dynamic, financial considerations, proposals (RFPs), risk management, and
overhead. There are also guest lecturers including a real-estate developer that discusses client
perceptions of architects, a practitioner discusses billing and the costs of running a business, as
well as others. In addition, there are presentations on the positive and negative types of
relationships between architects and clients, the types of clients, as well as legal agreements
75 NAAB, 2009, p.24
38
between the two. During the semester the students are required to conduct a “Firm Case Study
and Research Poster.” The students interview principals or senior managers from an
architecture firm they select to discuss topics like clients, practice/project management, legal
responsibilities, firm growth, etc. Documentation of the interviews occurs in the form of a
transcript and poster, which takes the important points from the interview and summarizes them
for other students to learn about the firm (see Appendix B).
Additional course: As described earlier, the Collaborative BIM/IPD studio utilizes an existing
design/construction project for the students. This includes interacting with real clients, owners,
and users of the project to understand the needs and requirements for designing in the “real-
world.” Because the course only addresses one project during the semester, the students get a
limited view of the types of clients, but do learn the distinction between “clients” and “users.”
Because the course is used in conjunction with the Professional Practice course, the students
can gain a broader understanding of clients. A benefit of this additional course approach in the
C.3 criterion is having the students apply the information learned about clients to an actual
design project, which provides “Ability” through direct application.
Modified course: Virginia Techʼs Designing Practice course meets once a week for three
hours. The first hour is generally dedicated to lectures or presentations from faculty or guest
lecturers to cover the topic of the day. The class meets 13 times during the semester, and one
of those is devoted to the “C.3 - Client Role in Architecture” criterion. After the lecture, the
students are presented with a real-world scenario that is related to the dayʼs topic. The students
then have a short writing assignment in which they respond to the scenario using the
information they learned in the lecture. According to professor Keith Zawistowski, the
assignments are highly subjective because there is really no “right” answer. The students are
39
only expected to use the information from the lecture and write a reasonable response to the
mock-scenario. After the lecture, short writing assignment, and discussion, the students use the
information learned to continue work on the semester-long project of designing their own (mock)
practice. In the case of clients, they decide what size and type of projects their firm would
specialize in and therefore what type(s) of client they would work with. Other lectures
throughout the semester teach the students about a Request for Proposal (RFP), contracts, and
how to get paid. A significant difference between the Designing Practice course and a
traditional Professional Practice course is the student applies the knowledge from the lectures
on a design project, which reinforces the topic.
C.4 – Project Management NAAB description: “Understanding of the methods for competing for commissions, selecting consultants and assembling teams, and recommending project delivery methods.”76
• 100% (9/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 89% (8/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: The C.4 criterion is overwhelmingly indicated as met by the Professional
Practice course(s) according to the APRs and VTRs (see Figure 4). This is understandable
because project management (as defined by the NAAB) is not something typically learned in a
design studio. Project delivery methods, assembling consultants and teams, and competing for
commissions can be taught through lectures and readings. The Professional Practice course is
almost always indicated as the primary source for meeting this criterion.
The Penn State Professional Practice course covers the C.4 criterion through lectures, readings,
and presentations. Topics like project delivery methods, the architect versus the contractor,
scheduling, Critical Path Method (CPM), reviewing shop drawings, and specifications are
76 NAAB, 2009, p.24
40
covered in the lectures. There is a class discussion on the difference between a project
manager and a designer in an architecture firm. The class goes on a field trip to various
architectural offices to learn more about topics like project management as discussed by
professionals in the field. The “firm case study” as described in the C.3 criterion also plays a
role in the understanding of the C.4 criterion. Finally, there is a group project on cost estimation
as described in the C.1 criterion.
Additional course: Although the students in the Penn State Collaborative BIM/IPD studio do
not compete for the commission or select their own consultants (because they are both
assigned), they do gain ability in working with consultants and using the Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD) method. In addition, the teams create “BIM execution plans” which detail the
projected workflows, software integration, “firm” identity, and mission statement. Similar to the
“C.3 - Client Role in Architecture” criterion, the students only learn about one type of project
delivery method, but when used in conjunction with the Professional Practice course, a wider
range of delivery methods can be learned. The benefit of the additional collaborative BIM/IPD
studio is the applicability of using the Integrated Project Delivery method on a design project as
opposed to learning by readings or lectures. Another benefit of the studio is in the area of
project management since the architecture student is responsible for coordinating and
managing his or her team members during all phases of the project, which includes assigning
tasks, responsibilities, and deadlines.
Modified course: Much like the C.3 criterion, Virginia Techʼs Designing Practice course uses
lectures and presentations to discuss project management. One of the thirteen lectures is titled,
“Getting the Project Built,” which discuss various types of project management. The lecture is
then followed by a short written response to a real-world scenario, and then the students
41
continue work on their semester-long project of designing their own (mock) practice using the
information learned from the lecture. Last year, the class went to a local project site and
attended a Construction Administration (CA) meeting where the students got to see first-hand
the project management process between owner, contractor, and client. This changes from
year to year depending on available job sites to which the students can visit.
C.5 – Practice Management NAAB description: “Understanding of the basic principles of architectural practice management such as financial management and business planning, time management, risk management, mediation and arbitration, and recognizing trends that affect practice.”77
• 89% (8/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 89% (8/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: The C.5 criterion was also indicated as met by many of the Professional
Practice courses according to the APRs and VTRs (see Figure 4). Again, these topics would
not normally be covered in a design studio. The Professional Practice course fills in the topic
through lectures, presentations, and discussions. This is why the course is almost always used
as the primary source for meeting the criterion.
Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course has guest lectures from local practitioners to discuss
topics such as risk and financial management, business planning, and trends that affect
practice. The class field trip to various architectural offices provides examples of real-world
practices. During the trip, the firms are asked to discuss organization, jobs, risk, technology, as
well as how the practice is changing. The “firm case study” plays a significant role in
understanding of the C.5 criterion. Throughout the semester, the students are required to attend
five related lectures outside architecture. This is considered a type of “continuing education”
77 NAAB, 2009, pp.24-25
42
which is required by the AIA to maintain licensure for professionals. This fits with several of the
accreditation criteria, and practice management is one.
Additional course: The Penn State Collaborative BIM/IPD studio does not cover topics like
financial management or business planning, but does involve issues of time management and
mediation. The groups of students work in a mock firm and coordinate among themselves who
will do what work at what time in order to meet deadlines. The construction management
students look at risk management and construction scheduling throughout the project and
coordinate with the team. There is also a good amount of conflict resolution with how the
systems (architectural, structural, mechanical, etc.) interact with each other. This course would
not provide a primary source for meeting this criterion. However, when used in conjunction with
the Professional Practice course the application of these topics on a design project greatly
increases the studentʼs understanding.
Modified course: The C.5 criterion is another that the Virginia Tech Designing Practice course
covers in its thirteen class lectures like, “Designing your Own Practice,” “Scale and Type of
practice,” and “Business Management.” These lectures combined with the short answer mock-
scenario responses as well as using the information to apply to the semester-long design
project, provide a strong understanding and application of the criterion. Another way this
criterion is met through the course is the “students receive an opportunity to step into their
futures with case studies of professional architecture practices based on one-on-one interviews
conducted in the architectsʼ offices.”78 These interviews help the students understand real-world
practice management issues.
78 NCARB, 2011, p.11
43
C.6 - Leadership NAAB description: “Understanding of the techniques and skills architects use to work collaboratively in the building design and construction process and on environmental, social, and aesthetic issues in their communities.”79
• 100% (9/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 67% (6/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: All of the APRs, and most of the VTRs indicate the C.6 criterion as met by
the Professional Practice course(s) (see Figure 4). “Leadership,” as defined by the NAAB, is
taught in the traditional Professional Practice course through lectures and presentations. An
understanding of how architects work with other disciplines can be learned this way.
Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course has a specific lecture devoted to project
management, which covers the various types of leadership an architect can have on different
projects. Other lectures include such topics as project management (being a team leader),
sustainability and protecting natural resources, and preserving historic buildings/sites. Student
presentations on social responsibility and architects in community affairs are also used as a way
for the students to investigate various roles of architects on design teams. The five “continuing
education” lectures described in the C.5 criterion would also fit in the leadership criterion.
Additional course: The Penn State Collaborative BIM/IPD studio provides an interactive
environment for the architecture students to act as team leaders. Coordinating the other five
disciplines for project delivery and scheduling is a task each architecture student takes on as
one of their responsibilities. This enables the students to apply the knowledge learned in the
Professional Practice course on a “real-world” design project. Environmental, social, and
aesthetic issues in communities are touched upon in relation to the selected project the students
79 NAAB, 2009, p.25
44
are working on. These issues are researched in the schematic design phases and are
reinforced by clients, users, and professionals visiting the studio to speak with the students.
Modified course: “Leadership” is another criterion covered by Virginia Techʼs Designing
Practice course. Lectures like “What is an Architect?” “People Skills,” and “Managing Risk”
cover many of the topics defined by the NAAB for the C.6 criterion. The students respond to
real-world scenarios with a short answer response and use the information learned to apply to
their semester-long (mock) firm design projects. As mentioned before, the students are
responsible to interview a design professional, which also addresses the leadership criterion.
Last yearʼs field trip to a construction administration meeting provided students with first-hand
knowledge of how teams of professionals work together during the construction phase of a
project.
C.7 – Legal Responsibilities NAAB description: “Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to the public and the client as determined by registration law, building codes and regulations, professional service contracts, zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental regulation, and historic preservation and accessibility laws.”80
• 100% (9/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 89% (8/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: The C.7 criterion is indicated as met by the Professional Practice course(s)
in almost all of the APRs and VTRs (see Figure 4). “Legal Responsibilities” can be addressed in
a design studio, however it becomes project and professor specific, so the Professional Practice
course fills in the topics through lectures, readings, and presentations.
The Penn State Professional Practice course brings in a local code official to discuss building
codes, zoning ordinances, accessibility laws, etc. There are additional lectures by the professor 80 NAAB, 2009, p.25
45
on AIA contracts and agreements, third party contracts, code reviews, zoning, and planning.
The students are quizzed afterwards on the lectures and readings to reinforce the topics. The
group ADA project described in the C.1 criterion and the “Firm Case Study” project also cover
this criterion (see Appendix B). The five “Continuing Education” lectures described in the C.5
criterion would also fit in the legal responsibilities criterion.
Additional course: The student teams in Penn Stateʼs Collaborative BIM/IPD studio must have
buildings that are code and ADA compliant. The students are expected to use current
codebooks and zoning laws to make design and construction decisions. Code officials, as well
as local architects, visit the studio to discuss with each team how their projects meet or do not
meet the code requirements. This is another way the Collaborative BIM/IPD studio reinforces
the topics learned in the Professional Practice course by applying them to a design project.
Historic preservation may or may not be covered based on the specified project. Contracts are
not covered.
Modified course: The C.7 criterion is met by Virginia Techʼs Designing Practice course through
a couple of the thirteen lectures, “Government Policies and Regulations” and “Managing Risk.”
Much like the other criterion, the students use the information from the lectures to answer a
question on a real-world scenario, and then apply the knowledge towards their semester-long
project. Other guest lecturers are brought in throughout the semester to discuss topics within
this realm. The making of their own RFP also helps the students understand the ramifications of
legal documents and contracts.
