Design charrette

Utilizing the design charrette for teaching
for teaching sustainability sustainability
Jason B. Walker and Michael W. Seymour
Department of Landscape Architecture, Mississippi State University, 157
Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA
Received 30 January 2007
Revised 4 July 2007
Abstract Accepted 27 August 2007
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the design charrette as a method for teaching
Design/methodology/approach – The paper utilizes a student-based design charrette for the
Mississippi Gulf Coast comprising a framework for teaching sustainability. An assessment of the
charrette’s role in promoting sustainability in higher education was ascertained through respondents
completing pre- and post-charrette surveys.
Findings – The paper provides survey results that shed light on the effectiveness of the charrette as
an approach for teaching sustainability in higher education.
Research limitations/implications – This research indicates that a charrette framed with criteria
for teaching sustainability is viable. However, the study has limitations owing to the project’s scope
and its being a single-case sample.
Practical implications – The paper shows that actively engaging students in interdisciplinary,
service-oriented projects is of value in teaching concepts of sustainability in higher education.
Originality/value – The paper addresses the need for sustainability in higher education, focusing on
disciplines of design, by assessing the effectiveness of a well-accepted design teaching approach, the
Keywords Higher education, Sustainable development, Learning, Design
Paper type Case study

On August 29, 2005, hurricane Katrina ravaged the Mississippi Gulf Coast and its affect
on the present and future of the coastal region extends beyond the storm surge and
powerful winds in profound ways. Katrina dealt a devastating blow to the coastal
communities’ cultural identity, its economical engines, and disrupted its ecology. Like
global warming, these types of catastrophic events are overwhelming and can lead to
despair. An uncertainty on how to rebuild one’s life, how to ensure the region’s cultural
heritage and ecological vitality are serious issues that must be addressed along the
Mississippi Gulf Coast. However, amongst the chaos and disruption is opportunity.
Katrina presents an opportunity to re-vision, plan and construct a Mississippi Gulf Coast
that promotes a sustainable future. In addition, this natural disaster is an appropriate
event to teach sustainability to students while providing a valuable community service.
Orr (1992, p. 6) describes higher education’s role in teaching environmental
responsibility: International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education
[. . .] by making the institution a laboratory for the study and implementation of solutions, Vol. 9 No. 2, 2008
students learn how to analyze complex, multidisciplinary problems, how to formulate and pp. 157-169
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
compare alternatives, and how to transform institutions to fit the emerging realities of the 1467-6370
next century. Instead of despair, students and faculty learn responsible optimism. DOI 10.1108/14676370810856305

The state of Mississippi is actively addressing its Gulf Coast through the efforts of the governor’s commission on recovery. and by what approach it is integrated needs addressing. this is the impetus of the Bruntland Commission’s definition of sustainability. concerns over integrating sustainability into . Likewise. Indeed. 2005). how does sustainability engage students in design education? Boyer and Mitgang (1996) recognized the potential of studio in furthering scholarly inquiry and its applicability to non-design disciplines as a viable educational model. and research. where. 2005). meeting needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development. Clearly. but how. 1987). Research expectations at colleges and universities of higher education are on the rise for all disciplines. Numerous governmental agencies. Over the past two decades. non-profit organizations. design education must effectively 9. and evaluates the charrette’s merit as an effective pedagogical approach for fostering sustainability in 158 design education. It seems prudent that with increasing research expectations and the need for sustainability research. the Mississippi Renewal Forum began with a weeklong design charrette involving architects. design professionals grappled with understanding and solidifying their role as significant contributors to furthering a sustainable approach to design and planning. in design education there is growing concern about the effectiveness of “green” or sustainable education within design curricula (Calkins. The paper describes a student-based design charrette for the Mississippi Gulf Coast comprising a framework for teaching sustainability. and other designers from around the world to begin planning the Mississippi Gulf Coast’s future. landscape architects. including disciplines of design. The Mississippi Renewal Forum provided precedent for Mississippi State University (MSU) to hold a weeklong charrette as an educational and community service opportunity for students to engage the Katrina-affected Mississippi Gulf Coast. In 2005. While all design disciplines likely agree that scholarly activity related to sustainability is important. however.IJSHE If the design professions are to remain relevant. 2005). In October 2005. Even before the term sustainability existed as we apply it today. the design disciplines have a responsibility to advance the body of knowledge of sustainable approaches to design. the viability and sustainability of the region are in question. there is an increasing desire to protect our resources for future generations. and renewal. the question of how to teach sustainability in design education remains. the most destructive natural disaster in US history. funding. is that it is engaging the entire nation in a debate about the future of the Mississippi Gulf Coast.2 integrate sustainability into curricula’s pedagogy to address the current and emerging issues facing our society to ensure an education that espouses responsible design solutions. and universities are pursuing sustainability through policy. rebuilding. Charrette framework for teaching sustainable design Incorporating sustainable design into design curriculums’ pedagogy is an increasing trend in design education. The governor’s commission is largely responsible for orchestrating the Mississippi Renewal Forum (Barbour. As a society. The constructive side of hurricane Katrina. Metropolis’ annual education survey of practitioners and educators placed sustainability as the number one area needing extensive research by the design disciplines (Manfra.

