build-to-learn: an examination of pedagogical practices in interior design education

Build-to-Learn: An Examinationof Pedagogical Practices in Interior Design

Education

Margaret T. Konkel, M.F.A., Montana State University

ABSTRACT

“Build-to-learn” is a pedagogical practice reflecting traditions in architectural andengineering education, as well as theoretical foundations in experiential learning. Thisstudy investigates how interior design educators are using this approach by classifyingtypes of build-to-learn projects with their associated learning outcomes. Findingsdisclose both the educator and student perspectives on build-to-learn experiences. Thepaper first reports findings from a study of Interior Design Educator’s Council (IDEC)educators (N =40) who participated in an online survey of build-to-learn practicesand observations. In the second exploratory study, students (N =11) were assigneda build-to-learn exercise as part of a construction materials and methods course andwere surveyed on their experience. The results revealed four build-to-learn classifications:(1) representational models as a means of understanding three-dimensionality; (2)construction assembly and materiality; (3) joinery-connectivity; (4) real-scale constructionexperiences. Findings from the study generally suggest positive learning outcomes fromall types of build-to-learn experiences, although some student and educator challengesare identified.

IntroductionInterior design pedagogy is firmly grounded in theExperiential Learning Model, developed by DavidKolb in the 1970s to integrate concrete experienceinto the learning cycle. His model describes fourstages in experiential learning: the concrete experi-ence; the observation of and reflection on that expe-rience; the formation of abstract concepts based onthat reflection; and the testing of new concepts fromthat experience (Kolb & Fry, 1975). Kolb (1984)wrote, “Learning is by its very nature a tension- andconflict-filled process” (p. 30); it is not hard to imag-ine that he could have been standing in an interiordesign studio. Learning experientially is difficult; stu-dents are asked to integrate knowledge and skills in awide range of areas. The Council for Interior DesignAccreditation (CIDA) identifies as professional stan-dards knowledge areas as diverse as design process,human behavior, space and form, history, environ-mental systems, and regulations. Students are taughttechnical skills and conceptual thought processes, andare asked to strengthen their application of thoseskills through project-based problem solving.

A form of experiential education, particularly rel-evant to interior design education, is the art andscience of building. Students in architecture, engi-neering, and interior design all must express ideasthree-dimensionally (Corser & Gore, 2009; Erdman& Weddle, 2002; Gore, 2004; Luescher, 2010; Reno,1992), in doing so forming a strong connection oflearning between thought and action (Wilson, 1998).The tradition of build-to-learn in design-related prac-tices introduces students to the notion that designideas are often improved when those ideas arebrought out of the realm of thinking and into thephysical reality of material. Reno (1992) describesthe act of construction as “an expression of innatecuriosity to assemble elements in a logical order,”(p. 161) similar to that of a toddler playing withblocks. Wilson (1998) supports this idea from aneurological standpoint, noting that humans have adevelopmentally innate curiosity of reach and touchthat is seen in the child’s grasp for objects.

Architectural education, given its lineage through theguild tradition of masonry, has long encouraged itsstudents to build in order to learn; only recently

© Copyright 2014, Interior Design Educators Council,Journal of Interior Design 1 Journal of Interior Design 39(2), 1–16

BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

Build-to-learn introduces students to the notion that design ideas are often improved when those ideas arebrought out of the realm of thinking and into the physical reality of material.

is there evidence in interior design literature thatthe same is true (Imamoglu, Senyapili, & Demirbas,2009; Schneiderman & Freihoefer, 2013). Interiordesign students, as well as members of the publicoften struggle with a complete understanding of thescope of work necessary in the practice (Waxman &Clemons, 2007). There is a strong media culture thatdefines the interior design profession as one of surfacedecoration and ornament, as one of entertainmentrather than substance. Martin (2004) examined thistrend more closely, in particular citing the inaccura-cies in media portrayal of the use of materials, knowl-edge of constructability and the navigation of com-plex, client-driven problem solving. Fundamentally,interior design is a practice of ideation with outcomesin construction. The introduction of this relationshipcan be accomplished by using experiential learningtechniques early in the educational process, therebystrengthening not only student outcomes but studentunderstanding of the reality of design practice.

This study investigates in what form interior designeducators are asking their students translate theirideas from paper to three-dimensional construction,and how they are incorporating the principles ofbuild-to-learn in interior design curricula. Drawingon the existing literature, as well as the knowledgeand experience of design educators, the study aimsto classify the types of build-to-learn projects beingdeployed in interior design education and what stu-dent learning outcomes do educators observe as aresult of this pedagogical approach. In asking thesequestions, it is the goal of the research to initiate adiscussion among design educators of the relative suit-ability of build-to-learn assignments for the range ofcourses and learning outcomes addressed in under-graduate interior design education.

TerminologyIt is important to clarify the terminology used in thisstudy to avoid confusion with the design-build andexperiential learning language. For the purposes ofthis study, the term “build-to-learn” will be employedwhen discussing design and building experiences in

the interior design classroom. This term addressesthe heart of the issue: the understanding that we ashuman beings are hard-wired to learn with our hands(Wilson, 1998).

Much of the literature reviewed that explored sim-ilar building experiences in the architectural studiosetting used the term “design-build” to describe thepedagogical strategy (Corser & Gore, 2009; Erdman& Weddle, 2002; Gore, 2004; Luescher, 2010; Reno,1992). According to Erdman and Weddle (2002),“design-build has come to denote … integrativeapproaches to architecture whereby the act of build-ing becomes an essential critical and pedagogicaltool” (p. 174). This usage should not be confused withthe construction-industry practice of design-build, amethod of project delivery that relies on a single pointof contact responsible for both the design and con-struction of a project. While architectural programsmay address the professional practice of design-buildwithin the classroom, the offering of a design-buildstudio often refers to students engaged in hands-onexperiential learning. When the term “design-build”is used in this paper, therefore, it is limited to ped-agogical discussions in the literature of architectureand engineering programs.