46
C.8 – Ethics and Professional Judgment NAAB description: “Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the formation of professional judgment regarding social, political and cultural issues in architectural design and practice.”81
• 100% (9/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 89% (8/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: The C.8 criterion is met by almost all Professional Practice courses
according to the APRs and VTRs (see Figure 4). Some of the architecture schools have a
different course specifically devoted to “Ethics and Professional Judgment;” these were
considered Professional Practice courses by this research because the classes are lecture-
based and demonstrate compliance with Realm-C criteria. Ethics generally plays a large part in
Professional Practice courses because it is another topic that is project/professor specific in a
design studio and is therefore not consistently covered.
Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course addresses the C.8 criterion through lectures,
readings, presentations, and assignments. It is a topic woven throughout many lectures from
the professor as well as guest lecturers that come in throughout the semester. The professor
also introduces mock scenarios and the students discuss possible solutions. The Ethics Case
Study project specifically addresses this criterion (see Appendix B). Also, on the final exam the
students receive a take-home ethics case study and are required to write an argument in
response.
Additional course: Because of the construction management team members, the Penn State
Collaborative BIM/IPD studio tends to emphasize more ethics issues than a traditional studio
project. The thorough cost estimating, including long-term lifecycle analysis, leads to a deeper
understanding by the students of professional judgment decisions. Other issues like user risk
81 NAAB, 2009, p.25
47
and safety, image/symbolism appropriate to client wishes, as well as sustainability gives
students an opportunity to apply these topics to a collaborative design project. This becomes a
great benefit to the studio in comparison to a traditional Professional Practice course.
Modified course: One of the thirteen lectures in the Virginia Tech designing practice course is
called “Ethics.” The students use the information to answer a real-world scenario and then
apply the information learned to their semester-long project.
C.9 – Community and Social Responsibility NAAB description: “Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to work in the public interest, to respect historic resources, and to improve the quality of life for local and global neighbors.”82
• 56% (5/9) of the APRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course. • 67% (6/9) of the VTRs indicate this criterion as [Met] by Professional Practice course.
Traditional course: The C.9 criterion was met by just over half of the Professional Practice
courses according to the APRs and VTRs (see Figure 4). Design studios were also indicated as
meeting the criterion, either in conjunction with the Professional Practice course or by
themselves.
According to the schoolʼs APR, the Penn State Professional Practice course is not indicated as
the primary source for meeting C.9, however the course covers many topics within the criterion.
Several of the student research projects are involved with this criterion such as the “Social
Responsibility of Architects” and “Architectsʼ Influence on Politics and Community Affairs”
projects. There are also lectures that cover many of these topics during the semester.
82 NAAB, 2009, p.25
48
Additional course: The Collaborative BIM/IPD studio covers some of the topics of the C.9
criterion, but varies according to specificity of project type. If the assigned project deals with a
historical building, then the students will have to research ways of restoring or maintaining the
existing conditions. Public interest and quality of life for local neighbors is introduced at the
beginning of the project in the design phase(s). Global neighbors is not a topic for the course.
However, since the course offers a more thorough life-cycle cost and sustainable systems
analysis (than a traditional design studio) it can be argued that the studentsʼ gain an
understanding of social responsibility as well as global issues related to climate change. The
Collaborative BIM/IPD studio used in conjunction with the Professional Practice course
reinforces many of the topics within the C.9 criterion.
Modified course: Similar to the traditional Professional Practice course, this criterion is not
indicated as being met by the course. Some of the lectures may touch on topics relating to this
criterion, but not enough to demonstrate primary compliance.
49
Chapter 5. RESULTS: The information gathered in the findings has shown several of the Realm-C criteria are better
met by the additional and/or modified course approaches. Comparing and contrasting how
each approach demonstrates compliance with the nine Realm-C criteria answered the specific
research question of how to bolster studentsʼ professional preparedness. The following
summarizes the findings:
The “C.1 – Collaboration” criterion is not usually met by a traditional Professional Practice
course because students must demonstrate “Ability” in the criterion to the visiting team.
Because the traditional course is lecture-based and only includes architecture students, there is
no opportunity for multi-disciplinary collaboration or demonstrable ability in the criterion. This
type of learning is traditionally reserved for a design studio or a course that integrates other
disciplines on a shared project. Interestingly, six of the nine VTRs collected indicated the C.1
criterion as “met with distinction” by a design studio (see Figure 4). The Penn State
Collaborative BIM/IPD studio fully meets the definition of multi-disciplinary collaboration and
prepares the students for working in teams with other design professionals. The (modified
course approach) Designing Practice course falls short in this criterion because it only includes
architecture students, therefore collaboration as defined by the NAABʼs Conditions for
Accreditation must be met elsewhere in the curriculum.
None of the three approaches demonstrate compliance with the “C.2 - Human Behavior”
criterion. Only 17% of the APRs and VTRs indicated this criterion as met by the Professional
Practice course, as it is usually covered by history/theory courses and sometimes by design
studios (see Figure 4). In previous versions of the NAABʼs Conditions for Accreditation, this
criterion was not included with the Leadership and Practice requirements, but when the
50
conditions were realigned into three realms, it was moved into Realm-C. Interestingly, the
ACSA has recently published recommendations for the 2013 Accreditation Review Conference
in which it suggests moving the C.2 criterion from Realm-C to Realm-A because it is not
congruent with the other Leadership and Practice criteria.83
The “C.3 - Client Role in Architecture” criterion is almost always met by the traditional
Professional Practice course. Through lectures and writing assignments, the students get an
understanding of an architectʼs role and responsibility in relation to owner/client needs. The
differences between the traditional and modified course approaches were minimal. Although
the students in the Designing Practice course were able to apply the information learned about
clients to their mock-firm project, there was no actual interaction with clients and/or users. The
(additional course approach) Collaborative BIM/IPD studio provided interactions with clients and
users for the project, which gave the students real parameters shaping design decisions. The
only drawback to this approach was that it was a specific type of project with specific clients, so
the breadth of knowledge was limited in this respect.
The “C.4 - Project Management” and “C.5 - Practice Management” criteria were met very well by
both the additional and modified course approaches. A traditional Professional Practice course
meets these criteria through lectures, discussions, and writing. The Penn State Professional
Practice course utilizes a firm case-study project and a field trip to various firms (see Appendix
B). The (modified course approach) Designing Practice course takes this further by having the
students apply the knowledge in their mock-firm projects. This enables the students to really
consider the various options and limitations about the type of practice and projects they would
encounter after graduation. The (additional course approach) Collaborative BIM/IPD studio 83 ACSA, 2012, p.5
51
gives students hands-on experience with managing a project and a “practice” since they are
essentially working in a firm with other disciplines. Although these two courses differ in how the
material is applied, it still pushes the students from an understanding of the criterion into an
application of it.
The (additional course approach) Collaborative BIM/IPD studio exceedingly met the “C.6 –
Leadership” criterion. Because each architecture student was responsible to lead their design
team according to their respective expertise, he or she had to set deadlines, maintain the overall
design-entity of the team, as well as work collaboratively to get the project completed. Both the
traditional and modified approaches were limited in this criterion because lectures, case studies,
and assignments were the only way the students learned the information.
The “C.7 - Legal Responsibilities” criterion was difficult to differentiate between the three
approaches because the criterion covers an extensive amount of information (from handicap
accessibility, to contract documents, to zoning and historic preservation). The Penn State
Professional Practice course goes into great detail about contract documents, codes, and
zoning through lectures and assignments. Similarly, the (modified course approach) Designing
Practice course covers many of the topics through lectures, but the students then create their
own mock-firm contracts and proposals. The (additional course approach) Collaborative
BIM/IPD studio falls short in this criterion because it only covers code and accessibility related
issues, although those topics are exceedingly met because each team meets with code-officials
to get a better understanding of project-specific issues.
The Penn State Professional Practice and the Virginia Tech Designing Practice courses discuss
mock scenarios related to the “C.8 - Ethics and Professional Judgment” criterion and the
52
students are asked to reply to these scenarios with written assignments. The collaborative
BIM/IPD studio provides a more applicable setting for the students to learn this criterion. Having
a team that includes a construction management student (as well as other architectural
engineering students) enables the architecture student to understand the ramifications of how
life cycle and sustainable systems analysis, as well as user risk/safety, affect professional
judgment when designing and constructing a building. This provides a much greater depth of
understanding, bordering on applicability, that a traditional lecture-based professional practice
course cannot provide.
The “C.9 - Community and Social Responsibility” criterion was not indicated as met by any of
the three courses. According to the APRs and VTRs, this is not always met by traditional
Professional Practice courses (see Figure 4). Some of the information like working in the
publicʼs interest can be learned through lectures and discussions, while other information like
respecting historic resources can be learned through studio projects. This would explain why
there isnʼt consistency among responses to the criterion. The (additional course approach)
Collaborative BIM/IPD studio gives students an in-depth understanding of life cycle cost and
sustainable systems analysis that provides them with an understanding of social responsibility
as well as global issues related to climate change.
Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course is an excellent example of the traditional course
approach. The stand-alone course meets six of the nine (67%) Realm-C criteria as indicated in
the schoolʼs most recent APR (see Appendix E), which is consistent with the other seventeen
reports investigated in this study (see Figure 4). In addition to the traditional lecture format, the
course utilizes group projects, presentations, case studies, and a field trip, which provide more
opportunities for learning about the criteria for the students. However, a significant limitation is it
53
remains a stand-alone lecture-based course, which has proven to be a concern by visiting
accreditation teams. As this research has shown, enabling students to apply the information
learned in the Realm-C criteria can help answer many of the concerns from the NCARB and AIA
about professional preparedness. Another limitation is the amount of time the students are
exposed to the criteria. Since the course is only one semester at the end of the curriculum, it
makes it difficult to give the students a depth of understanding of some of the criteria.
Virginia Techʼs Designing Practice course is similar to Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice
course, but is designated as a seminar, not a lecture. This provides the students with the
opportunity to apply the information to a studio-style project and gives them “Ability” in most of
the criteria (C.3, C.4, C.5, and C.7) whereas a traditional approach can only offer an
“Understanding.” This is the greatest benefit of the course and is why it won the NCARB Grand
Prize. The course solves many of the issues brought up in the NCARB Practice Analysis and
AIA Career Survey. However, a significant limitation is that it remains a stand-alone course (at
the end of the curriculum), which does not address the issues brought up by the NAAB visiting
teams about the pressure being applied to one course.
Penn Stateʼs Collaborative BIM/IPD studio appears to provide an answer to all of the concerns
from the NCARB, AIA, and NAAB. First, it is studio-based, giving students the opportunity to
apply the information learned about professional preparedness. Second, it is an additional
course used in conjunction with the traditional course, therefore enabling students to get a very
deep understanding by application of certain criteria (like C.1, C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6, C.7, and C.8).
“C.1 – Collaboration” is by far the criterion met the strongest by this course. Because the
course is used in addition to the Professional Practice course, the concerns of the visiting teams
about too much pressure on one course are alleviated. The limitation to this approach is
54
expansion capabilities. Currently, it cannot be offered to the entire fifth-year class, which means
only a few students can utilize the course.
Both the modified and additional course approaches bolster studentsʼ understanding of the
professional preparedness topics by allowing them to apply the information to a project. The
additional course approach seems to outweigh the modified course approach because it gives
the students more exposure to the Realm-C criteria. As shown in Figure 3, seventeen of the
forty-seven schools investigated offer more than one semester of Professional Practice,
however these additional courses remain lecture-based and cannot provide the level of
applicability that the Collaborative BIM/IPD studio allows.
