PLAN_plans_reports_soad_AssessmentReport_AY09-10

New York Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Design School of Architecture and Design Assessment Report Academic Year 2009-2010 A) NYIT Academic Assessment/Institutional Development Committee 2009-2010 The School of Architecture and Design has membership in the NYIT Assessment/Institutional Development committee The school reports its assessment and self-improvement activities to this committee Assessment/ Institutional Dev Yuko Oda, Dan Quigley, Nick Bloom, Brian Walsh, Jackie Nealon, Marianne Land, Fran Glazer, Thomas Rochon (SOAD), Hattie Arnone, Patty Wongpakdee, Patricia Burlaud, Spencer Turkel, Steven Youmans, Claude Gagna, Stanley Greenwald, Steven Lu, Mike Uttendorfer, Jennifer Charmaine Thompson, Raj Tibrewala, Sue Neville, Frank Lee, Stan Silverman Objective: Make ongoing self improvement part of SOAD culture Objective: Convene institution-wide “Assessment Days” twice a year, prior to the beginning of the fall and spring semesters Involve faculty and students in assessment activities Define specific changes the School of Architecture has made in response to school assessments on a regular basis Objective: Foster a school-wide assessment and self-improvement process where school assessment strategies for self-improvement are proposed, defined, and implemented from school committees comprised of school administration, faculty and students and Coordinators, with the goal of leveraging resident talent and expertise and making most effective use of assessment data Publicize the self-improvement process Make assessment work output visible to all members of the SOAD community Regular SOAD assessment day and retreat assessment meetings held Past topics for improvement have involved Comprehensive Design, NAAB preparation a new 1st professional M.Arch degree and clarifying student outcomes between NAAB, CIDA and NYIT’s outcome goals A new digital web interface was initiated to make NAAB Student Performance Criteria outcomes visible and accessible to the NYIT Community 2009-2010 Accomplishments: B) SCHOOL of ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN Committee Reports 2009-2010 Admissions Chair David Diamond, Secretary Brian Taylor, John di Domenico, Martha Siegel, Alan Sayles and student member Giovanni Avanzi Objective: Strengthen admission requirements Objective: Design and Implement a new take-home project as part of admission requirements Redesign program gateways and flow charts Ensure consistency of catalog texts with program curriculum Strengthen support for students as they progress through the program Objective: Initiate a method of follow-up for Junior undeclared students Identify needs for additional program offerings Explore possible new degree tracks (BA in Professional Studies) Take-home project proposed but rejected in 2010-2011 as a trial run Chairs agreed to assist with development of a new BA Professional Studies degree track to be marketed to candidates unqualified for admission to the SOAD This was pending approval of take-home project 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Alumni Relations Chair John di Domenico, Secretary Tom Rochon, Robert Allen, Fred Bentel and student members Dawn D’Agostino and Amanda D'Orazio Objective: Forge stronger ties with alumni & encourage fundraising involvement Objective: Work with FONSAD Coordinate activities with NYIT Development Office Establish a social networking vehicle for alumni (Face book, LinkedIn etc.) Coordinate NYIT events at national conventions Engage alumni with students in office tours and site visits Obtain feedback on effectiveness of NYIT in preparing students for careers in architecture and design Objective: Hold an alumni meeting in Manhattan at Gensler Office Hold an alumni meeting each semester in Old Westbury at Education Hall Grow the active alumni base on a yearly basis Encourage Thesis (5th yr.) students & BSAT students in project integration to join alumni group and be active members Alumni committee was represented at The Friends of NYIT SOAD breakfast Activities have been coordinated with the NYIT Development Office Semester meetings have been held with alumni NYIT had a group presence at the AIA national convention in Miami An alumni committee meeting with Thesis and Project Integration students and faculty was held in April 2010 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Curriculum Chair Michael Schwarting, Secretary David Diamond, Percy Griffin, Mike Nolan, Matt Altwicker, William Palmore, Michele Bertomen and Student Members Adele Schachner, Tatiana Castano and Carolina Bassel Objective: Improve program quality Implement and integrate the new core curriculum requirements into school degree maps Proposed and Implemented B.Arch credit reductions Implement new BSAT minor designations Review the new visualization proposal Increase opportunities for interdisciplinary study Review nomenclature of foundation courses Review Comprehensive Design Studio content 2009-2010 Accomplishments: New core degree map to be implemented in fall 2010 semester New B.Arch credit reductions to be