AAE#CONFERENCE#2013# # ######################################################################ARCHITECTUAL#DESIGN#PEDAGOGY#

Architectural Design Pedagogy: building technology, theory, history and practical

skills such as drawing or model making, it follows
Improving Student Learning that there is merit to finding out how learning
Outcomes effectiveness in taught subjects can be
maximised by extending its influence.
Rokhshid Ghaziani, Azadeh Montazami and
Frazer Bufton Coventry University
An often-tenuous connection between design
modules and taught modules can mean that
information is a lot about broad principles and
Introduction
ideas and lacks the focus of a specific
application to the students’ design project. Often
The design studio lies at the heart of
these ‘taught’ modules are delivered by
architectural education where learning through a
specialist tutors, who may differ from those
well-documented pedagogical process of
delivering studio projects and their ability to
‘learning by doing’ forms the primary student
reference specific aspects of design projects
experience. Architectural education is
may be compromised as a result. The results
necessarily imperfect. Teaching architectural
emerging from our initial module evaluations,
design means different things to different people;
feedback, student forums and personal tutor
each educator teaches according to his/her own
groups, has demonstrated that the students are
set of ideologies and beliefs and in a manner
frustrated by the poor relationship between
that is distinct from others. Concomitantly, there
taught modules and their work in studio.
is a tremendous diversity of contents, areas of
Repeatedly the criticism was not about the
emphasis, and methods of teaching in different
specific delivery or content of these modules, but
schools and even within one school (Salama,
‘how do they inform my design projects?’ and
2006).
‘how are they relevant to my work?’ This study
has endeavoured to find out how we might
improve the students’ learning experience by
strengthening the link between taught modules
At Coventry, like many schools of architecture,
and studio projects.
the design studio is the meeting point where
what is learned in all the subjects is
demonstrated. However, as a new course we
The purpose of this study is to investigate
are aware that in our efforts to establish a course
whether the Cultural Context and Construction,
which meets the requirements and criteria of not
Technology and Environment modules taught to
just the ARB and RIBA but is also a reflection of
undergraduate architecture students are
our own aspirations in the teaching of
transferred into their studio work. It also attempts
architecture there may be a disconnection
to identify how changes to the teaching and
between the teaching and learning occurring
programme can strengthen this relationship.
‘outside’ in taught modules and that which takes
Background
place within the design studio. This can result in
a failure to transfer relevant learning, skills and
The status of design education generally and the
understanding to design projects through
design studio especially, appears to have
effective discussion and feedback seeded by the
reached a critical stage at the present time and
material delivered in taught subjects. Where
many writers agree that radical changes have to
Cultural Context and Technology are taught as
occur. What can be argued is design education
part of the architecture course, the design studio
has suffered from a lack of intellectual rigour
ethos may fail to support or draw on their
which has in part been caused by the subjective
learning outcomes (and vice versa) and
knowledge and irrational creativity that have
therefore isolate, undermine or marginalise this
existed at the core of design process in the
part of the curriculum.
design studio.

If we accept that the pedagogical approach of

the design studio gives us the best opportunity
Often an emphasis on original and ‘creative’
for teaching architecture and all aspects of
designs outweighs designs which ‘work’ (serve
architectural ideas, including formal aesthetics,
functional requirements, are buildable, etc) and
AAE#CONFERENCE#2013# # ######################################################################ARCHITECTUAL#DESIGN#PEDAGOGY#