55
Chapter 6. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Over the past several decades the profession of architecture has seen significant changes in
the industry such as new design and building technologies, building systems, project delivery
methods, and specialties. This has not only made an impact on how architects design and
build, but also how architects define their role in the industry. Many firms have become more
specialized as buildings have become more complex. New consultants have entered into a
traditional owner, architect, and contractor role and are changing the definition of what an
architect is, or can be. Because of this, there has been accelerated criticism about the current
state of architectural pedagogy and the divide between the education and practice. There have
been recommendations by the ACSA and NCARB to modify the NAABʼs Conditions for
Accreditation to require more topics on professional preparedness in the curriculum. The AIAʼs
Internship and Career Surveys show most young professionals do not feel adequately prepared
for the profession after the completion of their education. In turn, it has become increasingly
more important for schools of architecture to respond and adapt. Although most schools meet
accreditation criteria for professional preparedness, this only indicates a disconnect between the
findings of the NCARB and AIA with the NAABʼs accreditation conditions. Some schools are
instituting new approaches to more effectively prepare students for the profession of
architecture and this study has found two approaches to be very effective in doing so.
The study began by investigating forty-seven B.Arch. programs to determine if each has a
Professional Practice course, how many credits it is, where it is in the curriculum, and if there
are other courses used to address the professional preparedness accreditation criteria. This
provided a baseline to compare each program in the area of professional preparedness (see
Appendix A). After the initial data was collected, eighteen reports (nine APRs and nine VTRs)
were collected to determine how schools comply with Realm-C accreditation criteria for
56
Leadership and Practice, which make up 30% of the NAABʼs Conditions for Accreditation SPC.
The results indicated an average of 76% of the criteria are met by the course. These are
staggering numbers to consider when the Professional Practice course makes up less than 3%
of the required curriculum (see Figure 2). As a result, the stand-alone lecture course must carry
a significant portion of the accreditation criteria weight. Even some of the visiting accreditation
teams were apprehensive about the disproportionate amount of SPCs being fulfilled by the
Professional Practice course. They suggested using design studios or other courses to broaden
the criteria into other parts of the curriculum. This implies a need for expansion and application
of the professional preparedness topics, which is congruent with the findings from the NCARB
Practice Analysis:
“It is essential to ensure that students receive an educational foundation that leads to successful practice. Such a foundation requires a professional knowledge-based and practice-based education. It requires a realization that innovation and responsiveness in design is based upon a sound foundation of empirical knowledge and research in all applicable content areas that influence decision-making. Such a foundation assumes that the academy embraces the realities of the profession.”84
It is important to note that even with some visiting teamʼs concern about the amount of
information being covered by the Professional Practice course, all nine VTRs indicated the
conditions as being met (see Figure 4). However, the only criteria met with distinction were
those that were met by studio courses or specific school programs that were used in addition to
the Professional Practice course, which means the teams want to see more application of the
criteria. The only stand-alone Professional Practice course that met the criteria with distinction85
did so because of its extensive “practice management” component that utilized office visits,
interviews, and case studies to reinforce specific criteria in Realm-C. These VTR findings
indicate that most traditional Professional Practice courses can adequately meet the Realm-C
criteria, but only those courses used in addition to Professional Practice or the modified
84 NCARB, 2008, p.4 85 Temple University
57
Professional Practice courses are meeting the criteria with distinction. Both of these methods
provide evidence of applicability of the criteria to the visiting teams. This is why Virginia Techʼs
“Designing Practice” and Penn Stateʼs “Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio” courses are
winning NCARB awards; they take the information learned in a traditional lecture setting, and
have students apply it to a design project. Not only do the students walk away with an
understanding of the material, they have ability to apply the information.
When asked about the Virginia Tech “Designing Practice” course, Professor Marie Zawistowski
said, “The students are able to make a direct connection between the course content and a
practical application in their unique futures.”86 The courseʼs foundation is applying the learned
information to a design project, which has been found to be the biggest benefit of the modified
approach. When compared to the Penn State traditional Professional Practice course, there
were not many differences in how the Realm-C criteria were met. Both courses had lectures
and presentations to verbally communicate the topics to the students. Both courses had writing
assignments that followed the lectures to “quiz” the students on the information. Each course
also had an interview assignment to talk to practitioners in the field to discuss real-world
scenarios relating to the criteria. The difference between the two was the Designing Practice
course gave the students the opportunity to create a mock firm that each student designed in
conjunction with the lectures. The course is set up as a seminar for this exact reason because it
allows for an hour of lecture, followed by studio time to apply the knowledge in a familiar setting
for architecture students.
86 NCARB, 2011, p.13
58
According to the 2012 VTR of Virginia Techʼs B.Arch. program, six of the nine87 Realm-C criteria
were met by their Professional Practice courses.88 At the time of accreditation, there were four
sections of Professional Practice, one of which was the “Designing Practice” course. The
visiting team had the following to say, “While most of the items in this Realm [C] are met through
the Professional Practice course, the number of instructors teaching [professional practice]
created a wide divergence in how the various SPCs in this section were covered. Of concern to
the team is the wide disparity in the range and depth of course content being presented.”89
Currently, the school is responding to this commentary by reformatting all four sections of
Professional Practice to reflect the Designing Practice course. This reformatting indicates the
visiting team showed a preference for the Designing Practice course.
If other schools want to emulate a course like this, it would be relatively easy since schools are
already equipped with design studio space for each student. The only change would be
designating the course as a seminar in lieu of a lecture, and adjusting other coursework and
scheduling. A disadvantage to this type of course is the ability to find current project sites every
year to accommodate CM meeting field trips as well as scheduling guest lecturers every year.
However, this is an issue for traditional Professional Practice courses as well. Although it can
be noted that one course is still being relied upon to cover a significant portion of the Realm-C
criterion, it at least provides applicability of the criteria (much like a design studio). Adding
another course earlier in the curriculum with a similar format could alleviate some of the
pressure and disperse the criteria between both courses.
87 C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6, C.7, and C.8 88 NAAB, 2012, pp.27-29 89 NAAB, 2012, p.29
59
Penn Stateʼs “Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM studio” is an example of an additional course
approach because it is used in conjunction with the traditional Professional Practice course to
demonstrate compliance with Realm-C criteria. The course is heavily rooted in the “C.1 –
Collaboration” criterion, which is rarely met by a traditional Professional Practice course (see
Figure 4). Other criteria like “C.3 – Client Role,” “C.4 – Project Management,” “C.6 –
Leadership,” “C.7 – Legal Responsibilities,” and “C.8 – Ethics” are all covered by the course in a
studio setting. What differentiates this course from other design studios is the thoroughness of
the design projects. Since there are teams of engineers, landscape architects, and construction
managers, the course allows for a deeper demonstration of ability in the criteria compared to
other conventional design studios. When used in conjunction with the Professional Practice
course, the Collaborative BIM/IPD studio enables the students to apply the information learned
in a lecture setting and apply it to an interdisciplinary design project. Again, this would provide
the students with “Ability” in the criteria. Working with other design majors, meeting with real
clients, collaborating on a “real-world” construction project, and meeting with outside
professionals and code officials is what separates this course from other design studios. One of
the students from the spring 2012 semester said, “Working with the [AE students] has vastly
helped my ability to think of all aspects of a building. I feel that I have a much better sense of
how my major design decisions can affect other engineering decisions to be made.” Because
this course utilizes the additional course approach, it is used alongside the traditional
Professional Practice course and therefore reinforces several of the Realm-C criteria more
strongly than a stand-alone course.
With all of the benefits of the collaborative BIM/IPD studio, there are significant barriers to allow
future expansion of such a course. The course is currently offered to 30 undergraduate
students representing six design disciplines. Architecture students work in teams with five other
60
majors (across two colleges and three departments). Infrastructure and scheduling logistics
make student enrollment expansion difficult. Course coordinator Robert Holland noted the
challenges of a course of this nature: “Scheduling of students and faculty is a nightmare. While
universities may push collaboration, the infrastructure (schedules and facilities) and faculty
evaluations often do not facilitate collaboration.”
Although the Penn State Collaborative BIM/IPD studio and the Virginia Tech Designing Practice
course differ in content and structure, there are fundamental similarities between the two. Both
fulfill many of the Realm-C criteria and actually exceed the requirements by providing the
students with “Ability” in the criteria. The courses allow the students to apply the information
they learn in traditional lectures to a design project. Towards the end of an undergraduate
program, architecture students become accustomed to learning in design studio settings and
both of these courses allow for that type of learning.
Reasons there are not more instances of the modified and additional course approaches may
be due to the apparent disconnect between the NCARB/AIA findings and the NAAB
accreditation visits. If the Realm-C conditions are met by most traditional Professional Practice
courses, there is really no apparent need to change. Another reason is that almost all of the
Realm-C criteria can be met by lecture coursework since the students only need
“Understanding” of the material according to the NAABʼs Conditions for Accreditation. This
provides some insight as to why schools of architecture would use a stand-alone lecture course
like Professional Practice to show evidence of meeting the criteria. The one Realm-C criterion
(“C.1 – Collaboration”) that has an “Ability” designation is only met by 6% of the Professional
Practice courses according to the eighteen APRs and VTRs collected. The other eight Realm-C
criteria have an “Understanding” designation and are met by 77% of the Professional Practice
61
courses. If the NAAB were to change the Conditions to include more “Ability” designations in
Realm-C, or if evidence of “Understanding” was held to a higher standard during accreditation
reviews, schools would need to consider alternative strategies to meet the criteria.
Conclusions drawn from the research are limited to the data collected. Since only two courses
were analyzed, it may not provide enough evidence that the two types of approaches actually
strengthen the Professional Preparedness of students and the meeting of Realm-C criteria.
Another concern is the traditional professional practice course used for comparison in this study
is just one of many across the country. Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course appears to
be an excellent example of the traditional model as it is very similar to the Temple University
course that met the Realm-C criteria with distinction. Each school has different instructors,
structure, and topics of focus, so comparing more than one traditional professional practice
course would be beneficial for this study.
Other ways of expanding this study would be to collect more APRs and VTRs as well as
interviewing visiting team members to get feedback on how courses like the Designing Practice
and the Collaborative BIM/IPD studio are meeting the accreditation criteria. Also, following up
with students in a more longitudinal study would be beneficial to compare how each course
prepared (or did not prepare) them for the profession. This may address the disconnect
between the NCARB/AIA surveys of professionals and the accreditation results.
This study has documented the disproportionate amount of pressure applied to traditional
professional practice courses in undergraduate schools of architecture. With increasing
demands from the NCARB, AIA, and ACSA, accreditation standards now include a higher
demand for professional preparedness topics to be included in architecture curricula. Even with
62
these higher demands, practitioners and recent graduates still feel unprepared for the
profession after graduation. Schools should be considering ways to expand the role of the
Professional Practice course to be more inclusive with the rest of the curriculum by either adding
additional coursework or modifying the existing course to give students ability in the criteria.
