Long-Term Experience of Teaching Life Cycle Assessment and Circular Design to Future Architects: A Learning by Doing Approach in a Design Studio Setting
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Backdrop
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment and Its Relevance to Environment-Oriented Architecture Design Decision Making
2.2. Circular Economy Concepts and Goals
2.3. LCA Teaching in Higher Education Institutions
3. Method
3.1. UNICAMP’s Sustainable Architecture and Construction (SAC) Course
3.2. Action Research Framework
- What are the minimum and sufficient theoretical contents for the transmission of the necessary basis for the development of the exercises and the semester project (to free the maximum space for application in the development of the project and its evaluation)?
- What are adequate workloads and teaching-learning dynamics to raise awareness and provide training in life cycle modelling compatible with architecture and urbanism students and with application to buildings?
- How to balance formative and summative assessments to ensure apprehension of concepts and development of expected competences? What focus should such assessments have?
- How to awaken the perception and stimulate the dynamics between performance estimation and feedback into design development decision-making process?
- Are lecture contents and (intensive) formats adequate and sufficient to support development of a semester design project?
- What is the best balance between complexity and comprehensiveness of modelling for the semester project?
- Would a preliminary presentation assist in identifying critical issues, problem understanding, and modelling deviations; strengths, difficulties, and misinterpretations, and opportunities for project improvement, ensuring it is effectively informed by environmental performance results and refined accordingly?
- (Given the restrictions imposed during the pandemic) would the original course design and, particularly, the theoretical content suit well a flipped classroom/remote format?
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. AR Cycles 2017–18: Consolidation of LCA as a Major Learning Outcome
4.1.1. Problem Identification (Stage 1)
4.1.2. Development (Stage 2) and Implementation (Stage 3) of Action Plan
4.1.3. Observation (Stage 4) and Reflection (Stage 5)
4.2. AR Cycles 2019–20: Insertion and Consolidation of Circular Design as a Learning Outcome
4.2.1. Problem Identification (Stage 1)
4.2.2. Development (Stage 2) and Implementation (Stage 3) of Action Plan
- Reflect on the product’s constitution: What materials is it made of, how is it packaged and how does it get into the hands of the consumer? How is the life cycle of each part… are there toxic substances involved or risks posed to their recovery?
- Widen their gaze beyond the end users to also consider the wider network of stakeholders: How do they influence each other?
- Examine material flows: Where do they come from and where do they go after use?
- Find opportunities to redesign this system.
- Eliminate environmental burdens through design;
- Keep products and materials in use; and
- Regenerate natural systems.
- The function of surveillance support should be preserved, with the possibility of adding new functions such as bike rack and sheltered space, living and interaction area, waiting for vans, among others;
- The usable area was free, as long as it fitted in the available external space;
- Compliance with circular design requirements should be indicated by the share of closed material cycles among the total materials used; and
- Environmental performance should be demonstrated through LCAs undertaken for a preliminary design brief (baseline), and during design reviews until reaching the final proposition.
- Mapping of the system of interest (influence diagram, see e.g., Figure 6), highlighting the system boundary and opportunities for circularity; the forces that may prevent adherence to CE; how new opportunities would make the system more circular; and who would benefit from this. As it is an exploratory process, some iterations might be necessary and used in the workshops, but only the final version would be delivered, handmade or by free choice software, in the desired visual language.
- Synthesis of the reflection on the circular opportunities explored. Initiated by formulating the most critical question for system change, specific and action-oriented, that could lead to a better system design: “If you could ask one question to make your project more circular, what would it be?” This would be the very design challenge to address. Where would you like other people to keep their attention?
- Estimated life cycle impacts and circularity indicators, demonstrating how they influenced project improvement (spreadsheet and corresponding analysis).
- ‘Design Magic’ conveyed by the proposition, demonstrating a high-level architectural synthesis outcome, and high degree of creative confidence.