In today’s studios. a charrette to address Seattle’s green infrastructure for the next century (Rottle. However. collaborative. with 2% saying they did not learn anything” (Sutton and Kemp. 1996). within a shortened period ranging from one day to two weeks. Recognizing the importance of sustainability in design education requires formulation of educational approaches and assessments to validate teaching and learning effectiveness. how we live. Recently. and. the term charrette is associated with developing a creative design solution. with participation from design professionals and concerned citizens forming teams to envision solutions for Seattle and the neighborhoods within each team’s watershed (Rottle. design awareness (53%). and is process-oriented. 2000). the charrettes addressed multiple-scales. is a design charrette an effective educational tool for teaching sustainability? Sutton and Kemp (2002) investigated two separate design charrettes for their usefulness in actively engaging 4-5th and 9-12th graders with design students. from the macro-scale of the city to the micro-scale of a watershed. and administered a post-charrette open-ended written questionnaire to the children to assess the charrette’s educational benefits. . The term charrette. Eagan (1992. While the design charrette is a commonly employed method in design education. and career exposure (13%). notably how we educate. 177). among others. 2006). and its prominence in design education is rooted in the L’E´cole des Beau Arts where students’ projects were collected and placed in a cart en route to final review (Sanoff. a group discussion with the design students. 2002. For example. The study used a pre-. holistic. 67) is a proponent of higher Design charrette education embracing sustainability and environmental stewardship because it: for teaching [. The two-day charrette’s solutions addressed multiple-scales. Likewise. post-charrette open-ended written questionnaire. . design professionals and community stakeholders in neighborhood placemaking. a design charrette is a sensible approach to teaching ecological and design awareness. The results of the children’s responses to the question of “What did you learn during the charrette?” revealed that the children learned “ecological awareness (32%).education are prevalent. values sense of place and local knowledge. While these examples depict the use of a charrette to engage issues of sustainability within design education. in order to respond holistically and to employ a systems approach. a Likert scale (1-5). from local to global. BC to illustrate sustainability concepts in response to increased population growth and development pressures (Condon. both of which have strong connections with teaching sustainability. Sterling (2001) and Orr (1994). These results indicate that among children. Condon (1996) and his students at the University of British Columbia utilized a charrette for the City of Surrey. its usefulness and applicability to promoting “green” or sustainable design is a much more recent phenomena. p. meaning cart in French. The results that emerged from the university students revealed six categories that included . there is a need to examine a charrette’s effectiveness as a teaching approach to enhance student learning. 2006). These types of descriptors of a sustainable education have led to design educators employing the design charrette.] makes eminent sense in schools. It is an idea with powerful implications for what we value. have written on the importance 159 of sustainable education and creating a shift towards an ecological education that is participatory. In both instances. the University of Washington spearheaded Open Space Seattle 2100. often in an intensive participatory or group format. p. and universities: places where we transmit sustainability what is important about our cultures and our world. colleges.

