The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm

IJSHE
4,2 Introducing sustainability into
the architecture curriculum in
100
the United States
James Wright
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
Keywords Higher education, Sustainability, Architecture, Curriculum
Abstract A brief review of the five collateral organizations that influence architectural education
in the USA and their priorities indicate they may have reached the point of recognizing that
sustainability is a core issue of architecture. To reflect this recognition, sustainability will need to be
integrated into the architecture curriculum. The question is now one of how to achieve integration.
Differing approaches to introducing sustainability into an architectural program are proposed and
examined. They range from assuming sustainability already permeates the curriculum by its
nature and therefore is integrated, expanding the existing courses concerning environmental
systems, and revising the entire curriculum to fully integrate into each subject. To assist in the task
of integration, criteria are proposed. The task of integrating sustainability is not to be understated,
but if architectural education and practice is to focus beyond state and national levels a global
responsibility will need to be assumed.

This paper is organized into three parts. The first part introduces the
stakeholders in architectural education in the USA and examines their common
ground concerning sustainability and architectural education. The second part
examines various approaches to introducing sustainability into the architecture
curriculum. The third indicates criteria to be utilized in integrating sustainability
into architecture curriculum, educational programs, and practice.

The stakeholders in architectural education

There are five national architectural organizations that play varying roles in
architectural education in the USA. These include the National Architectural
Accrediting Board (NAAB), National Council of Architectural Registration
Boards (NCARB), Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), the
American Institute of Architects (AIA), and American Institute of Architecture
Students (AIAS). These five organizations act as a collateral to provide guidance
to the professional degree programs of architecture. In so doing they bridge the
gap between the education of architecture and the practice of architecture.
The NAAB is the sole agency authorized to provide national accreditation to
professional degree programs in architecture in the USA. The NAAB
International Journal of Sustainability
accreditation states programs are to produce graduates who: . . . are able to
in Higher Education solve architectural design problems, including the integration of technical
Vol. 4 No. 2, 2003
pp. 100-105 systems and health and safety requirements; and comprehend architects roles
q MCB UP Limited
1467-6370
and responsibilities in society (NAAB, 1998). The process of accreditation
DOI 10.1108/14676370310467131 requires that students of the program possess skills and knowledge defined by a
set of performance criteria (NAAB, 1998). This is an extremely important role as Introducing
38 of the 55 jurisdictions granting professional licenses in the 50 states, District sustainability
of Columbia, and territories of the USA require an architectural degree accredited
by the NAAB as the minimum education standard to become an architect.
The NCARB represents the architectural licensing boards. The council
governs the process that provides the standardized architectural registration
examination recognized by the licensing boards in the USA. This organization 101
also has a critical indirect role in architectural education as the council develops
and recommends standards for architectural licensing and regulating practice.
The mission of NCARB is to work together as a council of member boards to
safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the public (NCARB, 2000). The
services provided by NCARB include a process for certifying to the member
boards that an individual has met uniform qualifications for licensing, thus
implementing a method of reciprocity between jurisdictions for individual
architects. This process refers to the NCARB Education Standard for
clarification on architectural education requirements (NCARB, 2000). The
NCARB Education Standard and the NAAB performance criteria then are the
two principal documents directly effecting architectural education in the USA.
The remaining three organizations, the Association of Collegate Schools of
Architecture (ACSA), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and the
American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS), play a key advisory role to
the first two organizations. They can also have a role through the American
political process, as the licensing of professionals is a state controlled function
governed by the legislative process. ACSA represents the architectural educators
whose mission is to advance architectural education. The mission statement of
the ACSA concludes with the phrase in order to enhance the quality of life in a
global society (ACSA, 2000). The AIA is the largest organization representing
architects in the USA with over 70,000 members. The AIA has standing
committees on education and on the environment and takes an active role in the
guidance of architectural education. The AIAS represents many of the students
enrolled in the architectural programs in the USA. These three organizations act
in close harmony as they are built on the relationships between faculty, students
