Thesis Supervisory Panels as the New Design Studio Paradigm in UTM Master of Architecture Programme

The UTM’s M.Arch programme revitalized its Design Studio programme, also known as the Architectural Design Thesis (ADT), when it introduced the Thesis Supervisory Panel system in 2013. Developed as an expansion from the preceding 5-year B.Arch and 3+3 Integration programme, the ADT expanded the previous 2-stage final year Design Studio spanning over two semesters into four, introducing the TSP, implementing the vertical studio and allowing students to choose their own paths. The programme was developed from the Workbase system, a hands-on, master-led Design Studio approach influenced by Ecole des Beaux Arts and Bauhaus. The authors intend to tell the story of the programme and its changes throughout the years. This paper records the growth and development of the TSPs in the M.Arch programme, tracing its origin in the Workbase practiced since the 1980s with data collected from the Thesis Coordinator’s files, departmental publications and documentations and have been organized in a simple narrative. By framing the narrative on the back story of the TSPs, the paper offer better understanding on the inner workings of the UTM M.Arch studio programme and encourages improving and strengthening the established system and opens up new studies that could enrich and diversify it further.


INTRODUCTION
The Design Studio in the architecture programme of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia could trace its routes back to the early days of Sekolah Teknik in Jalan Gurney, Kuala Lumpur in 1904. Sitting at the core of architecture education, the Design Studio is integral in the training of an architect. Each school is an architecture education provider, and they are responsible of formulating their own programme, curriculum and syllabus, creating their own mold to shape and form the next generation of architects. The UTM Architecture Programme (previously known as The Department of Architecture, and in this paper will refer to as The School) embraces this and have been responsible in designing the programmes to suit the needs of the industry as well as the country as a whole.
Looking back at the history of the UTM architecture programme during the days of the Technical College, the Design Studio began with the introduction of the architecture programme in 1962 (Kosman, 2011). It went through a review in 1969 which introduced a more structured system with allocation of credit hours and courseworks. Later the curriculum was further updated when the Technical College was upgraded into Institut Teknologi Kebangsaan in 1972, and for the first time the Bachelor of Architecture degree was offered (Jabatan Senibina, 1986). It was further upgraded with a the 3+3 year integration programme, which offered a three year diploma followed by another three year degree in 1975 (Kosman, 2011). Throughout the years, the studio remained integral to the training of the architecture student, led by tutors and lecturers with their own specific approach and design agendas. The 3+3 year integration ran for 27 years before being replaced by the 5 year degree programme in 2003, which saw significant restructuring to the studios and the content of the curriculum to better suite the contemporary needs. The single Bachelor of Architecture programme was supposed to be a temporary measure, a means to standardize the UTM architecture programme with the rest of Malaysia (Jabatan Senibina, 2005).
However the programme ran for 10 years before being replaced by the 3+2 year degree and masters programme, awarding the Bachelor of Science in Architecture (B.Sc.Arch) and the Master of Architecture (M.Arch) and still currently running in UTM Johor Bahru campus. In all its iterations, the Design Studio plays a key role especially towards the end of the studies. Prospective graduates are expected to achieve specific criteria and skills in line with the stipulated Programme Educational Outcomes.
The final year was marked by a major design studio event known as the Architectural Design Thesis (ADT), celebrating the students' skills and knowledge in architecture by tackling a major design project for a year.
Initially it was handled by supervision, where each student is assigned to a lecturer to supervise him in developing his project. This relationship is not unlike the research supervision commonly practiced in graduating projects in other programmes, and both student and supervisor will work hand-in-hand to produce a formidable outcome to be presented to a panel of assessors in a viva-like assessment at the end of the semester. Later, the one-on-one supervision was replaced by the panel system in the year 2000, where likeminded lecturers would band together to form a supervision group that would guide a number of final year architecture students to develop and complete their works. This panel system is known as the Thesis Panel, and would later evolve further into the Thesis Supervisory Panel in 2013.
However, despite the records and paperworks, the progress and development behind the Thesis Supervisory Panels were not well documented. A significant amount of the ideas, intent and decisions were left unsorted over the semesters and there were little attempt to assemble them together. This paper traces back the journey of these panels and its aspirations, from its inception to its current form.

METHODOLOGY
The intent of this paper is to build a narrative that explains the process and reasonings behind the running of the Thesis Supervisory Panels currently conducted in the M.Arch programme in UTM. The authors were involved in the Architectural Design Thesis programme since 2002 and took charge of the programme together as Thesis Coordinator beginning September 2010.