Student Learning TheoryThe investigation of build-to-learn practices isgrounded in theories of two disciplines: the under-standing of learning by doing is sourced fromtheories of experiential education, while the principleof brain-hand connection is drawn from the study ofneurology and kinesiology.

American philosopher, psychologist, and educationaltheorist John Dewey (1938) first articulated the con-cept of learning as an active process when he rejectedthe notion of traditional, structured, disciplined edu-cation in favor of an educational process by whichthe teacher serves as facilitator and guide to studentsengaged experientially with subject matter in a moreflexible, individually-tailored way. David Kolb (1984)acknowledges the legacy of Dewey in the development

Journal of Interior Design 2 Volume 39 Number 2 2014

BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

From a biological standpoint as well as an educational framework, improved learning connections are madewhen students are engaged in experience, movement, and application.

of his experiential education model. In Kolb’s frame-work, knowledge is gained through shared experiencerather than through imposition from an authoritarianteacher, and students learn by thinking, doing, andreflecting on their actions. This relationship betweeneducation, work, and personal development forms thefoundation of experiential education.

Kolb (1984) codified the ideals of experientiallearning by articulating key modes of abilities thatcontribute to effective learning: a student’s ability toinvolve himself/herself fully in a new experience with-out bias or pre-judgement (concrete experience); astudent’s ability to reflect on and observe his/her expe-riences from different perspectives (reflective obser-vation); a student’s ability to create concepts thatorganize experiential observations into logicallysound theories (abstract conceptualization); and astudent’s ability to apply those theories to make deci-sions and solve problems (active experimentalism).This theory maintains that students are better ableto engage directly with learning when they are ableto move dynamically between and through thesefour modes of abilities. Either through conceptualinterpretation and symbol representation, or throughreliance on the immediate, real qualities of experi-ence, students can transform experience into internalknowledge (Kolb, 1984).

Kolb also argues two actions that inform learning:the figurative representation of experience, and, moreimportantly, the transformation of that experienceinto action (1984). Gurel (2010) identifies the impor-tance of this relationship between the perception ofexperience and action in the interior design studio,arguing “the integration into design studio, [is] wherestudents are able to test their ideas and apply theirknowledge from supporting course to explore the cre-ative potential of their learned topics” (p. 186).

As Kolb (1984) states, “Learning is the processwhereby knowledge is created through the transfor-mation of experience” (p. 41). The studio settingsupports this ideal: project-based learning happensthrough problem solving, adaptation, and as heard insome studios, wrestling the problem to the ground. It

is this grappling with the problem to arrive at a solu-tion that transforms experience into knowledge, andthat is the foundation of interior design education.

It has also been heard in the studio setting that sketch-ing is a key element in the design process, that theconnection between brain, hand, and sketch paperfacilitates creative exploration and problem solving.But is that true? Wilson (1998), a neurologist andmusician, argues that it fundamentally is true, stating,“People are changed, significantly and irreversibly itseems, when movement, thought, and feeling fuse dur-ing the active, long-term pursuit of personal goals”(p. 6).

Wilson’s examination of the connection between thebrain and the hand centers on the physiological devel-opment, over the millennia of human development, oftouch, sight, and language. In a series of interviewswith individuals whose hands form the basis of theirliving, he attributes the intersection of these threeactions to the foundation of human learning. Eachinterview subject cites the value of clarifying thoughtand emotion through working with the hands, thatthe work he or she accomplished with the hands con-tributed far more to intellectual development than anytraditional classroom experience (Wilson, 1998). Wil-son supports these individuals’ claim through evolu-tionary biology, stating “the clear message from biol-ogy to educators is this: the most effective techniquesfor cultivating intelligence aim at uniting (not divorc-ing) mind and body” (Wilson, 1998, p. 289).

Both Kolb and Wilson explore the connectionbetween action and learning, from very differentpoints of view. From a biological standpoint as well asan educational framework, both support the notionthat improved learning connections are made whenstudents are engaged in experience, movement, andapplication. The literature of build-to-learn in inte-rior design, architecture, and engineering pedagogysuggests a discipline-specific exploration of Kolb andWilson’s theories. When design students are engagedin experience, movement, and application, it followsthat stronger learning connections are being made.


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

The Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate (CDIO) Initiative introduces problem and project-basedpedagogy at the upper levels of the traditional bachelor of engineering program.

Learning-to-Build MovementWithin the past 20 years, there has been a seachange in the pedagogical approach of engineer-ing programs, informed, in part, by dissatisfactionamong practitioners regarding graduates’ preparationfor real-world engineering situations (Lynch, Seery,& Gordon, 2007). In response, educators devel-oped the Conceive, Design, Implement and Oper-ate (CDIO) Initiative, which introduces problem andproject-based pedagogy at the upper levels of thetraditional bachelor of engineering program (Lynchet al., 2007). According to Lynch et al. (2007), CDIOpromotes learning that is goal oriented and projectbased, challenging students through design and buildprojects to transform knowledge into action.

At the 2009 International CDIO Conference, Vigildet al. (2009) presented a summary of CDIO imple-mentation at their University, identifying and classi-fying the types of design-build experiences to whichtheir engineering students were exposed. They iden-tify four models:

• The bucket-of-water project model, in which stu-dents use theoretical knowledge to design andimplement a solution from a fixed starting pointto a stated end goal.

• The minced-meat project model, in which studentsemploy theoretical analysis skills to build from astated starting point.

• The build-the-bridge project model, in whichstudents apply their knowledge and skills towardthe solution of a stated problem.