integrating these basic tenets as a foundation for sustainable education is paramount. Hou and Rios. design education must address multiple-scales as each sequential scale influences the other. 2000). act locally” is an appropriate analogy for teaching sustainability in design education that includes the macro. 2000). Likewise. Numerous higher education organizations are proponents of interdisciplinary collaboration among students and faculty (Buchbinder et al. These findings seem to point towards the potential educational value of a charrette in teaching sustainability if service learning.IJSHE design skills. Effectively addressing social. environmental and cultural resources of a place (Sutton and Kemp. 2005). interdisciplinary teamwork. the concept of reflection in action articulates learning and communication in the architecture studio. reflective observation – learning by reflecting..2 community practice and working with children. organization. region. 9. abstract conceptualization – learning by thinking. In Scho¨n’s (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. 2004. Sustainability requires a holistic or systems approach that addresses multiple-scales. and environmental issues are basic tenets of sustainability found throughout the literature (Cartwright. and environmental issues is beyond the scope of any single discipline. and active experimentation – learning by doing. a four-stage cyclical model comprising concrete experience – learning by experiencing. interdisciplinary and disciplinary collaboration is included. economic. and community practice (relations with/serving a community client) received 88 and 55 percent positive 160 responses respectfully (Sutton and Kemp. Roakes and Norris-Tirrell (2000) assert that . There are multiple-scales of sustainability that range from the site scale to the neighborhood. The inclusion of social.. In addition. The collaborative nature of the charrette approach makes it an appropriate method for teaching sustainability. embracing how students learn is fundamental to all educational endeavors and with the complexities the topic of sustainability presents. The value of the studio model as a viable educational approach is expanding beyond the traditional “design” studio to non-studio settings by increasing the experiential learning of students. While no designer or design project can single-handedly save the planet. and planet. Deciding how to best allocate and preserve these resources requires broad-based interdisciplinary participation. Experiential and service learnings are similar in that learning requires active construction of knowledge (Roakes and Norris-Tirrell.and micro-scales. community. as diverse perspectives are required in order to arrive at an understanding of the economic. 2003. Harris. Therefore. Therefore. there are agreeable commonalities. Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory. The MSU charrette began to address this concern by utilizing documented principles of sustainability and education theory as a framework in order to assess the charrette’s value in teaching sustainability in design education. effectively teaching sustainability in higher education requires interdisciplinary collaboration. economic. The slogan “think globally. facilitating a more inclusive learning cycle cannot be overestimated. While it seems unlikely that a universally agreed upon definition of sustainability is forthcoming. 2006). Of these categories. furthers the understanding of how learning occurs. 2003). which makes interdisciplinary collaboration essential (Brunetti et al. 2002). with interdisciplinary teamwork (reactions to working across disciplines) getting 82 and 60 percent positive responses. learning by example. learning by example (working with professionals) received 78 and 45 percent positive responses for the two charrettes.

while the participants from civil engineering and the natural sciences were graduate students. and propose solutions for the re-building effort along the Katrina-affected Mississippi Gulf Coast counties of Harrison. civil engineering. and other interested parties participated in the educational experience. the natural sciences. economy. consisting of four to eight students per team. keynote speakers. The multiple-scale analysis proved instrumental in the development of the following dilemma and thesis statements: Dilemma. the State of Mississippi lacks revenue sources to create a diverse and sustaining economy. which is essential for teaching for professional practice. art. After the destruction left by hurricane Katrina. However. In order to evaluate the design charrette’s value as a tool for sustainability teaching sustainability. In conjunction with the studio environment. faculty. and the environment into a planning and design process. business.integrating service learning in applied disciplines is appropriate because it affords Design charrette students the opportunity to broaden their conceptual knowledge and skills by developing an operational understanding that leads to competency. and professional participants included architecture. Employing these principles singularly leads to decisions that address only one faction or component used in the decision-making process. Diversifying the Gulf Coast counties by maximizing environmental. economy. the charrette incorporated the sustainability criteria outlined in this paper to serve as the underlying framework. Hancock. teams utilized macro-scale and micro-scale analysis. and the results may have adverse or unintended effects on the other principles. analyze. What is the role of the coastal counties in determining a more positive future for Mississippi? Thesis. and Jackson. The students comprised 24 teams. Each team was responsible for an individual “tile” of six square miles within the Katrina-affected coastal counties. informed the micro-scale analysis conducted in each team’s tile. The charrette focused on developing a conceptual plan for the Mississippi Gulf Coast utilizing principles of community. The majority of the work took place in design studios at the MSU landscape architecture facility. the students formed a better understanding of Mississippi’s role in the larger region of the southeast and illustrated their conclusions with a metaphoric rendition of Mississippi as a Central Park for the . 161 Charrette process Approximately. an integration of the four principles of community. The macro-scale analysis explored and analyzed factors within Mississippi and the influence from surrounding urban centers outside of Mississippi. The macro-scale analysis. economic. The landscape architecture students ranged from freshman to graduate students. landscape contracting and management. art. The interdisciplinary student. in-turn. As part of the macro-analysis. 150 MSU students and 20 faculty and professionals participated in a five-day charrette to research. begins to embrace the basic tenets of sustainability. The student participants from architecture were primarily fourth year undergraduate students. and the environment[1]. community and artistic assets will provide a more fulfilling future for residents and visitors to the State of Mississippi. invited guests. and landscape architecture. In order to develop a thorough understanding of the issues facing the coastal region.