“The profession and practice of architecture have recently been subject to dramatic changes. The extent and scope of these changes have radically impacted all aspects of the architecture profession […] If architects are to adapt, it is essential that the academy develop effective ways to adjust to these critical transformations […] Much of the knowledge and many of the skills necessary for success in this new environment remain out of the purview of architectural education and internship. This shortcoming leaves emerging professionals without the appropriate knowledge and skills that should be acquired in an accredited program […]”90
Introducing an additional course like the Collaborative BIM/IPD studio, or modifying the existing
Professional Practice course, like the Designing Practice course, provides students with a
greater depth of understanding and applicability of the criteria and can better prepare them for
the professional world they will face upon graduation.
90 NCARB, 2008, p.2
63
Appendix A: B.Arch. Professional Practice course data
NAAB accredited Bachelor of Architecture programs: Professional Practice course(s) spreadsheet.
Name of School
Professional Practice course
Credits in Curriculum Semester
Pro. Practice APR Realm-C percentage
Other Realm-C courses/programs Credits/Semester
ALABAMAAuburn University
Arch 4500 Professional Practice 3/159 (2%) 8th
6/9 67% (2010)
Tuskegee University
Arch 523 Professional Practice 3/170 (2%) 9th
5/9 56% (2010) Arch 221 3 / 4th
ARIZONAUniversity of Arizona
Arc 441 Ethics and Practice 2/174 (1%) 8th *2009
ARKANSASUniversity of Arkansas
Arch 5314 Professional Practice 4/157 (2.5%) 9th
CALIFORNIACalifornia College of the Arts Professional Practice 3/162 (2%) 9thCalPoly (San Luis Obispo)
Arch 443 Professional Practice (16)/225* (7%) W/5th
Many electives & Co-op
CalPoly (Pomona)
Arc 471/A Pro-Practice 4/246 (1.5%) 7th
7/9 78% (2010?) Internship
NewSchool of Architecture & Design
AR 252/553 Intro/Professional Practice (1)2/235* (1%)
Q2/1st & Q1/4th Many electives
Southern California Institute of Architecture
AS 3050 Practice Environments 6/171 (3.5%) 8th & 9th
AS 3041 Construction Documents 3 / ?
University of Southern California
525/6 Professional Practice 6/160 (3.5%) 7th & 8th *2007
Woodbury University Arch 250, 448, 450 9/160 (5.5%)
4th, 9th & 10th *2008
Arch 366 Contemporary Issues: Practice & theory 3 / 7th
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAHoward University Arch 751 Pro Practice 3/171 (1.5%) 9thFLORIDAFlorida A&M University
Arch 5286/8 Practice I & II 6/150 (4%)
9th & 10th
7/9 78% (2011)
Florida Atlantic University
Arc 4270/5271/2 Pro Pract 1, 2, & 3 9/159 (5.5%)
8th, 9th & 10th
*7/9 78% (2010)
University of Miami
Arc 452 Management of Professional Practice 3/171 (1.5%) 10th
7/9 78% (2010)
GEORGIASouthern Polytechnic State University
Arch 5313 Professional Practice
3(4)/152 (4.5%) 9th Arch 4224 & 4411 6 / 8th & 9th
ILLINOIS
64
NAAB accredited Bachelor of Architecture programs: Professional Practice course(s) spreadsheet.
Illinois Institute
of Technology
Arch 413 Architectural
Practice 3/169* (1.5%) 10th Arch 414 3 / Elective
INDIANAUniversity of
Notre Dame
Arch 50711
Professional Practice 3/163 (2%) 10th
IOWAIowa State
University
Arch 482 Professional
Practice 3/166 (2%) 7th *2006
LOUISIANA
Louisiana State
University
5006 Professional
Practice 3/162 (2%) 8th
Southern
University &
A&M College
Arch 462/3 Pro Pract I
& II 6/102 (6%) 7th & 8th
MASSACHUSETTSBoston
Architectural
College
TM547 Professional
Practice Management 3/135 (2%) Fa/6th
MISSISSIPPIMississippi
State
University
Arc 5493 Architectural
Practice 3(3)/152 (4%) 10th Arc 5383 3 / 10th
NEW JERSEYNew Jersey
Institute of
Technology
Arch 558 Professional
Practice
3(3)/164
(3.5%) 10th Arch 472 3 / 8th
NEW YORK
City College of
New York
Arch 51200
Professional
Management 3/160 (2%) 9th
The Cooper
Union
Arch 154 Professional
Practice
2(2)/160
(2.5%)
9th &
10th 7/9 78%
Arch 143
Construction
Management 2 / 7th or 8th
Cornell
University
Arch 5201
Professional Practice 3/176 (1.5%) 6th
New York
Institute of
Technology
Arch 481 Professional
Practice I 3/160 (2%) 8th
Pratt Institute
Arch 471 Professional
Practice 3/170 (2%) 10th
Rensselaer
Polytechnic
Institute
Arch 4540
Professional Practice 2/168 (1%) 8th
Syracuse
University
Arc 585 Professional
Practice 3/162 (2%)
9th or
10th
NORTH CAROLINAUniversity of
North Carolina
at Charlotte
Arch 4112
Professional Practice 3(3)/158 (4%) 10th
LBST 2211 Ethical
Issues & Cultural
Critique 3 / 7th
North Carolina
State
University
Arc 561 The Practice
of Architecture 3/156 (2%) 10th
8/9 89%
(2011)
OKLAHOMA
65
NAAB accredited Bachelor of Architecture programs: Professional Practice course(s) spreadsheet.
Oklahoma State University Arch 51/5293 6/154 (4%) 8th & 9th
5/9 56% (2011)
University of Oklahoma
Arch 5163/5263 Professional Practice I&II 6/160 (4%)
9th & 10th
OREGON
University of Oregon
Arch 417 Contexts of the Architectural Profession 3/231 (1.5%) W/4th
PENNSYLVANIACarnegie Mellon University
48-550: Issues of Practice 45*/504 (9%) 9th
Many electives (48-351, 48-452, 48-453, 48-551) (3 ea.) / 6th, 7th, 7th, 10th
Drexel University
Arch 335/6 Professional Practice I & II 6(3)/227 (4%) Fa/W/5th *2006 Phil 317 3 / 10th
Pennsylvania State University
Arch 451: Architectural Professional Practice 3/162 (2%) 9th
7/9 78% (2011)
Philadelphia University
Arch 503 Professional Management 3/165 (2%) 9th
Temple University
Arch 4096 Professional Practice 3/157 (1.5%) 8th
RHODE ISLANDRhode Island School of Design
Arch 2191 Principles of Professional Practice 3/156 (2%) 10th
TENNESSEEUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville
Arch 462 Professional Practice 4/168 (2.5%) 10th
TEXASUniversity of Houston
Arch 5360 Practice of Architecture 3/160 (2%) 10th
Rice University
Arch 423 Professionalism & Management in Architectural Practice 3/165 (2%) 7th & 8th
University of Texas, Austin
Arc 362 Professional Practice 3/167 (2%) 10th *2006
VIRGINIAVirginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Arch 4044 Profesional Practice 3/156 (2%) 7th
6/9 67% (2012)
66
Appendix B: Penn Stateʼs Professional Practice course syllabus/assignments
The Pennsylvania State University Department of Architecture
ARCH 451
Professional Practice (3) Credits
Syllabus Fall 2011 CATALOG DESCRIPTION A study of architectural practice in todayʼs society: education, registration, office practice, codes, standards, construction industry, contracts and legal documents. Prerequisite: seventh-semester standing in Architecture curriculum. INSTRUCTOR Bob Holland, AIA, NCARB Associate Professor Architecture and Architectural Engineering [email protected] 422 SFB, 204 Engineering Unit A 814-867-0458 GENERAL COURSE DESCRIPTION ARCH 451 explores the historical influences and current trends that shape the relationship between the architect, client and builder as well as contemporary society. This course provides an overview of the changing roles of the architect through history as well as a detailed examination of the architectural profession in todayʼs rapidly changing world. This course reviews internship and architectural licensing procedures and requirements, professional development (life-long learning), architectural practice including office organizational structures, the architectʼs administrative role, construction cost control, professional organizations, the architectʼs professional, legal and ethical responsibilities (including life-safety and accessibility), leadership in the profession and the community as well as alternative architectural / design related careers. INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a thorough understanding of the history of the profession of architecture, its current structure, opportunities and practices as well as potential future roles for architects.
2. Explore the changing relationships among architects, clients and builders as well as the impact of new technology such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Integrated Practice.
3. Understand different client-types and firm-types, their needs and expectations for architectural services. 4. Prepare students for the transition from the academic environment to the professional world. Develop job search / acquisition
strategies and skills (letter of introduction, resume, mini-portfolio, etc.) 5. Develop a thorough understanding of the Internship Development Program (IDP), licensing and examination requirements as
well as the importance of life-long learning (Continuing Education). 6. Investigate the differing roles, relationships and responsibilities of clients, the building trades, contractors, construction
managers, designers, technical consultants, interior designers and architects. 7. Understand the architectʼs administrative role and legal responsibilities during design and construction including contracts (AIA
and other forms), management of consultants, contractor pay applications, life-safety codes / zoning and standards as well as the implications of various project delivery strategies such as design-bid-build, design-build, guaranteed maximum price (GMP), fast tract and other hybrid approaches.
8. Understand the importance of and use of construction cost control techniques including establishing a realistic budget with the client, estimates, early contractor input, keeping up-to-date with cost trends, the relationship of the global economy (such as Chinaʼs impact on the cost of construction materials) and the proper use of Value Engineering.
9. Understand the importance and legal implications of Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA) as well as develop a knowledge base to be able to design to these requirements.
10. Understand risk-avoidance vs. risk management and the architectʼs exposure to professional liability in todayʼs litigious world (including professional liability insurance).
11. Develop written and oral presentation skills. 12. Explore contemporary ethics and professional judgment issues including professional organizationsʼ rules of conduct and
ethics. 13. Understand the importance of Diversity in the workplace and leadership in the profession and community. 14. Understand the role and value of professional organizations such as the AIA and NCARB. 15. Overview alternative design related career paths and the globalization of design and construction practices.
67
NAAB STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Arch 451 is designed to meet the following NAAB Student Performance Criteria: Cultural Diversity – Understanding Pre-Design – Ability Accessibility – Ability Life Safety – Ability Financial Considerations – Ability Client Role in Architecture – Understanding Project Management – Understanding Practice Management – Understanding Leadership - Understanding Legal Responsibilities – Understanding Ethics and Professional Judgment – Understanding Community and Social Responsibility - Understanding Refer to the NAAB Course Sheet at http://www.arch.psu.edu/faculty/documents/100315NAABcurriculummatrix.pdf for additional information. INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS ARCH 451 is a primmer for practice. As such, it aims to give the student of architecture a broad overview of the practice of architecture in the United States while touching on the rapidly expanding global aspects of the profession. Often the expectations of the graduating student are different than the realities of the profession. The curriculum combines a broad range of instructional methods. Key among them are field trips to professional offices, student exercises, seminars researched and presented by student groups, discussions as well as presentations by the instructor and invited guest speakers. PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Guest Lectures Seminar Presentations Field Trips and Investigations Class Discussions Firm Case Study Poster Homework / Class Exercises Resume and Letter of Introduction Mid-Term and Final Examinations
69
Appendix C: Penn Stateʼs “Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio” syllabus
The Pennsylvania State University Departments of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Architectural Engineering
ARCH 442, Section 2 (AE) - Building Information Modeling Design Studio (3 credits) - Spring 12
Raymond A. Bowers Program for Excellence in Design and Construction of the Built Environment
Syllabus - 9 January 2012 Arch 442, Section 2, BIM Studio – "Studio based course utilizing Building Information Models (BIM) for the design of building projects with interdisciplinary teams (ARCH, LARCH and AE).” Coordinating Robert J. Holland Instructor: Associate Professor of Architecture and Architectural Engineering [email protected] Office: 204 Eng Unit A, Office Hours: M/W 1:30-3pm, and by appt Office: 422 SFB , Office Hours: T/Th 10-11:30am, and by appt Tel 814-867-0458 Instructors: Scott Wing Associate Professor of Architecture [email protected] Office: 331 SFB Office Hours by appt David Goldberg Stuckeman Practitioner Instructor of Landscape Architecture [email protected] Office: 420 SFB
Office Hours by appt T.A. : Jim Rodgers [email protected] Meeting times: Concurrent studio periods (all disciplines): T/Th 3:35 – 5:30 pm Note: Related Architecture and Landscape Architecture studios will also meet during their regularly scheduled times. Studio meeting times for all may vary due to availability of practitioners and the need for extended presentation periods.
