Teaching Philosophy

My teaching philosophy is strongly informed by and rooted in my chosen disciplines. I believe that in both architecture and design the development of reflective practitioners is crucial. I define a reflective practitioner as someone, for the purposes of this document a graduate, whose professional practice is driven by lifelong learning. Reflective practitioners’ adaptive skills allow them to easily modify work and business practices with the aim of providing meaningful, high-quality and economically feasible outcomes at all times. How do I believe such reflective practice can be encouraged and taught?

Teaching and learning in architecture and design is not standardised across tertiary education institutions. There are, however, recurrent modes of instruction that are shared across many institutions. These include lectures where content is communicated to large groups of students, tutorials that emphasise practical skills-based learning and related feedback, studio-based learning that accompanies students throughout their own individual (architectural) design processes, and one-on-one feedback sessions that address individual creative work. I believe all of these modes of instruction are equally crucial in the development of reflective practice. This is because each of these addresses a different set of skills that are relevant for the architect/ designer. For example, I use lectures to get vital content across; that can be theoretical or conceptual, or mathematical formulas that can be explained to large numbers of students simultaneously. Tutorials on the other hand are useful to assess students’ technical skills as well as for experiential learning through (architectural) design examples, or through fieldtrips. Studio-based learning and one-on-one feedback offer opportunities to assess and communicate with students individually, and to assess their personal development needs, and to foster their understanding of points specific to their chosen designs.

The following paragraphs will introduce three ideas that I consider beneficial to the development of reflective practice and thus my teaching (philosophy), namely Communities of Practice (and Situated Learning), Threshold concepts, and the different roles and implications of formative and summative feedback. The conclusion section will apply these ideas to the modes of instruction that I employ with my students.

Communities of Practice (CoP)

The learning theory around Communities of Practice and Situated Learning challenges the assumption that learning as an activity is engaged in by individuals. Instead, Lave and Wenger (1991; also Wenger, 1998) see learning as a social activity. The idea of Communities of Practice has been developed over time; it is now seen as transcending the traditional perception of the apprenticeship as a relationship between student and supervisor by adding the dimension of social relationships with fellow apprentices. (Importantly, I do not perceive or operationalise CoPs as a variation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) (DuFour, 2004). PLCs are conceptualised for secondary schooling situations where the staff can rely much less on students’ desire to learn or their capabilities at self-direction. Also, desired outcomes in secondary schools are much more standardised than in tertiary education; this is specifically true for creative disciplines like design or architecture.)

The ideas on CoPs are very much applicable to the kind of community I am hoping to facilitate for learners in design and architecture at Otago Polytechnic. Communities of Practice are groups of people who share a passion for something and learn how to improve as they interact regularly (Wenger 2006).  In order for such social learning to occur, three components of a Community of Practice must be identifiable: First, there needs to be a common identity of all members of the Community of Practice; members of the Community of Practice need to be committed to the respective field. I think that enrolling into the relevant degrees and courses, and showing up regularly to class constitutes the very minimum commitment required to become a community member in design or architecture at the entrance level. It must not be forgotten that there is the additional identify as a student learner at Otago Polytechnic which may help initiation and entrance into the discipline-specific community. Secondly, there needs to be a community. This can be comprised of teaching staff, the existing student community, and potentially other stakeholders like industry guest speakers, for example. So while this is clearly a professional community, its members can differ in their degrees of involvement as well as expertise. Instead, community is used here to represent the synopsis of all relationships between members. Consequently, in order for there to be a community, (professional) relationships between students and relevant staff need to be facilitated and fostered. I do this by incorporating into courses many opportunities for interactions among students (such as group work) as well as opportunities for interactions between students and staff (such as presentations, communal feedback sessions). Third and lastly, there needs to be practice. The aforementioned relationships can only result in learning experiences if there is a shared practical repertoire of interaction tools. It is crucial to acknowledge that this repertoire can only be mastered after a period of time.

