this is a good post.

This last quarter in my studio (1st-yr MArch1 - UCLA) , there was a lot of grumbling about a lack of a transparent pedagogy in place. We were instructed to emphasize "performance" and "affect" of our projects (at our pinups) over the process, and procedural methods. I think in general, there is a growing controversy in many schools over themes like surface and affect , and less on the substance of the design ontology.

I personally am intrigued by such a shift. I am glad that I waited to go for my Masters. I feel it is a very exciting time to be studying Architecture, with so many new digital tools and scripting technologies. I am embracing this newer cross-disciplinary approaches as well the pop-themes, such as Emergence and Affect.

I was relieved they didn't ask us to get those maylines out of our closets this quarter.

I am bored by qualitative affect that dominated the last 15 years of design eduction. my passion and curiosity is about teaching quantitative performance - ie, how much energy, how much material, how much light, how many people can be housed after a disaster, how do we move people and stuff, how does it age, does it grow, and all that jazz.

I still want poetry and beauty to be created, but only after the basics of 'does it work and how'? are addressed.

They don't worry too much about that at my school - first year. where do you teach Barry?

1) "How can you have..."

Easy - you take your experiences as a designer and give yourself, as a whole, towards teaching what you think is important for your students to know while in school. For a reason unknown to me, this is a very emotion laden topic that I can't quite respond rightly too.

2) "Is teaching now about.." - Its just impossible to make a statement about all instances of teaching everywhere at anytime. This is a reverse of the position which seemed bundled into the the 'isms' and schools of the past where a manifesto would be generated and taken out to blanket the world of things and actions and FORCE the world to be a certain way via the conduit of the philosophy. But like all things, they had no muscle on time itself and are now memories and styles. What people are interested in and investing in doing today will be no different.

Design is really two parts: the first is rooted in the experiences of a technical field were theory/profession/industry exist in a vast collaboration which cannot be simplified and the second in the psyche of the designer. What you should teach should be what you believe is important to teach, how you teach it should be informed by the world around you, but naturally, NOT limited by it. Still, any response seems like its full of potholes (can't figure that out.)

3) "Is it about how you" - perhaps? no? In the education of designers I see the potential to equip people with the means to know themselves as people to equip. How can you say "well, teaching design is all about making the everyday more exciting and thats that." - Its just not a question that can be answered to cover every opportunity. Is design about providing the SAME response to every permutation of our problems?

Its really about a state of mind - your experiences with your students teach you as much as you teach them, but the content is wholly different. When you design you collaborate and conspire to DO - should design education be anything else and still be useful?

Albers would often respond, when asked what he would be teaching, "To open eyes" - this is the heart of design education. What must be a part of that is the use of tools to communicate design ideas. That way you are a person equipped to respond to any situation as it arises in a way that is as rooted in the need as it can be.

4)" or is about.." - its all of that! Its what you make of it. These sound like such stupid yuppie responses (to me at least), but they 'feel' most sincere. The teachers I learned most from I could only tell in looking back - they responded to a problem, and that provided me with a reference for how I responded to problems. They generated/analyzed/played with ideas, that provided me with a reference for how I do the same thing. They created a bank of technical/experiential/theoretical knowledge for themselves which was a deep resource creating a psychic background for their participation in the act of design.

Reflective educational programs (see any titles by Schon) generate self awareness, which is probably the least understood but most valuable 'product' of that path.

at my school, when i was a freshman, there was an internal lecture series, each being a lecture given by one of the professors,, the series was titled "eye opener".. each professor gave a different lecture, each (or most) being an eye opener into different things,, as a first year student, it was then that i realized how diverse design can (maybe should?) be,,,

its totally up to u,, figure out, vaguely atleast, what it is that interests u at the moment, what it is that you think you can help ur students with,, and build a strong arguement around it,, i dont think u could go wrong



(unless ur a neoclassical desiger,, sorry,, i have to make sure!! :D)

there was a thread a while ago about "relevance" in todays field,, if anyone can find it, post it.

I am not so sure about all this "diy" individualization-idealism you guys have..Prof's shouldn't be encouraged to explore their pet pedagogies too much i don't think.. I had a prof who was a total flake: He seem to believe that whatever he was thinking that day was somehow a criteria for studio curricula. It is very cliche to think of a studio prof as a some kind Mad-scientiest with an personalized agenda.