5. Discussion
5.1. Course Structure
5.2. Alignment of Learning Outcomes and Competencies with International Practice and Recommendations
5.3. Improving Learning Evidence
5.4. Automated Online Tool to Foster Integrated LCA and Circularity Assessment in Design Process
6. Conclusions
- Non-LCA expert undergraduate students can successfully apply the analysis during the design development with compatible—but not excessive—additional effort if equipped with adequate tools;
- Blindly applying LCA calculators has limited learning retention. Basic LCA qualification and practice in small exercises are needed—and effective—for awareness raising and holistically understanding design implications;
- Formative assessment elements play an undisputable role in ensuring a fruitful and dialogical teaching-learning experience, particularly the intermediate design hand-in followed by immediate instructors’ feedback before final design submittal; and
- Design quality results from multiple factors. Though flawed initial ideas would tend to carry those failures up to the end, improved environmental performance was clearly demonstrated by all teams;
- An optimal balance between theoretical exposition and application seems to have been found to effectively support achievement of the established learning outcomes; and
- LCA learning outcomes were quasi-satisfactorily balanced with design learning objectives and should be further explored in future course editions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
RQ1 [“What are the minimum and sufficient theoretical contents for the transmission of the necessary basis for the development of the exercises and the semester project?”] | Do you think that the theoretical contents are sufficient to provide the abilities required for environmental assessment over design development? | ||||||
Totally agree 8/32 (25%) | Mostly agree 20/32 (62.5%) | Agree 4/32 (12.5%) | Neutral | Disagree | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think that the theoretical contents are sufficient to provide the abilities required for circularity assessment over design development? | |||||||
Totally agree | Mostly agree 22/32 (68.75%) | Agree 10/32 (31.25%) | Neutral | Disagree | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Are the lectures content sufficient and (intensive) format adequate to support development of the semester project? | |||||||
Totally agree 30/32 (93.75%) | Mostly agree 2/32 (6.25%) | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? |
RQ2 [“What are the most adequate workloads and teaching-learning dynamics to raise awareness and provide training in life cycle modelling compatible with architecture and urbanism students and with application to buildings?”] | Do you think the overall teaching/learning/evaluation strategy used ensures that the design outcome is effectively informed and refined based on environmental performance results? | ||||||
Totally agree 2/32 (6.25%) | Mostly agree 10/32 (31.25%) | Agree 8/32 (25%) | Neutral 8/32 (25%) | Disagree 4/32 (12.5%) | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think the teaching-learning dynamics used effectively raised awareness and provided the needed training? | |||||||
Totally agree 2/32 (6.25%) | Mostly agree 10/32 (31.25%) | Agree 8/32 (25%) | Neutral 8/32 (25%) | Disagree 4/32 (12.5%) | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think the workload for this course is compatible with the credits sum and timely positioned in your academic trajectory? | |||||||
Totally agree | Mostly agree 4/32 (12.5%) | Agree 8/32 (18.75%) | Neutral 6/32 (15%) | Disagree 10/32 (31.25%) | Mostly disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | Totally disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think the exercises enabled to satisfactorily carry out the semester project? | |||||||
Totally agree 30/32 (93.75%) | Mostly agree 2/32 (6.25%) | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? |
RQ3 [“How to awake the perception and stimulate the dynamics between performance estimation and feedback into design development decision-making process?”] | Do you think the evaluation strategy (formative + summative assessments) used adequately reveals knowledge retention and evolution, and skills acquirement over the course? | ||||||
Totally agree 12/32 (37.5%) | Mostly agree 10/32 (31.25%) | Agree 8/32 (25%) | Neutral | Disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think the evaluation strategy (formative + summative assessments) used focuses on the important knowledge elements and abilities? | |||||||
Totally agree 30/32 (93.75%) | Mostly agree 2/32 (6.25%) | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think that complexity and comprehensiveness of the environmental (e.g. simulation, LCA) modelling are compatible with the semester project scope? | |||||||
Totally agree 8/32 (25%) | Mostly agree 12/32 (37.5%) | Agree 8/32 (25%) | Neutral | Disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | Mostly disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think that complexity and comprehensiveness of the LCA modelling are compatible with architectural design studio practice? | |||||||
Totally agree | Mostly agree 8/32 (25%) | Agree 4/32 (12.5%) | Neutral 12/32 (37.5%) | Disagree 4/32 (12.5%) | Mostly disagree 4/32 (12.5%) | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? |
RQ 4a [How to awake the perception and stimulate the dynamics between performance estimation and feedback into design development decision-making process?] and RQ4b [Potential for active learning methods”] | Do you think that an interim proposal presentation could improve final design quality (e.g., by assisting in identifying critical issues, difficulties and misinterpretations, and opportunities for project improvement?) | ||||||
Totally agree 32/32 (100%) | Mostly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Mostly disagree | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? | |||||||
Do you think that active learning methods (e.g., flipped classroom) suit well the initial topics and ensured effective integration of the learning objectives (LCA and circularity assessment) into the design process? | |||||||
Totally agree 8/32 (25%) | Mostly agree 12/32 (37.5%) | Agree 8/32 (25%) | Neutral - | Disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | Mostly disagree 2/32 (6.25%) | Totally disagree | |
If you disagree at any level, would you please explain the reasons? If you agree at any level, could you please indicate the course highlights? In any case, could you please suggest opportunity for improvement? |
References
- Cosme, N.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Molin, C.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Laurent, A. Learning-by-doing: Experience from 20 years of teaching LCA to future engineers. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 553–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zara, O.O.C.; Guimarães, G.D.L.; Sotta, D.D.L.; Sotta, R.D.; Silva, M.G.; Gomes, V. Neighbourhood life cycle assessments’ sensitivity to modelling approach. In Ecocity World Summit 2022/SASBE 2022; Proceedings TU Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2022; Available online: https://ecocity-summit.com/ (accessed on 2 April 2022).
