is there a place for 'traditional teaching' techniques within today's architecture...

8/6/2019 Is there a place for 'traditional teaching' techniques within today's architecture schools?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/is-there-a-place-for-traditional-teaching-techniques-within-todays 1/68



1

Abstract

This dissertation seeks to analyse the existence of ‘traditional teaching’

approaches within the context of twenty-first century UK architecturalpedagogy. It will achieve this analysis through three different elements- a

historical, a contemporary, and a current student analysis.

An extensive literature review, encompassing both psychological theory

and physical education models, forms the first element of analysis on

traditional teaching methods. A survey of current architecture students

forms the second element of this analysis.

Following this analysis, this writing then hopes to understand whether

traditional teaching approaches might hold a permanent residence within

architectural curriculum in the future.

This dissertation project was completed as part of the BA (Hons)

Architecture and Planning.

All of the writing is my own, and where the work of others has been used,

the original source has been referenced.



2

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those individuals who have

helped me soldier through this long, but extremely rewarding, project,and enabled me to complete this piece of writing to the best of my ability.

In particularly, thanks go out to my dissertation tutor James Burch for the

time and effort he has put into our meetings, maintaining good

communication and marking my (often poorly written) draft work. I

hope this piece of work reflects your efforts.

I would also like to thank my house mates Andrew and Benjamin, as well

as my girlfriend Caroline, for their support throughout this project.



3

Contents

List of Illustrations pg. 5

Introduction pg. 6

Definition of ‘Traditional Teaching’ pg. 9

Historical ContextHistorical ContextHistorical ContextHistorical Context

- Wrens Royal Works pg. 10

- Pupillage and Early Professionalisation pg. 10

- The Arts and Crafts Resistance pg. 11

- Ecole des Beaux Arts Model pg. 13

Beaux Arts in Britain pg. 14

- Functionalism pg. 15

- The Bauhaus pg. 16

‘Vorkurs’ pg. 16

- The Modernist Paradigm pg. 17

The Oxford Conference pg. 18

The ‘Official System’ pg. 18

Modernist Influence Today pg. 19

Craftsmanship Today Craftsmanship Today Craftsmanship Today Craftsmanship Today

- Contemporary Psychological Theory pg. 21

‘The Hand Hits Back’ pg. 21

The Craft of the Glassblower pg. 22

The Pot and the Hand pg. 23

Ancient Letter Carving pg. 23

A Return to Ruskin pg. 24



4

Building in the Studio pg. 25

Oxford Conference 2008 pg. 27

The Unwritten Assumption pg. 28

INTBAU Training Model pg. 28

- Contemporary Educational Models pg. 30

The ‘Pupillage/Apprenticeship’ Model pg. 30

The ‘Degree Laboratory’ Model pg. 31

The ‘Hooke Park’ Model pg. 32The ‘Rural Studio’ Model pg. 33

- RIBA Control Over Curriculum pg. 36

Student Voices on CraftsmanshStudent Voices on CraftsmanshStudent Voices on CraftsmanshStudent Voices on Craftsmanshipipipip

- Student Survey pg. 38

- Survey Results pg. 38

Course Content pg. 39

Curriculum pg. 43

Process of Design pg. 44

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion pg. 47

References pg. 52

Bibliography pg. 62

Appendix

List of Illustrations



5

Figure 1.1. Bauhaus Curriculum. (Naylor: 1985. The Bauhaus Reassessed .)

Figure 3.1. Survey Results Q2.



Figure 3.4. Curriculum Analysis Results.

Figure 3.5. Overall Results.

Figure 3.6. Survey Results (Experience of workshops).

Figure 3.7. Group or Individual? Results.

Figure 3.8. Group or Individual? Most beneficial? Results.



6

Introduction

‘… architects do not make buildings, they draw them …’

Callicott & Sheil (2000)

The ‘unwritten assumption’ asserted by Callicott and Sheil (Callicott and

Sheil 2000 p72) above, crudely describes the root from which this enquiry

into traditional teaching approaches within architectural pedagogy stems.

In recent years, an increasing awareness of the need for change withinarchitectural education has become more and more evident, based -

primarily on the complex gap that exists between academia and practice

(Nicol and Pilling 2000 p 6). The emphasis on theoretical teaching within

architectural curriculum and a resulting lack of technical knowledge,

understanding and skills amongst students forms a significant element of

this gap and has gained particular attention in recent years through voices

within both architectural academia and practice (Nicol and Pilling 2000 p 6).

As a reaction to this perceived gap, we will be discussing the changing

presence of traditional teaching within architectural curriculum, and the

learning advantages it brings to students. Both theoretical and physical

examples of such approaches, as well the views and preferences of those

students who experience theoretical learning approaches first hand, will

aid us with our discussion. Such exploration may then allow us to

understand better the ways in which traditional teaching might bridge

this gap and regain a long term position with the teaching of architectural

curriculum. We can then begin to analyse ways in which it might form a

common teaching platform that addresses and repairs other elements of

the ever present chasm, that appears to fragment the industry as a whole.



7

Methodology

There will be three aspects to this study of traditional teaching within

architectural pedagogy, consisting of a historical analysis, a contemporary

analysis, and a student analysis.

The ‘historical analysis’ element is fundamentally a chronological

recollection of craft’s existence within architectural pedagogy over the past

300 years, as well as the influence past movements, trends and educational

systems have had on the state of today’s architecture schools. It will form

the first element of the literature review, and has drawn content from an

extensive range of books, ensuring the writing remains accurate.