implemented in fall 2010 semester BSAT minor designations cleaned up and new VIZ proposal under review Nomenclature changes of foundation courses to be implemented in fall 2010 semester Comprehensive Design Studio content reviewed and changes incorporated Exhibitions Chair Charles Matz, Secretary Jennifer Mitchell Objective: Strengthen NYIT SOAD exhibition programs Objective: Create new sponsorship opportunities Create new public relations and advertising opportunities Improve quality and quantities of outside exhibitions Improve exhibition infrastructure Objective: Obtain outside funding for capital improvements to exhibition space Increase opportunities to showcase faculty and Student work Plan more faculty exhibitions Plan more student exhibitions Faculty exhibits (Amoia, Friedman, Palmore) Student exhibits (Thesis show, year-end show & Petra Kucha) Outside exhibits Porro, Ouerie & Ceeda/Situ Obtained sponsorship funding for capital improvements to Ed Hall Gallery 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Facilities Chair Anthony DiSanto, Paul Amatuzzo, Nick Defelice, Martha Siegel, William Palmore, David Diamond and student members Kevin Bruno and Marc Fabris Objective: Assess facilities on a yearly basis Perform a yearly review of facilities in Old Westbury Perform a yearly review of facilities in Manhattan Agreed to communicate better and meet on a regular basis Objective: Improve facilities Produce comprehensive set of improvement recommendations Facilities assessed Improvement recommendations produced 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Library Chair James Wiesenfeld, Secretary Nader Vossoughian, Martha Siegel, Tom Rochon, Alan Sayles and Linda Heslin Objective: Improve student and faculty access to library resources Objective: Improve hours of operation Improve student knowledge of online resources Initiate library e-newsletter Improve quality of holdings Make recommendations to add suggested books, videos and DVD’s Improve Manhattan library Books, Magazines and DVDs suggested 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Life-Long Learning Tom Rochon Chair, Beyhan Karahan, Aly Dadras, Robert Allen and Student Member Ruben Ramales Objective: Strengthen NYIT’s ARE exam scores Objective: Create/propose new extended education classes Create new study groups opportunities Partner with other groups such as AIA and USGBC Deliver more AIA CES and USGBC programs on campus Partner with school lecture series and alumni groups AIA CES credits offered at all school lectures New USGBC Green Associate program offered on campus w/free slots offered to Solar Decathlon students in class Verified courses offered by NYIT Extended Education program Encouraged exam-related items in architectural courses 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Masters Degree Chair Shared, Secretary Michael Schwarting, Nader Vossoughian, David Diamond, and Matt Altwicker Objective: Initiate a new First Professional Masters of Architecture program Objective: Initiate feasibility Research implementation Initiate a new BSAT Masters program in Construction Management Initiate feasibility Research implementation Curriculum Committee approved new 1st Professional M.Arch program 2009-2010 Accomplishments: NAAB Steering Chair Frank Mruk, Secretary Matt Altwicker, David Diamond, William Palmore, Nader Vossoughian, Michael Nolan, Matt Dockery, Tobias Holler, Will Martin and Student Member Danielle Romano Objective: Prepare Program for NAAB accreditation Plan Team Room Plan Exhibitions Draft work collection methodology Write APR Create Budget Create Hospitality plan Create web site for Spring 2010 work assessment All of the above have been accomplished by summer 2010 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Publications Chair Erin O’Keefe, William Palmore, Robert Allen and Nader Vossoughian Objective: Increase number of and improve quality of school publications Create school-wide protocols for archiving student work Institute a “Super Coordinator” position to administer and maintain the archive Institute a school-wide Internet-based newsletter Explore the feasibility of an annual or bi-annual journal of student and faculty work and essays Increase publications in ACSA Journal Create a vehicle through which faculty and school news can routinely be passed along to relevant publications 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Plans for fall 2010 established Structures Chair James Wiesenfeld, Secretary William Martin, Nick DeFelice and Student Member Anthony He Objective: Strengthen the structural adjunct pool Objective: Standardize coursework, outcomes and the course offering schedule Objective: Add additional adjunct faculty qualified to teach Structure classes Determine how Arch 291 will be integrated into the structures sequence Re-evaluate the approach the computer-based structural analysis brings into Arch 412 and Advanced Structural Concepts II This also brings into question whether Arch 291, Introduction to Structures, should still substitute for Arch 412, and whether it should substitute for Arch 411 as well Infuse the curriculum