• And the make-it-fly project model, in which stu-dents apply their knowledge and skills towardthe solution of a stated problem (much likethe build-the-bridge model) in a competitive orperformance-based scenario (Vigild et al., 2009).

The build-the-bridge project model was identified asthe most common CDIO application at the universityprofiled. A build-the-bridge project challenges stu-dents to apply their knowledge to design and imple-ment a predefined utility; the example cited in thestudy is that of a person standing on one side of ariver, in need of crossing to the other side (Vigild et al.,

2009). It is a simple scenario, and supported by thetheoretical understanding that the knowledge gainedthrough the experience of problem solving (Kolb,1984), the build-the-bridge model trains students toidentify and define subsequent problems successfully.

This approach presents an organized classificationof types of build-to-learn assignments and what roleeach fulfills in the CDIO curriculum. Yet while thisapproach identifies a practice-specific set of needsinforming engineering education, literature identifiesa different tradition of build-to-learn in architecturaleducation. Studies in architectural pedagogy revealan intense relationship between build-to-learn andmaterial exploration (Corser & Gore, 2009; Erdman& Weddle, 2002; Luescher, 2010; Reno, 1992).

Corser and Gore (2009) and Luescher (2010)attribute this pedagogical interest in material explo-ration to the back-and-forth nature of architecturaleducation. The architecture profession is closelylinked with the guild tradition of building, tracingback to the separation of the two specializationsduring the Renaissance (Corser & Gore, 2009). Attimes, there has been clear effort to separate archi-tecture from its construction background, to elevatethe academic nature of design; at other times, aneffort to integrate, celebrating the quality of crafts-manship involved in building. Design-build offers acompromise, allowing students “to explore the valueof learning by doing” (Corser & Gore, 2009, p. 39).

“Concrete Geometry” provides an illustration ofthe use of design-build for material exploration:Luescher (2010) assigned a design-build experiencethat required his students to explore the materialqualities of the humble concrete block. Studentswere allowed three building elements: an 8’ cube ofspace, an unlimited supply of concrete masonry units(CMUs), and the visual ecology of a site on theircampus. Echoing the rationale found in Corser andGore (2009) and Reno (1992), Luescher defends hischoice of assignment as material-informed design. Hechallenges the prevailing perception in architecturaleducation that there is absence of thought in physicallabor, asserting, “Construction, too, requires a way


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

CDIO promotes learning that is goal oriented and project based, challenging students through design andbuild projects to transform knowledge into action.

of thinking: that embodied experience is qualitativelydifferent from abstraction and is a critical componentin the evolution of ideas” (Luescher, 2010, p. 19). Theexploration of concrete block challenges students toovercome their preconceived ideas about the value ofthe material, and the value of integrating design withlabor, and to act on the intimacy of deep materialunderstanding.

Reno (1992) articulates another argument in favorof integrating building and design in architecturaleducation: that architecture students often progressand graduate without having direct experience withany building materials beyond balsa and cardboard.She raises the issue of representation versus real scale,or surface versus structure. She writes, “Materials …are the media of architecture. Because the propertiesof materials, alone and in combination, are basicto design, an education in building technology mustattempt to integrate design and construction for thestudent” (Reno, 1992, p. 161).

When addressing the literature in interior design, par-allel questions of surface and structure are raisedin the exploration of real-scale prototyping (Dowl-ing, 2012a; Imamoglu et al., 2009; Schneiderman &Freihoefer, 2013). In an Interior Design Educator’sCouncil (IDEC) presentation, Dowling (2012a) chal-lenged design educators to consider how student com-prehension could be improved if students are askedto directly interact with and experience objects andplaces. Dowling (2012b) draws on Wilson’s workin the study of human kinesthetic to explore therole of full-scale prototyping, fabrication, construc-tion, installation, and disassembly as a means ofinvestigating sustainability and design detailing. Shewrites “Touching, manipulating, and playing withbuilding materials in this assignment permitted astripping away of conceptual abstraction, and encour-aged accurate and sophisticated design solutions. Theconnection between hand and material … promptedinquiry and enabled memory through physical expe-rience” (Dowling, 2012b, p. 60).

Schneiderman also explores the impact of full-scaleprototyping, both in the history of interior design

practice (2012a) as well as in the interior designstudio (2012b, 2013). Her approach to build-to-learninvolves a range of project types that challengestudents to explore human scale and relation to thebuilt environment:

It is critical for the interior design studentto appreciate the scale of the human bodyand gain a real understanding of the inhabita-tion of designed space. Through the full-scaleprototypes, students confronted the limita-tions of designing at small-scale and discov-ered that their designed investigations didnot have the relationship to the body thatthey had anticipated. (Schneiderman, 2013,p. 637)

Whether investigating build-to-learn practices forthe purposes of communicating human-environmentscale or the role of design detailing, Dowling andSchneiderman reinforce the fundamental questionraised in the literature of all of the design disciplinesreviewed: can asking students to build their ideasstrengthen their learning outcomes in the design class-room?

Yet it is the range of pedagogical strategies offered,whether focused on representation or real-scale, onmaterial understanding versus design practice prepa-ration, which prompts the research outlined in thispaper. Is it possible, as Vigild et al. (2009) have done,to present an organized classification of the typesof build-to-learn strategies that are being employedby interior design educators, what role those strate-gies fulfill in the overall design curriculum, andwhat learning outcomes are observed? The followingresearch design outlines the methodology used in thisstudy to address those goals.

Research DesignIt is the purpose of this study, therefore, to ask thefollowing research questions:

1. How are design educators employingbuild-to-learn strategies in interior designcurricula?


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

How are design educators employing build-to-learn strategies in interior design curricula?