Meeting place: Stuckeman Center for Design Computing – (studio time), IEL (SFB) - (formal presentations) Course Objectives (ABET Format):
• In the context of a building / site design project develop an ability to design systems, components and processes to meet, and where possible exceed, desired needs.
• Given the demands of designing today’s highly complex buildings develop an ability to interact, collaborate and function at a high level on multi-disciplinary teams. The BIM studio will be based on the Integrated Project Delivery process.
• Develop an ability to effectively communicate both verbally and with digital graphic programs (within the project team context as well as in project presentations).
• Through a broad education develop an understanding of the impact of architecture, landscape architecture and engineering solutions in a global and societal context. The BIM studio project will focus on the application of sustainable design and construction strategies (high performance “green buildings”)
• Develop an ability to use the techniques, skills and digital modeling tools which are currently being adopted by the design professions and the building industry. In particular, the application and interoperability of Building Information Modeling in the design process.
• Develop an understanding of a building / site design process that will permit communication and interaction with other design and construction management professionals in the execution of building projects.
70
The design process is rarely a “solitary process” as virtually all real building projects are produced by teams, not by individuals. Although a portion of the course grade will be based on individual effort, the majority of the grade will be based on the performance of the team. Effective collaborative team work is essential to success in this studio based course utilizing Building Information Modeling. Good communication and cooperation are expected. While each person may bring certain specific interests and skills to the team, equal contribution by each individual to the team effort is mandatory. The course is organized as an interactive studio, requiring students’ participation not only in the design process but also in discussions, critiques, presentations and other group activities. This studio will be “team taught” utilizing faculty from Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Architectural Engineering in addition to outside practicing professionals. Schedule / Studio / Presentations:
Crits: All teams will be scheduled for two instructor “crits” per week (see course / deliverables matrix). Progress on the project design is expected from crit to crit. Team members should meet prior to each crit to produce, review and coordinate work effort. Team members should not be seeing each other’s work for the first time in front of the instructor. Instructors may assign specific work to be completed by the next crit. Team members should determine next steps and assign work prior to leaving the studio. Each team shall schedule common work times (in addition to crit and presentation time) as design work outside of the scheduled course meeting times will be required for successful completion of the project. Studio Space: The Stuckeman Center for Design Computing (SCDC) is to be maintained in good condition at all times. While the SCDC will be reserved during BIM Studio class periods, other students may be allowed to use the SCDC as long as their work is not disruptive to the BIM Studio. Food and drink are not allowed in the SCDC. Arrangements will be made to allow sharing of models and BIM work in either Stuckeman or in AE computer labs. Presentations / Due Dates: Formal team presentations will be scheduled throughout the semester (see course deliverable / schedule matrix). At times, outside jurors will be invited to participate in these presentations. Presentations shall be of a professional quality and be made in a manner which engages the group (effective graphic and verbal presentation techniques are critical). The quality of presentation will be considered in course grading. Late submissions will be penalized at 10% grade reduction per day late. Specific presentation material deliverables will be detailed in the Exercise Brief which will be distributed prior to the start of each exercise. Attire for the final semester presentation shall be business casual. Studio Culture Statement: Link to Department of Architecture at: http://stuckeman.psu.edu/arch/things-you-will-need-know-once-you-begin Attendance / Participation / Grading: As a studio course is an interactive process, continual design progress, review, and critical feedback are essential to success. Therefore attendance during all class sessions is expected. To receive consideration for an excused absence (illness, other university scheduled activity, etc.) the student must email the coordinating instructor prior to the class or immediately after (within twenty-four hours) explaining the reason for class absence. Instructors reserve the right to approve or disapprove excused absence requests. Each unexcused absence will result in a five percent reduction in the final individual semester grade. From time to time, outside class lectures or other class meetings may be held. Every effort will be made to try to accommodate students’ schedules. Attendance at these lectures or meetings is also expected.
71
While “attendance” is a requirement for “participation”, attendance alone does not constitute participation. An effective studio learning environment and Building Information Modeling in particular requires participation and collaboration. “Active participation” in team work, team crits and presentations (both by presenting teams and student “audience”) and use and updating of the BIM Wiki is expected and required. Working in a manner that is productive to the team effort is also expected. Failure to actively participate and productively contribute to the team and overall class will negatively impact the individual grade. Instructor observations and peer evaluations along with effective use and updating of the BIM Wiki will be used to determine the individual participation grade. Peer and team performance evaluations will be completed at approximately mid-semester and at the end of the semester. Grading will be based on creativity, completeness, collaboration, clarity and professionalism as applied to design solutions and presentations; an effective building information modeling process; meeting project program and design goals; studio attendance and participation; and overall personal initiative. Consideration will be given for improved work product over the period of the semester. PSU definitions will be applied in grading (Undergraduate Degree Programs Bulletin):
A = excellent; indicates exceptional achievement B = good; indicates extensive achievement C = satisfactory; indicates acceptable achievement D = poor; indicates only minimal achievement F = failure; indicates inadequate achievement
20% - Individual student attendance/participation/desk crits: Attendance at all classes is expected (see Attendance / Participation above). Unexcused absences or repeated tardiness will have a negative impact on the individual final grade. Teams are expected to show significant progress at each scheduled, bi-weekly critiques. Active participation in all class activities and individual contribution to team projects, final project documentation and BIM Wiki are required. Instructor observations and peer evaluations will be used to determine the individual participation grade. 10%: Individual participation / contribution 10%: Final project documentation / updating of BIM Wiki
80% - Project Work (including presentations): The relative weight of each exercise will be commensurate to the amount of time allotted. The duration of each exercise will include review/feedback time (desk crits, juried and non-juried presentations). Detailed Exercise Briefs with project description and requirements will be issued at the beginning of each exercise.
Textbooks / References / Materials:
There are no required textbooks required to be purchased for this course. A copy of Green BIM will be provided for the use of each project team. The BIM Wiki http://bim.wikispaces.com/ARCH+497A+-+BIM+Studio is an important resource for BIM programs and their interoperability. Students will be required to supply all necessary design, presentation materials. Computers will be available in the SCDC for student use during schedule BIM Studio times (use of the SCDC outside of BIM Studio is first come, first served unless lab is reserved for other classes). BIM software will also be available to students in the AE computing labs, ICon Lab and AE studios.
72
Appendix D: Virginia Techʼs “Designing Practice” syllabus
!"#$%&$&%'()*+,$+"'*)+-'./..'+)&'0/1/2'
*)+-'1/..%'+)&'0/233''
4567'3'89':''