with new technology Recommend new teaching tools Form alliances with software vendors Identified new adjunct faculty Determined how ARCH 291 will be integrated into the structures sequence Recommended the purchase of licenses for Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis to be used as a teaching tool for ARCH 411 (Advanced Structural Concepts) Summer Abroad Chair and Secretary Matt Altwicker, Paul Amatuzzo, Matt Dockery, Brian Taylor and Student Member Anne Marie Porcaro Objective: Improve communication of program offerings 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Objective: Enhance advertising of programs to students with web content Move advertising of available programs earlier in the semester Improve quality of program offerings Assess program outcomes Revise program guidelines Program advertising has been pushed up earlier in the semester Program offerings have been expanded to include: Architettura Moderna - Atelier Italia Nord, Egyptian Expedition and Bicycle World Programs have been advertised on the new NYIT Website Three fully enrolled summer programs were subscribed Fall exhibition of student work to relate content to equivalent work 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Technology Chair Matt Altwicker, Secretary Tobias Holler, Anthony DiSanto, William Martin, Michael Nolan and Student Member Yvette Oloo Objective: Yearly assessment of program technology Objective: Perform a yearly review of hardware and software Perform a yearly review of fabrication lab equipment Improve strength of program offerings Produce comprehensive new viz sequence guidelines Propose new software classes Propose parametric modeling (grasshopper), structural analysis software Propose environmental simulation software Propose a better methodology of integrating BIM into the curriculum Ecology for Architects course as an introductory elective course in the technology sequence Establish laptop requirements for students Hardware and software reviews produced Fabrication lab review produced Organized a series of workshops (Ecotect, Revit, Rhino) 2009-2010 Accomplishments: Ecology for Architects ARCH 220 established as an introductory course in the technology sequence Website Chair Mike Nolan, Secretary Erin O’Keefe, Matt Dockery, Will Martin, & Charles Matz Objective: Launch new Web 2.0 NYIT web site Objective: Develop content management procedures Aid in staff training Improve quality of school web site Develop blogging and social media tools for SOAD Leverage and showcase student talent New website launched in March 2010 Staff members trained in the content management system Blogging and social media tools were made available to SOAD New website for the model studio launched 2009-2010 Accomplishments: C) SOAD School Club Reports 2009-2010 AIAS Professor David Diamond advisor, Danielle Romano, Ruben Ramales, Brian Cheung, Anthony Crane, Zina Eskina, Ankush Abbi, Preston Smith, Marc Fabris, Hajer Ayari, Kevin Bruno, Sherif James, Anita Correia, Isabelle Sarah Bassaliane, Rebeka Chwick, Melissa Makowski, Venessa Kordich, Brian Solis, Brett Jurow, Amanda Seidel, Jonathan Antar, Yvette Oloo, Kristina Sansotta, Omar Serreno, Adrianna Collazo, Iga Bebel, Josh Mohamed, Melissa Cherian, Fariah Choudhary, Andrew Kaplan, Brian Hall, John Weiss, Brendon Kubik, George Halz, Crystal Eksi, Jaime Benavides, William Mullan, Dennis Dragon, Laura Wekmeister, Katherine Trutillo, Tariq Mahmood, Katheryn Zagomauas, Lysa Miles, Maria Caravella, Nicole Tucker, Elizabeth Weintraub, Aimee O'Brien, Christopher Carson, Marc Fabris, Jamie Abrego, Nicole Gangidino, Shannon Pearce, Peter N Pitzer, James Misita, Stephany Taylor, Edgardo Barbosa Objective: Improve Technological Infrastructure Objective: Improve Facilities Infrastructure Objective: Maintain hardware and update software on a regular basis (M) Improve Internet connections (M) Lab Support: Better supervision and response to ink shortages (M) Lab Support: Initiate attended plotting service where attendants perform plots (M) Initiate woodshop morning hours (OW) Assign dedicated studio desks for students (M & OW) Allocate additional studio space (M & OW) Provide additional storage space (M & OW) Provide additional security (M) Improve Course Offerings More flexibility on order of classes (OW) More realistic design classes (OW) Improve building construction and site planning classes (OW) Additional storage space ordered and installed (OW) Curriculum Committee notified of class issues Additional NYIT facility currently being procured on 61st street (M) 2009-2010 Accomplishments: D) Alumni (Friends of the School of Architecture and Design) Reports 2009-2010 FONSOAD Anthony Acerra ’94, Nick Amoruso ’86, David Busch ’92, Ray Caliendo ’95, June Carter ’78, Ed Casper ’84, Joe Chiarelli ’92, Domenick Chieco ’89, Dennis Flynn ’88, Jenny-Lynn Georgiades ’96, Frank Messano ’78, William Recce ’90, Frank Relf ’76, James Smiros ’84, Laura Smiros ’84, Roger Smith ’78, John Sorrenti ’78, Pam Bottege (NYIT), Judith DiMaio (NYIT) and Frank Mruk (NYIT) Objective: Strengthen Alumni Support for the SOAD Fundraising Support