2. What student learning outcomes result from thispedagogical approach?

A corollary question involves the surface/structuredivide, as discussed in Reno (1992). It is understoodthat a challenge facing design educators, both inarchitecture as in interior design, is prompting stu-dents to be equally curious about how design elementsand spaces work, how they are constructed, as muchas they are curious about how those elements andspaces look. This study therefore asks does the experi-ence of build-to-learn facilitate greater ease with andcuriosity about how designs are built, and how designdetailing translates ideas into action.

This study is two pronged, examining the researchquestions from both the educator and the studentperspective. An online survey was administered viaSurveyMonkey to interior design educators who areprofessional members of the IDEC to investigate theirexperiences and opinions regarding build-to-learnexercises. The survey included a combination ofclosed and open questions, and identified basic demo-graphics as well as educational background and uni-versity or college institution; how their programsaddressed related topics such as construction mate-rials/methods and design detailing; their experiencewith build-to-learn pedagogy both in their own edu-cation as well as in courses they have taught; and con-nections observed between build-to-learn and designdetailing. An open-ended question regarding obsta-cles related to build-to-learn pedagogy completed thesurvey. The survey was distributed among the IDEClist serve and via direct email contact.

On the basis of the current IDEC records ofprofessional membership, it is assumed that therecruitment population for the online survey was525 interior design educators. Of the 91 responsesreceived (17% response rate), 71 were completeand from CIDA-accredited programs and formedthe pool of responses analyzed. It should be notedthat while 71 responses were recorded and ana-lyzed, the analysis reported in this study reflects 40IDEC respondents (N= 40) who indicated that theyhad administered a build-to-learn exercise in their

classroom. Given the relatively small sample size,further research is needed to validate and confirm theexploratory findings and conclusions here.

To enrich the study results, a case study is reportedwherein students in a Construction & Materials lec-ture course, jointly offered between an interior designprogram and a design drafting program, who par-ticipated in a build-to-learn exercise, were studied.The build-to-learn exercise focused on material explo-ration and material-informed design, asking studentsto conduct research on a selected interior or con-struction material, to complete a case study of aninnovative installation of the selected material, andto construct a representative model of a design detailevidenced in the case study. At the completion ofthe assignment, students were administered a sur-vey to assess perceptions of their learning processthroughout the build-to-learn experience. The surveyasked previous experience in construction, expecta-tions regarding the three-part assignment at the out-set of the course, a ranking of relative importance tolearning outcomes of each of the three parts of theassignment, and perceived learning outcomes.

Results and DiscussionEducator SurveyOf the total IDEC respondents, 40 reported that theyhad administered a build-to-learn exercise in theirclassroom. This sample will be the focus of the resultsreported in this study. When asked in what waystudents in their program experience build-to-learnprojects, 55% of respondents (N= 40) indicated thatstudents experience build-to-learn in a mostly rep-resentational way, such as building models or pro-totypes. Build-to-learn was indicated as a requiredcomponent of a course or courses by 33% of respon-dents, whereas others indicated that exposure tobuild-to-learn is more by choice; participation in aservice build experience such as Habitat for Human-ity, or electing to engage in build-to-learn to fulfillan assignment in a course was noted by 15% ofrespondents.


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

What student learning outcomes result from this pedagogical approach?

As illustrated in Figure 1, when asked in whattype of course was the build-to-learn experienceadministered, many responded that they had doneso in several types of courses, with 80% (N=40)indicating a studio course. The studio course cancover many arenas in the field of interior design;of those respondents who indicated that the studiocourse was their preferred venue for build-to-learnassignments (n= 32), the practice areas were evenlyrepresented (Commercial: 31%; Integrated: 28%;Residential: 22%; Corporate/Office Planning: 15%;Healthcare: 3%; and Other/Furniture/Graphic: 9%).Furniture Design courses are another vehicle for theapplication of build-to-learn (12 of 40 respondents),with 30% of respondents (N= 40), and Materials andMethods or Construction Detailing courses representthe least frequent application of build-to-learn.

Learning Objectives Identified by EducatorsEducators were asked to describe the learning objec-tives of their build-to-learn assignments. Analysis ofopen-ended comments can benefit from visualization.The word cloud illustrated in Figure 2 visually repre-sents the frequency of responses by correlating largertext size to more frequent recurrence of a word.

Figure 2. Word clouds generated by open-endededucator responses. Visual representation offrequency of word use of educators (n=40) whendescribing learning objectives and outcomes.

Figure 2 shows three commonly cited objectives, listedin order of frequency:

• Understanding of space, volume, scale, andthree-dimensionality.

• Understanding of detail and joinery, constructionsequence, and how things go together.

• Understanding of material properties and perfor-mance.

Figure 1. Build-to-learn exercises by courses. Educators (n=40) respond to the course setting of thebuild-to-learn exercises they have administered.


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

Educators who assigned models with objectives of space, volume, and proportion report at a higherfrequency improved understanding of design solutions.

These learning objectives are understandable, giventhe types of courses in which build-to-learn strate-gies are most commonly employed and the evidencepresent in the literature. Responses draw a connectionbetween student understanding and the physicality ofconstruction. One respondent articulates the objec-tive “to bring book learning to life by making it tan-gible.” Another participating educator states, “to getID students working physically and haptically.”

When examining the learning objectives of thosewho assigned build-to-learn projects in studios inte-grated with other design fields (Architecture, Prod-uct Design, and Graphic Design), it is interestingto note that the priorities change. Much greateremphasis is placed on materiality, detailing and howthings go together than on the objectives of spa-tial volume and scale expressed by respondents as awhole. One respondent cited the learning objective“to work with real materials, to better understanddetailing and scale, to understand the relationshipbetween design drawings and the built environment.”Another’s stated goal of the assignment was “to con-tinue the design process through fabrication.”