The ‘contemporary analysis’ element forms the second element of the

literature review, and focuses on the current intellectual ideas and theories,

as well as realised models of architectural pedagogy, that support the

approach we are considering. We will also examine the RIBA’s current

control over architectural curriculum, as well as the content of the currentcriteria which is used to guide and validate schools of architecture.

This analysis will enable us to gauge the value that is placed on such

approaches both within, and outside of architecture, so we can begin to

consider if it does indeed have a place within architectural pedagogy.

The ‘student analysis’ will be undertaken through a survey which aims to

question current architecture students, at various universities across the UK,on the existence of traditional approaches to learning present on their

course. It will also aim to understand the personal experiences of different

learning approaches the students have used while studying, as well as their

feelings on the introduction of traditional approaches in the future.

The survey aims to attain an understanding of the existence of

traditional approaches in UK architectural curriculum as a whole, and

where necessary, a secondary research method that examines university

curricula has also been adopted.



8

The final element of this piece of writing will examine the information that

has been collected for both the ‘contemporary analysis’ and the ‘student

analysis’, and consider the arguments for and potential barriers against, the

introduction of traditional approaches to future architectural pedagogy.

This section will also identify from the discussed models for

education, one model that would be most suitable for current architectural

academia, and then consider how it might help to bridge or repair the

perceived skills and knowledge gap between academia and practice, if this is

at all the right thing to do.

Within this piece of writing, it is important to note that various

terms, which hold the same meaning, have been used interchangeably.

These include ‘traditional teaching’, ‘craftsmanship’, ‘crafts-based’,

‘hands-on’, ‘empirical’, and ‘workshop-based’ learning.



9

Definition of ‘Traditional Teaching’

It is first important that we clearly define ‘traditional teaching’ within an

architectural context. When discussing ‘traditional teaching’, we will be

seeking to understand an apprenticeship-style method of architectural

training, grounded in craftsmanship, and providing student experience

through contact with building crafts, materials and construction processes

(Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16).

It is also important to understand the historical route that

‘traditional teaching’ has taken within architectural pedagogy to reach its

current state.



10

Historical Context

Wren’s Royal Works

Prior to the introduction of educational institutions for architecture, the

traditional craft apprenticeship had been one of the primary entry routes

into the field of architecture. Within the apprenticeship, knowledge was

passed down from masters to apprentices, and involved rigorous training

in masonry, bricklaying or carpentry- a process within which the

craftsman gained design skills empirically 1 (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p18).

Such craft-apprenticeship methods first existed within teaching in the 17th

century at the architectural institution known as the Royal Works, under

its surveyor-general Sir Christopher Wren.

The Royal Works offered a quasi-medieval form of training, in an

apprenticeship form similar to that above, with experience taking place in

an architect’s office, as well as on the building site. This training allowed

students to work practically with and in the presence of the building

crafts (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16). The architects training at this

institution allowed movement across the various crafts and out of them,

as opposed to a traditional craft apprenticeship which focused on one

trade (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16).

The delegation of duties that was seen at the Royal Works, being

that from the master to his apprentice, became the basis for the training

system of pupillage (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p22).

Pupillage and Early Professionalisation

Craft apprenticeships became a far less popular entry route into the field

of architecture following the introduction of Pupillage (Earle: 1989 p85-6).

Pupillage was a form of training introduced in the 18th century, and was

an alternative route into the profession of architecture at that time (Crinson

and Lubbock p22). Initially it was very similar to that of the craft

apprenticeship, with the two routes being differentiated only by the fact

1. DefinitionDefinitionDefinitionDefinition- empirical -derived from or guided by

experience or experiment.



11

that while the pupil paid for his education, the apprentice exchanged his

labour for his instruction (Earle: 1989 p85-6).

Traditionally, it was common for apprentices from a variety of

classes and backgrounds to enter into a craft-apprenticeship under a

master craftsman or architect. However, the rising popularity of pupillage,

as a result of the industry’s professionalisation, and the requirement for

payment in return for education, led to a difference in status with more

of the professions recruits now coming from the middle classes (Saint: 1983

p57), and a variety of classes and backgrounds undertaking apprenticeships

(Crinson and Lubbock p24).

Initially, this teaching system evolved informally in architects

offices, however, it was soon coupled with attendance to an academy for

lectures and drawing lessons, as well as foreign travel- a route which came

to dominate entry into the profession by 1800 (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994

p26 ).

The emergence of this common route helps to illustrate the

transition that occurred in architectural training at this time. The

transition in turn led to the professionalisation of architectural education

through the setting up of the first schools of architecture, namely the

University College of London in 1826, which changed architectural

pedagogy routes from a building lodge style of training into a more

academic, theory based training (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p38).

The Arts and Crafts Resistance

‘No one can be an architect who is not a metaphysician …’

John Ruskin (St John Wilson 2000)

In the quote above, Ruskin clearly expresses his dismay over the deep

division and contradiction that was occurring in early 19

th

century architecture, namely between the arts and the science and economics of



12

building, seen primarily as a result of the industrial revolution (St John

Wilson 2000).

In 1834, the push towards professionalisation, seen so far through the

introduction of universities, was further supported by the establishment

of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)- an institution whose

objectives at the time aimed at advancing architecture and promoting the

‘acquirement of the knowledge of the arts and science connected

therewith’ (RIBA: 2003 p5).

