A legacy of teaching excellence
Since its inception in 1925, the School of Architecture has remained steadfast in its dedication to design education and excellence at all levels of instruction. Curiously, the longevity of this commitment makes it challenging to point at specific efforts, events, or data that quantify the learning and teaching culture at the UF School of Architecture fosters. Simply put, these identifiers exist as a tacit agreement of sorts between the students, faculty, and staff within the school and speak to the manner in which things should be done. In this regard, the school has perhaps overlooked the importance and unique qualities that these measures afford, as they are understood to be common practices within the school, and thus the reluctance to hold them up as being noteworthy. Simply put, the culture is presented, developed, and shared in every studio course from the beginning through PILOT/Thesis.
Approach
In describing our approach, it is important to note that many of the central tenets of the AIAS’s 2020 Learning and Teaching Culture Policy have existed within the school and are consistently noted within course syllabuses, review procedures and day-to-day interactions between students, faculty and staff. Many of these tenets are established in the earliest studios and then reinforced in subsequent studios and courses, whether that be the fostering of an open exchange between students and faculty during studios discussion and reviews, or the showcasing of student achievement through exhibitions, awards and publications. The school has a legacy for championing these kinds of initiatives in the following manners.
Studio Coordination
Studio coordination is an integral part of the preparation for the start of each semester. Studio coordinators are assigned by the school administration and meet as a committee to discuss the goals, objectives, proposed projects, and projected due dates. Coordinators must provide basic coordination documents as part of this discussion, to field any questions and reflect on the position of each studio level relative to one another and the larger curriculum as a whole. Coordinators can then make revisions per the committee recommendations and meet with studio-level faculty to discuss the parameters of each studio level. Additionally, studio coordinators work with faculty leading any concurrent coursework to align semester schedules with the intent of minimizing any conflicting deadlines.
Collective studio exhibits
In both fall and spring semesters, each studio level (both undergraduate and graduate) mounts a week-long exhibit of studio work in the DCP Gallery and Architecture Building Atrium. These exhibits allow students to showcase their collective efforts in studio and other concurrent courses, and share these efforts with the SoA community (students, faculty, and visiting alumni and/or guests), DCP and the UF academic community. In this regard, the gallery is transformed from a space of exhibition into a teaching forum. Other studio levels will utilize the gallery for discussions about project objectives, methods and processes, and strategies that may be gleaned from the student work.
Interim and End-of-Semester Reviews
The school maintains a long tradition of coordinated, end-of-semester studio reviews for all studios. This process includes faculty jurors for studios, plus external guest jurors for all upper-division and graduate studios. All review dates and locations are announced in advance and are open to the DCP and UF community. Additionally, studio reviews are coordinated and scheduled over consecutive days to ensure the students from other studio levels can attend reviews.
End-of Semester Curriculum Review
The school maintains a tradition of reviewing representative work from all studio levels at the end of each fall and spring semester. This review serves multiple roles within the school. The chair of the Curriculum Committee coordinates the review, with individual studio coordinators presenting the objectives of each studio level, reflecting on the work, and guiding the conversation in terms of the strengths that may be built upon in upcoming studios and areas that may need reinforcement. The review offers the faculty a clear view into larger curricular patterns that may be emerging within and between studios, and provides a universal structure that helps to bind the different studios to one another and to concurrent coursework. The review assists studio coordinators and faculty in preparations for the next semester by using representative student work as a reference for developing studio and class exercises, methodologies and skills. Broader curricular issues are frequently discussed alongside studio work that may become prompts for the Curriculum Committee to address, and occasional curricular questions may be acted upon during the review, if appropriate. In this light, the curriculum review allows for continual re-evaluation of the School’s goals, objectives and work as a whole, which in turn helps to identify areas for curricular growth, experimentation, and reinvestment. The school understands the curriculum to be an ongoing project maintained by the school’s faculty. In this regard, the review offers a curricular snapshot within a longer timeline, and as such, encourages the school’s faculty and students to collectively review, reinvest and enrich the overall learning environment.
Student Teacher Evaluations
Students are given the opportunity to evaluate the level and value of instruction for each course in which they are enrolled. These evaluations are currently distributed to students electronically, and faculty are able to monitor response rates, which in turn allows faculty to encourage students in their respective courses to complete the survey. These evaluations are typically open for several days at the end of each academic term, and must be completed before the last day of classes. Results are not released to faculty until after grades have been submitted, to ensure that students can offer candid evaluations about the strengths and weaknesses of a course without fear of retaliation through grading. Faculty can review numerical evaluations as well as anonymous comments from students. Based on these reviews faculty adjust coursework, delivery methods, and teaching methods overall in response to student feedback.
Student Publications
The school supports two student-led publications, Architrave and Vorkurs. Architrave is primarily run by undergraduate students and offers a glimpse of the school’s ebb and flow of design inquiry. Students at all levels are encouraged to submit work for potential inclusion in the journal. Vorkurs is managed by graduate students and elevates the architectural discourse by integrating invited essays from faculty and practitioners within and beyond the UF community alongside more advanced student design work. Students and the school run both journals and, its faculty maintain a critical distance from the editorial decisions.