The priorities represented by those involved withintegrated disciplines echo the patterns found in theliterature; educators working in a cross-disciplinarysetting appear more likely to explore build-to-learnas a means of understanding materiality and con-structability. Those working in interior design studiosettings are more inclined to employ build-to-learnin a conceptual way, to encourage students to under-stand spatial volume, proportion, and scale—toencourage students to be able to visualize scale andproportion in a holistic sense.

Build-to-Learn AssignmentsEducators were asked what type of build-to-learnassignment was assigned, and given a range of optionsof which they could identify those that applied.Literature sources that inform each option are noted:

• Build a model (Spanbroek, 2010).

• Build a design solution (Corser & Gore, 2009;Gore, 2004; Hinson, 2007; Imamoglu et al.,2009; Schneiderman & Freihoefer, 2013).

• Build a design detail using construction materials(Dowling, 2012a; Gore, 2004; Reno, 1992).

• Build a creative installation to explore a material’scharacteristics (Luescher, 2010).

• Build a technical installation to examine compar-ative conditions (Erdman & Weddle, 2002; Gore,2004).

Respondents (N= 40) largely selected multipleexamples to illustrate what they asked their studentsto build. A majority of respondents (83%) indicatedthat their students built a model; those who indi-cated otherwise (18%) noted that they asked theirstudents to go off-campus to participate in a buildexperience such as Habitat for Humanity, or hadan opportunity on- or off-campus to participate inminor renovation projects. Respondents who askedtheir students to build a model can be grouped bythe particulars of their model requirements: thosewho exclusively identified “build a model” (35%);and those who chose model-building in partnershipwith either “build a design solution” or with thetechnical responses “build a design detail with con-struction materials” and “build a creative installationto explore a material’s characteristics.” (48%)

In referring back to the studio settings identified forbuild-to-learn experiences, it is interesting to observea correlation between the learning objectives as out-lined by the respondents, the type of build-to-learnassignment being assigned, and the type of studioexperience. As shown in Figure 3, students in inte-grated studios are much more likely to focus on tech-nical models, whereas students in interior design prac-tice area studios appear to have been asked to build aconceptual model of a design solution as often as anyother type of build-to-learn experience.

Learning Outcomes Observed by EducatorsRespondents (N=40) were given a range of learn-ing outcomes representing positive, neutral, and neg-ative student responses, and were asked to indicate all


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

Educators who assign models that are more technical in nature report with more frequency an improvedunderstanding of materiality.

Figure 3. Breakdown of type of build-to-learn exercise assigned in type of course. Educator responses(n=32 who had administered built to learn).

that they had observed in the administration of theirbuild-to-learn exercise. As represented in Figure 4,responses indicate positive overall outcomes from thebuild-to-learn experience, with 90% of respondentsindicating an improved understanding of design solu-tions, and more than 60% indicating an improvedunderstanding of materiality and improved enthusi-asm for course material. A much smaller number ofrespondents indicated that they had observed neu-tral or negative outcomes, with only one respon-dent indicating ambivalence on the part of studentswith respect to course material, and three respon-dents identifying that their students experienced agreater likelihood of being stymied by build-to-learnprocesses, reduced enthusiasm for project, or coursematerial and inability to complete the constructioncomponent of the build-to-learn exercise.

When examining the learning outcomes more closelyin comparison with the types of build-to-learnexercises assigned, the earlier observed pattern is

reinforced. Educators who assigned models withobjectives of space, volume, and proportion report ata higher frequency improved understanding of designsolutions, while those who assign models that aremore technical in nature report with more frequencyan improved understanding of materiality.

It is interesting to note that while improved enthusi-asm for course material is an outcome indicated byall respondents, no matter the type of build-to-learnassignment, a more nuanced view of the student expe-rience is observed in open-ended comments. Onerespondent notes, “Most (not all) students seem togain confidence from learning-to-build models, justas when they learn other new techniques of repre-sentation.” Others allude to ambivalence expressedby their students, saying “students never seemedto like making the model during the process, butwere usually pleased with their finished product,”or noting that their students exhibited “initial pushback followed by an increased interest and sense of


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

While the overall experience of build-to-learn is positive for our students, the path they follow can be, inKolb’s words, a ‘tension- and conflict-filled process.’

Figure 4. Learning outcomes observed by educator respondents (N =40).

accomplishment.” In addition, faculty noted obsta-cles that created challenges for their students; in afurniture design course, an educator noted “the out-comes that were particularly challenging were of atechnical nature. The students did quite a bit ofresearch on folding methods and hardware—morethan we or they anticipated. Frustration over hav-ing to prepare a model that [was] acceptable for the3D printer … the model cannot simply ‘look’ right,it must be modeled so that the form is solid andrefined.” These comments suggest that while the over-all experience of build-to-learn is positive for our stu-dents, the path they follow can be, in Kolb’s words,a “tension- and conflict-filled process” (Kolb, 1984,p. 30).

Build-to-Learn and Design DetailingThis study posited that educators assigningbuild-to-learn projects that targeted construction,detailing, and material investigation would reportan improvement in their students’ understanding of

the connections between design intent and designdetailing. When examining the responses of thosewho assigned build-to-learn experiences in theirclassrooms to the question, “In general, do yourstudents struggle with construction detailing,” 90%responded (N=40) in the affirmative. When askedwhy they thought their students encountered thisobstacle, 83% indicated that their students did nothave enough of an understanding of materiality andconstruction; 70% indicated that students are afraidof construction detailing, and that students place toomuch emphasis on whole-view design developmentthrough perspectives, rendered views, and digitalmodeling. A much smaller number (10%) indicatedthat they do not expect their students to engagewith construction detailing, choosing to focus onholistic creative thinking first on the expectationthat students will acquire design detailing skills at alater date. One respondent suggested that strugglingwith detailing should not be perceived as a negativeoutcome, writing “I am not overly concerned whenthey struggle. Their education is far more pragmaticthan mine was.” The same respondent, however,


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

It is striking that many respondents indicate a lack of understanding of materiality and construction as anobstacle to design detailing.

commented shortly after, “Interior Design studentsdo not seem to think it is as important to understandconstruction as architecture students do, which isunfortunate.”