Significant resistance against this professionalisation of architecture

and the ignorance of the crafts was formed through the precursors-

namely A.W.N Pugin and J. Ruskin- of the late 19 th century artistic

movement known as Arts and Crafts (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p50-53 ). The

ideas of these individuals were aimed towards the rebirth of architecture

that ‘lives in detail’ rather than one that just looks good on the page

(Hanson: 1995 p107). In 1837, one of the first institutions of this resistance

set up by Pugin was the Government School of Design, London, which

was established alongside many other provincial schools with the aim of

training designers and craftsmen for architecture (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994

p53).

John Ruskin took up a position on this issue of professionalisation

through examination in the 1860’s, waging arguments similar to that of

Pugin in the 1830’s and 1840’s (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p57). He believed

in the value and independence of craftsmanship within architecture, a

philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement that was diminishing

quickly under the industry’s new structure (Saint: 1983 p64-65). He also had

a strong desire to separate engineering education from architectural

education, in response to the decline in building craftsmanship that had

occurred after the industrial revolution (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p57 ).

However, the greatest period of influence gained by the Arts and

Crafts movement on architectural training came in the 1890’s through

William Lethaby , an early member of the Arts and Crafts movement

(Saint: 1983 p64). Lethaby too aimed to recuperate the practices and skills



13

that had been lost during the industrial revolution, following the path and

ideas of Ruskin (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p65). He also correctly perceived

the emerging professionalisation as a symptom of the divide that was

occurring within the building industry (Saint: 1983 p64).

As a result of this, Lethaby suggested the introduction of a new

school of architecture and building trades, one which followed the

precept of Ruskin, and which ultimately materialised in the Central

School of Arts and Crafts, London, (which he jointly-directed)- an

institution that taught architecture as design, craft and construction

(Frampton: 2007 p49). After realising this approach could not in itself re-

orientate architectural training, he went onto establish several schools

which focused specifically on building trades (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994

p69 ).

Lethaby’s once prominent and highly influential position in

architectural education was finally undermined in 1905, as support for

the French method of training- seen in the Ecole des Beaux Arts model,

grew rapidly (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p72 ).

Ecole des Beaux Arts Model

The origins of the Ecole Des Beaux Arts approach to architectural

training date back to the end of the seventeenth century, when it emerged

from a system of government which sponsored the academic institutions

established in France at this time (Salama: 2005 p41). One of these

institutions was the Royal Academy of Architecture, the objective of

which was to provide advice and help in connection with Royal buildings,

and was first directed by Nicholas Francois Blondel (Salama: 2005 p 42).

The new paradigm that had evolved in France did not have a

significant impact on architectural pedagogy in England until the end of

the 19th century (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p77). At this point in time, it was

felt that the academic education provided the necessary framework for a

reformed architectural education (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p86), allowing



14

the Beaux-Arts model, which was grounded in the academy, to infiltrate

the situation.

Beaux Arts in Britain

In the mid- 19th century Britain a strong reaction to this government-

controlled system of architectural pedagogy, which had prevailed in

France, was seen through the creation of London’s Architectural

Association (AA) (Balfour: 1995 p78) - an educational institution operating

outside of the governments’ control. There were however, some

characteristics of the Beaux Arts system evident at the AA at this time, as

the school’’’’s central ethos lay primarily in the development of the

individual’s imagination. The AA’s concept was spurred on by the

realisation within society that an individual’s creativity belongs to them

alone, rather than to the state (Balfour: 1995 p78).

At the same time the RIBA was beginning to make a significant push

towards professionalisation- namely through their creation of the optional

Examination in Architecture in 1863, which became compulsory in 1882(RIBA 2003 p5-6).

Writing in The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture (St John

Wilson 1995), St John Wilson describes how architecture schools began to

follow the Beaux Arts model, resulting in a fundamental switch of values.

Academies which focused on an abstract, ‘paper’ architecture, replaced the

traditional workshops whose essence lied in beauty, function and

craftsmanship (St John Wilson: 1995 p44, 45). The design process saw a shift

away towards the development of individual student ingenuity (St John

Wilson: 1995 p44, 45).

The teaching methods of the Beaux Arts system quickly became an

unchallenged, universal practice in the setting up of the first schools of

architecture, completing the separation of the role of the architect from

that of the builder, engineer, or surveyor (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p90). He

then also goes onto discuss the emergence of Functionalism as a reaction



15

to this system, and the resulting birth of the modernist system of

teaching, a system which eradicated that system preceding it.

Functionalism

As a result of this fragmentation and the rapidly developing ‘science of

statics’ and analysis of physical material properties, the industry saw an

emergence of the movement known at the time as Functionalism (St John

Wilson: 1995. p44, 45).

Although the term ‘Functionalism’ is a complex one, which has had

many different meanings since its first use in early 18 th century Italy, the

term Sachlickheit was the most heavily coined at the end of the 19th

century. It is one of the German translations of function and was adopted

when describing the emerging modernist agenda in Germany (Forty: 2000.

p180). Sacklickheit, literally means ‘thingness’, and was related to the

expression of the mechanics of structure (Forty: 2000. p181). After the

creation of this term, it continued to be widely used up until the year

1920, especially in relation to the increasingly modernist culture, and at

the Bauhaus school of architecture in Weimar, it became virtually a

synonym for the newly found modernist system (Forty: 2000. p181).

The arrival of this set of ideas saw the birth of the modern

movement, one which would dominate architecture for the rest of the

century.



16

The Bauhaus

‘Modern Architecture is not a few branches of an old tree- it is a new

growth coming right from the roots.’