special projects Strengthen the SOAD lecture series Sponsor student travel opportunities and field trips Initiate an annual student scholarship Since inception in 2008 $60,000 raised Robert Ivy, Richard Meier and George Miller lectures Funded AIAS student trip and student travel to Paris Oct 2009 networking event raised over $17,000 with100 people in attendance Initiated student field trips and office visits Established annual FOSOAD scholarship Spring 2010 2009-2010 Accomplishments: E) SOAD Coordinator Reports 2009-2010 OVERVIEW SOAD Coordinator Reports 2009-2010 (contributed to by all curriculum coordinators, compiled and edited by D Diamond) Self assessment of Academic Curricula and Course Syllabi NYIT offers courses leading to the BARCH degree at its campuses in Old Westbury and Manhattan To provide consistency of course content and instruction to our student body, each curricular area is assigned a coordinator or pair of coordinators, who establish communication with constituent faculty members, generate syllabus and course book documents, and assist in assessing learning outcomes The resulting syllabi and course books are used across all sections of each course Curriculum coordinators are drawn from the full-time or returning adjunct faculty In most areas, co-coordinators are paired with one at each campus to facilitate communication Assessment of our course curricula is conducted at many levels by different groups within the SOAD At each cycle of review, learning outcomes are compared with desired learning objectives Suggestions for improvements are vetted, implemented, and then reviewed during subsequent cycles Cycles of Review: Preparation for NAAB review of our academic programs occurs on a year schedule against evolving benchmarks All members of the NYIT community participate SOAD Curriculum Committee review of our academic programs occurs on a to year schedule and tends to focus each year on a particular curricular area Periodic reviews generally center on: Design Studio Courses, Technology (Building Construction, Environmental Systems and Site Planning), History and Theory, Visualization and Structures These reviews are attended by SOAD Curriculum Committee members (mostly full-time faculty members) and often take place during retreats for this purpose Student representatives are invited to all SOAD Curriculum Committee meetings At annual assessment day reviews, the entire full-time faculty participate with invited adjunct faculty and student representatives Review by Constituent Faculty, organized by Curriculum Coordinators, meets each semester during faculty meetings At these meetings, successes and failures are discussed and adjustments to syllabi and scheduling are proposed Curriculum Coordinators (see below) are responsible for implementing adjustments The following process is typical for all studio courses: “The assessment process occurs both formally and informally Informally, faculty meet briefly before each studio to discuss progress They also schedule joint reviews to remain in touch with the work in all studios Regular faculty meetings are scheduled before and during the semester All faculty teaching the course are required to attend At the initial meeting prior to the start of the semester there is a discussion of the results of the previous year’s course along with an evaluation of the effectiveness of course objectives during that semester At the meeting, examples of the previous semester's student work are reviewed The course objectives are discussed Modifications are made based on the outcomes of the previous semester's student work During the semester, one faculty meeting is scheduled to discuss the progress of the studio Modifications are made if it is recognized that all course objectives are not being met An example of how the process works is noted below:” Fundamentals I/II - Coordinators William Palmore and Lars Fischer AAID 101 Deficiencies Identified • During the 2009 – 2010 academic year, informal assessment by the faculty indicated that anticipated drawing skills, to have been introduced in Visualization I, did not yield the level of ability necessary for students to execute studio coursework without considerable additional training The time needed to boost basic drawing skills did not allow sufficient studio time to fully cover materials in the original syllabus, particularly, practicing skills necessary to the design habitable-scale structures • Recent revisions to the Visualization courses recommended that hybrid representation methods be introduced early on The intent was to use software to generate under-drawings that would later be worked on by hand SketchUp was selected as an entry level tool for digital drawing The faculty soon perceived a decline in hand-drawing and model making skill Corrective Measures: • Design Fundamentals I was modified to concentrate more on composition skills, deferring the challenges of habitable space making projects until Design Fundamentals II Recommendations were also forwarded to the Coordinator of Visualization courses regarding the delivery of basic drawing skills • Design Fundamentals