;5<=7'5>?'@7=AB'C5D=EA8DEF='G99=H7I':J:!'KL<<LEE'-5MM'G99=H7'B8L<EI'NO'5448=>AP7>A'FQ5D=EA8RSAT7?L'PQ5D=EA8RSAT7?L'''M75<>=>6'8NU7HA=S7E',B7'685M'89'AB=E'H8L<E7'=E'A8'=>A<8?LH7'O8L'A8'E8P7'89'AB7'VL7EA=8>E'O8L'D=MM'95H7'=>'EB54=>6'O8L<'8D>'4<5HA=H7'89'5<HB=A7HAL<7T''D8<F'+8L<E7'D8<F'D=MM'=>HML?7'6<8L4'?=EHLEE=8>EW'6L7EA'M7HAL<7EW'=>XHM5EE'EB8<A'D<=A=>6'5EE=6>P7>AEW'<75?=>6'5EE=6>P7>AEW'5'(<5HA=H7';8HFXL4'5EE=6>P7>A'Y?7E=6>'89'O8L<'8D>'S=<AL5M'4<5HA=H7ZW'5>?'AB7'P5F=>6'89'4<=>A7?'N8L>?'N88FE'Y?8HLP7>A=>6'AB7'(<5HA=H7';8HFXL4'5EE=6>P7>AZT'''HL<<=HLMLP'+8L<E7'D8<F'D=MM'H8S7<'AB7'98MM8D=>6I'
X'!79=>=A=8>'89'5>'*<HB=A7HA'X'!7E=6>'89'O8L<'8D>'4<5HA=H7'X'[=>5>H=5M'+8>E=?7<5A=8>E'X')8M7'89'HM=7>A'=>'*<HB=A7HAL<7'X'(<5HA=H7';5>567P7>A'X'(<8U7HA';5>567P7>A'X'\75?7<EB=4'X'\765M')7E48>E=N=M=A=7E'X'"AB=HE']'(<897EE=8>5M'^L?6P7>A'
'EHB7?LM7'+M5EE'D=MM'P77A'7S7<O',L7E?5OW'9<8P'0I//*;'A8'3:I//(;T'#8P7'6L7EA'M7HAL<7E'P=6BA'8HHL<'8>'5'?=997<7>A'?5O'5>?'A=P7T'',B7<7'D=MM'N7'5'A8A5M'89'3J'HM5EE7E'L>A=M',B5>FE6=S=>6'N<75FW'59A7<'DB=HB'O8L'D=MM'B5S7':'D77FE'A8'H8P4M7A7'AB7'(<5HA=H7';8HFXL4'5EE=6>P7>A'YHM5EE'D=MM'>8A'P77A'?L<=>6'AB=E'A=P7ZT'',B7'?L7'?5A7'5>?'9=>5M'<7S=7D'98<'AB7'(<5HA=H7';8HFXL4'5EE=6>P7>A'=E'!7H7PN7<'3JABT'''*'M8NNO'7_B=N=A=8>'89'O8L<'D8<F'=E'EHB7?LM7?'8>'^5>L5<O'3`ABT''M7HAL<7E'
aB5A'=E'5>'5<HB=A7HAb'!7E=6>=>6'O8L<'8D>'4<5HA=H7'#H5M7'5>?'AO47'89'4<5HA=H7'%7AA=>6'D8<F'%7AA=>6'M=H7>E7?'%7AA=>6'45=?'%7AA=>6'AB7'4<8U7HA'NL=MA''
%8S7<>P7>A'48M=H=7E'5>?'<76LM5A=8>E'KLE=>7EE'P5>567P7>A'(784M7'EF=MME'"AB=HE';5>56=>6'<=EF'NO'^87'^8>7EW'^<W'"#cW'*$*'#74AT'3JAB'1X`(;W'<88P'J//''d&LPN7<'+<L>HBe'NO';5<65<=A5';H%<5ABW')*'&8ST'31AB'1X`(;W'<88P'J//'
''
'4<7E7>A5A=8>E'f8L'D=MM'N7'<7VL=<7?'A8'4<7E7>A'O8L<'D8<F'Y(<5HA=H7';8HFXL4g4<=>A7?'N8L>?'N88FZ'?L<=>6'5'9=>5M'<7S=7D'5>?'5'M8NNO'7_B=N=A=8>T'''
73
!"#$%&$&%'()*+,$+"'*)+-'./..'+)&'0/1/2'
*)+-'1/..%'+)&'0/233''
4567'8'9:'8''
5;<=>?7'*@@'A9;B'C=9D@E'F7'E9<DG7HI7E'>H'E>6>I5@':9;G5I'5HE'5;<=>?7E'9H'5'!J!'A>I='K9D;'H5G7'9H'>IL'*'<94K'9:'I=>C'!J!'>C';7MD>;7E'5I'I=7'7HE'9:'I=7'C7G7CI7;':9;'I=7'4D;49C7'9:'6;5E>H6L''4DF@><5I>9H'#9G7'9:'K9D;'A9;B'G5K'F7'DC7E'>H'4DF@><5I>9HC';765;E>H6'I=7'A9;B'9:'I=7'<@5CC'>H'67H7;5@L'''CD44@>7C'(;9:7CC>9H5@'(;5<I><7N'5'6D>E7'I9'ID;H>H6'E7C>6HC'>HI9'FD>@E>H6CN'(5D@'#765@N'O*$*N'&9;I9H'"EP'Q9D'5;7';7MD>;7E'I9'<5;;K'5'CB7I<=F99B'5HE'5'47H'5I'5@@'I>G7CL''5II7HE5H<7'Q9D'5;7'7R47<I7E'I9'5II7HE'5@@'G77I>H6CN'9DI>H6C'9;'7?7HIC';7@5I7E'I9'I=>C'<9D;C7L'$H'<5C7'9:'5FC7H<7N'K9D'5;7';7MD>;7E'I9'9FI5>H'5'A;>II7H'7R<DC7':;9G'7>I=7;'I=7'S::><7'9:'#IDE7HI'T>:7'U47;C9H5@';7@5I7E'G5II7;V'9;'I=7'#IDE7HI'-75@I='+7HI7;'U=75@I=';7@5I7E'G5II7;VL''<9G4@7I>9H';7MD>;7G7HIC'Q9D'5;7';7MD>;7E'I9'<9G4@7I7'5@@'<9D;C7'5CC>6HG7HIC'5HE'45;I><>45I7'>H'5@@'4;7C7HI5I>9HC'I9'<9G4@7I7'I=>C'<9D;C7L'*CC>6HG7HIC'A>@@'>H<@DE7W'X;75E>H6'5CC>6HG7HIC'U49CI7E'9H'<9D;C7'C<=9@5;'C>I7V'XC=9;I'A;>I>H6'5CC>6HG7HIC'5I'I=7'7HE'9:'75<='<@5CC'UI9'F7'ID;H7E'>H'I=7HV'X5'E7C>6H'5CC>6HG7HIN'9;'(;5<I><7'YZ9<BXD4['5CC>6HG7HIN'E9<DG7HI7E'>H'I=7':9;G'9:'5'4;>HI7E'F9DHE'F99B'X4;7C7HI5I>9H'9:'I=7'(;5<I><7'Z9<BXD4'5CC>6HG7HI'ED;>H6':>H5@';7?>7A'\'@9FFK'7R=>F>I>9H''6;5E7C'%;5E7C'A>@@'F7'5CC>6H7E'5I'I=7'7HE'9:'I=7'C7G7CI7;N';5H6>H6':;9G'*'I9'ON'A>I=']'5HE'X'L'''5?7;567'6;5E7'9:'3^'>HX<@5CC'C=9;I'A;>I>H6'5CC>6HG7HIC'' ' ^/_'4;5<I><7'G9<BXD4'5CC>6HG7HI' ' ' ' ' ' 2/_'45;I><>45I>9H'>H'6;9D4'E>C<DCC>9HC'5HE'6D7CI'@7<ID;7C' ' ' 3/_'' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' :>H5@'6;5E7'W'3//_'''',=7'C=9;I'A;>I>H6'5CC>6HG7HIC'A>@@'F7'6;5E7E'9H'I=7':9@@9A>H6'<;>I7;>5W'XDHE7;CI5HE>H6'9:'I=7'4;9F@7G`5H5@KC>C'9:'I=7'C>ID5I>9H' ' ' ./_'X<9=7;7H<7`>HI7@@>67H<7'9:'I=7'5HCA7;';7@5I>?7'I9'I=7'MD7CI>9H' ' ./_'X4;9:7CC>9H5@>CG'9:'I=7'5HCA7;' ' ' ' ' ' 8/_'',=7'4;5<I><7'G9<BXD4'5CC>6HG7HI'A>@@'F7'6;5E7E'9H'I=7':9@@9A>H6'<;>I7;>5W'X47;I>H7H<7'9:'I=7'<9HI7HI' ' ' ' ' ' ' ./_'XI=9;9D6=H7CC'9:'I=7'<9HI7HI' ' ' ' ' ' ^/_'X>H?7HI>?7H7CC'9:'I=7'<9HI7HI' ' ' ' ' ' 8/_'XMD5@>IK'9:'I=7'4;7C7HI5I>9H' ' ' ' ' ' ' 3/_''=9H9;'49@><K'*@@' CIDE7HIC' 5;7' 7R47<I7E' I9' 4;745;7' 5@@' G5I7;>5@C' DC7E' :9;' 7?5@D5I>9H' >H' I=>C' <9D;C7' >H'5<<9;E5H<7'A>I='I=7'-9H9;'+9E7'5C'4DF@>C=7E'>H'I=7'<D;;7HI'<9D;C7'<5I5@96L''E>C5F>@>IK'#IDE7HIC' C=9D@E' G5B7' I=7>;' :5<D@IK' 5A5;7' 9:' 5HK' E>C5F>@>IK' 5HE' E>C<DCC' A>I=' I=7G' 5'H7<7CC5;K'5HE'544;94;>5I7'<9D;C7'9:'5<I>9HL
74
Appendix E: Nine SPC matrices from APRs Auburn University91:
91 Auburn University Program of Architecture, 2010, p.61
Auburn University Architecture Program Report
September 2010
61
coursework with a degree of choice as to the focus and depth respective to their individual plan of study. While we believe that the content of the Educational Realms and Student Performance Criteria are thoroughly marbled throughout our curriculum, the following Table (II.1.1.A: SPC Matrix) outlines the courses in which we believe the demonstration of the SPC outcomes are most clearly evident.
Table II.1.1.A: SPC Matrix SPC Met in NAAB-accredited program Realm A: Critical Thinking & Representation COURSE A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 ARCH 1020 X ARCH 2020 X X X ARCH 2110 X X ARCH 2210 X ARCH 3010 X X X X X ARCH 3120 X ARCH 4010 X X X X X ARCH 5020 X X X CPLN 5000 X Realm B: Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills, & Knowledge COURSE B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11 B.12 ARCH 2210 X ARCH 2220 X ARCH2010 X ARCH 3010 X ARCH 3320 X X X ARCH 4010 X X X X X X X ARCH 4020 X X ARCH 4320 X X X ARCH 5010 X BSCI 2400 X C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 C.9 Realm C: Leadership & Practice COURSE ARCH 3010 X ARCH 3020 X ARCH 4010 X X X ARCH 4500 X X X X X X ARCH 5020 X X ARCH 5991 X
75
Florida A&M University92:
92 Florida A&M University, 2011, p.78
Florida A&M University Architecture Program Report
September 2011
78
76
Florida Atlantic University93:
93 Florida Atlantic University School of Architecture, 2010, p.105
Flor
ida
Atla
ntic
Uni
vers
ity
!"#$%&'#&("')*"+,"-.)/'0+"&)
1'0&'.2'")3454)
)
)546
77
North Carolina State University94:
94 North Carolina State University School of Architecture, 2011, p.121
NCSU School of Architecture APR • 2011 121
Student Performance Criteria
(SPC)
Communication Skills
Design Thinking Skills
Visual Communication Skills
Technical Documentation
Investigative Skills
Fundamental Design Skills
Use of Precedents
Ordering System Skills
Historical Traditions + Global Culture
Cultural Diversity
Applied Research
Pre-Design
Accessibility
Sustainability
Site Design
Life Safety
Comprehensive Design
Financial Considerations
Environmental Systems
Structural Systems
Building Envelope Systems
Building Service Systems
Building Materials and Assemblies
Collaboration
Human Behavior
Client Role in Architecture
Project Management
Practice Management
Leadership
Legal Responsibilities
Ethics and Professional Judgment
Community and Social Responsibility
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Un
Un
Un
Un
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Ab
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Ab
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
Un
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A1
0A
11
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B1
0B
11
B1
2C
1C
2C
3C
4C
5C
6C
7C
8C
9
SP
C e
xpec
ted
to
hav
e b
een
met
in p
rep
arat
ory
or
pre
-pro
fess
ion
al e
du
cati
on
, if
app
licab
le:
XX
XX
X
SP
C m
et in
NA
AB
-acc
red
ited
pro
gra
m, a
s fo
llow
s:
Co
urs
e
Nu
mb
er
Co
urs
e T
itle
Req
uir
ed
Arc
hit
ec
ture
Co
urs
es
- B
Arc
h C
urr
icu
lum
AR
C 1
62
An
Intr
oduc
tion
to A
rchi
tect
ure
X
AR
C 2
11
Nat
ural
Sys
tem
s an
d A
rchi
tect
ure
XX
XX
XX
XX
AR
C 2
32
Str
uctu
res
and
Mat
eria
lsX
X
AR
C 2
41
Intr
oduc
tion
to W
orld
Arc
hite
ctur
eX
XX
XX
AR
C 2
42
His
tory
of W
este
rn A
rchi
tect
ure
XX
XX
AR
C 2
51
Dig
ital R
epre
sent
atio
nX
X
AR
C 3
31
Arc
hite
ctur
al S
truc
ture
s I
XX
XX
X
AR
C 3
32
Arc
hite
ctur
al S
truc
ture
s II
XX
XX
X
AR
C 4
14
Env
ironm
enta
l Con
trol
Sys
tem
sX
XX
X
AR
C 4
32
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
onst
ruct
ion
Sys
tem
sX
XX
AR
C 4
41
His
tory
of C
onte
mpo
rary
Arc
hite
ctur
eX
XX
AR
C 5
61
The
Pra
ctic
e of
Arc
hite
ctur
eX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
AR
C 5
81
Pro
ject
Pre
para
tion
Sem
inar
XX
XX
X
Req
uir
ed
Arc
hit
ec
ture
Stu
dio
s -
BA
rch
Cu
rric
ulu
mA
RC
20
1A
rchi
tect
ural
Des
ign:
For
m
XX
XX
XX
AR
C 2
02
Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n: E
nviro
nmen
t X
XX
XX
XX
X
AR
C 3
01
Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n: In
term
edia
teX
XX
XX
X
AR
C 3
02
Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n: T
echn
olog
yX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
AR
C 4
01
/49
0A
rchi
tect
ural
Des
ign:
Urb
anX
XX
XX
XX
AR
C 4
02
(1)
Arc
hite
ctur
al D
esig
n: A
dvan
ced
XX
XX
AR
C 5
01
Pro
fess
iona
l Arc
hite
ctur
e S
tudi
o I
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
AR
C 5
02
Pro
fess
iona
l Arc
hite
ctur
e S
tudi
o II
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
Re
ma
rks
1.