Walter Gropius. (St John Wilson: 1995)

Walter Gropius, the founder of the school of architecture known as the

Bauhaus in the early 20th century, outlines here how historic architecture

and tradition had been excluded from the syllabus of the Bauhaus (St John

Wilson: 1995 p27). The school strived to gather all the artistic ingenuity as

one entity, and to reunite all artistic disciplines- sculpture, painting,

design and craftsmanship into a new architecture (See figure 1.1) (Moffett:

2003 p512).

As the Bauhaus, which began with the idea of craftsmanship as a

means of art, slowly matured, it shifted to craftsmanship for industrial

production (Frampton: 2007 p126-127). It attempted to discover ‘laws’ in art

that could be related to design and architecture, and its fundamental aim

was to establish a universal language of form that would represent the

elimination of social as well as national barriers (Naylor: 1985 p9). The

Bauhaus in Weimar was set up in 1919, and combined the Academy of

Art with the School of Arts and Crafts, claiming the medieval workshop

as its method of doing so (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p91).

‘Vorkurs’

At this time, the Bauhaus was led by the figure of Johannes Itten whose

educational ideas drew upon studies on the educational effects of

environment and guided self-discovery (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p 92). He

established the Bauhaus’s most influential technique for first year

students, the Vorkurs , which aimed to develop individual design ingenuity

through various design exercises. Itten believed this technique could be

Figure 1.1Figure 1.1Figure 1.1Figure 1.1---- Bauhaus CurriculumBauhaus CurriculumBauhaus CurriculumBauhaus Curriculum- This diagram describes the

curriculum structure of the Bauhaus.

(Naylor: 1985)



17

used as a tool to cleanse students of formal preconceptions in order to

achieve knowledge and skills that were their own. The approach marked a

radical shift away from the ideas of pupillage and academic training,

which were based around the use of previous learning to develop further

knowledge and skills. Ittens approach to architectural pedagogy soon

changed however, when Gropius’s interests shifted towards industrial

design (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p92-93).

Here we can begin to understand that although craft was central

to the Bauhaus curriculum, it was more emphasised on the individualised

exploration of craft- an approach whose present day existence and

inherent benefits we will aim to reveal through our student investigation.

The Modernist Paradigm

In the 1930’s, the AA was gradually moving its orientation towards

modernism, through an increased focus on teamwork, as opposed to the

individualism seen in the Beaux-Arts system (Pearce and Toy: 1995 p107).

This move was finally set in 1939, marking the leading edge of modernist

change in British architectural education. Evolutionary changes in other

architecture schools were also evident at the time, quite simply through

the students’ use of modernist examples for design inspiration, as well as

at a theoretical level through the solving of contemporary, rather than

traditional, problems in the studio (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p106).

Shortly after the Second World War, the modernist curriculum

continued to replace that of the Beaux-arts system within many

architecture schools, and by the 1950’s almost all schools considered they

had a form of modernist education in operation. At this point, entry

routes into the profession were still fairly flexible with approximately half

of all architects entering through pupillage and part-time education

(Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p125. The transition from the Beaux-arts system

to modernism was also being seen through power shifts within the RIBA.

Modernists were gradually succeeding in gaining more and more



18

positions on the RIBA board, before suddenly acquiring complete power

in the 1950’s (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p125).

The Oxford Conference

The conference on architectural education was hatched intentionally by

those modernists of the RIBA board, as a method of cementing a

coherent and consistent policy towards teaching in architecture schools, as

well as achieving the long awaited institutional control over architectural

education (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p137).

In 1958, the Oxford Conference on architectural education, which

had its origin in the council at the RIBA, took place and was attended by

only 50 men, all of whom were white and ‘came from within the bounds

of the architectural profession’ (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). The RIBA council

hoped to reform all architectural institutions and to create a uniform

system aimed at serving a largely nationalised architectural production

(Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p137), an aim that was realised when the

conferences outcome ensured that nearly all current architectural schools

would be embedded into universities (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). An architect’s

education was, in other words, officially now an academic, rather than a

practical and pupillage, based form of pedagogy (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994

p154).

The Official System

The beginning of a dominating modernist paradigm in pedagogy was

clearly evident, adopting the title of the ‘Official System’ (Crinson and

Lubbock: 1994 p153). The Official System functioned as a single mould for

architectural education in Britain, the fundamentals of which, according

to Crinson and Lubbock, still exist within many of today’s architecture

schools (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p165). An analysis of course content

discussed within the book, ‘Architecture: Art or Profession?’ (Crinson and

Lubbock: 1994), which focused on various architecture schools across the

country in the early 1990’s, helps to support this assumption.



19

Modernist Influence Today

It found many characteristics within the typical architecture course,

identical to those seen in both the Bauhaus and Beaux-arts systems of

teaching (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p163).

The survey found that the first year in many architecture courses

was highly similar to that of the Vorkurs system seen at the Bauhaus in

Weimar, in that it was an induction into the modernist way of thinking,

which incorporated student ‘cleansing’, as well as the designing of a small

autonomous objects (Crinson and Lubbock p163). Many of these small design

projects involved exercises in abstraction and the manipulation of pure

forms and space, and three-dimensional pattern making exercises that

were based purely on the ingenuity of the individual designer (Crinson and

Lubbock: 1994 p163).