and practicing architects.
In 1987, the five organizations approached The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching to provide an independent study of professional
education and practice. This study began in 1993 and was published in 1996 in
a special report, Building Community: A New Future For Architecture
Education and Practice. The report has been widely supported by the five
organizations and their members. There are a number of key recommendations
concerning sustainability, the most important of which is:
Architects and architecture educators assume a leadership role in preserving the environment
and the planets resources. It is this priority, we are convinced, that could have the most far-
reaching implications about the way schools, and the profession itself, conduct themselves in
the next century (Boyer and Mitgang, 1996).
IJSHE Since the completion of this comprehensive study, each of the five
4,2 organizations has in varying degrees embraced this priority. It may be
possible to state that the architectural community has reached the point of
recognizing that sustainable design is a core issue of architectural education.
There remains the question of how to achieve integration of sustainability into
the fabric of the architecture curriculum.
102
Approaches to introducing sustainable design into the architecture
curriculum
To examine how to achieve integration of sustainability into the architecture
curriculum, it may be useful to develop different approaches for comparison.
These approaches include the assumption that sustainability already
permeates the curriculum by its nature, expansion of the existing courses
concerning environmental systems, and the revision of the entire curriculum to
fully integrate the subject.
The first approach to introducing sustainable design into the curriculum is
based on the belief that sustainable design is so fundamental that is it simply a
part of all we do in architecture and therefore must permeate all the curriculum
by its very nature. Furthermore, all courses simply begin with the assumption
that the affinity of architecture with the natural processes is historically based,
theoretically critical, and a technically inventive way to (re) inform design
(Wheelwright, 2000). This approach then is silent on the subject of sustainable
design as an aspect of the program. It assumes the subject is in all aspects of
the normal course work. The advantage to this approach is it supports the
premise that sustainable design is so fundamental to architecture that it should
not be necessary to address the subject outside of the normal theory and
practice. The question remains, however, that if all of the faculty at a program
do not fully comprehend the complexity of sustainability, is it possible to
integrate the subject into the total curriculum without actual enhancement of
the curriculum and the course material. This approach assumes that the faculty
will act of their own accord and introduce sustainability into all aspects of their
area of teaching emphasis. This may be too great an assumption to make.
The second approach develops out of the existing courses concerning
environmental control systems (ECS). These courses normally present the
technical knowledge that is required to develop an understanding of the
building elements, which pertain to the modification of the microclimate for
purposes of human use and comfort (NCARB, 2000). Faculty specialized in the
technical aspects of this subject often present these courses. This approach
then assumes that the overall curriculum remains largely unchanged and the
importance of the ECS subjects and environmental topics in related courses are
increased. The curriculum must have depth and choice beyond introductory
courses in environmental controls (Fraker, 2000). The increased importance of
ECS subjects will need to carry over into a number of courses including the
design studio. The advantage of this approach is that the faculty who have an
understanding of the technical aspects of the subject material are central to the Introducing
introduction of sustainability into other areas of the program. This condition sustainability
does have the limitation that it then remains the responsibility of a very few to
carry the subject into the core of the program. It may also be the case that these
faculty may not be in a position to fully integrate the subject into the design
studio as in many cases they are not the individuals guiding the design theory
in the program. Further, this approach may emphasize the technical aspects of 103
sustainable design with the possibility of understating the need to place the
issues in a larger context within the program.
The third approach to introducing sustainable design into a program is to
fully integrate the subject into all the course work and state it in the curriculum.
This requires that the complete curriculum be reviewed and revised to
introduce sustainability. The advantage to this approach is that it includes the
entire faculty in the subject of sustainability and ensures the integration of the
subject into all the course work, including the design studio. This approach
reinforces sustainable design in the program by the commitment of the entire
faculty. As the approach does require a commitment of all the faculty to the
exploration of the subject and requires a complete revision of the curriculum,
there must be present in the program a very strong desire to achieve
integration. This degree of willful action without effective leadership or
influencing outside factors may be difficult to achieve.