faculty decided that abandoning SketchUp while emphasizing handdrawing and better model making craft was necessary as a means of establishing a first semester discipline and work ethic that comes with traditional means of representation AAID 102 Deficiencies Identified: • Consensus was reached that the final Design Fundamentals II project (spring 2009) was too challenging The site analysis and subsequent program development phases required a level of representational skill, as well as analytic and independent thinking that was too advanced Too much time spent on preparatory activities short-changed the development and final presentation phases of student projects Corrective Measures: • We combed two exercises into one “Gateway” (spring 2010) replaced both “Crossing Station” and “Museum of the Immigrant Experience” (spring 2008 & 2009) The new exercise combines the programming and tectonic qualities of the former with the focus on personal vision called for by the later, thereby making more efficient use of studio time Also abandoned in favor of simplifying the course requirements was a project requiring the documentation and diagramming of a real urban site, such as one recently used at Orchard Street in New York’s Lower East Side Design I/II - Coordinators Erin O’Keefe (replaced by Ricky Liu) and Joshua Davis ARCH 201 Deficiencies Identified: • During the fall 2008 semester, the first exercise of the semester was a garden for Adam & Eve in Central Park using excerpts from the book of Genesis as a program Some faculty and students found the framing of the problem to be controversial Others felt its openness to interpretation left the design challenges too vague • The second project was a two-week precedent analysis problem The list of subject buildings is under constant review and revision based on appropriateness to the subsequent final design project and the issues involved (site manipulation, building envelope, similarity of program type, etc) • The fall 2008 final project was a bathing facility for a site in New York City’s Fort Tryon Park The faculty felt that the program did not require sufficiently clear boundaries between indoor and outdoor spaces and that the site, largely devoid of architectural artifacts, made it difficult for students to develop a clear graphic language for their projects (to represent scale, texture, poche, etc.) This difficulty was most evident in students’ in final presentation drawings Corrective Measures: • For fall 2009, the first design project was rewritten as a “Bird Blind for Central Park” with explicit site and program requirements • Two-week precedent analysis subject buildings were updated as per faculty recommendations • The fall 2009 final project was rewritten as an “Archive and Visitor’s Center for Grant’s Tomb,” for an adjacent site in upper Manhattan This project brief has more explicit requirements for indoor and outdoor program spaces than the former bathing facility The site encompasses Grant’s Tomb, and the course brief requires students to include on their plans and sections the corresponding cuts through the tomb The redrawing of the masonry neoclassical structure served as a reference for students as they incorporated it into their projects The resulting projects and presentations satisfied the faculty’s expectations Arch 202 Deficiencies Identified: • During the spring 2007 semester, the first exercise was to design a new faỗade for the Palazzo Rucellai in Florence The research phase of this project uncovered an historical controversy over the faỗades original author and extent of its site These proved to be distractions from the project goals, which were to develop a tectonic system for the new faỗade ã During the spring semesters of 2007 and 2008, the final project was for a shoe design headquarters for a site on the Bowery near the New Museum by SAANA The chosen sites lot size, configuration and immediate physical context was difficult for our students to manage and distracted from the development phases of the work Corrective Measures: ã An alternate subject faỗade was chosen for project In place of the Rucellai We used the Ca D’Oro in Venice This site and its physical setting facilitated more direct access for our students to the project’s goals • A new site and purpose was implemented for the final project as well This new site, in the former meat packing district of the far West Village, was significantly more manageable as far as the lot size and configuration The program square footages were also modified based on faculty feedback, and the “client” was changed from a shoe designer to a fashion designer The students chose the “client” from a pre-selected list, which was also a subject of discussion at faculty meetings Feedback from final reviews was that this was an improvement Design III/IV - Coordinators Paul Amatuzzo (replaced by Maria Cumella) and William Rockwell DESIGN Deficiencies Identified: • Before the fall semester of 2008, Design was repurposed as “Introduction to Comprehensive Design” and as such was expected to augment the students’ understanding of the integrative nature of architectural