Another finding identified the presence of the design studio at the

centre of architectural education as it was when the Beaux-arts system

existed. Similarly to the Beaux-arts system the final year of the course also

incorporates a final ‘masterpiece’ project which will be the students’

primary focus of energy (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p163). These findings

help to illustrate how the Official System had remained as the framework

for architectural education up until the early 1990’s.

Summary

This short, chronological recollection of craft’s existence within

architectural pedagogy over the last 300 years clearly describes the

transformation from a practical, building lodge style of teaching to a more

theoretical, academy based style. In addition to this, it clearly outlines the

gradual professionalisation of architectural pedagogy and the key

architectural institutions and events that have left their stamp on the

architectural education system that is in place today.



20

We have seen the slow decline of the apprenticeship and pupillage

based approaches to teaching, and their eventual replacement by the

school of architecture- a result of the industry’s professionalisation and

the influence of the modernist agenda.

Despite some resistance to these changes, namely through those

who valued craft and tradition at the time, we saw the creation of two

dominating models for architectural education- the Ecole des Beaux Arts

and the Bauhaus. This was helped by the first Oxford Conference on

architecture which created the mould for academic system of architecture

prevalent in the UK today.

It will next be necessary to examine the extent to which the

characteristics of the ‘Official System’ still exist within UK architecture

schools, as well as the current strength it has over their curriculum. We

must then begin to discuss whether or not it would be possible to

introduce hands-on, workshop based training into architectural

curriculum in order to give students a greater understanding of materials,

structure and construction processes, as well as to give them greater

preparation for architectural practice. Such a discussion will focus both on

current theories on such approaches, as well as physical models illustrating

their successful implementation into architectural teaching.



21

Craftsmanship Today

In order to gain a broad understanding of the existence and support of

craftsmanship and traditional teaching within architectural pedagogy

today, it is important for us to analyse the contemporary theories and

realised models of education which incorporate this approach.

Contemporary Psychological Theory

The contemporary theories we will discuss help to outline some of

the psychological benefits and learning qualities that may result from

craftsmanship and the process of making- with a particular focus of the

relationship between the craftsman’s hands and the creative ability of their

mind.

‘The Hand Hits Back’

Alan Berman presented a lecture at the 2008 Oxford Conference

called ‘The Hand Hits back’, which described in detail the essential and

integral part our hands and bodily faculties play in the use of our human

conceptual capabilities. Berman discusses how our hands express the full

creative potential of the mind when used as tools for making and drawing

(Berman: 2008 p274). He then concludes by criticising CAD machines for

not having such inherent characteristics and for their lack of embodied

soul and creativity (Berman: 2008 p275).

Berman proposes that designing is a somatic experience i.e. one

that involves our whole body, and states that our sensory experiences

contribute hugely to our three-dimensional understanding of form and

space, and believes that they benefit greatly from the process of

development and refinement inherent when crafting an object or product

(Berman: 2008 p274).



22

The Craft of the Glassblower

In a similar way, within the book ‘The Craftsman’, Richard Sennett

analyses the craft of making physical things, and discusses how it can

provide an insight into the techniques of experience, which in turn can

shape our dealings and interactions with one-another (Sennett: 2000 p289).

‘The hand is a window onto the mind …’

Immanuel Kant. (Sennett: 2008. p149)

Most importantly perhaps is Sennett’s explanation of the idea of unity between the head and the hand, an idea which is portrayed in Immanuel

Kant’s quote above. Although Sennett does not deal directly with this

idea within the design process, valuable lessons can be learnt from his

discussion.

One example Sennett uses, which could be applied to any process

of hands-on making, is the craft of the glassblower, whose inherent skills

are based in the ability of his hand and eyes to couple together and

achieve concentration (Sennett: 2008 p173). Initially, he describes to the

reader the steps the glassblower takes- blowing, turning, adjusting

posture, moving the molten glass in and out of the furnace, blowing,

turning, and so on. But then goes on to explain how this process of

refinement enabled the glassblower to develop a better awareness and co-

ordination in a subconscious manner- by becoming a part of the object

on which he was working (Sennett: 2008 p174). Such a somatic experience

ensures the craftsman remains stimulated throughout his work, and has

acquired a perfected technical skill that cannot be lost (Sennett: 2008 p177).

Here, Sennett quite cleverly uses the example of a glassblower and

their typical working process, as a way of describing the somatic

relationship between the craftsman and his object.

From his writing we can begin to understand how such a

relationship strengthens the craftsman’s physical articulation and skills,

and ensures they remain intrinsically motivated throughout their work.



23

We are also able to use this example and apply it to academia, considering

how such an empirical process might help to improve the students design

skills, knowledge and understanding of materials, as well as their work

ethic.

‘A Pot for the Hand’

Swan Hung Hotz discusses a similar theory to that of Sennett within the

article ‘ A Pot for the Hand ’ (Hotz: 2009 p5), when he compares the intimate

relationship between a pot and the hand of a potter, and the ‘ideological

empathy’ that can exist between concept and user (Dutoit and McVicar: 2009

p3). At one point within the article, Hotz describes the ability of crafted

objects to transmit ‘tactile knowledge’ and ‘sensual experience’ direct to

the user, revealing a narrative of the craftsman’s ideas and knowledge

process (Hotz: 2009 p5).

When relating such an example back to academia, we can begin to

understand how it might prove advantageous to students of architecture.

Through crafted objects, students are able to ‘convey the ideas,

knowledge, and perceptive tale’ (Hotz: 2009 p5) of their design process, an

act which is visually nourishing, and one which could ultimately make the

learning process far more efficient and enjoyable for all involved.

