As computation and robotics become more prevalent in all aspects of architecture, their impact on education assumes greater importance (Gramazio and Kohler (2014), Fox and Kemp (2009), Brayer (2013), Braumann and Brell-Cokcan (2012), Silver (2013)). Studio pedagogy that engages computing technologies has a long scholastic history (Akin 1990, McCullough, Mitchell & Purcell 1990). Every time a new technology was introduced, there has been a spirited discussion of their impact on architectural education. With the advent of digital fabrication and robotics, there is again a need to examine or re-examine the assumptions and practices of architectural design pedagogy.

The paper presents the outcomes of a series of collaborative undergraduate/graduate architectural design studios that investigated the realms of architectural robotics and computation by stepping into the fecund intersections between multiple disciplines. Taught using a recently developed framework that focuses on self-organizing systems and the creation of innovative technology-driven design entrepreneurs rather than merely on the creation of designed artifacts, students found themselves not only innovating with new digital technologies but also bridging architecture, urbanism and computer science.

The pedagogical prototype was broadly focused on the topics of robotics and responsive architectures. The notion of robotics was interpreted to include biomorphic, mechanomorphic, polymorphic, and amorphic robots (xxxx 2014).

Consistent with the pedagogical methodology of previous iterations of the XXXX Studio, which has been widely disseminated, faculty allowed the students to explore the topics, create project proposals and form autonomous companies that were ready to be launched. A local innovation incubator, which is a non-profit entity aimed at supporting entrepreneurs, was utilized as a resource to guide the student companies toward a potential launch while aiding them in the formulation of problems which could be addressed through emerging digital technologies.

Through a system of self-organization, the studio functioned as a unique sub-institution for learning. The instructors served as intellectual venture capitalists available for the companies to collaborate and learn from each other. Students, acting as self-organizing agents were immersed with time-oriented responsibilities developing and meeting project schedules, fundraising and working within budgets, creating press releases and office advertisements and maintaining a public web presence-all in parallel with the overall task of design + research. Students were advised to raise funds through external resources wherever possible to demonstrate their proposals value and relevance to the larger society.

Through self-organizing processes, three distinct entrepreneurial units (companies) were formed with projects ranging from robotic furniture to interactive global urban installations. Each company held a unique set of goals and understanding of the place for robotics and technology within the discipline of architecture. Though the process was trying, each group developed its own unique personality, means of working and a common purpose. Although initially the gaps in knowledge and technology were high, each group found its own specialists to handle specific aspects of design, which would arrive. If a specific skill were still missing, offices would collaborate allowing for a seamless dissemination of information throughout the studio as a whole.

The pedagogical prototype has made it clear that the studio pedagogy must respond to the emerging conditions and technologies of the world, such as robotics, not just through a selection of topics, but also through a fundamental re-examination of the pedagogical model central to architectural education, the studio.

Self-Organization

In response to the need for the rapid acquisition of skills and knowledge necessary throughout the course of the semester, students self-organized and formulated a series of intense weekly skill building “events” as a means of facilitating rapid intellectual growth. Through a series of internal workshops facilitated by both students and outside experts in conjunction with external lectures, students built necessary programming, design and entrepreneurial skills. A series of debates with outside faculty then followed. These debates were utilized as a means to test the think tanks emerging theoretical frameworks and situate them within the current and future discourse of architecture.

Deutero Learning

Irrespective of the technological context, one of the aims of higher education is to enable students to learn to learn, which has been called deutero learning in systems theory literature (Bateson 1972). In the typical studio environment, students function as individuals who possess necessary skills to achieve a successful and rigorous project (figure 2a). Gaps in skills and information are then filled by the instructors. Although teaching methodologies may vary greatly within the typical studio environment, these courses can typically be categorized within one of five categories: 1. Master apprentice (figure 2a), 2. Master group (figure 2b), 3. Master group or apprentice + community partners (figure 2c), 4. Master apprentice + external network (figure 2d) and 5. The Immersive studio or “Rural Studio Model” where the community becomes the studio environment (figure 2e). Although these studio models allow for high levels of variation, the one constant is the dissemination of information from the top down.

Rather than working within a traditional master/apprentice studio environment, XXXX Studio allowed students to become peer instructors, where individual skills were shared through in-class workshops allowing for the evolution of in-house specialists. As certain skills become necessary throughout the development of office structures, robotics and fabrication, individuals would host open workshops (class and department) allowing for individual think tanks as well as the class as a whole to rapidly move forward.

If desired skills were not possessed within the class, the studio connected with individuals beyond the class in the university or the world at large to gain all necessary skills. While deutero learning is a challenging process—frustrating at times—it equipped the students with lasting learning skills.

Conclusions

As computation and robotics become more prevalent within all aspects of the architectural discourse, it is imperative that the architectural learning environment adapts to fully utilize these new methodologies of thinking.

Over the course of these studios, XXXX Studio introduced groups of students to these new tools and methods. Utilizing the recently develop framework that focused on self-organizing systems and the creation of innovative technology-driven design entrepreneurs rather than merely on the creation of designed artifacts, students found themselves not only innovating with new digital technologies but also bridging architecture, urbanism and computer science.

Although learning curves throughout the semester were high, we witnessed the formation of three unique and robust offices that were by the end, deeply engrained within the pedagogical framework or architectural robotics. Through constant struggling and reinvention, innovative processes and products were created which pushed forward the current discourse of architecture.