students imitate the style of fashionable (1984), who developed ideas from earlier models
architects without understanding the context of of experimental learning. In Kolb cycle (Figure
their creation, the implications for users of their 1), firstly, learners are involved fully and freely in
project or the appropriateness of their solutions new experiences (CE). Secondly, they must
for the local context in which they are placed. In have enough time to be able to reflect on
this situation less experienced students view experience from different perspective (RO).
architectural design as an opportunity to express Thirdly, learners need to form, re-form and
their inner creative urges, rather than as a process their ideas and integrate their new idea
challenge to resolve a complex set of technical and understanding into sound, logical theories
and social issues (Gross and Do, 1997). (AC). These middle two parts in the cycle can be
Architectural instruction further aggravates the strongly influenced by the feedback from others.
problem whereby in many architectural schools, Finally, moving forward, the fourth point (AE) is
teaching is divided between the design studio, using the enhanced understanding to make
where the design projects are ‘tutored’ and decision and solve problem, and test implication
lecture-based modules where the historical and and usage in new situation. It is suggested that
technical subjects are ‘taught’. learning process can be started from each points
of Kolb cycle and it depends on the tutors and
learners. This cycle should be repeated
Considering a taxonomy of educational constantly to improve the learning outcome.
objectives, Bloom's developed a classification
framework for writing educational objectives
which is certainly applicabale for architecture
education. In this classification by Bloom
developed by Anita Harrow (1972), cognitive
domain is divided to:

1. Knowledge: recognise or recall information.

2. Comprehension: demonstrate that the
student has sufficient understanding to organise
and arrange material mentally.
3. Application: a question that asks a student to
apply previously learned information to reach an
answer.
4. Analysis: higher order questions that require
students to think critically and in depth.
5. Synthesis: higher order question that asks the
student to perform original and creative thinking.
6. Evaluation: a higher level question that does Fig. 1 The Kolb Learning Cycle (Fry, 2009)
not have a single correct answer. It requires the
student to judge the merit of an idea, a solution
to a problem, or an aesthetic work. The student Like many schools of architecture, Coventry
may also be asked to offer an opinion on an University states that learning from all the
issue. subjects outside the studio should be
demonstrated in the studio, and that the studio is
the meeting point for all other input. However,
In view of bloom’s taxonomy and the nature of whilst there should be integration among lecture-
‘design’ which is a process that involves phases based modules and design studio projects to
of analytical understanding, critical thinking, and enhance understanding and design quality,
creative decision making (Salama, 2005), students themseleves often face difficulties in
architecture students should be able to apply effectively integrating and applying the
what they learn in studio for the distinct phases knowledge gained into their design.
of analysis (analytical understanding) and
synthesis (creative decision making) of their
design work. In addition, the most widespread The literature review demonstrates that the
theory of learning is called experimental relationship between Cultural Context and
learning, which is associated with David Kolb design studio has never been thoroughly studied
AAE#CONFERENCE#2013# # ######################################################################ARCHITECTUAL#DESIGN#PEDAGOGY#

before. It can also be argued that architectural stage of design synthesis due to the influence it
design and Cultural Context are treated as two will have upon the design.
distinct disciplines with an unresolved and
largely indistinct relationship. Whilst the learning
from lecturers in Technology can be obviously Methodology
reflected in studio projects, that from Cultural
Context lecturers is not so easy to identify and is This study focuses on the course objectives and
often relegated to a search for precedents, method of teaching Cultural Context, and
promting authors such as Deborah Howard to Construction Technology & Environment and in
write, ‘…the direct relevance of the taught history particular to their integration into design studio
courses to design work is not always easily from Year 1 to Year 3. Semi-structured
identified’ (Howard, 2002, p 349). Some authors interviews were carried out to gather view of 15
acknowledge difficulties in the relationship architecture students accross a range of abilities
between history and studio and describe projects in each of these year groups studying
carried out to address the perceived problem. architecture at Coventry University. The
Interviews asked questions regarding the
application of Cultural Context and Construction
Wilson and Stewart (2007) argue that history Technology and Environment modules in design
and theory is either not impacting on the studio studio. As a developing course in only its 4th
project or its impact is not recognised; its role year, the BSc (Hons) in Architecture, it is well
would be strengthened if it was seen to have an placed to consider how current practice can be
impact. However, Flora Samuel (2001) of the investigated to improve student engagement and
Welsh School of Architecture appeared to study learning outcomes in this area and ultimately
the relationship between history and studio. Her give depth and credibility to our students’ work.
paper describes a first year student assignment Overall, 50 questionnaires were collected from
as a vehicle for this assessment. The students in the three years to be analysed. The
assignment was specifically a studio questions were principally based on rating scale
assignment, based round the reading of a text. (from 1 to 5) but in addition, there were three
Samuel concludes, ‘the history lecture or open questions asking the students’ views on
seminar provides an excellent forum for the how we might improve the link between the
discussion and development of habits of criticism design studio and two lecture-based (taught)
and enquiry’ (Samuel, 2001, p 7). modules.