- Laurent, A.; Olsen, S.I.; Fantke, P.; Andersson, P.H. Active Learning in Sustainability Teaching. In Proceedings of the ETALEE Conference, Exploring Teaching for Active Learning in Engineering Education, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark, 11–12 November 2015; pp. 77–78. [Google Scholar]
- Loiseau, E.; Junqua, G.; Roux, P.; Bellon-Maurel, V. Environmental assessment of a territory: An overview of existing tools and methods. J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 112, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Igos, E.; Benetto, E.; Meyer, R.; Baustert, P.; Othoniel, B. How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 794–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahel, W.R. The Circular Economy: A User’s Guide; English Edition; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Benyus, J.M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature; Morrow: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Hawken, P.; Lovins, A.B.; Lovins, L.H. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution; Little, Brown and Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Mcdonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1st ed.; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Lifset, R.; Graedel, T.E. Industrial ecology: Goals and definitions. In A Handbook of Industrial Ecology; Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2002; p. 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graedel, T.E.; Allenby, B.R. Industrial ecology. In Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Stahel, W.R. The Performance Economy, 2nd ed.; Palgrave-MacMillan: London, UK, 2010; p. 350. ISBN 978-0-230-58466-2. [Google Scholar]
- Pauli, G. The blue economy: 10 years, 100 innovations, 100 million jobs. In A Report to the Club of Rome; Paradigm Publications: Boulder, CO, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Viere, T.; Amor, B.; Berger, N.; Fanous, R.D.; Arduin, R.H.; Keller, R.; Laurent, A.; Loubet, P.; Strothmann, P.; Weyand, S.; et al. Teaching life cycle assessment in higher education. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 511–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wandl, A.; Balz, V.; Qu, L.; Furlan, C.; Arciniegas, G.; Hackauf, U. The Circular Economy Concept in Design Education: Enhancing Understanding and Innovation by Means of Situated Learning. Urban Plan. 2019, 4, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, V. De elefantes a borboletas: Ensinando responsabilidade de projeto para sustentabilidade. In Limiaridade: Processos E Práticas Em Arquitetura E Urbanismo; Silva, C.P.C., Tenório, G.S., Fuentes, M.D.C.A., Valva, M.A., Almeida, P.P.P., Bicalho, P.S.S., Trevisan, R., Eds.; CRV: Curitiba, Brazil, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 63–82. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes, V.; Saade, M.R.M.; Lima, B.W.F.; Silva, M.G. Exploring lifecycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of a case study with ambitious energy compensation goals in a cooling-dominated climate. Energy Build. 2018, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vilches, A.; Garcia-Martinez, A.; Sanchez-Montañes, B. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy Build. 2017, 135, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, S.; Passer, A.; Zelezna, J.; Birgisdottir, H.; Lützkendorf, T.; Mistretta, M.; Oka, T.; Chae, C.; Wiberg, A.H.; Malmqvist, T.; et al. Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building Construction (Annex 57). 2016. Available online: www.annex57.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Summary-Report.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Birgisdottir, H.; Moncaster, A.; Wiberg, A.H.; Chae, C.; Yokoyama, K.; Balouktsi, M.; Seo, S.; Oka, T.; Lutzkendorf, T.; Malmqvist, T. IEA EBC Annex 57 evaluation of embodied energy and CO2eq for building construction. Energy Build. 2017, 154, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew Sust. Energy Rev. 2013, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lützkendorf, T.; Balouktsi, M. Part 1: Basics for the Assessment of Embodied Energy and Embodied GHG Emissions. In Guideline for Design Professionals and Consultants; International Energy Agency Energy in Buildings and Communities (IEA EBC) Programme: Birmingham, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 14040: 2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization—ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- European Committee for Standardisation (Cen). Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method; EN 15978; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hollberg, A.; Genova, G.; Habert, G. Valuation of BIM-based LCA results for building design. Autom. Constr. 2020, 109, 102972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasvaux, S.; Gantner, J. Towards a new generation of building LCA tools adapted to the building design process and to the user needs? In Proceedings of the SB13 Graz Conference on Construction Products and Technologies, Graz, Austria, 25–28 September 2013; pp. 406–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabalza Bribián, I.; Aranda Usón, A.; Scarpellini, S. Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 2510–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollberg, A.; Ruth, J. LCA in architectural design—A parametric approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 943–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wittstock, B.; Albrecht, S.; Makishi Colodel, C.; Lindner, J.P.; Hauser, G.; Sedlbauer, K. Buildings from a life cycle perspective—Life cycle assessment in the building sector. In Gebäude Aus Lebenszyklusperspektive—Ökobilanzen Im Bauwesen; Fraunhofer-Institut für Bauphysik-IBP: Stuttgart, Germany, 2009; Volume 31, pp. 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, F.B.; Cleto, F.R.; Diestelkamp, E.D.; Yoshida, O.S.; Oliveira, L.A.; Saade, M.R.M.; Silva, V.G.; Moraga, G.L.; Passuello, A.C.B.; Silva, M.G.; et al. Life Cycle Inventories of Cement, Concrete and Related Industries-Brazil; Ecoinvent Association: Zürich, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A. Critical review of BIM-based LCA method to buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 136, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rock, M.; Hollberg, A.; Habert, G.; Passer, A. LCA and BIM: Visualization of environmental potentials in building construction at early design stages. Build. Environ. 2018, 140, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, V.; Barros, N.N.; Ruschel, R.C. Building Information Modelling for Whole-Building LCA: BIM4LCA. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 290, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, F.; Bulle, C.; Lesage, P. Integrating building information modeling and life cycle assessment in the early and detailed building design stages. Build. Environ. 2019, 153, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hollberg, A.; Ebert, M.; Schütz, S.; Cicek, B.; Gumpp, R.; Ruth, J. Application of a parametric LCA tool in students’ design projects. In International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment SBE16 Hamburg: Strategies—Stakeholders—Success Factors; SBE16 Hamburg: Hamburg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Circular Economy Systems Diagram (“Buterfly Diagram”). Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Universal Circular Economy Policy Goals: Enabling the Transition to Scale. 2021. Available online: Shorturl.at/knrJY (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Gomes, V.; Valdivia, S.E.O.; Pulgrossi, L.M.; Gomes Da Silva, M. Measuring circularity from buildings to neighbourhoods. In Proceedings of the Central Europe towards Sustainable Building (CESB) conference 2022, Prague, Czech Republic, 4–6 July 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Circularity Indicators: An Approach to Measuring Circularity—Methodology. 2019. Available online: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circularity-indicators/ (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Verberne, J.J.H.; Building Circularity Indicators—An Approach for Measuring Circularity of a Building. Eindhoven University of Technology. 2016. Available online: https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/46934924/846733-1.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Van Vliet, M. Disassembling the Steps Towards Building Circularity. Master’s Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2018. Available online: Shorturl.at/eEFGT (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Cottafava, D.; Ritzen, M. Circularity indicator for residentials buildings: Addressing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Schaik, C.W. Circular Building Foundations: A Structural Exploration of the Possibilities for Making Building Foundations Contribute to a Circular Economy. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2019. Available online: Shorturl.at/moFM7 (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Antonini, E.; Boeri, A.; Lauria, M.; Giglio, F. Reversibility and durability as potential indicators for circular building technologies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utrilla, P.N.C.; Górecki, J.; Maqueira, J.M. Simulation-based management of construction companies under the circular economy concept-Case study. Buildings 2020, 10, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission). Level(s), Putting Whole Life Carbon into Practice; The Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/284030 (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Burnley, S.; Wagland, S.; Longhurst, P. Using life cycle assessment in environmental engineering education. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2019, 4, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sriraman, V.; Torres, A.; Ortiz, A.M. Teaching sustainable engineering and industrial ecology using a hybrid problem-project based learning approach. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 34, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
