Architecture Program Report Master of Architecture - Roger Williams ...

Workload Expectations
We believe that one of the most important elements of a positive studio experience is for all participants to
have fair and reasonable workload expectations for, during and outside of scheduled studio time. This
not only allows for a well-directed and managed sense of timing for the investigation and production of the
studio projects, but also provides students with a sense of direction and optimism regarding the timely
completion of their projects. For this, instructors produce clear syllabi which state major and minor project
requirements, and which are organized through the semester in a systematic and coherent way. The
syllabus as a ―contract of expectations‖ serves as the guiding principle for expectations that, in turn,
provide students and faculty with adequate benchmarks and grading structures. Faculty are encouraged
to establish due dates to allow for rest before reviews and to share due dates with faculty teaching
concurrent non-studio courses. Through this, all participants are aware of requirements in studio and
other courses while being encouraged to excel and reach their highest potentials.
Design Studio Review Processes – Multiple Review formats allow for the creation of community,
knowledge and career networks
Design Studio review processes are an essential element of studio culture, and include a continuum of
interactions between student peers, faculty, practitioners and community members. Reviews are
simultaneously a means of assessing student work and an opportunity to facilitate the discussion of
greater issues and relationships such as those between theory and practice; designer and user;
education and profession. Reviews may be conducted in a variety of formats, and are to be conducted in
a manner that reflects our studio culture and our commitment to professionalism. These include:
Peer Review
The traditional ―Jury‖ review, where a panel of critics composed of faculty, practicing architects,
community participants, and others have work presented to them by students or teams of
students, which are then constructively commented on by the assembled panel
An Interview + Roundtable Review, engaging many practitioners, students and faculty for
individual one-on-one presentations and explanations, followed by inclusive group discussions of
issues raised;
A kind of Research or Design Principles Studio review, focusing on principles/knowledge
emerging from design project development, where the principles are the product emphasized as
the outcome of the studio, rather than the uniqueness of each student’s work
Community Partnership Presentations to government and not-for-profit groups
A ―Macro‖ Review format, where government leaders, and professionals from engineering,
business, education and other pursuits participate in exploring architectural design as one
component with which pressing problems of a regional or even global nature are addressed
Both students and faculty are expected to arrive on time and stay engaged as active participants
throughout the review process. Student must arrive prepared for the presentation of their work and be
prepared to discuss both their work and the work of others in the studio. Before a review, instructors are
responsible for informing invited outside reviewers about the expectations that were communicated to the
students for the project to be reviewed, and the expectation that reviews will reflect the school’s
commitment to a culture of respect, engagement and professionalism.