When looking at Construction Technology and Results and Discussion

Environment, we are continually faced with the
same question: why are architecture students Students’ perception about the tutors’ level of
having difficulty in integrating technology into delivery and tutors’ level of expectation for the
their design. According to a research integration of taught modules in design studio
collaboration carried out by the Universities of were questioned. The results show a significant
Buffalo, Utah, Florida, Oregon, and Virginia, the difference among the students’ responses
answer is because of three basic problems across the department about the level of delivery
namely; the structure of the curriculum, the of Cultural Context (ANOVA T test, n=44,
teaching methods and the instructional tools, p<0.05). About 90% of the Year 1 and Year 3
which are often borrowed from engineering students think what is delivered to them is at the
courses and do not satisfy the architecture right level and easy to understand; however only
students’ need (Vassigh, 2005). It was further less than half of year 2 students (40%) have
concluded that the teaching of a structure course similar opinion. It needs to be mentioned that
within architecture programmes faces a major around half of the students do not have any clear
problem in the delivery systems (teaching idea whether the level of expectation is high or
methods) because the architecture students low. About 38% believe it is high and only 15%
struggle with a traditional engineering-based think the level is low. This could be related to
approach to structures instruction, which is the nature of Culture and Context module, as it
increasingly unsuitable (Hyett, 2000). However, is not directly ask students to reflect anything in
the integration of structure (and construction their design module. In addition, there is not a
technology) should be considered in the initial significant difference among the students’
AAE#CONFERENCE#2013# # ######################################################################ARCHITECTUAL#DESIGN#PEDAGOGY#

responses across the department about the level In addition, there is not a significant difference
of delivery and expectation (ANOVA T test, among the students’ responses across the
n=44, n=43,P>0.05) for the Construction departmnet about having the deisgn project in
Technology and Environment module. Around relation to Construction Technology and
74% of students believe that materials are at the Environment, and Cultural Context modules
right level and easy to understand while around (ANOVA T test, n=44, P>0.05). Interestingly,
half of the students think that tutors’ expectation 63% of students believe having design exercises
is higher than what it is taught. related to their design project within Construction
Technology and Environment, and Cultural
Context modules would be beneficial for their
It can be concluded that the students cannot design project. It can be argued that having
move through taxonomy levels to reach to small design projects within the thought modules
‘application’ level. This issue may be changed by with the focus of what is learned in these taught
involvement of tutors who teach for the taught modules would develop this integration.
modules in the design studio. The students’ Therefore, the following Kolb learning cycle is
perception were also questioned regarding the suggested to integrate taught modules with the
involvement of taught tutors in design module. It design module. The outer circle shows the
needs to be mentioned that in year 1, students process of learning (according to the Kolb
have the benefit of having their Construction learning cycle) in the design studio. The inter
Technology and Environment tutors in design circle shows the taught modules. As illustrated in
studio. In year 2, students do not have this Figure 2, it is suggested that at different points,
benefit. In year 3, students do not have any the taught and design modules should be
Construction Technology and Environment integrated effectively.
module while they have the advantage of the
tutors who teach Construction Technology and
Environment in other years in design studio.