design The faculty set as learning objectives that students demonstrate greater development beyond schematics overall, and specifically address basic understanding of simple structural framing, egress requirements, handicap access and passive environmental systems • Site had physical characteristics that presented difficulties to students Students found it difficult to develop credible responses to site conditions in their design proposals Time spent on site assessment came at the expense of time to develop their own proposals • Dense urban context placed site in shade for most of the day, reducing the relevance or potential impact of required environmental considerations, including passive or active solar strategies • Precedent analysis was complicated by instructions for excessive detail Comparisons between precedents and genres for the same program were limited or non-existent • The site’s change of elevation along its lot was not adequately addressed in students’ designs Corrective Measures: • It was required that each student produce a floor framing plan as evidence of structural credibility, a sustainability diagram with specific reference to how the solar issues were considered in their project, an egress diagram and a diagram demonstrating proper clearances for accessibility • Instructions for precedent analysis were streamlined • An alternate site will be tested during fall of 2010 The new site will have fewer distractions, a more generous configuration and a low-rise neighborhood context that would not block the sun Number & Title of Course: ARCH 302, Architectural Design IV, Credits Course Description: Housing Studio: mixed use housing development for sites within the boroughs of NYC Precedents, aggregation and basic building technology and life and safety criteria are employed Deficiencies Identified: • Requiring students to examine alternative sites, one urban and one suburban, took too much time and diluted intensity and development of students’ final proposals • Student’s momentum also suffered as they generated superficial examinations of different schemes before targeting one for development • Some precedent examples were inappropriate for comparative analysis despite being local Corrective Measures: • A single urban site was selected for the following semester for the larger housing assignment that was accessible by both campuses, making more efficient use of studio time • Precedents that were not ideal for analysis due to limited accessibility and/or unavailable documentation were dropped in lieu of canonical and well documented examples Design V/VI - Coordinators John di Domenico and Janet Fink ARCH 401, Design V Deficiencies Identified: • Definition of the study area was incorrectly assigned to arbitrary political boundaries although the students’ initial analysis indicated that the community was more clearly defined by natural boundaries such as parks and wetlands • The student teams were having a difficult time understanding the size and components of a transit-oriented community program Corrective Measures: To correct these deficiencies, the project boundaries of the study area were redefined within the first two weeks of the semester In response to the question of program identification, the faculty issued guidelines for uses and bulk from comparable projects highlighted in the Pedestrian Pocket Book ARCH 402, Design VI Deficiencies Identified: • The broad topics assigned to the comprehensive design studio could not be addressed without the assistance of outside resource experts to discuss sustainability, structures, systems and facade design • Code aspects, such as egress and travel distances, were not consistently addressed across all studios • The previous site, a defined portion of Pier 26 on the Hudson River, was deemed to be not well enough defined, and projects expanded beyond the site boundary • The main space in the previous program, an Estuarium, was deemed to be not well defined enough, and projects varied widely in scale, site coverage and structural spans Corrective Measures: • Guests, both faculty and practitioners, were invited to the studio Their participation included an initial presentation to all students followed by an assignment and workshop session in the studio • Workshop assignments in topics such as sustainability, building systems, structure, and facade provided a basis to assess the student outcomes regarding their understanding of the material in these areas • Code, Egress, and ADA handouts were issued to students to standardize information across all studios • Site was changed to a corner urban site with clearly defined boundaries • Program was changed to a Boxing Gym with specifically defined long span main space, the Boxing Gymnasium Design VII/VIII Coordinators Matt Altwicker and Dr Nader Vossoughian ARCH 501/502 After each semester, the faculty evaluates the work of all thesis students via shared mid-term and final project reviews and a required “thesis walk-through” where all thesis faculty members review 30x40 project summaries prepared by each student In addition to deficiencies in individual