It is striking that so many of the respondents (83%)indicate a lack of understanding of materiality andconstruction as an obstacle to design detailing. Uponcloser investigation of the build-to-learn exercisesthat were assigned by those respondents (n= 33),36% asked their students to build a detail usingconstruction materials (6 of those also indicated thatthey had asked their students to build a creativeinstallation to explore a material’s characteristics),100% asked their students to build a model oftheir design solution, and 9% had their students gooff-campus for a build experience.

All of those who indicated that students struggledwith design detailing due to a lack of understand-ing of materiality and construction (n=36) reportedpositive outcomes from the build-to-learn experience;55% reported observing an improved understand-ing of materiality and construction among their stu-dents, and only 5% reported observing their studentsstymied by obstacles in the process or reduced enthu-siasm on the part of the students for the project orcourse.

These results suggest that there persists, despitebuild-to-learn assignments with objectives that linkbuilding to the understanding of design detailing, abarrier between students’ understanding of construc-tion and constructability. Why this is, and what kindsof build-to-learn assignments might better addressthis barrier are questions that could be pursued fur-ther from this research.

Exploring Build-to-Learn from the StudentPerspectiveA build-to-learn assignment was administered withina Construction and Materials lecture course at Mon-tana State University. The assignment, broken intotwo parts over the course of the entire semester, asked

students to identify and research two materials, a sur-face material used in the interior setting and a struc-ture material used in construction. Students presentedtheir findings at the midterm. The second half of theproject asked students to identify, either locally orthrough online research, an example of a design andconstruction detail in a completed project that repre-sented a compelling use of the material in a designedspace. A case study of the identified project allowedstudents to investigate the relationship between mate-rial, design detail, and design impact; they were alsoasked to complete a series of orthographic drawings,and to construct a scale model of the design detail,using true materials where possible (see Figure 5).

The students were then surveyed to assess their opin-ions of the learning process relative to each com-ponent of the assignment: material research, modelbuilding, case study investigation, historical research,and drawn analysis. Critical to interpreting the stu-dent responses of this study is an acknowledge-ment of the gender makeup of students in the threedesign-related fields profiled in the literature. Interiordesign programs are largely populated with femalestudents; the CIDA (2011) reported a gender bal-ance in programs accredited by the organization as8.5% male and 91.5% female as of May 15, 2011. Bycomparison, the National Architectural AccreditingBoard, Inc.’s (NAAB) 2012 Report on Accreditationin Architecture Education reports a gender balanceof 57% male and 43% female within programs thatoffer the Bachelor of Architecture, Master of Archi-tecture, and Doctor of Architecture degrees (NAAB,2012). In fact, according to NAAB, this represents ashift toward gender balance since 2008.

When examining the prospect of asking students tobuild things for their scholarly investigations, the dif-ferences in gender makeup among the design-relatededucational programs can have an effect. When askedabout their prior experiences in building things, amajority of female students in this research study indi-cated that they had little to no experience with con-struction, materials, and methods. Students also citedconcerns about having the tools, skills, and experi-ence to build the required detail study, expressing


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

Figure 5. Student investigation of structural insulated panels: (a) section detail study, (b) view of wholecompleted model, (c) axonometric study, (d) detail of build model. (e)-(g) Student model of kirei boarddesign case study (far above); documentation of model construction (above); detail of resin inlay in kireiboard model (left).


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

The analysis reveals a range of build-to-learn experiences being employed in interior design classrooms.

worry about “how I was going to construct my model,due to the fact that I was required to use power toolsthat I had never used before.”

This uncertainty is supported by educator responsesin this study: one respondent reports that 99% ofher students are female; another educator states thatwhile some students do push back at first, “It is trulysatisfying as a teacher to see a student use power toolssuch as a drill for the first time.”

Student Survey ResponsesWhen asked to rank in order of most (1) to least(5) the component of the project that taught themthe most about construction and materials, studentmedian responses indicate that students viewed mate-rials research (M= 2.00) and the construction ofthe model (M= 2.00) most of value. Drawing anal-ysis (M= 3.00) was considered moderately instruc-tive, while the identification of material and detail(M= 4.00) and historical research (M= 4.00) held thelowest value.

When prompted to add any explanation of herchoices, one student wrote, “[Building the model]taught me things I did not know from a photo—likeadjusting sizes based on material size and to be flex-ible and overcome obstacles—critical thinking notgained from drawing.” Students also communicatedthat the relationship between the deep-dive investi-gation of the material research and the constructionof the model bolstered their overall learning experi-ence. One student wrote, “doing the research taughtme about why the material was chosen and how itwas built, so figuring out how to build it [the model]was easy because of the research done.”

In an effort to understand what can stymie a student’sprogress in a build-to-learn exercise, students wereasked what component of the project they were mostconcerned about, and which component they hadbeen most eager to complete. In many instances, thetwo responses overlapped. Of the student respondents(N= 11), 64% indicated that they were most eagerto tackle the model, while 36% anticipated both

the model building and the drawing analysis. Severalresponses to the open-ended question about concernsraised uncertainty about having the skills or toolsfor the model-building process, its cost and accessto materials. As mentioned earlier, one student wrotethat she was most concerned about “how I wouldconstruct my model, due to the fact that I wasrequired to use power tools that I had never usedbefore.” Yet when asked for any final comments, thesame respondent indicated “I really enjoyed makinga model to help me understand how my materialsworked.” Figure 5a–d provides an example of astudent who approached the model building afterhaving completed a comprehensive drawn analysis;Figure 5e–g illustrates the work of a student whoapproached the model as the means of figuring out theconstruction details, then documented that processthrough images.

