Examination of the Interaction Process between Architecture Students and Supervisors in the Thesis Studio

Abstract

This paper aims to criticize the current supervision process in the undergraduate thesis project in the architecture program to reveal philosophical contradiction exists in the schools of thought. The architecture programs have adopted an apprenticeship style of education as a tradition that is called learning by doing even in the thesis projects. However, new schools of education and thought are looking for more students’ freedom and flexibility. A qualitative method with focus group workshops and group reporting techniques was applied in the research to discover the opinions of the thesis students about the supervisors and their own works and progress. Data was extracted from the reports of the students. The findings reveal that the students received guidance for the design process and outputs. However, they faced problems in keeping ownership of the thesis project idea, communication, interaction, and motivation with the supervisors. The power of the supervisors over the students resulted in changing the projects, crits, and outputs in the absence of clear guidelines in more personal manners. In conclusion, thesis projects include complicated processes that need clear guidelines and training for supervisors, even undergraduate theses in architecture departments. Despite the apprenticeship tradition in architecture education, new findings in education recommended a knowledge-based orientation for the supervision process.

Keywords

• Architecture education
• Interaction process
• Students
• Supervisors
• Thesis project

References

1. Baker, S. B., Exum, H. A., & Tyler, R. E. (2002). The developmental process of clinical supervisors in training: An investigation of the Supervisor Complexity Model. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 15-30.
2. Borch-Jacobsen, M. (1991). Lacan: The absolute master. (D. Brick, Trans.) Stanford, California, US: Stanford University Press.
3. Borden, I., & Ray, K. R. (2006). The dissertation: An architecture student’s handbook. (Second, Ed.) New York: Architectural Press, Elsevier.
4. Burkard, A., Johnson, A. J., Madson, M. B., Pruitt, N., Contreras-Tadych, D. A., Kozlowski, J. M., . . . Knox, S. (2006). Supervisor cultural responsiveness and unresponsiveness in cross-cultural supervision Journal of Counseling Psychology, Volume 53, No. 3, 53(3), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.288
5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
8. Crowe, N., & Laseau, P. (2011). Visual notes for architects and designers (2 ed.). Wiley.