projects that trigger targeted interventions by the faculty, there were a number of general weaknesses noted across the board, including writing and oral presentation skills As a result, the thesis students were asked to publish their research at the end of the fall semester and at the end of their thesis These documents are not only a log of their work and progress but a documentation of potentially significant research that they undertake in attempting to define their thesis Furthermore, the students were asked to use a new presentation format (Pecha Kucha) that required them to significantly streamline their often tedious presentations Building Const & Equip Coordinators Matt Altwicker and Tobias Holler ARCH 221/222 As part of the continued reevaluation and coordination of the technology sequence, professors from all portions of the sequence (BC, BE, ESP) meet to compare projects and content The sequence of courses now shares methodology (project-based assignments) and content (consistent relationships to environmentally sound principles and climate sensitive design) In BC I+II, this has included basic energy calculations, ENERGY STAR detailing, and use of simple, downloadable climate evaluation software such as RESCHECK and Climate Consultant Visualization Course: ARCH 140 [Visualization I] Deficiencies Identified: • Visualization I is off-sequence with Design Fundamentals I Essential skills (i.e orthographic and perspective projection) are covered too late in the term to be of use in Studio • Students not receive the formal instruction of standard drawing conventions within the first year visual media and studio sequence needed for future design studios • First year visualization courses are severed by the ‘digital divide’; ARCH 140 prohibits computer use, and ARCH 240 by default, hand drawing • Students not receive the formal instruction in digital imaging techniques and portfolio assembly needed for the Design Fundamentals I studio Corrective Measures: • In response, first-year Visualization courses are now characterized by an aggressive integration with the Design Fundamentals Studio schedule Arch 140 directly supports the skills needed for successful completion of Design Fundamentals Studio exercises: basic manual drafting, freehand techniques, and digital collage/imaging processes • Case study assignments have been implemented to introduce students to the basic drawing conventions and scale of architectural elements [stair, ramp, opening, enclosure, restroom, site] and better prepare them for second-year design studios • Digital technology is now being introduced as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, a comprehensive set of skills from which one can exploit potential, efficiency and hybrid expression • Digital imaging techniques in Adobe Photoshop, presentation techniques in Powerpoint, and portfolio assembly in Adobe InDesign are now part of the required coursework of ARCH 140 Appropriate hardware instruction (plotters and scanners) has also been incorporated systematically Course: ARCH 240 [Visualization II] Deficiencies Identified: • First year visualization courses are severed by the ‘digital divide’; ARCH 140 prohibits computer use, and ARCH 240 by default, hand drawing • Seismic technological change continues to impact the design disciplines in profound ways The use of digital fabrication, for example, is changing the way buildings and objects are conceived and delivered Should we fail to constructively engage these tools, our students will learn how to use them in alternate venues and often in ways that are not in the interest of the school Corrective Measures: • Digital technology is now being introduced as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, a comprehensive set of skills from which on can exploit potential, efficiency and hybrid expression Several hybrid analog/digital assignments have been introduced to allow for a rich middle ground of “crossover” techniques, whose full potential has yet to be imagined • Coursework in AutoCad, Rhino, and Adobe Illustrator ends with assignments demonstrating the direct translation of digital into physical via the laser cutter Appropriate hardware instruction (laser cutter) has been incorporated systematically Course: ARCH 327 [Computer-Aided Construction Drawings] Deficiencies Identified: • Arch-327 and Vis II have evolved into the same course – ‘AutoCAD 101’ • Building Information Modeling (BIM) instruction has been sporadic, rather than comprehensive and integral Corrective Measures: • Arch-327 has been reconfigured to include introductory Revit exercises, in addition to traditional AutoCAD coursework In addition, Vis II now includes an aggressive graphic design component in Illustrator and Indesign • Arch-327 has been re-tooled as an introductory BIM course Its continuing status as such will depend upon the recommendations of the School-wide BIM Task Force Course: ARCH 340 [Visualization III] Deficiencies Identified: • Graphic Design has not been adequately represented in the coursework (system-wide) • Vis III does not reflect the divergent agendas of the BARCH and BSAT