Several comments also indicated that peer interestand support during the development and presentationof the design details made the project that muchmore meaningful. Students were able to share theirown experiences grappling with the mechanics ofconstruction in a way that made the group coalescearound the experience of the project. In one student’swords, “Just seeing and experiencing the [others’]design models was great.”

Summary and ConclusionsThis research study asked how educators and stu-dents are engaging with build-to-learn experiences inthe interior design classroom, and whether connec-tions could be made between those experiences andstudent understanding of materiality, detailing, andconstruction. In addition to examining these ped-agogical questions, the study aimed to develop anorganized classification of build-to-learn exercisesbeing reported by interior design educators, provid-ing key characteristics and outcomes associated witheach, in an effort to offer guidance to those educatorslooking to initiate build-to-learn experiences in theirclassrooms.


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

It is striking the degree to which educators are creatively exploring how build-to-learn can help theirstudents grasp the multi-faceted challenges that make up the design process.

The analysis of educator responses, layered overtrends evident in the literature analysis, reveals arange of build-to-learn experiences being employed ininterior design classrooms:

• The Big Picture: this type of build-to-learn expe-rience is often representational and conceptual.It asks students to build a model with the inten-tion of visualizing three-dimensionality, scale, andproportion of the built environment, or a featureportion of a large project design. The model issometimes conceptual or informal, using a sim-ple material, and other times more literally rep-resentational, showing materiality and surfacetreatment. Most often employed in studio courses,the Big Picture is often an iterative experience,with students using the model as a tool through-out planning, conceptualization, design, and doc-umentation.

• How Does It Work: this type of build-to-learnexperience is also often representational, but moretechnical in nature than The Big Picture. It isintended to make the connection between designidea and construction reality, asking students tofocus on a smaller component of the design intentand to examine the reality of constructability,materiality, and sequencing. It also aims to makeconnections for the student between building themodel and drawing the design detail, often usingthe model-building exercise as a means towardilluminating the often-challenging design detailingprocess. The How Does It Work exercise is alsooften iterative, with students addressing obstaclesalong the path of their exploration.

• The Real-Scale Prototype: often reported in Fur-niture Design courses, but also evident in nar-rowly targeted design studios (Schneiderman,2012a), this type of build-to-learn experienceis related to the How Does It Work model,investigating real-scale realities in the contextof a prototype. The Real-Scale Prototype canpresent a range of challenges to the student:it has been cited as useful in understandinghuman scale and proportion relative to the builtenvironment, as well as connections, joinery, anddetail as evidenced in furniture design. This type

of build-to-learn project is still representational,in that the material of the object is predetermined(often cardboard), and it introduces the possibil-ity of design failure by making real the connectionbetween design ideation and construction to thestudent.

• Go Out and Build It: the least common ofbuild-to-learn experiences reported, the Go Outand Build It experience follows the framework ofthe experience-and-reflection model of experien-tial learning. Circumstantial in nature (availabil-ity of renovation or construction projects acces-sible in location and timing), the Go Out andBuild It experience is the most realistic of thebuild-to-learn experiences cataloged in this study;it is not representational, but truly experiential.It is interesting to note that the respondents whoasked their students to Go Out and Build Itreported having observed no negative learningoutcomes, suggesting that while this is the leastcommon of the experiences reported, it may be themost reliably successful.

It is interesting to note how this classification ofbuild-to-learn experiences differs from those outlinedby Vigild et al. (2009). The models identified by Vigildet al. describe project scenarios that are built aroundvarying parameters: in one model, students startfrom a fixed point and design toward a stated goal;in another, students work to solve a stated need in atime-limited, competitive scenario. In this engineeringstudy, the purpose of the build-to-learn experience isconsistently to embody the CDIO Initiative’s goal oftransforming knowledge into action; what differ arethe conditions, or linear parameters, of the exercise.The results of this study provide a different set ofclassifications. Each of the build-to-learn experiencemodels identified in this study differs in the settingin which it is most effectively employed, and eachhas setting-specific goals that support the learningobjectives of the project. The Big Picture and theReal-Scale Prototype, for example, are build-to-learnexperiences best suited, and most frequently reportedin the studio setting, in which students are askedto realize their design ideas in 3-dimensional form.The How Does it Work and the Go Out and Build


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

Findings identified many cases of sourcing donations from vendors suppliers, even recycling and wastecompanies to facilitate build-to-learn experiences.

It models, however, are more frequently reported incourses that emphasize materiality, construction, andtechnical knowledge, and the design of those experi-ences support those objectives directly. This flexibilityin design for targeted learning objectives characterizesthe build-to-learn models reported in this study.

While there is evidence from this study that each ofthese types of build-to-learn experiences has positiveattributes that benefit student learning, it is uncertainyet how these experiences can inform student under-standing of the relationship between design intentand construction reality. In fact, the small sample sizeof this study limits the conclusions that can be drawnbetween build-to-learn experiences and their learningoutcomes. Regardless, many in this study cite thebenefits to the hands-on learning process. Onerespondent summarizes, “Benefits outweigh obsta-cles. Pride of product is empowering. Tangible prod-ucts are gratifying. Knowledge is expanded. Effectiveapplication is observed. Our faculty are themselvesintrinsically motivated to see the physical product.Student work is valued, celebrated and displayed.”

Many respondents still note, however, that incorpo-rating build-to-learn in a form more real than rep-resentational is difficult, despite the benefit to thestudents. One writes, “Design-build of actual interi-ors (rather than scale models) is a pain to manage asa professor, but it is an important experience for thestudents if the opportunity comes around. At the endof the project, you are glad it happened, but it sure isa lot of work since the professor essentially becomesa site manager.”