9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5 ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
10. Derrida, J. (2013). Of Grammatology. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11. DoA. (2012). Architecture program specification. Kigali: Department of Architecture, The University of Rwanda.
12. Draper, J. (1977). The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural profession in the United States: The case of John Galen Howard. In S. Kostof, The architect (pp. 209–238). New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Drexler, A. (1975). The architecture of the Ecole des Beaux Arts. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
14. Dreyfus, L. H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault; Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
15. Duan, C., & Roehlke, H. (2001). A descriptive “snapshot” of cross-racial supervision in university counseling center internships. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 131-146.
16. Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. NTC Contemporary.
17. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 2(1), 1-10.
18. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York : Pantheon Books.
19. Foucault, M. (1980). Power knowledge. (C. Gordon, Trans.) The Harvester Press.
20. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2 ed.). (A. Sheridan, Trans.) New York: Vintage Books.
21. Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research in architecture. Design Studies, 15(4), 433-447.
22. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Paper, 1(1), 1-5.
23. Garric, J.‐P. (2017). The French Beaux‐Arts. In M. Bressani, & C. Contandriopoulos, The companions to the history of architecture, volume III, nineteenth century architecture, part I: Historicism, the Beaux‐Arts, and the Gothic (pp. 1-15). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
24. Ghonim, M., & Eweda, N. (2019). Instructors' perspectives on the pedagogy of architectural graduation projects: A qualitative study. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.007
25. Gill, P., & Burnard, P. (2008). The student-supervisor relationship in the PhD/Doctorai process. British Journal of Nursing, 17(10), 668-671.
26. Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
27. Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. Design Pedagogy: Representations and Processes, 24(3), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041000020X
28. Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students' perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40(3), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369839
29. Griffin, A. (2022). The rise of academic architectural education: The origins and enduring influence of the Acadâemie d’architecture. New York: Routledge.
30. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC. Gropius, W. G. (1970). Scope of total architecture (4 ed.). New York: Collier.
31. Haldane, J. (1998). Metaphysics in the philosophy of education. In P. H. White, Philosophy of education: Major themes in the analytic tradition (pp. 103-119). London: Routledge.
32. Hargraves, V. (2021, 1 18). Dewey’s educational philosophy. Retrieved from the education hub: https://theeducationhub.org.nz/deweys-educational-philosophy/
33. Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2 ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
34. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago Press.
35. Langford , J., & McDonagh, D. (2003). Focus groups: Supporting effective product development. London: Taylor & Francis.
36. Laseau, P. (2000). Graphic thinking for architects and designers (3 ed.). New York: Wiley.
37. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Press.
38. LeCompte, M. D., Dorothy, E., & Aguilera-Black, B. (2012). Revisiting reliability and validity in higher education research and program evaluation. In C. Secolsky, & B. D. Denison (Eds.), Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education (pp. 612-636). New York: Routledge.
39. Lerner, F. (2005). Foundations for design education: Continuing the Bauhaus Vorkurs vision. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2005.11650075
40. Littmann, W. (2000). Assault on the Ecole: Student campaigns against the Beaux Arts, 1925–1950. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(3), 159–166.
41. Madanovic, M. (2018). Persisting Beaux-Arts practices in architectural education: History and theory teaching at the Auckland school of architecture, 1927–1969. Interstices Auckland School Centenary Special Issues, 9-24.
42. Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W. F., & Watson, G. C. (2012). Enhancing building performance. London. https://doi.org/Wiley
43. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. New York: SAGE Publications.
44. Marttila, T. (2018). Platform of co-creation: Learning interprofessional design practice in creative sustainability. Espoo, Finland: Aalto University.
45. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2 ed.). Thousend Oaks, Calfornia: Corwin Press.
46. Marzanoand, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives : applying the new taxonomy. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
47. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).
48. McClean , D., & Hourigan, N. (2013). Critical dialogue in architecture studio: Peer interaction and feedback. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2013.00004
49. Mugerauer, R. (1995). Interpreting environments: Tradition, deconstruction, hermeneutics. Texas: University of Texas.
50. Mugerauer, R. (2014). Interpreting nature: the emerging field of environmental hermeneutics. Robert: Fordham University Press.
51. Netshitangani, T., & Machaisa, P. R. (2021). Supervision experiences of postgraduate students at an ODL institution in South Africa. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1), 1970442. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2021.1970442
52. Neuman, L. W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Pearson Education.
53. Neveu, M. J. (2009). Studia l studio. 97th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, The Value of Design (pp. 21-26). ACSA.
54. Ockerman, M. S., Mason, E. C., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2013). School counseling supervision in challenging times: The CAFE supervisor model. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 5(2), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.7729/61.1087
55. Owen, G. (2009). The thesis on the table: Research, pedagogy and identity. 97th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, The Value of Design, (pp. 674-680).
56. Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge , C., & Parsons, M. (2007). The crit: An architecture student’s handbook. Architectural Press.
57. Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (1994). How to get a PhD. Open University. https://doi.org/New york
58. Preiser, W. F., & Schramm, U. (1997). Building performance evaluation. In M. J. Watson, Time-Saver Standards for Architectural Design Data (7 ed., pp. 233–238). New York: McGraw-Hill.
59. Preiser, W. F., & Vischer, J. C. (2005). Assessing Building Performance. Burlington, MA. https://doi.org/Elsevier
60. Preiser, W. F., Davis, A. T., Salama, A. M., & Hardy, A. (2015). Architecture beyond Criticism: Expert judgment and performance. London: Routledge.
61. Preiser, W., Davis, A. T., Salama, A. M., & Hardy, A. (2015). Introduction. In W. F. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, & A. Hardy, Architecture beyond criticism (pp. 3-20). London: Routledge.
62. Proudfoot, P. R. (2000). Structuralism, phenomenology and hermeneutics in architectural education. International Journal of Architectural Theory, 2, 1-17.
63. Ronnerstad, M. H., Orlinsky, D. E., Parks, B. K., & Davis, J. D. (1997). Supervisors of psychotherapy: Mapping experience level and supervisory confidence. European Psychologist, 2, 191-201.
64. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
65. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
66. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
67. Tafahomi, R. (2021a). Insight into a personalized procedure of design in concept generation by the students in architecture thesis projects. Journal of Design Studio, 3(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.910234
68. Tafahomi, R. (2021b). An attempt to fill the gap between the architectural studies and conceptualization in architectural thesis design studio. Journal of Design Studio, 3(2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1012778
69. Tafahomi, R. (2021c). Learning activities of the students in peer-jury practices in the architecture design studio. AKSARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal, 7(3), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.37905/aksara.7.3.795-814
70. Tafahomi, R. (2021d). The behavioral patterns of the student in the position of peer-jury in landscape design studio. EDUCATUM – Journal of Social Science, 7(2), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol7.2.6.2021
71. Tafahomi, R. (2022a). Insight into research dilemma in design studios and relationships with the architecture curriculum. Journal of Design Studio, 4(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1102633
72. Tafahomi, R. (2022b). Developing a design framework to methodize the architecture thesis projects with emphasis on programming and conceptualization processes. Journal of Design Studio, 4(2), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1176700
73. Tafahomi, R. (2023). Tracing Hegelian’s Philosophy and Thoughts in Educational Styles of Architecture Design Studios. Journal of Design Studio, 5(1), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1292904
74. Tafahomi, R., & Chance, S. (2023). Comparing the meaning of ‘thesis’ and ‘final year project’ in architecture and engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2244441
75. Takase, M., Niitani, M., Imai, T., & Okada, M. (2019). Students’ perceptions of teaching factors that demotivate their learning in lectures and laboratory-based skills practice. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 6(4), 414-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2019.08.001
76. Thompson, D. R., Kirkman, S., Watson, R., & Stevrart, S. (2005). Improving research supervision in nursing. Nurse Education Today, 25(4), 283-290.
77. Till, J. (2008). Three myths and one model. Building Material, 17, 4-10.
78. UR. (2015). Framework and regulations for higher degree by course work and dissertation / thesis. Kigali: The University of Rwanda.
79. UR. (2018a). Revised general academic regulations for undergraduate programs. Kigali: the University of Rwanda.
80. UR. (2018b). Doctoral degree of philosophy by research. Kigali: The University of Rwanda.
81. Wang, D. (2009). Kuhn on architectural style. arq, 13(1), 49-57.
82. Watkins, C. E. (1995). Researching psychotherapy supervisor development: Four key considerations. The Clinical Supervisor, 13, 111-118.
83. Webster, M. (2022, 10 01). Critic. Retrieved from Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critic
84. Ybrandt, H., & Armelius, K. (2009). Changes in self-image in a psychotherapy supervisor training program. The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325220903343819
85. Zizek, S. (2007). How to read Lacan. New York: W W. Norton & Company, Inc.