In order to develop Communities of Practice I take four steps. First, I explain the need for CoPs and their relevance in both education and practice to students. I use the first few teaching opportunities for first-years as well as (briefly) the beginning of each course to emphasise or re-iterate the need to be(come) a member of the architectural and/or design community. Second and third, in addition to offering opportunities for problem-solving in group work, community development is fostered through facilitating discussion opportunities with guest speakers both on campus and during fieldtrips. For advanced students, the fourth option, participation in international (architectural) design competitions is suitable as it allows them to pitch their abilities with and against other student practitioners. This last option holds great potential for networking and the building of lasting (professional) contacts. As interactions with other community members (and members in training) intensifies throughout the course of study, membership changes from that of a learning community to, hopefully, a CoP. Consequently, CoPs involve extended learning periods in order to achieve deep learning results. This last point is probably the most pertinent one to the courses taught in the programmes that I lead (architectural studies, and design interiors). As my students are being exposed to the various skills and required knowledge to grow into their profession, their community membership slowly intensifies.  Undoubtedly, the learning community of students, the professional learning community and CoPs are different due to their respective cultures and (potentially different hierarchical) structures. This is a result of differing degrees of competition among one another, power relationships, and structural issues, among others). For the purposes of this work, where the analytical focus is on the learning that takes place within these communities, I will treat these distinctions largely immaterial.

Importantly, commitment to Communities of Practice requires regular engagement by learners; it is another beneficial implication of this learning and teaching approach that it inhibits surface learning. Indeed, situational learning approaches are holistic in that learners are exposed to varieties of impressions that do not primarily relate to learning new topics or techniques. These include but are not limited to use of language and jargon, views and interpretations of the everyday world and even behaviour or dress. It is therefore likely that situational learning approaches and Communities of Practice are a useful approach to learn to "think like a [geologist, architect, truck driver, interior designer … ]". As it is the aim of tertiary education at Otago Polytechnic to produce ‘work-ready graduates’, this is bound to be an important goal of the education I offer.

Threshold concepts

“A threshold concept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view.(Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 1)

I deem the use and celebration of Threshold concepts very beneficial in teaching, especially at the undergraduate level. First, Threshold concepts open up whole new ways of thinking and speaking about important aspects of the discipline. Examples from my teaching in architecture and design include, among many others, the introduction of the concept of aesthetics (rather than beauty), or the introduction of the use of proportions relative to the material used. Threshold concepts are transformative: Once students have grasped these important points, they will, to use the first example, never speak of a ‘beautiful’ building or interior ever again; rather, they will carefully consider its aesthetic value using a range of discipline-specific measures. Second, Threshold concepts make for memorable teaching moments, ‘Eureka’ moments that are rarely forgotten and, if made relevant by explaining their practical implications can be life- or at least career-changing. As such, the knowledge they create is irreversible. Third, Threshold concepts convey knowledge that is integrative: Once students have grasped how proportions need to be chosen relative to the material used, they have learned about those materials (practical content) as well as the relevant concept (theoretical knowledge). Importantly, and lastly, Threshold concepts are also bounded. By this I mean that they serve to demarcate the borders of what is relevant knowledge for a discipline. For example, conceptualising beauty in terms of aesthetics (see above) is necessary in design and architecture; however, applying similar ideas in, for example, poetry or art may is likely inappropriate. Interestingly, I find from my own teaching that this counter-intuitiveness helps students realise and memorise the concept taught! I am hoping that presenting students with such Eureka-moments will also enhance their appreciation of reflective practice as, after all, offering opportunities for engaging with transformative content will not only lead to critical reflection but also whet their appetite for more (learning).

While the use of threshold concepts is an important aspect of my teaching delivery, it is however of greatest importance that learners get constant feedback on application of their own understandings of knowledege. Formative and summative feedback are hence of vital importance for design and architecture eduction.

Formative and summative feedback

Broadly speaking, feedback is information provided by a superior, for example a teacher, on aspects of one’s ability or knowledge (Hattie & Timperley 2007). Feedback is always a consequence of performance; in the case of architecture or design education feedback most usually refers to someone’s design work. As a result, feedback in my programmes/ courses is very personal as it refers to creative work that students are generally proud of, and that they have invested significant periods of time into. A further complicating factor is that in many cases “the process itself takes on the forms of new instruction, rather than informing the student solely about correctness” (Kulhavy, 1977, p. 212). This is why I distinguish between formative and summative feedback for the purposes of this document. ‘Feed forward’, addressing the question of ‘Where to next?’ and arguably the most important part of all feedback processes, is implied in both the formative and summative feedback that I provide.