AR
C 4
02
stu
dio
ca
n b
e r
ep
lace
d b
y a
6-c
red
it s
tud
io in
an
oth
er
De
pt.
in
th
e C
olle
ge
of
De
sig
n.
Ba
ch
elo
r o
f A
rch
ite
ctu
re
Co
urs
es
an
d S
tud
ios
Cro
ss
-
refe
ren
ce
d w
ith
th
e N
AA
B
Stu
de
nt
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e C
rite
ria
tha
t th
ey
Fu
lfil
l
Remarks
Part Two: Educational Outcomes and Curriculum II.1 STUDENT PERFORMANCE – EDUCATIONAL REALMS & STUDENT
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA II.1.1 Student Performance Criteria
78
Oklahoma State University95:
95 Oklahoma State University School of Architecture, 2010, p.42
!"##
PART TWO (II): EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES AND CURRICULUM PART TWO (II): SECTION 1 STUDENT PERFORMANCE -- EDUCATIONAL REALMS & STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA II.1.1 Student Performance Criteria:
79
Penn State University96:
96 Penn State University Department of Architecture, 2010
NAAB MATRIX STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 091208A indicates primary evidence indicates continuation of course sequence !
A indicates curricular intention indicates courses linked by content
* honors or honors option courses
indicates Comprehensive Design criteria
U Understanding
A Ability
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
FIRST YEAR: ARTICULATION OF IDEAS THROUGH VISUAL MEANS [Principles and Tectonics of Small Constructs]
ARCH 131s Basic Design Studio I 4 A A A U A A U
ARCH 121 Visual Communications I 2 A A U
ARTH 201 Ancient to Medieval Architecture 3 A U U U
* GEN ED [ENGL 015 or 030] 3 A
* GEN ED [Quantification] 3
15 9 6 FALLARCH 132 Basic Design Studio II 4 A A A A U A A U A U U SPRINGARCH 122 Visual Communications II 2 A A A U
ARTH 202 Renaissance to Modern Architecture 3 A U U U
AE 210 Intro. Arch. Structural Systems 3 A !
* GEN ED [Soc/Behavioral Science] 3 U U !
* GEN ED [Humanities] 3 18 12 6 !
SECOND YEAR: INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL WHOLE [Multiplicity of Factors/Civic Responsibility] !
ARCH 231 Architectural Design I 6 A A A A U U A A A U !
* ARCH 210 Contemporary Architecture + Theory I 3 A U U !
ARCH 203 Materials + Bldg Const I 3 A U A A A U A A A U !
AE 421 Arch Structural Systems I 3 A A U
* GEN ED [CAS 100 A/B/C] 3 A
18 15 3 FALLARCH 232 Architectural Design II 6 A A A A U U A A A U SPRINGARCH 204 Materials + Bldg Const II 3 A U A A U A A A U
AE 422 Arch Structural Systems II 3 A A U QUANT.
* GEN ED [Quantification] 3
* GEN ED [Natural Science] 3
18 12 6
THIRD YEAR: THE BUILDING THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED [Techne and Poesis Applied]
ARCH 331 Architectural Design III 6 A A A A U A A A A A A A A A A U U
* ARCH 311w Advanced Architectural Theory 3 A A A U U U U
AE 211 Intro. Env. Control Systems 3 U A A A A A U
* GEN ED [ENGL 202A,B,C, or D] 3 A
* GEN ED [Natural Science] 3
18 12 6 FALLARCH 332 Architectural Design IV 6 A A A A U A A A A A A A A A U SPRINGAE 424 Env Control Systems I 3 U A A A A A U HEALTH
* COURSE [ELECTIVE] 3
* COURSE [NON-WESTERN TRADITIONS] 3 U U
GEN ED [Health & Phys Activity] 1.5
16.5 9 7.5
FOURTH YEAR: THE BUILDING IN/AND THE CITY [Urban Patterns and Influences]
ARCH 431A/2A Architectural Design V/VI 6 A A A A U U A A A A A U U
ARCH 499B Architectural Analysis 3 A A A A U U U
ARCH 499C Urban Studies Topics 3 A A U U U U
* COURSE [ELECTIVE] 3
15 12 3 ROMEARCH 431/2 Architectural Design V/VI 6 A A A U U A A A A A A A A A A U U U UPARK
* GEN ED [Soc/Behavioral Science] 3 U U HEALTH
* GEN ED [Natural Science] 3
* GEN ED [Humanities] 3
GEN ED [Health & Phys Activity] 1.5
16.5 6 10.5
FIFTH YEAR: THE THOROUGH BUILDING AS EXPRESSION OF IDEA [Techne, Poesis and Civic Responsibility]
ARCH 491 Architectural Design VII 6 A A A A A A U U U A A A A A A A A A A A U U
* ARCH 451 Arch Pro Practice 3 U A A A A U U U U U U U
* COURSE [ELECTIVE] 3
* COURSE [ELECTIVE] 3
15 9 6 FALLARCH 492 Architectural Design VIII 6 A A A A A A A U U U A A A A A A A A A A U U SPRINGARCH 480 Technical Systems Integration 3 A A A U U U A A A A A A A A A A
* COURSE [ELECTIVE] 3
12 9 3
162 6 13 13 5 8 9 11 10 14 10 9 2 11 14 10 12 6 2 8 10 10 6 9 4 11 6 1 1 2 7 2 8 162 6 9 9 6 6 3 15 9 15
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL STUDIES CREDITS: 105
TOTAL GENERAL STUDIES CREDITS: 57
ARCH 121
ARCH
451
STUDIO
ARTH
202
ARCH
210
Science and Technology
ARCH 131S
NON-
WEST
ARCH
311W
ARCH
499C
ARCH 331
ARCH 332
ARCH
499B
ARCH
480
6024
AE 210
ARCH 122
ARCH 231
ARCH
203
ARCH 232
ARCH
204
AE 421
AE 422
ARCH 132
ELECTIVE
ELECTIVE
ELECTIVE
ELECTIVE
HEALTH
ARCH 491
ARCH 492
ARCH
431/
432
ARCH
431A/
432A
ARTH
201
NATURAL
SCIENCE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
HUMAN
ITIESANALYSISELECTIVES
INTEGRA
TIONARTS
5
4
3
2
1
Site D
esig
n
Susta
inabili
ty
Life S
afe
ty
Cultura
l D
ivers
ity
Applie
d R
esearc
h
Pre
–D
esig
n
Accessib
ility
FA
LL
SP
RIN
GF
AL
L
AE 424
AE 211
Critical Thinking and Representation Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills and Knowledge
CAS 100
[A,B,C]
ENGL 202
[A,B,C,D]
ELECTIVE
Fundam
enta
l D
esig
n S
kill
s
Use o
f P
recendents
Ord
ering S
yste
ms S
kill
s
UP
AR
KF
AL
LS
PR
ING
FA
LL
SP
RIN
GR
OM
ES
PR
ING
Bu
ildin
g M
ate
ria
ls a
nd
Asse
mb
lies
Colla
bora
tion
Hum
an B
ehavio
r
CR
ED
ITS
/CO
UR
SE
His
torica
l T
rad
itio
ns a
nd
Glo
ba
l C
ultu
re
Com
munic
ation S
kill
s
Desig
n T
hin
kin
g S
kill
s
Vis
ual C
om
munic
ation S
kill
s
Technic
al D
ocum
enta
tion
Investigative S
kill
s
Com
pre
hensiv
e D
esig
n
Fin
ancia
l C
onsid
era
tions
Environm
enta
l S
yste
ms
Str
uctu
ral S
yste
ms
Build
ing E
nvelo
pe S
yste
ms
Build
ing S
erv
ice S
yste
ms
Co
mm
un
ity a
nd
So
cia
l R
esp
on
sib
ility
SOCIAL
BEHAV.
SCIENCE
HUMAN.
SOCIAL
BEHAV.
SCIENCE
NATURAL
SCIENCE
NATURAL
SCIENCE
CR
ED
ITS
/SE
ME
ST
ER
Leadership and Practice
HUMAN.
Pra
ctice M
anagem
ent
Clie
nt R
ole
in A
rchitectu
re
Pro
ject M
anagem
ent
PR
OF
ES
SIO
NA
L
GE
NE
RA
L
NATURAL
SCIENCE
ENGL 015
[030]QUANT.