It is striking the degree to which educators arecreatively exploring how build-to-learn can help theirstudents grasp the multi-faceted challenges that makeup the design process; many note sourcing donationsfrom vendors, suppliers, even recycling and wastecompanies to facilitate the build-to-learn experiencesfor their students. Representational studies, whetherthey are conceptual or technical in nature, allowstudents to experience the brain-hand connectionsas outlined by Wilson (1998) so fundamental to thelearning process. They also provide a more accessible

route to experiential learning, given limitations offunding, shop access and university support.

While the positive learning outcomes identified inthis study do support the theoretical position thathands-on action supports learning, it is less clearhow specifically build-to-learn experiences signifi-cantly improve student understanding of materiality,detailing, and construction. Educators consideringemploying build-to-learn exercises, whether theyare introducing them for the first time or revis-ing long-standing assignments, would do well toconsider carefully the relationships between coursecontext, build-to-learn assignment objectives, andlearning outcomes identified in this study. Decisionsabout whether a build-to-learn exercise is repre-sentational or real scale, in the classroom or in thefield, focused on broad concerns of human scaleor proportion, or intended to facilitate a student’sunderstanding of a specific material’s application arecritical to the success of the assignment. While it istempting to attribute positive outcomes to all formsof build-to-learn—indeed, any chance a studenthas to get her hands dirty and figure things out bybuilding is positive—a more tailored experience to aspecific learning objective appropriate for the courseor project is much more likely to have a strongeroutcome.

Further study to correlate specific learning outcomesto both real and representational projects will providefurther understanding. Evidence from this study doessupport the positive contributions of build-to-learnin interior design pedagogy, and forms an argumentthat these experiences can only challenge our studentsto grow, learn, and prepare for their transition intopractice.

References

Corser, R., & Gore, N. (2009). Insurgent architecture: An alternativeapproach to design-build. Journal of Architectural Education,62(4), 32–39.

Council for Interior Design Accreditation (2011). Survey summary:Student data. Washington, DC: Council for Interior DesignAccreditation.


BUILD-TO-LEARN

KONKEL

Dewey, John. (1938). Experience and education. New York:Macmillan.

Dowling, C. (2012a). Design thinking is in the (full scale) details.Interior Design Educators Council Conference, Baltimore, MD,March 19–22.

Dowling, C. (2012b). The hand: Kinesthetic creation and thecontemporary classroom. International Journal of Learning, 18(8),51–66.

Erdman, J., & Weddle, R. (2002). Designing/building/learning.Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), 174–179.

Gore, N. (2004). Craft and innovation: Serious play and the directexperience of the real. Journal of Architectural Education, 58(1),39–44.

Gurel, M. O. (2010). Explorations in teaching sustainable design:A studio experience in interior design/architecture. InternationalJournal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 184–199.

Hinson, D. (2007). Design as research: Learning from doing in thedesign-build studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1),23–26.

Imamoglu, C., Senyapili, B., & Demirbas, O. O. (2009).Experiencing the real-scale: Mock-up of a set design project.METU Journal for the Faculty of Architecture, 26(1),71–80.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source ofhuman development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experientiallearning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process. London,England: John Wiley.

Luescher, A. (2010). Concrete geometry: Playing with blocks.International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1),17–26.

Lynch, R., Seery, N., & Gordon, S. (2007). An evaluation of CDIOapproach to engineering education. Proceedings of theInternational Symposium for Engineering Education,13–21.

Martin, C.S. (2004, August). TV design myths. Midwest Home &Garden, 159–163.

National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc (2012). Report onaccreditation in architecture education. Washington, DC: TheNational Architecture Accrediting Board, Inc.

Reno, J. (1992). Constructing beginnings: A role for buildingtechnology in architectural design education. Journal ofArchitectural Education, 45(3), 161–170.

Schneiderman, D. (2012a). Inside prefab: The ready-made interior.New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Schneiderman, D. (2012b). Interior design without architecture:A studio exploration in prefabricating an Amtrak train interior.Interior Design Educators Council Conference, Baltimore, MD,March 19–22.

Schneiderman, D. (2013). Full-scale: Prototyping the interior. InteriorDesign Educators Council Conference, Indianapolis, IN,February 17–20.

Schneiderman, D., & Freihoefer, K. (2013). The prefabricatedinterior design studio: An exploration into history andsustainability of interior prefabrication. International Journal of Art& Design Education, 32(2), 226–242.

Spanbroek, N. (2010). Strategic teaching: Student learning throughworking the process. International Journal of Art and DesignEducation, 29(2), 111–120.

Vigild, M. E., Willumsen, L. E., Borchersen, E., Clement, K., Jensen,L. B., Kjærgaard, C., … & Sparsø, J. (2009). Comparison andclassification of design build projects in different engineeringbachelor programs. In Proceedings of the 5th International CDIOConference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore, June 7 (Vol. 10).

Waxman, L., & Clemons, S. (2007). Student perceptions:Debunking television’s portrayal of interior design. Journal ofInterior Design, 32(2), v–xi.

Wilson, F. (1998). The hand: How its use shapes the brain,language, and human culture. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Received June 26, 2013; revised February 24, 2014; accepted February 26, 2014

Margaret T. Konkel, LEED-AP is an NCIDQ-certified designer and educator who serves as the Director ofthe First-Year Seminar in the University Studies program at Montana State University where she also teachesdesign and planning studios in the Interior Design Program in the Gallatin College. Her research interestsinclude pedagogies particular to students in transition, inside and out of the design studio.


build-to-learn: an examination of pedagogical practices in interior design education

Documents