. ..and strict rationalizing of a design assignment say in the direction of functionality) the design assignment can be just as much a skewed agenda as one dealing too much with say "affect".

well, quantitative analysis can be very subjective, sure enough, but there are benefits to it as a methodology.

i've been doing similar lately, barry. i think there is something in your comments on quantitative analysis. if you can put it together in clear way then i don't see why that would not be reasonable basis for pedagogy.

that is quite a simplification of architectural education of the past barry and discounts the contributions of oh i don't know...

viollet le duc
laugier
soufflot
la brouste
morris
ruskin
horta...


time to put the architectural cliffs notes down.

I went to a Daniel Pink lecture a few months ago - highly entertaining talk - and one thing that stuck with me was his assertion to teachers that "Your responsibility is to teach for your students' future, not your own past".

I've been a guest lecturer and juror at the U of MN for the past two years, mostly in the grad landscape program but also having fun with some of the architecture undergrad studios too. See my school blog for more details.

Not that folks from my office read archinect, but I prefer not to post personal plans under this nom d'nect! ;-) I'll just say that I'm looking for a studio or seminar to teach in a warmer place.

As to qualitative performance, I've always gotten the hebbie jebbies from blobs, (most) scripting, and the pure formalism that has driven much of the visual pornography produced over the last decade or so. Show me the money first and that you understand how things work first. I do want nuance and poetry to be the end result, but not the only point.

One of my main motivators for wanting to teach is to provide the tools that can save the planet from climate change to many more folks. there is only so much that one person can do, but an entire generation of practitioners can change the world for the better (if given the chance). Guess this follows Daniel Pink's assertion. teaching cause I give a damn.

i suspect that your pedagogical philosophy could be more about your teaching strategies. I don't think your employer is necessarily looking for you to articulate a complete method of architectural education.

for example, do you believe it is best for students to work collaboratively or individually? what do you think is your role as the studio teacher? do you expect students to set their own agenda, or to work within one that you have set? etc...

isn't part of the problem that "blobs" are somewhat based on a quantitative approach, and less on the qualitative? in that i mean all of the analysis driven approaches; mapping and such, seem to evolve through the scripting techniques. i am sure there is some kid out there just waiting to take all of the data regarding climatology and green strategies, and looking to script it rhino...

Beta- another of my issues with parametrics and scripting result in an editing process not a design process. If somebody can show me how a parametrics (not BIM) give more control to you the designer to allow deeper thought and working out of the solution, I'll jump on that band wagon. But when most architecture students are generating 100 variations at the click of a key, then selecting the most ' ' version, rinse, repeat. they are learning to be photo editors not architects. Or they are learning how to create video games, art, or something else that is still not Architecture.

In the landscape side of things, Ian McHarg's process of analysis (now living in GIS) results in identifying locations as appropriate or less so for any program. The failure is analysis never generates form, texture, path, or any of the other things we actually design.

Agfa - that's where I'm scratching my head as to what to write. am I submitting a sample syllabus about the class structure and working methods or am I taking a stance on a theory of how people actually learn? malcolm gladwell explores predicting professional success for teachers and quarterbacks in the New Yorker Mag this week - am I supposed to be providing information in my cover letter that are predictors of my success or just qualifications? Not that I'm teaching pre-schoolers, but how much 'withitness' do I need to convey?

Agfa, good point - after the endless rampage I went on last night I really did forget to mention that little thing called curriculum...

Beta - at first I thought you had qualitative/quantitative mixed because those design products seem SO qualitatively oriented, even though the method for production is an overly wrought data indexing process. The end result is deaf/mute to the process, which is why that process lends architecture to 'conceptual art' rather that 'design'.

BL - I agree with your point above as well: these renderings show an image but they do NOT show how the architecture 'works' (in an almost biological sense). Design isn't an act of a priori manifestation so why are most portoflios filled with that crap today? I've heard from several friends in universities and on jobs that they have become accustomed to endless renderings (of varying quality) with minimal design, no plans/sections and an undergraduate who, for the most part, has a large lexicon but no language.

To your last paragraph, if I were an academic employer I would like to know what kind of curriculum/studio experience/personality my students will have as a resource. Why don't you respond as honestly as you can and have someone else review that response?

attention spans are decreasing so it should follow that design attention should also decrease. all that is required is the money shot for the tourist to post on their facespace page.