Based on the result, there is not a significant

difference among the students reponses across
the departmnet about the involvemnet of
Construction Technology and Environment tutors
in design module (ANOVA T test, n=44, P>0.05).
The result shows that 93% of year 2, 73% of
year 3 and 60% of year 1 believe the
involvemnet of Construction Technology and
Environment tutors would have benefit for design
studio. In addition, some students suggested
more interactive sessions for group tutorials or
asking questions as well as visiting real projects.
Regarding the involvement of Cultural Context Fig. 2 Suggested Kolb Cycle for Architecture Course
tutors, in year 1, students do not have the benefit When students have tutorial, tutors should have
of having these tutors in design studio while in a tutorial with cross-referencing the information
year 2 and year 3 they have this opportunity. that have been delivered in the taught modules.
The result shows that on average, more than Therefore, it would be beneficial for students that
half of the year 1 (55%) agree with the the taught module tutors can be involved in the
involvement of the Cultural Context tutors while design studio. Students also have highlighted
in year 2, 53% and in year 3 , 40% disagree. It this issue. They think tutors of taught modules
can be concluded that the benefit of such an should be familiar with the design brief, and
involvement is not notably clear. However, teach them relevant materials useful for their
among the comments, students express their design projects.
interest in learning new theories in architecture
and having lectures about how architects
develop their ideas. In addition, when students reform (improve) their
design projects, it would be beneficial for them to
do some small design exercises as part of their
AAE#CONFERENCE#2013# # ######################################################################ARCHITECTUAL#DESIGN#PEDAGOGY#

4
taught modules. The outcome could help them Howard, D. Teaching Architectural History in Great
to apply the relevant information in their design Britain and Australia: Local. Conditions and Global
and move from ‘comprehension’ and ‘knowledge’ Perspectives. Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, 61 (2002). p 346-354.
level to ‘application’ level of the bloom taxonomy
to be able to complete the analysis, synthesis 5
Hyett, P. Architectural Students Must be Properly
and evaluation phases of their design as part of Equipped to Practice. The Architectural Journal, 212
this cyclic process. (2000).

6
Salama, A. “A Process Oriented Design Pedagogy:
Conclusions KFUPM Sophomore Studio” .College of Environmental
Design King Fahd University of Petroleum and
The design studio is the core of the architectural Minerals- KFUPM - Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. CEBE
Transactions, 2 (2005). p 16-31.
education in most if not all UK schools of
architecture. Therefore, it is perhaps obvious 7
Salama, A. “Design Studio Teaching Practices:
that the studio assignments should form the
Between traditional, revolutionary, and virtual models”.
basis for the majority of the teaching and College of Environmental Design King Fahd University
learning. These projects should be taken and of Petroleum and Minerals- KFUPM - Dhahran, Saudi
cross-referenced throughout the other modules Arabia. 2006.
to enhance their relevance, understanding of
8
application and the students’ understanding of Samuel, F. “Lower Case History and the
the benefits of a holistic design approach. Development of Reflective Practice in Studio”. Paper
presented at AEE2001 (Architectural Education
Exchange Conference) 11th-12th September 2001,
The tutorial is a key teaching approach in the
Cardiff University. Available at:
design studio which has a strong and valid
http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/aee/sessions/dis2b.html, accessed
tradition in architectural education; therefore, 20 February 2013.
asking lectures who teach outside the studio to
actively participate in teaching and development 9
Vassigh, S. “Structure Learning Center Home”. 2005.
of the studio projects is recommended. Available at: www.learningstructures.org/home.asp.
Consideration should be given to firmly linking accessed 20 May 2009.
the theoretical, technological and cultural context
10
of teaching and learning with design studio Wilson, L. and Stewart, M. “Cultural Context and the
Studio: the relationship between history teaching and
projects. Finally, projects and assignments
studio learning”. Edinburgh College of Art. CEBE
should be chosen which allow students to
Transactions,
explore different contexts, cultural perspectives
and experiences, including their work and
workshops, seminars and open discussions
which can form part of the taught subject
curriculum to discuss ideas coming out of studio.

Notes

1
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education. 3rd ed. Taylor and
Francis group: London. 2009.
2
Gross, M. D. and Do, E. Y-L. “The Design Studio
Approach: Learning Architectural Design”. College of
Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.
September 8-9, 1997, Atlanta. Available at:
http://depts.washington.edu/dmgftp/publications/pdfs/e
dutech97-eyd.pdf, accessed 10 February 2013.
3
Harrow A. “Taxonomy of Education Objectives”.
1972. available at:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~tha1/bloomtax.html,
accessed 25 February 2013.