Formative feedback is very important in my teaching as it allows the student to grow as an (architectural) designer over time. The increasing complexity of a project is collaboratively tamed by the teacher’s experience and guidance and the student’s creative aspirations are facilitated in a safe environment. Formative feedback is thus mostly used as a one-on-one verbal exchange and/ or during studio-teaching situations. Summative feedback is used typically for written work, for example, for essays or smaller design works. Summative feedback is usually employed in situations where a marking rubric is shared with the students beforehand so they can self-assess their progress on the assignment. Summative feedback has the additional characteristic that it closely mirrors workplace situations where there is not always guidance at hand. As such, it can function as both feedback on learning and feedback for learning.

Hattie and Timperley (2007) further propose the use of four levels of feedback, feedback at the Task level, the Process level, the Self-regulation level, and the Self level. Task level feedback merely addresses the degree to which a task has been correctly carried out; it does not even necessarily require cognitive effort on the part of the learner. Process-level feedback goes beyond this by acknowledging the interconnectedness of tasks. Self-regulation or self-correction is the goal of many teaching and learning efforts as it enables the learner to carry out future tasks independently. The related feedback therefore needs to take into account not only tasks but also their relation to the learners’ previous learning journey, their aims and goals and, if the Self-level is addressed, even their personality. That last feedback option may be inappropriate in many teaching and learning situations, though, where high standards of professionalism need to be upheld. I think that different types of feedback are important for different types of assessment. For example, students who are assessed on historical architecture in art history may initially just receive Task or Process level feedback whereas (architectural) design tasks are usually deserving of deeper feedback at the Self-regulation or even Self-level. The main difference is that besides quantifiable and qualifiable attributes, students engaging in design studio work, have to express their individual attitude towards cultural, societal and environmental phenomena. Notably, and this is relevant to other aspects raised in this portfolio such as the implementation and realisation of CoP and deep learning, the depth of feedback tends to increase with a) learners’ growing involvement and membership in a CoP, and b) the complexity of their coursework over time.

Conclusion and thoughts

As per the above I describe teaching and learning in both cognitive and emotional tones. And though I clearly prioritise the cognitive aspects, becoming a reflective practitioner requires the development and use of personal insight and instrumental accomplishments in both teacher and learner. All of the concepts related to by my teaching philosophy above prove this: First, a CoP clearly benefits learners who want to immerse themselves in who they will become which requires cognitive input in order to be successful and emotional input in the form of investing oneself into the new environment. Using Threshold concepts fruitfully in teaching requires buy-in and investment on the part of both teacher and learner in order to confidently move on to higher level knowledge or skills. Further, there is an interesting relationship between CoP and Threshold concepts: Introducing students to the influential core ideas of the discipline affects (and effects) their feeling of belonging to it. Feedback (regardless of whether it is formative or summative) is very personal, and this is often carefully negotiated between teacher and learner – this may be especially true in creative disciplines where the actors tend to be personally invested in their creations.

If I were to critically assess my beliefs about teaching I would need to state that my teaching philosophy and practice is well suited to those who work in self-directed ways. This is probably typical of a creative discipline where rote learning and the development of technical skills will only get a learner so far. So if I want to enable learners to be independently creative designers or architects, I need to both encourage and reward self-directed initiative. What is more, such learners may find it comparatively easy to become reflective practitioners. I deeply believe, though, that the curriculum I develop, the courses therein, and the teaching modes employed are strongly encouraging to students who may be less intrinsically suited to the everyday challenges of being a designer or an architect. While self-direction is rewarded, it is by no means a requirement to successfully pass any of my courses as I aspire to provide different types of support for different learners. For example, the wide range of teaching approaches that are use aim to offer preferred teaching styles to different learners. At the same time, each student will face teaching situations that they find comparatively challenging, thus an additional learning opportunity is implicit in the curriculum. 

I believe that the combination of the theoretical perspectives on teaching and learning above (CoP, threshold concepts, feedback) and the teaching approaches inherent within them will enable learners to be(come) reflective practitioners. The variety of teaching approaches requires learners to constantly modify their thinking and work modi whilst at the same time allowing me to offer and assess course content in meaningful ways. Overall, my teaching philosophy aims to instil into learners that design and architecture continually evolve, and that in order to remain at the forefront of the discipline and architecture or design community it is not only necessary to be a reflective practitioner and lifelong learner but that it is rewarding as well.