A philosophy statement and a proposed course outline are probably two quite separate documents.

I think the philosophy statement should be personal, not an attempt to summarise and outline 'good teaching practice' as a whole. How will you get good work out of your students? How will you help students who are having difficulty? You could talk about 'instructional scaffolding'. I think the essential question is: what do you think your role as a teacher is?

A proposed course outline may or may not be required for your application. If you're applying for a very particular course, it would be a good idea to include something - but don't make it sound so locked down and planned out that it can't change. On my last applications, I just said course outlines were available on request. Turned out they didn't expect me to have planned a course before they started paying me.

vado that should totally be your philosophy statement on your next application.

for me the apparent problems with qualitative versus quantitative are resolved by accepting both under broader idea of "critical inquiry". this may sound no better, but i think it is teachers job to introduce critical eye to students, whether it is generative design, blobs, or something entirely whimsical.

the why of design is something students need to come to on their own, but the how is what teachers are supposed to be experts in. for some profs it might be all about intuition, but for me it is about learning a process. from there a student can make architecture according to ability and interests. i don't personally feel it is my right to dismiss blobs or graffiti or whatever just because i don't fancy it...but if a student is not capable of being critical in rigorous way then i probably would not be kind.

on other hand if they can explain things well then i don't even care if a building works functionally. function is not easy, but it is easier than thinking.

i don't know if that is a pedagogy or not. maybe.

I agree with agfa - the question is about your personal teaching style - do you like group work or individual work? do you encourage students to give constructive criticism to each other - how do you go about this? how do you foster a collaborative environment in your studio/class? what are some general skills you hope to impart on your students? You will have to work within the school's overall philosophy, and you might want to cater your "teaching philosophy" to their curricula.

have you taught before? your teaching style/philosophy is something that develops over time. if you are self-critical and care that your students are developing critical thinking and technical skills, then you'll be fine.

I do think the broader question about architectural pedagogy is important... but definitely not something you should be dwelling on when applying to a teaching position.

you should pick up "the skillful teacher" by Stephen Brookfield. I think some of his assessment methods are a bit overboard, but if you have no background in education theory - especially teaching in higher ed - this book might be very useful.

hope this helps...

representative of my day:

At the World Architecture Festival in Barcelona this October Simon Allford (of AHMM & Bartlett) was talking on this topic. All seminars at WAF were being filmed (for architecture.tv?). Simon has has much to say about pedagogy, and is a master of practice and preaching.

At GSK Contemporary at the Royal Academy this or last month Neil Spiller (Bartlett) was talking with Richard Hyams of Astudio on this topic. This also might be found online.



I think that your approach of detailing what you want to convey -the priorities that you will embody is valid, and the (metrics of sustainability) content that you suggest is utterly necessary.

Beyond that, be exemplary.

I think Psy is suggesting you just submit a glossy head-shot with you winking (maybe a popped denim collar?) and sign it 'Kisses, The Best Prof Evar!'

okay, here's what I've written on this topic so far:

My teaching philosophy is to help my students develop critical abilities and personal growth by challenging them to exceed their own expectations. Teamwork and encouraging feedback from their peers, all enable individual discovery that is core to my goal of developing skills that translate into both academic and professional success. In the studio and in seminars, I will blend writing with design assignments that link language to spatial concepts. Process will support intuitive design moves that get justified with qualitative and performative analysis. As a professor, I would be a translator, guide, and catalyst in the student’s journey into the many facets of urbanism.


The letter is still slightly rough around the edges, so I'll sit on it a few more days with the hope of mailing it next week.

thanks for the help!

imho: i think your last sentence should be your first sentence, and the first sentence is too generic and boilerplate to be in there. perhaps you could replace that sentence with one explaining what you think critical abilities are, and why you think students need them?

good advice! back to the typewriter.

if i can chip in, in my second-hand ango-saxonic way:

the first sentence is cute, i like it.

the second sentence: syntax is a bit off (in an academic milieu) and is stated as a billowing untethered principle without being linked to your own undertaking as a teacher

the third sentence: this might need more work (because it deserves a bit more regard) : In the studio and in seminars, I will blend writing with design assignments that link language to spatial concepts.
is it really a blending that is sought after? a bit moulinexy, no?

