TEACHING THE PRACTICE: COMPARING THE TRADITIONAL, …

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

17

Figure 3: Placement of Professional Practice course in curriculum

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.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course and various other

courses throughout curriculum.



C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by Professional Practice

course and various other design studios throughout curriculum.44


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.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course and various other

courses throughout curriculum.




course and various other courses throughout curriculum.45


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.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


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.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.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course.


C.8 – Ethics & Professional Judgment: [Met] by Professional Practice course

and environmental site planning course.


course and Environmental Site Planning course.48


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.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Project Management course.

C.7 – Legal Responsibilities: [Met] by Professional Practice course and

Project Management course.


C.9 – Community & Social Responsibility: [Met] by various design studios



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.








course and other courses throughout curriculum.52


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.2 – Human Behavior: [Met] by People and the Built Environment course.


C.4 – Project Management: [Met] by Structures and Professional Practice

courses.



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



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.6 – Leadership: [Met] by Professional Practice course.




course.56


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.

26

Figure 4: APR and VTR data

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Practice I 3/160 (2%) 8th

Pratt Institute


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


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


RHODE ISLANDRhode Island School of Design

Arch 2191 Principles of Professional Practice 3/156 (2%) 10th

TENNESSEEUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville


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

68

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<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<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<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<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<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:'59HL

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


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


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 [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



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


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 221 People & the Built Environment 3

ARCH 211 Architecture Presentation 3


ARCH 345 Computer Applications 3


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 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 423 Theory of Architecture 3

ARCH 443 Structures III 3


ARCH 414 Construction Documents 3


ARCH 503 Thesis Seminar 2

ARCH 521 Urban Planning 3

ARCH 523 Professional Practice 3


ARCH 534 Building Economics 3

81

University of Miami98:

98 University of Miami School of Architecture, 2010, p.124

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

83

Appendix F: NAAB Conditions for Accreditation Realm-C SPC100

100 NAAB, 2009, pp.24-25

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