Scope of Study
The narration of this paper is based on the perspective of the authors as the Thesis Coordinators, managing the programme from the 5-year B.Arch and later through the transition into the 3+2 year M.Arch programme. It will follow the evolution of the programme, detailing the rationale behind some of the changes that leads to the current programme.
This paper also discusses the reasons and causes of certain key decisions were made that has affected the development of the TSPs. Ten years of growth and development of the TSPs in the M.Arch programme will also be recorded, tracing its origin in the Workbase system practiced since the 1970s, up until the end of the 2021/2022 academic session. Data is collected from the Thesis Coordinator's files, departmental publications, course documentations and portfolio meeting reports have been organized in a simple narrative to establish the process in chronological order.

DISCUSSION
The Design Studio is both an academic system of teaching and learning, as well as a physical space where the design teaching and learning takes place (Majlis Akreditasi dan Pengajian Senibina Malaysia, 2013). The Design Studio is critical to the training of an architect as it constitutes the main pillar where all other topics or subjects are propagate around to support it (Zairul, 2018) (Mat Yasir, 2021).As it sits at the core of the architectural programme, the Design Studio became the subject of all sorts of innovative evolutions, mainly to keep up with the current industry, technological achievements as well as societal needs. Its dependence on integrative syllabus is essential to assure optimal process of learning amongst architectural students (Ibrahim & Utaberta, 2012).
Being one of the earliest school of architecture in Malaysia, UTM aspired to provide a wholesome programme in order to produce graduates who're able to be address all the needs of the industry. So writing a programme in an open ended way, allowing for flexibility in the Design Studio was crucial, at the same time minimizing the need for revisions and amendments to the curriculum. Therefore, a systematic structure was needed in order to provide the scaffold to both allow integration of peripheral courses that enriches the programme and flexibility of the Design Studio.

Design Studio Workbase
The Workbase is a teacher-centric pedagogical approach for teaching and learning in the Design Studio, first introduced to UTM in 1982 (Syed Ariffin, 2008) where the teacher (also known as Workbase Tutor or Master) will be responsible of the entire teaching and learning throughout the semester. They are given ample flexibility in determining the heading, theme, content and style of the design tasks tackled in the studio, so long as it is within the acceptable parameters set by The School (Mat Yasir, 2021).  Practically, the Workbase system splits the larger studio into smaller groups for ease of management ( Figure 2). Tutors are occasionally shared between Workbases, but most often they are allowed to run their own programmes. Lecture inputs, critique sessions and tutorials are usually run together due to the common parameters. Critique sessions occur frequently, both formal and informally, typical of any Design Studios (Zairul, 2018). The Workbase system was later utilized in the 3+3 Integration programme in 1986 (Jabatan Senibina, 1986

Studio Master
Studio Master

Students Students
Workbase Workbase within tight urban settings; Vernacular Workbase inculcates awareness of regional and heritage architecture; and Enviro Workbase focuses on practical environmental approaches in architectural design (Jabatan Senibina, 2001). This would mean two Workbases of the same level might be doing entirely different projects, building type and scale from each other. Gradually over the years, this nudges the Workbases further and further apart, creating disparity between the Workbases, as illustrated in following Table 1. Although this encourages students to develop their own unique style, it eventually became so divergent that students could hardly compare their works with their peers. It was a sudden jump from the Fundamental Unit (1st year), where everyone in the same cohort attempted similar projects of scale and size, only differing on client or site (Jabatan Senibina, 2001). To address this issue, the School introduced Unit-Workbase in 1989, a bigger group that comprises of Workbases with similar ideas or approaches (Syed Ariffin, 2008). It was an attempt to consolidate the Workbases from being too diverse from each other, which will form the basis of the Thesis Studio Units which will be discussed later in this paper.
Yet the individual nature of the Workbases apparent in the diploma programme was suddenly replaced with a tight, regimented programme when they continue for their B.Arch. At 4th year, the students went through thematic studio focusing on highrise building complex in the first semester, followed by high-density housing in the second semester. This is subsequently followed by urbanism studio at fifth year, before going into their practical training with the industry, and later rejoin for their final year.