the fourth sentence: i don't like the ring of that get justified, a bit flaccid and post-rationalized; in this age, also, there are people who are prone to read B.S into every justification. (anti-iconic shoe-attracting presidents have set the bullshit justification benchmark; my insiginificantly sized sympathy to the american people for the colossal crimes committed in their name).

the fifth sentence: also cute. but there is a slight dissonance in i would be. its a bit too easy and formulaic just saying it like that. perhaps i'm being too lalalala.

altogether, it seems a bit like some bits are strung up as a series of bullet points. perhaps the overall run of sentences needs more work on fading them into each other ... architects being adept at crossing thresholds and all that.


best of luck with your thingie

or urbanist in your case? landscape architect? well, la même chose.

Agreed with Aga - last sentence first. That makes this a 'philosophical' statement and not a response to a question on a form; that you specify 'urbanism' is interesting.

Agreed with Noctipants - 'that get' is a little too conversational for the tone.

And dearest Nocti, you shall here by be dubbed: Sir/Madame Moulinexy Vocabularia Decorumptia.

Its an old family name, you know.

great comments nocti. the academy is seeking a architecture/urban design professor, so I'm downplaying the landscape angle.

barry, what about your philosophy challenges "accepted" norms? understanding the dynamics of the world we now live in, what demands do we need to make on urban/architecture students? our world is moving seemingly faster than anyone has ever witnessed, how do students respond to economies and future urban strategies at a somewhat complimentary speed? does any of that make sense?

it seems that we all need to jump in the petri dish of experimentation. we need to take more chances, rather than less, we need to learn from failure, during the process, and adjust on the fly.

i think there is some ability to connect the future of design to how global economies are responding to this financial crisis. i just haven't quite figured out what that is as of yet.

i used the word 'iterative' a lot when i wrote about my pedagogical approach. i hated that part of the teaching apps. it's the equivalent of the b.s. statements you have to attach to school applications.

Beta-

Very true. I've mentioned on several juries and in lectures that students should 'strive to fail often and early in the design process' and that there is more to be learned from failures then successes. I'm cribbing this from some business guru.

SW- I'll be iterative too - I'm finding writing this (with this discussion thread) to be very enlightening and helping me clarify the mechanics of teaching.

My experience in architecture/landscape schools has been that teaching is taught only by osmosis. You absorb how your critics and professors taught you, and then you mimic the stuff you like. But this doesn't make great teachers or provide a framework for developing a new curriculum or course. There is also quite a bit of imperfect translation between what you experience and then the attempt to run your own course. Maybe a few TAs get a crash course from their instructors, but that's the extent at the Masters level. More emphasis is placed on writing contracts and business plans, then writing a syllabus. I was lucky to pursue a thesis at Penn, where we spent a semester writing our thesis statement/process, ie the syllabus for the next semester.

version 2.0

As a professor, I will be a translator, guide, and catalyst in the student’s journey into the many facets of urbanism and sustainability. I will encourage my students to strive to fail often and early in a dynamic iterative design process, along with challenge all assumptions as a means to develop their critical abilities and to exceed their own expectations. In studio and in seminars, writing will be used as a design tool to teach students the professional skill of linking language to spatial concepts. Qualitative and performative analysis exercises will be my basis for teaching a holistic understanding of urban conditions and to create the ability to address global issues including social, economic, and environmental performance. Teaching is a path to leverage my interest in making a better world by providing the tools and critical facilities to a new generation of practitioners.

okay, dinner time.

sounds like someone who knows what he's about.

alternative second sentence:

I will encourage my students to fail early and often as part of a dynamic iterative design process that encourages them to challenge assumptions, develop critical abilities, and ultimately exceed their own expectations.

maybe?

we can get rid of 'to strive'- I like reductive edits, less words are better.

i will take risk of being critical. it is intended to be constructive, but feel free to discount as words of moron who just doesn't get it. i won't be offended. i hope you will not be offended either...

so.

the content is fine, but...

that is incredibly florid, and promises an amazing amount without concrete examples, seemingly substituting funky words when it comes time to back up claim. for me that is signal of a boilerplate and i wonder how much of what you are writing you actually believe and how much is an attempt to fit in everything you can in order to please the reader...

it is also a hard read because you are implying what you will do without actually saying directly. can't you be more direct?