and political leadership in the state. The students concluded that while the state of 9. and environmental issues. Evaluating the charrette process The assessment of learning in higher education is garnering much attention from politicians. both environmentally and culturally. Utilizing pertinent keynote speakers to address and further students’ understanding and thinking of economic. Utilizing a design charrette as a sustainability teaching method in design education seems to have value as an effective teaching tool. economy. While the state’s rural and underdeveloped nature creates difficulties in sustaining traditional economic engines. coastal communities. utilized existing opportunities and integrated them into a solution addressing community. While the students’ final solution generated much interest from citizens. relying on individual centered teaching in the development of design knowledge and skill. measuring over 12 feet in height and over 25 feet in length. the state is robustly resource rich. involved and interested parties with ties to the Mississippi Gulf Coast provided impassioned interest and valuable insight into the teams’ decision-making processes. Rendition of Mississippi as Central Park for the Southeastern USA . there is a need to broaden the focus from individual centered discipline based to interdisciplinary education models to address the complexity of teaching sustainability in design education. Studio instruction has its roots in the master-apprentice model. Throughout the process. environmental.IJSHE Southeastern USA (Figure 1). it simultaneously offers vast underutilized environmental and ecological opportunities for densely populated urban centers outside the state. In order to evaluate the charrette as a Figure 1. The final conceptual plan (Figure 2). interdisciplinary collaboration among team members and teams with adjoining tiles was necessary to ensure consistency. university administrators. 162 During the charrette process. and social concerns along the Mississippi coast complimented the charrette’s framework. and teaching faculty[2]. art. assessing the educational value of the charrette process as a teaching method for sustainable design required evaluation.2 Mississippi faces economic challenges. While many view this teaching methodology as a traditional strength of design education. the basic tenets of sustainability. Teams utilized an overlay approach throughout the charrette process to fuel decision making and spark dialogue.

with Pre. The survey reveals students’ perceptions of the charrette’s educational importance in their design education. Design charrette for teaching sustainability 163 Figure 2. How would you assess your 6. and an open-ended “additional comments” question to code student responses.002 understanding of economic influences in design and planning? 2.90 2 0. Evaluating the effectiveness of the charrette in teaching sustainability required an understanding of the students’ pre-charrette knowledge and post-charrette knowledge.002 was used Table I. and the overriding educational value of the charrette as a teaching method.and post-charrette surveys to assess the value of the charrette to further the students’ understanding of social and economic influences and their relation to sustainability.58 0. n ¼ 20 analysis .65 7. for decision making.05 2 0. agree.600 21. disagree. The survey questions used a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (expert). service learning. interdisciplinary collaboration. Final conceptual plan tool for teaching sustainability.and post-test data post-test scores being higher than pre-test scores.30 6. undecided. Specifically. Respondents completed pre.400 21.023 understanding of the social/cultural influences in design and planning? Notes: To control for family wise error from multiple comparisons. probability of .09 0.and Pre-test Post-test Mean Item mean mean difference t p 1. In order to assess students’ knowledge of economic and social issues. Students showed significant difference in their responses to these questions. a five-point Likert scale that included strongly agree. and strongly disagree. How would you assess your 6. the questionnaire addresses social and economic influences. students completed a survey assessing its educational effectiveness. 0. students were asked “How would you assess your understanding of economic influences in design and planning” and “How would you assess your understanding of the social/cultural influences in design and planning?” Table I shows the paired t-test analysis of pre.