Ancient Letter Carving

Within a small chapter on ‘Ancient Letter Carving’ (Kindersley: 2008 p53)

Richard Kindersley, who specialises in lettering, describes his own process

of work and its heavy orientation towards hand carved, stone inscriptions-

rather than computer generated carvings. He goes on to justify this

working technique, expressing the joy inherent in seeing objects that are

made by hand, as well as describing the human hunger to touch and

explore, through our senses, the objects that are crafted by others. He

then goes on to describe how these objects become a source of visual



24

nourishment, which express the essentially human aspect of spirit

(Kindersley: 2008 p53).

In relation to the idea of craft-based workshops within future

architectural pedagogy, one can see the ideas expressed by Berman,

Sennett, Kindersley, and Hotz- which all place a great value on the use of

the hand during the design process, supporting the change in education

we are discussing.

In the following writing however, Hanson (Hanson: 1995) and Lynch

(Lynch: 2004) move away from this close relationship between the hand

and the mind, to look more precisely at the advantages hands-on methods

of teaching can bring within architecture or design schools. In a

theoretical manner, Hanson quite evidently emphasises his support for

more traditional teaching approaches- namely those of both pupillage and

apprenticeship, within architectural pedagogy, when he outlines their

inherent qualities.

A Return to Ruskin

Writing within the article ‘Not Arts and Crafts’, Hanson (Hanson: 1995)

states that in order to achieve Ruskin’s idea of an architecture that ‘lives in

detail’, rather than one that just looks good on the page, a return to a

pupillage/apprenticeship form of architectural education is required

(Hanson: 1995 p107).He outlines three distinctive qualities of these teaching

approaches. One is the process of learning something by repeating it

many times over until it is fully understood; another is learning through

submitting yourself initially into somebody else’s idea of what is being

aimed at; and finally learning about the whole of a building, not by

resorting to concepts but by focusing on perfecting a single part of the

building (Hanson: 1995 p107).



25

Building in the Studio

In the educational publication ‘Back to School’ (Lynch: 2004) those

qualities expressed by Hanson are strongly supported by Peter Lynch, the

architect-in-residence and head of the Graduate Architecture Centre at

Cranbrook Academy of Art. Lynch starts by describing the architecture

students’ reliance within his studio on physical models, assemblies and

structures, sometimes at full scale (Lynch: 2004 p55).

Lynch describes how the process of building and refinement can

become a ‘refuge for contemplation and reappraisal’, and states that

although slow, it has value, allowing students to understand the labour

involved in craftsmanship, and the ‘rhythm and logic of repetitive,

physical and co-operative tasks’ (Lynch: 2004 p56).

He goes on to conclude his writing by making a similar assertion to

that of Hotz (Hotz: 2009 p5), stating that the students use of hands-on

techniques are an effective method of translating their own intuitions,

desires and needs into physical constructions during the design process. In

essence, the students are able to inject their own uniqueness into their

work, one which is derived directly from their own personal life

experiences.

Summary

The process of refinement and repetition within craftsmanship is

mentioned by Sennett, Lynch and Hanson as one which is paramount to

ensuring students fully absorb information and acquire valuable technical

skills. At one point, Lynch describes the process of craft and making as a

‘refuge’, a metaphorical description that leaves us imagining a shelter,

within which a student can fully resolve their problem while

simultaneously learning from the process.



26

Berman and Sennett also share similar ideas when they place

importance on the role of the whole body and its sensory experience to

provide us with a full understanding of three dimensional spaces and

form, as well to help express our full creativity when designing.

Additionally, Lynch and Hotz both praise the opportunity for

designers to use craftsmanship to transmit their own characteristics,

intuitions and desires into their work, while at the same time extracting

significant enjoyment from the experience. Kindersley then supports this

notion, by expressing the significant joy he receives when inscribing

stones by hand. He also describes crafted objects as visually nourishing,

and is quite clearly opposed to the use of technology- a preference that

also seems to be adopted by Berman when he criticises CAD machines.

When discussing those theories on craftsmanship and making set

out above, we can begin to understand the positive role such a technique

can adopt for students while learning during the design process. And now

we have analysed the actual theoretical and psychological benefits the

‘hands-on’ design process can foster and provide its participants, we will

consider some physical models and examples of how such an approach

might be realised within schools of architecture in the second element of

this chapter.



27

Oxford Conference 2008

We should note the significant level of support that has occurred in

recent years, for a change in architectural pedagogy- most evidently at the

2008 Oxford Conference on Architecture, which aimed to rethink the

agenda for teaching in schools of architecture and to increase its relevance

to changing circumstances around us (Maturana: 2008). Being the first

conference aimed at re-evaluating architectural education since 1958, it

marked a general change in attitudes within architectural academia and

profession, as well as society. It provided an opportunity for key

individuals of all sexes, creeds, colours, and continents to express their

ideas on the future of architectural pedagogy (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). The

very existence of this conference represents a situation that is already

sympathetic towards new, challenging ideas and proposals for

architectural teaching programmes, and an academic environment which

will ensure greater credibility and success for these ideas in the future-

craftsmanship being one of those ideas (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008).

The readings from the conference are detailed within ‘The Oxford

Conference: A Re-evaluation of Education in Architecture’ (Roaf and

Bairstow: 2008) and these include many different views and opinions on the

current state of architectural pedagogy, as well as proposals for how its

structure and its teaching programmes might be changed. Many speakers

at the conference highlight their scepticism of the techniques used within

the current architectural teaching system, particularly its inability to ready

students for movement into practice. A number of these opinions had a

particular focus on craft, building and ‘hands-on’ learning techniques,

and we will now analyse these in more detail to gain an understanding of

the potential mould architectural pedagogy could take in the future.