by way of example...what exactly are the facets of urbanism and sustainability you are talking about? those are incredibly broad fields and i can think of a few facets that are contradictory to each other.

why in the world would you encourage your students to fail in an iterative process? does failure work better if it is iterative? what is the point of being iterative anyway? and why strive to fail? wouldn't it be better to succeed in an iterative process? perhaps what you mean to say is that you will try to encourage students to get over their fear of failing so they can take steps outside of their comfort zone...but that isn't what you are saying.

what exactly is performative analysis and how is it different from qualitative analysis? why is holistic important? does it have something to do with performance, or iterative failures?

how will you "create an ability"? i don't think that is possible. and if it were, why is the ability you want to create linked to addressing of global issues? it sounds rather vague and "green-washy". i mean, for example, is your list of social economic and env performance an extension of the three pillars, or did you just make them up? if the former then why not stress the point more clearly, perhaps in the beginning...

in the end your statement reads like a shopping list of things you will try to do, but includes little of what you actually believe. so it reads as cynical. my advice is to step back and just write honestly what you think, without the extra verbiage.

for example can you not simply say the things you believe are important for a student to learn, and then describe which tools or ideas you will bring to bear in order to get some of those ideas across? It doesn't have to sound erudite, only intelligent. it will i believe also sound more professional and confident.

well, that is more than 2 cents worth, and really it is perhaps not the most important part of you application so it is probably ok to leave it as it is...but those are a few of the things that come to mind when i read your statement.

again, feel free to discount as observations from moron. you would probably be right to do so. ;-)

. Now I just have to finish up the portfolio and other attachments.

here's my 2 cents:

nice draft, well written, and you provide a strong resume and list your research interests there which is good.

that said, i do think jump makes some good critical points in his post above.

one shortcoming i think of the original paragraph on teaching philosophy is: it has alot of sentences saying *what you will do* but not enough about *how you will do it* or *what you think about how people learn* (which is actually what pedagogical philosophy means).

there may be too many generic sentences there... better to *show* than *tell*... actually shorter may be better. shorter and to the point. "my philosophy about architectural education is __________."

i think the strongest sentence there, the one with the most substance is: "Qualitative and performative analysis exercises will be my basis for teaching a holistic understanding of urban conditions and to create the ability to address global issues including social, economic, and environmental performance."

maybe you could elaborate on that part? actually what if that were the first sentence? and the whole paragraph were about that?

should you reveal a little bit more about your own *personal* point of view about teaching, about the profession, about alot of the critical issues you list? i think that may be more important to tell the dean or whoever is building their faculty about who you are...

because the resume and credentials are anyway in your c.v... i think the letter is more the part where you have an opportunity to express something about your own perspective and unique point of view, your own philosophy, about how you see architecture, design, and practice, what you think about education, how people learn, and how you think a particular process of teaching is valuable to prepare individuals for the profession, and their careers...

anyway, these are just my 2 cents, please take it constructively or disregard, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about... just offering some thoughts... it's possible as you mention in the letter, that you cannot possibly convey everything in a letter and these kinds of things are better left for an interview?

BRink- your (and everybodies) input is always welcome! you bring up some good points - which was my point of posting the entire letter. there's a reason that this letter has taken one month to write - just hope that nobody else is quicker to the draw.

back to the typewriter tonight.

you're a brave man letting us randoms tear it apart!

What are friends for, if not critical assessment?

Wow, this was a great thread to read, I was so drawn in. I may be coming in a bit late here, but I'm hoping to continue the conversation. I am also putting a statement together (don't worry Barry, my deadline is later - I'm sure it's a different school). I have been struggling with the same issues.

My first draft was very heavy on the architectural theory end, and light on the student and teaching end. I have shed that to some degree, but in favor of 'an architectural education is synthesizing ideas and form' type of rhetoric. I fit the elements that I believe important to an architectural education under that umbrella, such as the importance of understanding theory, and the materiality of space. I've probably set up some false dichotomies here, but I wonder what others think.

I tend toward building some sort of 'middle ground' because I returned to grad school after 10 years of practice. I am a firm believer that the built environment is critical to architecture, that is to say that architecture to me consists of built, habitable structures. I distrust paper architecture and intellectual exercises that are designed to have minimal impact outside of the academy. To the above conversation, scripting is fine if it impacts 'architecture'. I am interested in the work of SHoP for this reason.