degrees, and yet remains a requirement for both Corrective Measures: • Arch-340 has been reconfigured to include Photoshop and Power-Point presentation formats for final project presentation • This critique remains unaddressed Discussions suggest the need for an advanced BIM course in place of the current 340 syllabus for BSAT students Site Planning Coordinator Thomas Rochon Environmental Site Planning, ARCH 272 The following are changes that were made to Site Planning ARCH 271 and therefore the course changed to Environmental Site Planning ARCH 272 two years ago More emphasis on the natural elements that affect site selection through lectures and additional reading Introduction of the USGBC and LEED certification which affects site selection Students required to attend a public meeting such as; Architectural Review Committees, Zoning Committee, Landmarks, etc., and write a report on the findings during the semester Include ADA requirements in lectures and drawing problems Structures Coordinators Nicholas DeFelice and William Martin ARCH 211 Statics– During the past couple of years, the format of the class has evolved from being a completely lecture class to a combination lecture/problem period Approximately 80% of each class is lecture and the remaining 20% of each class is problem period The problem periods enable the students to receive one-on-one assistance from the instructor to reinforce the lecture material ARCH 311 Structural Steel Design - The lecture format of the class has remained the same however the course content has been altered to reflect the changes in the 13th edition of the Steel Construction Manual published by the American Institute of Steel Construction ARCH 312 Reinforced Concrete Design - The lecture format of the class has remained the same however the course content has been altered to reflect the changes in the 2008 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete published by the American Concrete Institute ARCH 411 Advanced Structural Concepts - The format of the class has changed from analyzing indeterminate beams and frames using approximate techniques to the use of structural analysis software The use of the software enables the students to analyze complex structural systems Pro Practice Coordinator Anthony DiSanto and Frank Mruk Deficiencies Identified: • Awareness and understanding of integrated project delivery knowledge needs to be stronger • Awareness of Financial implications needs to be demonstrated via expanded exercises Corrective Measures: • We are currently investigating introducing additional means, methods and purpose of integrated project delivery to enhance a greater awareness by the students of its use in practice • Financial positioning of projects from an owners or developer’s perspective • IDP, LEED and ARE expectations are discussed in detail Final exam questions and exercises throughout the year will be tagged with specific NAAB criteria • The NAAB accreditations process is explained in detail • Exposure to the experience of running a practice expanded by office visits and field trips History Theory - Coordinator Dr Brian Brace Taylor • The process for assessment in courses offered in the area of History and Theory of Architecture takes place on more than one level: discussions on a periodic basis between the coordinator and individual instructors of courses, and at regularly scheduled faculty meetings at the beginning and/or the end of each semester This process necessarily also includes the results of individual adjunct faculty evaluation by the coordinator (or designated representatives) during the school year In the case of the Introduction to History course required of all entering freshmen, there is greater overall coordination on an ongoing basis during the semester • The latter course, ARCH 160, is a good case in point of recent deficiencies that have arisen and been addressed For example, there is a chronic lack of acceptable, college-level writing skills noted among entering first-year students and transfer students Since the development of proficiency in written analysis is one of the main goals of the course, we have initiated a practice of sending all those whose writing skills are sub-standard to the NYIT Writing Center, and required that these students return to class with both the original and the ‘improved’ text to receive credit for the exercise Moreover, when the numbers of registered students for this course grew rapidly over the past three years, the new Auditorium on Broadway, for example, was made available for the Manhattan lectures However, there is still a deficiency in Old Westbury of a large auditorium for lectures in architectural history • Adjunct instructors, as well as tenured faculty, teaching the history / theory curriculum have increasingly introduced the use of Blackboard for their courses, an indication of greater adaptation to the digital era than had previously been the norm This has proven to be a more widely successful strategy in combating students’ indifference to reading assigned texts than was previously thought

Định dạng
Số trang	17
Dung lượng	87,92 KB