28

The Unspoken Assumption

The consideration and effort given to the building as whole, an

element of design that Hanson strongly supports (Hanson: 1995 p107-108), is

given significant emphasis by Christopher Alexander in his lecture ‘The

unspoken assumption and its antidotes’ during the introduction to the

conference. Alexander begins with some criticism on the state of

architectural education over the last hundred years, outlining its inability

to teach the art of building successfully (Alexander: 2008. p4). He also

highlights the emphasis on the teaching of buildings as individual

components of society- rather than buildings which are interlocking,

intertwining parts of the whole. He believes the antidote for this

prescribed approach, lies in more practical ways of thinking and teaching

within architectural pedagogy (Alexander: 2008 p5).

These student views help set out the real benefits that are associated

with the traditional approach. They also reveal the existence of support

and the desire for practical approaches within architecture- two

requirements that the craftsmanship model might serve to achieve if it

was implemented.

INTBAU Training Model

The ‘International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture and

Urbanism UK’ (INTBAU UK) programme, which was presented at the

2008 Oxford Conference on architectural pedagogy, by Hardy, has been

exploring ways of promoting education in and an understanding of

traditional buildings and places around the world (Hardy: 2008. p 405).

It has developed new methods of ‘hands-on’ training of architecture

students through workshops, live design projects, training programmes

and conferences. The programme fosters the belief that all involved in the

design projects, whether students or teachers, are participants that must

learn from one another, whilst solving practical problems (Hardy: 2008. p

409).



29

Such an approach provides a suitable model of ‘practical, workshop

based’ learning, and one that supports the student desire and satisfaction

that exists within UK architectural pedagogy for a more practical

approach to design. It also acts as an example of the form pedagogy might

take in the future, in order to create benefits simultaneously for both

students and the teachers working alongside them.



30

Contemporary Educational Models

The ‘Pupillage/Apprenticeship’ Model

Hanson’s involvement at the Prince of Wales (POW) Institute of

Architecture has seen a reintroduction of methods which instil within

students those theoretical qualities of pupillage and apprenticeship

discussed by him in the article ‘Not Arts and Crafts’ (Hanson: 1995).

One project undertaken at the institute, involving more empirical

processes, focused purely on detail and the fine structure of a building-

with the Visitors Centre at West Dean adopting the role as a live project

focus (Hanson: 1995 p107). The students undertook workshop-based studies

in brickwork and in brick and flint, and played around with the materials

properties, which in one case included alterations to the colour of mortar

(Hanson: 1995 p107). Hanson discusses how the students are ‘giving life to

details’ and therefore giving life to the building as a whole (Hanson: 1995

p107), and describes the student’s realisation that efforts on smaller

elements of the building, are in fact the core effort in the design process,

and are key to making the building (Hanson: 1995 p107).

Hanson also discusses the absence of the ‘concept’ and how this

allows technology and details to develop freely, while bearing the imprint

of human feeling. He believes that by building on this understanding of

the building, a growing assurance in the student quite unlike the often

shallow attachment a student may have with an abstract concept is created

(Hanson: 1995 p107-108).

The teaching model discussed here at POW Institute of Architecture has

characteristics reminiscent of the apprenticeship schemes seen in the

educational model of the 17th century, as well as the pupillage approach

that replaced it. It combines a workshop learning approach with an on-

site, physical object, which acts as a platform for the students application

of newly found knowledge. This combination reveals some ways in which



31

we might support craftsmanship, if it became a mainstream element of

architectural pedagogy and curriculum in the future. Questions might

also be asked on whether it’s worth gaining a ‘hands-on’ understanding,

and knowledge of a material or technique in the workshop, if that

knowledge cannot be applied to a real life, physical object.

The ‘Degree Laboratory’ Model

A fairly recent precedent for the introduction of craft into architectural

pedagogy is the work at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University

College of London, in a teaching programme known as the ‘Degree

Laboratory’ (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p71). The work of unit six at the Bartlett,

introduces workshop-based practice into the design studio, for both

second and third year students. This workshop focuses on creating an

identity in student’s proposals through craft experimentation (Callicot &

Sheil: 2000 p72).

Within the degree laboratory, Callicott and Sheil discuss the way in

which craft is underpinned by a necessity to attain a ‘specific body of

knowledge’, and they mention a set of parameters that craft is created

within, namely; available equipment, skills and materials, and

time/budget constraints (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p72). They also go on to

compare ‘failed decisions’ within the two different working

environments- that of the academic, where they are deemed purely as

failures; and that of workshop where it can be viewed as a ‘purposeful-

test’, one which forms a core part of a successful workpiece (Callicot & Sheil:

2000 p73).

After evaluating the programme, they explain how the flirtation

with the ‘mechanism/construct’ led to an expanded vocabulary of

expression within students. In addition to this, they outline how the

workshop enables projects to commence both as a form of site analysis

and as an exploration of material properties within the design process

(Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p75).



32

This programme is particularly useful for our exploration of craft

today, as it closely relates to those theories on creativity discussed by

Sennett. But more importantly it begins to discuss how the exploration

process inherent within craft, and hands-on learning, enables students to

understand material properties, attain knowledge and skills and begin to

understand realistic constraints, such as time and budget, which would be

imperative when working on live projects within architectural practice.