Workbases in Architectural Design Thesis
The final year of the B.Arch programme is known as the Architectural Design Thesis (ADT) (Jabatan Senibina, 2002). It is a comprehensive programme that encompasses a wide range of aspects pertaining to architectural design from architectural theory to practical application into design. Each aspect will be analyzed and put under scrutiny during the critique sessions (Lawson, 1997) and eventually the final assessment (evaluation) at the end of the semester. It is divided into two stages, one per semester: Stage 1 (Pre-Thesis) and Stage 2 (Thesis) spanning over the final year. Prior to 1998, students were paired up with Thesis Supervisors elected from one of the school members. The Supervisors were responsible in guiding the students throughout the final two semesters (Syed Ariffin, 2008).
The Workbase system reappeared in the back into the programme with the introduction of the Thesis Panels in 1998 (Syed Ariffin, 2008). It is a a concept similar to the ones practiced in the Unit-Workbase of the lower years, but instead of one on one relationship with the Thesis Supervisors, students are grouped together under the same panel with Tutors who share similar interests.
The panels provide unique opportunities for students to pursue their own interests in architecture through the medium of a building or complex of buildings (Jabatan Senibina, 2002). Each panel has its own specialisation, expertise and individual approach which will guide the students prepare and develop their briefs, design proposals, documentations, solutions and conclusions.
This forms the basis of the Thesis Supervisory Panel and the core approach of the entire Design Studio currently being practised in the M.Arch programme, which will be discussed further in section 3.3. When the 5-year B.Arch programme was introduced to replace the 3+3 Integration in 2002, it assimilated both the Dip.Arch and B.Arch into a single degree programme. The duration of the studies was reduced to five years, where a significant restructuring of the course structures was implemented. Yet the matter of the Workbase focus remains. The 2nd and 3rd year of studies were too individualised in their own approaches and philosophies, again a creating similar situation where students became too specialised before they get to their upper years.
This calls for another review of the curriculum, conducted in 2007, to address the issue and potentially revamp how the Workbases were run. The School recognised the need for lower year students to have a common objectives that are shared amongst the Workbases, in order to have a more comparable outcomes and encourage peer-learning. The individualistic, highly unique approaches to studios should be left for the upper end of the studies in the Architectural Design Thesis. This realignment is further strengthen with the introduction of the 3+2 year programme (B.Sc.Architecture and Master of Architecture) in 2013, which saw the implementation of the revised Studio Rubric, later renamed as the Design Matrix.

Thesis Studio Units (TSU)
One of the most important question during the writing of the 3+2 programme was "What is the heading of the School?". UTM used to be a very technical-centric programme, where a large emphasis was given on the buildability, practicality, construction details and drawing conventions (Jabatan Senibina, 2001) to the point that it had become the primary characteristic that the graduates are known for up to the early 2000s. However, with the internet accessibility became more affordable and available on and near campus, students had access to wider range of references, particularly on esthetically and visually pleasing architecture. At the same time, philosophical and conceptual theoretical design approaches such as Deconstructivism or Critical Regionalism, as well as movements put forward by popular schools at the time such as The Bartlett, Architectural Association, Carnegie Mellon University and M.I.T, became convenient read, gradually creating another end on the stick.
The theoretical approaches became highly popular amongst the students at them, which saw imitative works throughout the cross-section of the school (Senibina, 2007). This was viewed favourably by many members of the school as an outcome of globalization, which was a very popular catchphrase at the turn of the century. The introduction of the 5-year programme in 2002, combined with the rapid digitalization of the architectural programme, created a dilemma where the traditional technical-centric approach was rapidly falling out of favour amongst the members of the School. And this created a conflict as all design studio documentations at the time still have strong technical requirements written, such as the Studio Rubric (Senibina, 2007). Initially the School regarded the 5-year programme as a short term implementation to align with other architectural programmes in Malaysia. However, the 5-year programme ran for about 10 years before being replaced, amplifying the confusion on the identity of the programme.

Workbases in the M.Arch 72 Credit Programme
A series of curriculum review workshops held between 2010 to 2011 design and develop the replacement for the 5-year B.Arch programme. Amongst others it seeked to remedy the issue by establishing a clear heading of The UTM Architectural Programme. One of the steps taken is to relook at how the Design Studios were run and to create a more reasonable learning curve to bridge between the B.Sc.Arch degree and the subsequent M.Arch degree. The School resolved to create a series of studios with a diversity of specialized focus at the upper end of the architectural studies (the 5th year), as well as celebrate the assortment of members of the School as well.This gave birth to the Thesis Studio Units, formed based on the shared topics of expertise or areas of interests amongst the faculty members. The Thesis Studio Units inherited elements from the previous 3rd year and 4th year studios, rearranged into three semesters: qualification. The structure of the TSUs and the TSPs contained within it is illustrated in Figure 4 below. During the establishment of the Thesis Studio Unit, it was understood that the three themes will form the core pillars of the UTM Architectural Programme, therefore forming the basis of its identity. This is inline with the Design Studio focus illustrated in Figure 3 earlier. The Architectural Design Thesis still maintains the two-stage format inherited from the 3+3 Integration programme, but then 1st stage expanded into three semesters ( Figure 5). This effectively occupies the two years of the M.Arch studios. Then each Thesis Supervisory Unit is assigned to one of the 1st stages, with the course names and themes as illustrated in Table 3 below. Although it did achieve that outcome to a certain extent, it also caused the programme to be viewed unfavourably heavy when compared to other M.Arch programmes.

