A case study of built environment education theory in the U.S.

Abstract

Today more and more Japanese architects and architecture students tend to value hands-on learning in Built Environment Education (BEE) for children and youth. This movement is for nurturing public awareness of architecture. It is also for caring the diversity of social roles of architects and the diversity of career choices of architecture students. To provide theoretical aspects of BEE into the practical movement, this case study investigated an American BEE curriculum named "Architecture and Children" and its background, through related papers, the curriculum itself and the interview with the curriculum author, Anne P. Taylor, Ph.D. The "Architecture and Children" curriculum was introduced to Japan in 1990. It was widely spread among many architects and educators, because of its introduction with the Core Poster showing the concrete set of practices and its flexibility to correspond with classes in Japanese schools. Analyzing the curriculum and some concepts installed in it by Taylor from art, architecture, pedagogy, cognitive science and environmental ethics, this study organized philosophies of Taylor's learning environment design and architectural design education into 4 areas: Relationalism, Habitability Framework (Whole Learner), Multiple Intelligences and Deep Ecology. Especially, Habitability Framework (Whole Learner) considering human factors and effects of physical environment on learning was brought as her original idea when she started her career with architectural education. Through the investigation of philosophy and pedagogy of applied learning, she found the relationship between learning environment and learning process. Taylor clearly introduced Relationalism, Habitability Framework (Whole Learner) and Multiple Intelligences into the organizing system of the curriculum. Through that system she set concepts, skills and architectural context to be learned in each lesson. She let children work as architects in their classroom to solve the 'real' problem of the 'real' clients with their skills. She also used her skill of visual communication to show the relationships between her curriculum and the national education curriculum. However, Deep Ecology was not so much mentioned in the curriculum itself. Then the interview with Taylor was conducted to investigate her research background deeply. In her early work in 1960-70s she was influenced by land artists in the U.S. At that time environmental issues were severely claimed in the country. Educators emphasized environmental education to deal with environmental issues and to introduce it into the basic education as a tool of integrated studies. Many artists and art pedagogues also contributed to this social movement, and Taylor was one of such art pedagogues as well. As she pointed out in her interview, Taylor got influenced by land artists such as Robert Smithson. They took holistic approach toward environmental issues, including the built, natural and cultural environment. The common point was found out between land artists and 'the grandmas of environment education in the U.S.' including Taylor. The point was that they sifted their social roles by taking environment into their works as a new subject. They found the problem in classical art and some kinds of contemporary art which were consumed easily in economic societies. Land artists and art pedagogues including Taylor absorbed a lesson from environmental issues and created the new field of art, architectural design and education. Through that insight, she redefined her profession considering architectural education and developed the new form of interdisciplinary art education. If its educational aspect for her was taken into account, she was the person concerned (Tojisha) of the educational process she made. Here in Japan a lot of BEE practices are conducted, however, not so much curricula with concrete theories and philosophies are found. It is the prime task to enhance transdisciplinary researches on BEE to introduce its academic value into architectural science. It is important for civic and child education, but also important for architects as educators, because they can be learners in the educational process they make. Through that process, they can redefine their professions and create the new field of architecture.