- Gilmore, K.R. Teaching life cycle assessment in environmental engineering: A disinfection case study for students. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1706–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.I.; Fantke, P.; Laurent, A.; Birkved, M.; Bey, N.; Hauschild, M.Z. Sustainability and LCA in Engineering Education—A Course Curriculum. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roure, B.; Anand, C.; Bisaillon, V.; Amor, B. Systematic curriculum integration of sustainable development using life cycle approaches: The case of the Civil Engineering Department at the Université de Sherbrooke. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Favi, C.; Marconi, M.; Germani, M. Teaching eco-design by using LCA analysis of company’s product portfolio: The case study of an Italian manufacturing firm. Procedia CIRP. 2019, 80, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of edu- cational goals. In Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain; David McKay: New York, NY, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl, D.R.; Airasian, P.W.; Cruikshank, K.A.; Mayer, R.E.; Pintrich, P.R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M.C. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Longman: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Swann, C. Action research and the practice of design. Des. Issues. 2002, 18, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eigbeonan, A.B. Sustainability and creativity methods: Agents of change in teaching the arch- design studio. Int. J. Archit. Urban Dev. 2015, 5, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
- Danko, S. Humanizing design through narrative inquiry. J. Inter. Des. 2006, 31, 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snodgrass, A.; Coyne, R. Interpretation in Architecture: Design as Way of Thinking; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domenica Iulo, L.; Gorby, C.; Poerschke, U.; Nickolas Kalisperis, L.; Woollen, M. Environmentally conscious design—Educating future architects. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2013, 14, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K.; Bianchi, G.; DE Paiva, V.T. Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2010, 20, 453–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eigbeonan, A.B. Creativity methods in teaching the arch-design studio. Dimensi. J. Archit. Built Environ. 2013, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K.; Silva, V.G.; Neves, L.; Deliberador, M.S.; Coletto, G.M.; Zara, O.O.D.C.; Victorio, E.R. Action research and architectural sustainable design education: A case study in Brazil. In International Journal of Technology and Design Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brookfield, S.D.; Preskill, S. Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms, 2nd ed.; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Altrichter, H.; Posch, P.; Somekh, B. Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to Action Research across the Professions, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Zuber-Skerritt, O. Action Research in Higher Education: Examples and Reflections. 1992. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED351928 (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Kember, D.; Kelly, M. Improving Teaching Through Action Research. 1993. Available online: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Improving-Teaching-Through-Action-Research/dp/0908557221 (accessed on 3 April 2022).
- Adamson, L.S. Action Research: A Protocol to Improve Student Learning. New Horiz. Learn. 2010, 8, 266–290. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, L.F. (Ed.) Higher Education for Sustainability; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products; EN 15804 + A1; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cooperative Circle Economy. Circularity Gap Report 2020; Amsterdam. 2020, p. 69. Available online: Shorturl.at/tuyEQ (accessed on 3 April 2022).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gomes, V.; da Silva, M.G.; Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K. Long-Term Experience of Teaching Life Cycle Assessment and Circular Design to Future Architects: A Learning by Doing Approach in a Design Studio Setting. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127355
Gomes V, da Silva MG, Kowaltowski DCCK. Long-Term Experience of Teaching Life Cycle Assessment and Circular Design to Future Architects: A Learning by Doing Approach in a Design Studio Setting. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127355
Chicago/Turabian StyleGomes, Vanessa, Maristela Gomes da Silva, and Doris Catharine Cornelie Knatz Kowaltowski. 2022. "Long-Term Experience of Teaching Life Cycle Assessment and Circular Design to Future Architects: A Learning by Doing Approach in a Design Studio Setting" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127355