But in the end, it may be going too far out on a limb to be this specific and, perhaps, dogmatic about education. It may be better to put together a laundry list of ideals pertaining to the student experience, such as 'teach collaboration', or 'teach through listening', but I fear this will not set me apart.

polyphilo - akin to what bRink and others have mentioned - you also need to talk about the "how" of your pedagogy. Of course what you find important in architectural education is good to convey to whatever committee is reviewing your application, but they'd be more interested in projects with students you have led, and what sorts of tools, models, and activities you used to help the students produce an excellent project and to help prepare them to become architects.

"scripting" is fine, but it has to be used within the context of whatever it is you are teaching. If you want to help the students develop a strong iterative process, then perhaps you'd teach scripting as a tool for this process.

You have to figure out how to TEACH things you think are important - never expect students to come into your class/studio with a full grasp of theory/tectonics/materiality/etc. if you think theory is important - how do you intend on tying this into your courses/studio? how are you helping your students "synthesize idea and form?"

specific examples - not something vague like "teach through listening." you have to describe what that means.

I would say that in order to discuss pedagogy, you need to know what architecture is, or at least what it is to you. Ultimately, you need to be certain of its meaning in order to know what it is you want to teach. This may sound obvious, but it requires a conscious effort. For instance, it’s one thing to get a student to understand how to describe architecture, and learn the tools that facilitate its conveyance and construction, but it’s another to make them understand an idea, it’s meaning, and how that meaning is manifest in time and space. Further than understanding, students will need to discover a process to imbue their own design work with these qualities. I believe this latter is one of the most difficult aspects of teaching. Of course I agree, a statement needs to outline how to do this as well.

Again, returning to graduate school after 10 years of practice has reminded me that too often the concepts that give purpose to form and space are absent from ‘building’, and it is the built environment that is nearly always absent from our education. This observation allowed me to attempt to substantiate what I have always believed to be the fundamentals of architecture and design, which was the intersection of form and idea, and further, extended to the relation of ideas to the context by which it is engendered. And here I would define context as not simply the surrounding physical environment, but the potential use and experience of a space, and the materiality of its construction.

More specifically, the multi-layered context includes current and future users and uses, geography, weather patterns, demographics, vegetation, and history. It also consists of the composition of the program and supporting program, the activities that will be performed in it, and its’ size and scale. In terms of the material it includes notions of both the material best suited to the concept, and how material might modify the underlying idea. It is these components that are synthesized into a core thesis. The analysis should give this idea a form of inevitability. And from this a form is derived, or ‘extracted’. Integral to the process is a feedback loop that provides checks as the architecture advances; it is non-linear.

One way to impart this ideology is to get students to create simple constructions of simple concepts. Another is to analyze the celebrated work of great architects and designers, in order to understand the fundamental ideas. I have used both of these techniques. In the former, I ask students to take a word, and construct a model from a given, simplified kit of parts. Each move must be tied to the original word. In the latter, the task is to take a landmark project and to create a diagram. Initially, the diagram seeks out conventional narratives – structure, circulation. I then ask the students to create a diagram that no one has seen before, using a set of rules intrinsic to the project. Ultimately these, or similar processes are used in the analysis of site and program as described above.

Ideally, this process leads students to an in depth understanding of a single method of design. Inherent in this process is a form of critical inquiry, which I hope generates a curiosity that will lead students to question the design process itself, allowing them to ultimately invent a process of their own. It is critical thought that will lead to informed conclusions about architecture, and ultimately to the creation of environments that will uplift and enlighten.

Barry, on a side note...is this bookany good? I was going to order a copy maybe, and now I am intrigued moreso given this thread revealing your plight.

f33- I'm biased toward saying its the best book ever. If you enjoyed reading rayner banham, or are a student of los angeles, or interested in urbanism/infrastructure/network theory, or any of Kazys' other books, then you'll get your money's worth. If you want a book about brad pitt, sorry. I'm trying to save up enough $$$ to buy a case of them for marketing purposes if/when I ever open my own practice.

thanks barry, I am intersted in exactly those thing...perfect.

I'll get my credit card ready. cheers

Neil Spiller talking with Richard Hyams - Could you post the link please?