Upgrading into the M.Arch 60 Credit Programme
Another curriculum review was held 2018 with the objective of reducing the number of credits from 72 to 60, in-line with other architectural programmes offered in Malaysia. The School took this opportunity to further refine the M.Arch programme by restructuring some of the courses ( Figure 6). The Stage 1 Design Studio course (Design Pre-Thesis) originally 9 credits is split into two smaller courses: The pre-thesis studio course (carrying 6 credits) and the companion subject course (3 credits).
The companion subjects requisitioned components that used to be a part of the Design Pre-Thesis studio: i.
Manuscript Writing (report, journal article) ii. Seminar (group studies and presentation) iii. Generic Skills Development (activities) Series of thematic lecture inputs that used to be a part of the Design Pre-Thesis studio are now offered in this companion subject to allow more studio time to be dedicated at design development. At the same time, it also introduced a new component that was previously assessed as Course Learning Outcome (CLO) 3 in the Design Pre-Thesis Studio into an assignment called the Argument Board, to be assessed integratively at the end of the semester.
As illustrated in Figure 6, the companion subjects now fell under the jurisdiction of the Cultural Context and Technology and Environment subject clusters. The subjects were given names reflecting their specific area of focus, and this became the defining characteristics of a particular Design Pre-Thesis studio when taken together. The companion subjects provide flexibility in running the masters studios as an additional layer of complexity for students to explore and develop their ideas on. The focus on topics need not to be embedded in the studio outline itself, allowing for future changes to address new issues or topics.

Thesis Supervisory Panels
In essence, the TSP is expanded from Workbase system used in the lower year studios, housed within one of the Thesis Studio Units. It is the smallest group in the studio with a maximum of ten students per panel. Since the beginning of the M.Arch programme, it has inherited ten Thesis Supervisory Panels from the older Bachelor of Architecture programme, and ten new ones were formed especially for M.Arch. Details of the panel names can be found in Table 4 below: Inherited Panels New Panels HOME, Vector (previously Gen-X), Regionalism, Urban, New Spirit, Environmental, EnviroTectonic (previously Fundamentalism), Reform, Paramatrix (previously X-Factor) and Technovation.
It is critical to note that the these panels are the embodiment of what the members of the School aspire to explore, based on their own field of expertise or area of interests. The three Thesis Studio Units provide a larger sandbox to play in, but it isn't explicitly limited to it. It provides freedom for students to explore their own interests in architecture through the project of their choice (Syed Ariffin, 2008). Similarly with the Workbase, a TSP is led by a Tutor called the Head of Panel appointed by the School. In addition to that, a TSP is also made of least two other Internal Panel Members, consisting of academicians, professional architects or experts. The three-member panel started in 1998 when the number of students in the sixth year of the 3+3 programme became large enough that the one-onone supervision previously used became cumbersome, particularly during the final year assessment (Syed Ariffin, 2008). Grouping the members of the School together encourages cross-learning between the students as well as promoting them to get second or third opinion during the development of the thesis. This format was maintained since then, with panel members being shuffled every now and then to keep the group dynamics fresh and challenging. New panels can be formed based on configuration of expertise in the School at the time, aspiration towards new or alternative topic Although some TSPs are firmly embedded under its respective units, it does not limit the lecturers from transitioning to a different unit, even if the unit is outside their field of expertise. It is quite often that a TSP would consist of members from different backgrounds. For example, under the New Spirit panel (Figure 7), Dr. Sharifah Salwa is an expert in urban design and Space Syntax; Dr. Muhammad Faizal on interior design; while Dr. Lim Yaik Wah is an environmental design expert.
Combined, they would enrich the students with a plethora of ideas and perspectives, more in-line with what is commonly practiced in the industry. As Head of New Spirit, Dr. Sharifah is still incharge of the project, brief and heading of the TSP, and the panel members are always encourage to engage the students in discussions and conversations about their works to stretch their horizons rather than being too focused in one particular idea. The following diagram is the M.Arch Architectural Design Thesis teaching staff composition, with two TSPs making up a Thesis Studio Unit, accompanied by a companion subject for each unit (Program Senibina, 2022a).