Criteria for ensuring the integration of sustainability in architecture

curriculum
Based on a better understanding of the stakeholders in architectural education
and on differing approaches to the introduction of sustainability into the
architecture curriculum, a set of criteria can be proposed to assist in the process
of integration. This part is then presented as an itemized listing of possible
criteria for use in achieving integration in an architectural program:
.
An appropriate way to understand sustainability is as a social construct
(Guy and Farmer, 2001). To understand the issues of sustainable design
requires a sense of connection, the ability to understand social
engagement and to communicate effectively. The community is the
first place to acquire a sense of connection. The skills of social
engagement should be an integrated activity of the program.
.
The curriculum must promote connection by providing the opportunity to
seek elective, liberal subjects and to participate in community life. The
global community is engaged through language. The curriculum should
encourage the study of languages and cultures and promote travel and
study abroad.
.
The age of specialization has developed isolation. The need to interact
with other disciplines is paramount in our teaching, research, and
IJSHE practice. Sustainability is an activity of the collective, underlined with the
4,2 need for cooperation and teamwork.
.
History and design theory courses should reinforce the environmental
and cultural contexts and the interrelationships of how humans use the
land and resources. Rather than construct objects, the producers of
104 regenerative architecture will participate in the construction of integrated
cultural and ecological processes (Moore, 2001).
.
Technology courses should begin by focusing on natural systems of
solar, wind, water, and geothermal. These renewal energy forces should
be assumed as convention and fossil fuel technologies . . . studied as
historical technologies (Wheelwright, 2000).
.
There must be a deep commitment to how buildings work. This must
engage the material, physical and biological sciences which inform these
processes . . . The issues of how buildings work, how they interact with
their environment, have to find a place in the studio. There needs to be
times in a students education where these issues are explored as part of
their form-making inspiration (Fraker, 2000).
.
The principles of thermal transfer, daylighting for illumination, and air
movement should be introduced in the beginning design studio and the
activities of the studio taken out into the campus and the community
(Wright, 2001).
.
Sustainability must be placed in the core of the design studio. The nature
of the studio and sustainable design is one of connection. The activities
and projects of the studio should emphasize the context at a community,
regional, and global level. The studio should be accompanied by
required seminars and readings in both the social and natural sciences to
support the design intent (Wheelwright, 2000).
.
The complete curriculum should be reviewed and revised to fully embrace
the construct of sustainable design in a language that is both clear and
concise. The entire faculty should participate in this process to ensure that
sustainability is integrated into all levels of course work (Wright, 2000).
.
There must be serious on-going research on how buildings work,
including masters and PhD students (Fraker, 2000). Faculty research
should address the issues of sustainability in each of their related fields of
study in context with normal architectural endeavor.
.
The NAAB should fully integrate sustainability into the process of
accreditation by requiring that students of the program possess skills and
knowledge defined by a set of performance criteria modified to
incorporate sustainability.
 .
The NCARB standardized architectural registration examination should Introducing
incorporate an understanding of the issues of sustainability in the body of sustainability
knowledge required by the examination.
Although this list is by no means comprehensive, it is offered as a starting point
for discussion. The process of completing a full review and revision of an
architecture curriculum is not to be understated, but if we do not proceed with this 105
task the question has sustainable design remained a largely marginalized activity
in the schools? (of architecture in the USA) will be unanswered (Fraker, 2000).

Conclusion
The organizations supporting and guiding architecture education in the USA
should collectively move toward a much greater integration of sustainability in
its pedagogy and practice. The direction of architectural education and practice
should be reevaluated to ensure that the focus embraces a global responsibility.
The integration of sustainability into architectural education programs in the
USA should be a willful act carried out at all levels of the program by the entire
faculty. The task of integrating sustainability is one of reaching out, of
engagement, of creating in graduates an awareness and ability to act.

References
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (2000), Mission statement, ACSA News, ACSA,
Washington, DC.
Boyer, E. and Mitgang, L. (1996), Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education
and Practice, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ,
p. 43.
Fraker, H. (2000), Is sustainable design still marginalized in the schools?, ACSA News, Vol. 30
No. 5.
Guy, S. and Farmer, G. (2001), Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: the place of technology,
Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 54, p. 140.
Moore, S. (2001), Technology and Place: Sustainable Architecture and the Blueprint Farm,
University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, p. 199.
National Architectural Accrediting Board (1998), 1998 Guide to Student Performance Criteria,
National Architectural Accrediting Board, Washington, DC.
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (2000), NCARB Education Standard,
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Mission Statement, Washington,
DC.
Wheelwright, P. (2000), Text and lumps: thoughts on science and sustainability, ACSA News,
Vol. 30, No. 6.
Wright, J. (2000), The introduction of sustainable design into the curriculum of the architectural
studies program, SIUC, Human, Earth, Culture: Summary of World Congress on
Environmental Design for the New Millennium, World Congress on Environmental
Design, Seoul, Korea.
Wright, J. (2001), The introduction of sustainable design into the beginning students design
curriculum, Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on the Beginning Design
Student, San Juan, Puerto Rico,