with 19 of the 40 respondents indicating they had not worked on such a project during their time at the university. 95. Overwhelmingly.40 projects per respondent.5 percent positive responses. students recognize the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration as none of the survey respondents disagreed with the statement. 9.5 percent of respondents strongly agree or agree with the second question.2 which indicates student perception of educational growth in the basic tenets of sustainability. Figure 3 shows students’ survey responses vividly indicate agreement to the question of “Working with students and faculty from other university departments is important to 164 my education” and “Working with guest critics and professionals is important to my education”. if sustainability is indeed important in design education. For the first question. Recognizing the need for interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching sustainability is important. but integrating interdisciplinary collaboration into higher education is more difficult.IJSHE post-responses that show a statistically significant increase from pre. Another important component of the charrette’s framework centered on engaging the communities along the Gulf Coast through service learning.0 percent of the respondents strongly agree or agree while 97. However.5 percent undecided and no responses that disagreed. While these results indicate a strong desire for interdisciplinary collaboration. the survey also indicates the rarity of this approach. The responses revealed a mean of 1. 2. To assess the value and importance of service learning in teaching sustainability. Student responses to Working with guest critics and professionals is important to my interdisciplinary education. the students’ responded emphatically to the question “Working on real projects is important to my education” as Figure 5 shows 97. These results indicate that students regard incorporating community-related service learning opportunities as essential in their educational development. design educators must provide opportunities for design students to collaborate with the broader community within and outside of the university. . Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Figure 3. collaboration survey Working with students and faculty from other university questions departments is important to my education. Figure 4 shows students’ responses to a question that asked them to indicate the number of times they had worked on team projects (at MSU only) involving students from departments other than your own. Interdisciplinary collaboration is integral in teaching sustainable post-charrette.

while . with a mean response of 8. 0 10 20 30 40 Reveals students’ responses to incorporating Working on real projects is important to my education.4 percent of respondents strongly agree or agree that the charrette was a valuable educational experience. with a mean response 6. This illustrates that the educational experience of the charrette is of significant value for students and points to a human condition where the experience rarely live up to our anticipation. The pre-charrette responses demonstrate the anticipation of the charrette’s educational potential with 93. The following survey results deal specifically with the charrette’s educational value as a tool for teaching sustainability. Figure 6 shows pre. Similarly. Likewise.70.31. opportunities at MSU Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Figure 5. 0 Student responses that 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 indicate a lack of interdisciplinary Worked on team projects (at MSU only) involving students collaboration from departments other than your own. 20 Design charrette 18 for teaching 16 14 sustainability 12 10 8 165 6 4 2 Figure 4. Figure 7 shows that 84.and post-charrette student ratings of the charrette’s value to their educational experience using a scale of 0 (not at all valuable) to 10 (extremely valuable). 80 percent of post-charrette responses express high value between 6 and 10.75 percent of the respondents rating the educational experience high between six and ten. service learning The survey responses indicate the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and service learning in fostering educational development relating to sustainability as being valuable to their education.

It was great. I was extremely pleased with the group with which I worked. 13. At the other end of the spectrum. We worked together really well and created a synergy in that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. and perhaps is an anomaly in that the educational experience of the charrette exceeded initial expectations. It is evident in this student’s response of the educational value of the charrette and points toward a student endorsement of providing similar opportunities for design students to address and learn issues relating to sustainability.Rate the value of the charrette to your educational experience educational experience on a scale of 0 (not at all valuable) to 10 (extremely valuable). Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Figure 7. The following student comments. How students’ value the 0 5 10 15 20 25 charrette’s educational experience The charrette was a valuable educational experience for me. transcribed just as written from the survey. another student responded.IJSHE 20 9. this student’s response is a strong indicator of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration being important in addressing complex issues.3 percent disagree or strongly disagree and 2. This should be done every year”. are included to further qualify the range of educational experiences and values students expressed in response to the charrette. “after 4 years of undergraduate and 1 semester of graduate school. such as sustainability.Rate the value of the charrette to your educational experience Figure 6. A student responded by stating: This experience was so much more beneficial and enjoyable than I expected it to be. Similarly.2 15 10 5 0 166 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pre . Clearly. as . this has been the best educational experience of my career.3 percent were undecided. Students’ value of the pre- and post-charrette as an Post . on a scale of 0 (not at all valuable) to 10 (extremely valuable).