Formation of Thesis Supervisory Panels (TSP)
Supervising and scrutinizing through the students works meticulously four to five times a semester became more taxing to the lecturers as problems became more complex, deeper issues to tackle, and solutions subjected to a barrage of tests and experiments. Students are also required to present their works covering the objectives, studies and theoretical framework on top of the design project. This is critical in order to demonstrate understanding of a complete scheme from ideation to execution (Tafahomi, 2021). As the school aspires to expand its size, more panels need to be opened to accommodate larger student population. Following the maximum allowable lecturer-student ratio of 1: Despite allowing each TSP to flourish in its own field of expertise, this requirement limits the ability for the UTM Architecture Programme to expand rapidly, as The School would have to ensure it has sufficient man-power in order to run the programme accordingly. Each semester, the Thesis Coordinator with the M.Arch Programme Coordinator would decide on the number of panels to offer, taking into consideration the aspects mentioned earlier. Candidates for Head of Panels along with Internal Panel Members within a TSU would be suggested to the Programme Director, whom will be incharge to appoint them to form the TSP.

Swapping and Closing down of Thesis Supervisory Panels
Keeping up with the dynamics of the School, the TSP line-up is often changed to allow experts with different interests, experience and ideas to take up the mantle as head of a TSP. Handling a group of masters students who are more mature and often already exposed to some industry experience opens up possibilities of handling deeper, more complex and more challenging subjects. Therefore it offers a mutually beneficial relationship between the student and the lecturer, as well as the School and the University as a whole. A common example is for the Head of Panel to engage the students in his or her research or projects, such as New Spirit panel with Dewan  TSP can also be suspended or closed down for various reasons or needs. Typically, the number of available TSP is determined by the contemporary enrolement of pre-thesis students, where bigger student population warrants new panels to be opened while smaller population would suspend one or two panels. Since the beginning of M.Arch, the smallest number of operating TSP was four. This happened in 2019 and continued for three semesters due to the reduction of teaching staff where the retiring members were not replaced quickly enough by newer members. This effectively reduces the size of the student population in order to keep the staff:student ratio within the LAM's stipulated numbers.
Although this measure was meant to be temporary, but it was followed by the COVID-19 pandemic that saw schools closed as a precautionary measure. The student numbers remained low (under 50 students) for the next 18 months. In a proactive measure to keep the diversity of the M.Arch panels open, some panels are kept open at half capacity. Keeping them open allows more lecturers to be involved at the post-graduate studio levels, which was particularly important when cross-exposure of the younger lecturers are needed before more senior members leave the School.
Throughout the years, three long-term TSP have closed indefinitely: HOME, SoCult, Urban (Urban I, Urban II and Urban United) and Enviro-Tectonic. As discussed earlier in this paper, the TSPs are a manifestation of the undergraduate studio workbases, and are in essence led by the individual lecturers. Some TSPs are so intertwined with the lecturer incharge that the entire aspiration and movement inspired by the panel ends when the lecturer left the School.

CONCLUSION
As initially outlined earlier, this paper provides a narrative on the Thesis Supervisory Panels in UTM's Architectural Design Thesis programme. The Design Thesis used to be just the final major design exercise before the students graduate undertaken during the final year of B.Arch, but it has evolved into a complex, manifesto driven exploratory studies centered around the students' own interests. Their accumulated knowledge, skills and abilities will be tested to ensure they fulfill the requirements of LAM's Graduate Attribute.
Keeping track of the growth and development of the TSPs is critical for the future of the school, as the School ventures deeper into various niche areas. After all, the School has experienced a situation when Workbases became too individualized that the students felt lost and too different from each other. This paper amongst others would highlight the heading of the School from the perspective of the Architectural Design Thesis.
Finally, it is hoped that this paper would provide an understanding of what goes on behind the programme, particularly with regards of the Thesis Supervisory Panels. The uniqueness of the programme has been acknowledged by the visiting External Examiners as well as Accreditation Panels from MAPS Malaysia, and the School strives to maintain and further expand it in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors sincerely acknowledge Architecture Programme of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for allowing access to data and information relevant for the production of this paper.