Leaders
hip
Legal R
esponsib
ilities
Eth
ics a
nd
Pro
fessio
na
l Ju
dg
me
nt
PROFESSIONAL STUDIESGENERAL STUDIES
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of ArchitectureBachelor of Architecture Degree
Arts and HumanitiesGeneral Education
HISTORY THEORYQUANTIFI
CATION
COMMUNI
CATION
80
Tuskegee University97:
97 Tuskegee University School of Architecture, 2010, p.45
Tuskegee University Architecture Program Report
September 1, 2010
45
Realm A Critical Thinking and Representation Realm B Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills and Knowledge Realm C Leadership and Practice
** Comprehensive Design Integrates I.2. Curricular Framework
II.2.1. Regional Accreditation
School of Architecture SPC Matrix 2009-2010
Com
mun
icat
ion
Ski
lls
Des
ign
Thin
king
Ski
lls
Vis
ual C
omm
unic
atio
n S
kills
Tech
nica
l Doc
umen
tatio
n
Inve
stig
ativ
e S
kills
Fund
amen
tal D
esig
n S
kills
Use
of P
rece
dent
s
Ord
erin
g S
yste
ms
Ski
lls
His
toric
al T
radi
tions
and
Glo
bal C
ultu
re
Cul
tura
l Div
ersi
ty
App
lied
Res
earc
h
Pre
-Des
ign
Acc
essi
bilit
y
Sus
tain
abili
ty
Site
Des
ign
Life
Saf
ety
Com
preh
ensi
ve D
esig
n **
Fina
ncia
l Con
side
ratio
ns
Env
ironm
enta
l Sys
tem
s
Stru
ctur
al S
yste
ms
Bui
ldin
g E
nvel
ope
Sys
tem
s
Bui
ldin
g S
ervi
ce S
yste
ms
Bui
ldin
g M
ater
ials
and
Ass
embl
ies
Col
labo
ratio
n
Hum
an B
ehav
ior
Clie
nt R
ole
in A
rchi
tect
ure
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
Pra
ctic
e M
anag
emen
t
Lead
ersh
ip
Lega
l Res
pons
ibili
ties
Eth
ics
and
Pro
fess
iona
l Jud
gmen
t
Com
mun
ity a
nd S
ocia
l Res
pons
ibili
ty
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.1
0
A.1
1
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
B.9
B.1
0
B.1
1
B.1
2
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
C.7
C.8
C.9
-accredited program Realm A Realm B Realm C
ARCH 101 Architecture Design Studio 1 3
ARCH 102 Architecture Design Studio 2 3
ARCH 201 Architecture Design Studio 3 3
ARCH 221 People & the Built Environment 3
ARCH 211 Architecture Presentation 3
ARCH 202 Architecture Design Studio 4 6
ARCH 345 Computer Applications 3
ARCH 301 Architecture Design Studio 5 6
ARCH 331 Materials of Construction I 3
ARCH 341 Environmental Control Systems I 3
ARCH 343 Structures I 3
ARCH 252 Architecture History I 3
ARCH 302 Architecture Design Studio 6 6
ARCH 332 Materials of Construction II 3
ARCH 342 Environmental Control Systems II 3
ARCH 344 Structures II 3
ARCH 352 Architecture History II 3
ARCH 401 Architecture Design Studio 7 6
ARCH 423 Theory of Architecture 3
ARCH 443 Structures III 3
ARCH 402 Architecture Design Studio 8 6
ARCH 414 Construction Documents 3
ARCH 501 Architecture Design Studio 9 6
ARCH 503 Thesis Seminar 2
ARCH 521 Urban Planning 3
ARCH 523 Professional Practice 3
ARCH 502 Architecture Design Studio 10 6
ARCH 534 Building Economics 3
82
Virginia Tech99:
99 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University College of Architecture + Design, 2012, p.88
Student Performance Criteria Matrices
Bachelor of Architecture Master of Architecture1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year (including WAAC) 1st Year 2nd Year Summer 3rd Year
B.Arch. M.Arch.3
1st Year 2nd Year
M.Arch.2
Pre-professional equivalent
Foun
datio
n D
esig
n La
b
Arch
itect
ure
II
The
Art o
f Bui
ldin
g
Basi
c Pr
inci
ples
of S
truct
ures
His
tory
of A
rchi
tect
ure
Build
ing
Stru
ctur
es I
Arch
itect
ure
III
Build
ing
Stru
ctur
es II
Build
ing
Asse
mbl
ies
Envi
ronm
enta
l Bld
g. S
yste
ms
Build
ing
Anal
ysis
Arch
itect
ure
IV
Prof
essi
onal
Pra
ctic
e
Build
ing
Citi
es
Arch
itect
ure
V
Thes
is D
ocum
enta
tion
Qua
lifyi
ng D
esig
n La
b
Qua
lifyi
ng D
esig
n Se
min
ar
Topi
cs: D
escr
iptiv
e G
eom
etry
Arch
itect
ure
& Sy
stem
s La
b
Build
ing
Envi
ronm
enta
l Sys
tem
s
Build
ing
Mat
eria
ls &
Con
stru
ctio
n
Arch
itect
ure
& U
rban
ism
Lab
Mov
emen
ts in
Arc
h. &
Wes
tern
Tho
ught
Adva
nced
Des
ign
Lab
Inte
rmed
iate
Bui
ldin
g St
ruct
ures
Prof
essi
onal
Pra
ctic
e
Arch
itect
ure
& U
rban
ism
Sem
inar
Res
earc
h &
Thes
is
ARC
H 1
015-
16
ARC
H 2
015-
16
ARC
H20
34
ESM
370
4
ARC
H 3
115-
16
ARC
H 4
075
ARC
H30
15-1
6
ARC
H 4
076
ARC
H 3
045-
46
ARC
H 4
055-
56
ARC
H 3
054
ARC
H 4
015-
16
ARC
H 4
044
ARC
H 4
034
ARC
H 4
515-
16
ARC
H 4
524
ARC
H 4
715-
16
ARC
H 4
705-
06
ARC
H 5
134
ARC
H 5
515-
16
ARC
H 5
755G
ARC
H 5
565-
66
ARC
H 5
715-
16
ARC
H 6
005-
06
ARC
H 5
755-
56
ARC
H 5
775G
-76G
ARC
H 5
044G
ARC
H 5
705-
06
ARC
H 5
994
A R
A1 Communication Skills s P A1 Communication Skills s P
A2 Design Thinking Skills s P A2 Design Thinking Skills s P2 2
A3 Visual Communication Skills s P A3 Visual Communication Skills s P
A4 Technical Documentation P A4 Technical Documentation P s
A5 Investigative Skills s P A5 Investigative Skills s P
A6 Fundamental Design Skills P s s s A6 Fundamental Design Skills P s s
A7 Use of Precedents s P A7 Use of Precedents s s P
A8 Ordering System Skills P s A8 Ordering System Skills P s
A9 Historical Traditions and Global Culture P s A9 Historical Traditions and Global Culture P s s
A10 Cultural Diversity P s A10 Cultural Diversity P s
A11 Applied Research s P A11 Applied Research P s
B1 Pre-Design P s B1 Pre-Design s P s
B2 Accessibility P s B2 Accessibility s P
B3 Sustainable Design P B3 Sustainability P s
B4 Site Design P s B4 Site Design s P
B5 Life Safety P s B5 Life Safety s P
B6 Comprehensive Design P s s B6 Comprehensive Design s s P
B7 Financial Considerations P B7 Financial Considerations s P
B8 Environmental Systems P s B8 Environmental Systems P s
B9 Structural Systems P P P B9 Structural Systems s P
B10 Building Envelope Systems s P B10 Building Envelope Systems P s
B11 Building Service Systems s P B11 Building Service Systems P s
B12 Building Materials & Assemblies s P B12 Building Materials & Assemblies P s
C1 Collaboration P C1 Collaboration s P
C2 Human Behavior P s C2 Human Behavior s P
C3 Client Role in Architecture P C3 Client Role in Architecture P
C4 Project Management P C4 Project Management P
C5 Practice Management P C5 Practice Management P
C6 Leadership P C6 Leadership P
C7 Legal Responsibilities P C7 Legal Responsibilities P
C8 Ethics & Professional Judgment P C8 Ethics & Professional Judgment P
C9 Community & Social Responsibility s P C9 Community & Social Responsibility P
P = Primary s = Secondary P = Primary s = Secondary
84
Bibliography: ACSA. (no date). About ACSA. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from https://www.acsa-arch.org/about/home.aspx ACSA. (October 26, 2012). Architectural Education and Accreditation Draft ACSA Report on the 2013 Accreditation Review Conference. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.acsa-arch.org/docs/resources/draft-acsa-position-on-arc-10-26-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2 AIA. (2003). Internship & Career Survey, Final Report. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://aiawebdev2.aia.org/ep2_template.cfm?pagename=nac%5F03survey AIA, NAC, & NCARB. (2007). 2007 Internship & Career Survey. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://aiawebdev2.aia.org/ep2_template.cfm?pagename=nac%5Fsurveypast AIA, NAC, & NCARB. (2010). The AIA/NCARB Internship and Career Study, Quantitative Results. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://www.ncarb.org/Publications/~/media/Files/PDF/Special-Paper/AIA-NCARB_Career_Internship_Report.pdf AIA. (2010, June). History of the American Institute of Architects. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.aia.org/about/history/ Auburn University Program of Architecture. (2010, September 7). Architecture Program Report for 2011 NAAB Visit for Continuing Accreditation. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://cadc.auburn.edu/apla/Pages/Accreditation.aspx Boyer, Ernest L. and Mitgang, Lee D., Building Community: A new future for architecture education and practice: A special report. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996. Fisher, Thomas R., In the Scheme of Things: Alternative thinking on the practice of architecture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Florida A&M University School of Architecture. (2011, September 10). Architecture Program Report for 2011 NAAB Visit for Continuing Accreditation. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://www.famu.edu/Architecture/NAAB/2011%20APR/2011%20APR_linked.pdf Florida Atlantic University School of Architecture. (2010, September 7). Architecture Program Report for 2011 NAAB Visit for Continuing Accreditation. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://www.fau.edu/arch/ Gutman, Robert, Architectral Practice: A Critical View. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988. Gutman, Robert. "Redesigning architecture schools." Architecture, August 1, 1996, 87. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed September 11, 2010). Gutman, Robert, Architecture from the Outside in: Selected essays. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010. NAAB. (no date). NAAB History. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.naab.org/about/naab_history.aspx NAAB. (2008, March 1). Report of Evolving Conditions and SPC Task Group. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2008_accreditation.aspx
85
NAAB. (2008, March 1). Report of Trends in Education Task Group. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2008_accreditation.aspx NAAB. (2009, July 10). NAAB 2009 Conditions for Accreditation for Professional Degree Programs in Architecture. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2009_Conditions.aspx NAAB. (2010, April 1). NAAB 2010 Procedures for Accreditation for Professional Degree Programs in Architecture. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2010_Procedures.aspx NAAB. (2011, January 26). California College of the Arts Division of Architecture Visiting Team Report (B. Arch & M. Arch). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, January 26, 2011). University of Miami School of Architecture Visiting Team Report (B. Arch & M. Arch). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, February 2). Tuskegee University Robert R. Taylor School of Architecture & Building Construction Sciences Visiting Team Report (Bachelor of Architecture). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, February 16). Auburn University Program of Architecture Visiting Team Report (B. Arch). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, February 16). California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo College of Architecture and Environmental Design Visiting Team Report (Bachelor of Architecture). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, February 16). New York Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Design Visiting Team Report (B. Arch). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, February 16). Oklahoma State University School of Architecture Visiting Team Report (Bachelor of Architecture). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, February 16). Temple University Department of Architecture Visiting Team Report (B. Arch). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2011, March 2). Florida Atlantic University School of Architecture Visiting Team Report (Bachelor of Architecture). Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.naab.org/documents/home_origin.aspx?path=Public+Documents%5cPublic+VTRs%5c2011 NAAB. (2012, March 14). Virginia Tech School of Architecture and Design Visiting Team Report (Bachelor of Architecture). Washington, D.C.: The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 2012. NCARB. (2004, December). The History of NCARB. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.ncarb.org/publications/~/media/files/pdf/special_paper/history.pdf
86
NCARB. (2007, November). 2007 Practice Analysis of Architecture. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://www.ncarb.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Special-Paper/2007NCARBpracticeanalysis.pdf NCARB. (2008, April 19). NCARB Position Paper for the NAAB 2008 Accreditation Review Conference. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.ncarb.org/en/Studying-Architecture/Educators/~/media/FA08A0994F4F4C969E30496D0ED6ACE9.ashx NCARB. (2010). NCARB Prize 9 for Creative Integration of Practice and Education in the Academy. Washington, D.C.: The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 2010. NCARB. (2011). 2011 NCARB Prize for Creative Integration of Practice and Education in the Academy. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://www.ncarb.org/Studying-Architecture/Educators/NCARB-Prize-Program.aspx NCARB. (2011). NCARB Prize 10 for Creative Integration of Practice and Education in the Academy. Washington, D.C.: The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 2011. North Carolina State University School of Architecture. (2011). Academic Program Report. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://design.ncsu.edu/academic-programs/architecture/links-resources Oklahoma State University School of Architecture. (2010, September 1). Architecture Program Report. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://architecture.ceat.okstate.edu/ Pennsylvania State University Department of Architecture. (2010). Bachelor of Architecture NAAB Student Performance Criteria Matrix. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from https://stuckeman.psu.edu/arch/bachelor-architecture-degree Tuskegee University School of Architecture. (2010, September 4). Architecture Program Report for 2011 NAAB Visit for Continuing Accreditation. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://www.tuskegee.edu/academics/colleges/school_of_architecture_and_construction_science/dept_of_architecture.aspx University of Miami School of Architecture. (2010). Architecture Program Report. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://arc.miami.edu/ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University School of Architecture + Design. (2012, February 10). Architecture Program Report for 2012 NAAB Visit for Continuing Accreditation. Retrieved January 9, 2013, from http://archdesign.vt.edu/architecture/naab