“All education is environmental education. These findings seem to substantiate Boyer and Mitgang’s (1996. economy. due to its collaborative nature and flexibility in creating an engaging educational experience has merit as a reasonable approach for teaching sustainability in higher education. The charrette. In order to address the challenges of effectively teaching sustainability in design. cultural. there is no “easy” button. students completed pre. in large part. Clearly. Orr (1994. the students responded positively and value the educational experience of the charrette. and university administrators have to be diligent in creating learning opportunities that are in “our” best interest. psychological. collaboration and service learning present enormous educational opportunities to broaden students’ perspectives and enhance their understanding of complex issues. it must engulf and resound emphatically throughout education if there is any hope of realizing a reasonable optimism for our future. environmental and economic complexities facing our common future. The study results point to a general framework for teaching sustainability that students perceive as valuable in furthering their education.indicated in the above figures. collaboration itself is difficult to incorporate in higher education due to a myriad of obstacles such as coordinating multiple faculty. and economic damages that the Mississippi Gulf Coast landscape and its residents incurred because of hurricane Katrina are overwhelming. In addition. the MSU charrette integrated a sustainability framework that included the basic tenets of environment. students. and integrated service learning to ensure a more inclusive learning cycle.and post-charrette surveys to understand the value and educational importance of the components in the sustainability framework. and society. . To assess the charrette process and its merit in teaching sustainability. p. global warming and other environmental and 167 social concerns are compelling our society to reexamine and address how to live sustainably. Nevertheless. had a holistic systems approach investigating multiple-scales. the integration of sustainability issues into design curriculums is leading design educators to use the charrette as a way to teach sustainability. Design educators often use the charrette in design education to teach students problem solving skills. 85) assertion that a more integrated design curriculum. both disciplinary and interdisciplinary “is the single most important challenge confronting architectural programs”. Although. 12) articulates education’s role simply by stating. for teaching sustainability Conclusion The physical. Effectively teaching sustainability in design and higher education presents both opportunities and obstacles.” It is evident that effectively teaching sustainability in design education is important in furthering the design disciplines ability to respond to increasing social. p. If sustainability is to occur. so faculty. waste of time”. was interdisciplinary. various student groups. Similar natural disasters. not all students found the educational experience of the Design charrette charrette to be positive as one student eloquently stated. The analysis reveals positive student perceptions of the importance of service learning and interdisciplinary collaboration. “it sucked. and community stakeholders whose time schedules rarely coincide. This study shows that. stakeholders. which compares favorably to Sutton and Kemp’s (2002) results that likewise show that students value interdisciplinary teamwork and working with a real client or community.

Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.J. (1996). 132-6. and Sawada. 15 Nos 1/2.A. . (2004). pp. Experiential Learning. (2005). 1. 77. Metropolis. Petrell. pp. References Barbour. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. A. 57 No. 1. pp. L. Vol.M. NJ. (2003). other teaching methods need 168 assessment in order to build and broaden pedagogical approaches to teaching sustainability in design education. Vol.E. “School survey 2005: research – its role in North American design education”. Likewise..J. pp. 210-7. Condon. D. E. (2005). Harris. University of British Columbia. R. Prentice-Hall. Brunetti. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 29-48. Vol. Eskow. and funding sources. J. Eagan. Boyer. Todd Johnson. Hester. Founding Partner Don Ensign and Landscape Architect Jeremiah Dumas represented Design Workshop. the inclusion of the framework for teaching sustainability is relevant and its integration into design education is important. Vol. (2000). L. B. 41-50. S. P. K. (2005). Kolb. Innovative Higher Education.L. 65-76. (2005). While this study indicates the charrette process as an appropriate tool. 24 No.M. “Campus environmental stewardship”. M.J. Vol. 1. Planning and design firm Design Workshop partnered with Mississippi State University’s Department of Landscape Architecture to lead the post-Katrina charrette. 1992 No. society. Cartwright. Forbes. G. 257-74. Vancouver.IJSHE Although. Struck. D.. “Selecting local sustainable development indicators: does consensus exist in their choice and purpose”. H. 65-78. NJ. and Taylor. most colleges and universities are re-assessing the methods and means of assessment in learning throughout higher education. Manfra. August/September..html (accessed May 2006). pp. and Rios. or seminar. Chief Design Officer. 73 No. Alt. Princeton. Hou. Carnegie Foundation. D.. effective teaching of sustainability in design education should not be limited 9. pp. New Directions for Higher Education. “Creating learning prisms with an interdisciplinary case study workshop”. Vol. 3. pp. pp. and Mitgang. (2003). Buchbinder. Englewood Cliffs. Incorporating sustainability in design education in a meaningful manner requires integration throughout every design studio. “SEEDing sustainability: team project-based learning enhances awareness of sustainability at the University of British Columbia. P.B. “Strategy use and challenges of ecological design in landscape architecture”. Vol.D. Notes 1. Calkins. 4 No. Sustainable Urban Landscapes: The Surrey Design Charrette. W. (1996). 4. Canada”. 29 No. 2. Journal of Architectural Education. (1984). 19-27. “The Mississippi renewal forum from tragedy to opportunity”. construction course. (1992). L. M. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice.. “Community-driven place making: the social practice of participatory design in the making of union point park”. M.2 to only the charrette model. available at: http://mississippirenewal. Landscape and Urban Planning. Many organizations such as the Higher Learning Commission are addressing assessment concerns in higher education as a way to justify institutions value to students. Planning Practice & Research. “Lessons for service learning in rural areas”.

38 Nos 1/2. S. presentation drawing methods and golf course design. American Journal of Community Psychology. He holds a bachelor’s degree in art from Centenary College of Louisiana and a master’s degree in landscape architecture from Louisiana State University. 11. S. “Integrating social science and design inquiry through interdisciplinary design charrettes: an approach to participatory community problem solving”. D. Island for teaching Press. Green Books. (1994). Sterling. “The problem of education”. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. 58-64. DC. D. Jason B. Wiley. Sutton.A. and Norris-Tirrell. Washington.W. (2000). pp. 22 Nos 1/2. sustainability Roakes. About the authors Jason B. Seymour is an Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at MSU where he teaches design studios. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. 125-39. and the Human Prospect.R. pp. pp.E.msstate. Our Common Future.P. (1987). (2006). Vol. Jossey Bass. Orr. Vol. pp. S. Sutton. Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change. D. Or visit our web site for further details: . NY.emeraldinsight. New Directions for Higher Education. 3-8. D. “Children as partners in neighborhood placemaking: lessons from intergenerational design charrettes”. Environment. and Kemp. 96 No. H. “Community service learning in planning education: a framework for course development”. Walker is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jwalker@lalc. Landscape Architecture. S. NY. Vol. Foxhole. He is a Registered Landscape Architect and member of the ASLA. Journal of Planning Education and Research. His research and teaching interests are in the areas of design for sustainable development. Scho¨n. a landscape architecture and land-planning firm in Stuart. S. 1992 Design charrette No. Oxford University Press. and Kemp. “Strategies for a greener future: a charrette designs Seattle’s green infrastructure for the next century”. Michael W. (2000). World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). 100-10. (2001). New York. 171-89. 20 No. Vol.L.P. issues relating to the wildland-urban interface and design education. Prior to joining the MSU Faculty.E. N. Journal of Environmental Psychology.Orr. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. CA. (1992).W. Sanoff. New York. Walker is an Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Coordinator in the Department of Landscape Architecture at MSU. pp. (2002). (2006). 169 Rottle. 77. Florida. He holds an MLA (2001) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and a BLA (1997) from MSU. Earth in Mind: On Education. San Francisco. S. he worked as the Director of the Baton Rouge Arts District and as a Project Manager for Lucido and Associates.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. .