The ‘Hooke Park’ Model

‘Design with beauty, build with truth.’

AA, London. Motto. (Prizeman: 2005)

Within the article ‘Design Through Making’ (Prizeman: 2005) Mark

Prizeman argues a case for the nourishment of design-by-making as a

‘passionate, cultural, intellectual and human activity’ (Prizeman: 2005 p54).

It is evident in the quote above that this ethos is also adopted at the AA,London.

Prizeman begins his writing by describing the workshop-based

method of education seen at Hooke Park, Dorset which was initially used

for a furniture and forestry school in the 1980’s (Prizeman, M. 2005 p54).

The facilities at Hooke Park have since become part of the AA, London

and aim to use forest thinnings’ and off-cuts for highly efficient structural

purposes during student projects. The addition of a timber workshop,

accommodation units, and working woodland at Hooke Park, to the AA’s

current facilities, opened the doors for a new teaching programme

grounded in the medium of making (Prizeman: 2005 p54).

Prizeman then goes on to criticise some elements of current

architectural pedagogy in the UK, including basic building construction

techniques which are not instructed conventionally-perhaps through a

workshop, but through case studies and ‘onerous’ research tasks (Prizeman:

2005 p54).



33

Although this hands-on laboratory experiment has not yet been

realised as a permanent teaching facility (Prizeman: 2005 p57), there is

however, a graduate diploma course at the AA titled ‘Design + Make’

which is due to commence in the 2010 academic year. The programme is

located in the heart of Hooke Park, and believes in the philosophy that

architects learn best by imagining, developing and realising full type

prototype structures. The AA believe that through the actual engagement

in all stages of making and building, students have the opportunity to

develop a rich understanding of architecture (AA: 2010 p1).

The emergence of such a course, although not RIBA accredited, illustrates

the growing support and belief that exists within the field of architectural

pedagogy for the ‘learning through making’ design philosophy inherent

within craftsmanship. It acts as a useful precedent for any future changes

that might be proposed within architecture schools who aim to adopt this

philosophy.

However, it is worth noting that the AA is a private education

institution, operating outside of the government-funded university system

pre-dominant within the UK and supported entirely by student fees

comparable to that of a private school (RIBA 2007 p9). As a result, it has

significantly greater funding for learning facilities such as those seen at

Hooke Park, funding which is not so prevalent among other educational

institutions within the UK. This example can therefore begin to teach us

how financial constraints might act as a barrier when proposing such a

future change in teaching philosophy.

The ‘Rural Studio’ Model

It might also be useful to consider an American model of architectural

pedagogy when considering how craft might form a more dominant part

of today’s curriculum.



34

Auburn University’s ‘Rural Studio’ is an undergraduate teaching

programme within their school of architecture, grounded in hands-on

craft and aimed at fostering design and build projects for the deprived

local population (Forney: 2005 p92).

Within the article ‘Learning in Newbern- Rural Studio in Year

Ten’ (Forney: 2005) John Forney explains how the ‘Rural Studio’ tends to

local projects, learning and applying lessons of ‘custom and experience’

(Forney: 2005 p95). He emphasises the value of craft, and its ability to

encourage participants design ingenuity, as well as a positive attitude

towards constrained resources and skills.

Forney continues by comparing this hands-on, direct approach to

buildings, with the more abstract dealing which is common within

architectural curriculum today (Forney: 2005 p94). He writes that where

universities approaches often distinguish and distance their students

knowledge from the realities of industry and practice, the Rural Studio

model integrates its students into real community situations, while

simultaneously familiarising them with the building processes and

materials (Forney: 2005 p95).

This educational programme provides an excellent, realised model of a

craft-based approach to architecture that could be successfully applied and

integrated to other schools of architecture, creating significant benefits for

both the students and the local community they are collaborating with.

It represents an approach that takes craftsmanship and combines it

with a very much live, real working environment- similar to that approach

that was introduced by Hanson at the POW Institute of Architecture

(Hanson: 1995). Students are able acquire skills in craftsmanship, while at

the same time applying to them to a physical project, and creating notable

benefits for the community involved.



35

Summary

After exploring the different educational programmes within this section,

we can begin to consider the form architectural pedagogy might take, in

particular the way in which in would function- i.e. in the workshop alone,

or in combination with live projects, in a way reminiscent of pupillage

and apprenticeship schemes of the past.

Hooke Park’s facilities at the AA, proved to be particularly useful to

this study as it revealed a near perfect example of how workshop facilities

and craftsmanship might become a part of architectural pedagogy.

However, it also opened our eyes to the financial constraints that exist

within many universities, and how they might act as barriers to the

adoption of these techniques.



36

RIBA Control Over Curriculum

Prior to our analysis of current architecture students within the UK, it is

paramount that we understand the benchmarks that exist along the route

towards gaining RIBA chartered status as an architect, as well as the

emphasis traditional teaching methods are given with these criteria.

However, we must understand the way in which the professional body

that creates, implements and enforces these criteria, functions.

The RIBA sets an outline syllabus for educational institutions to

gain professional recognition for the architecture related courses they

provide (RIBA 2007 p6). The RIBA ensures schools of architecture comply

with the minimum standards required for RIBA accreditation (RIBA 2007

p8). The outline syllabus set out standards for recognition and validation

of all stages of architectural education; however, they are flexible, allowing

schools to meet criteria in their own unique way (RIBA 2007 p11).

If we look more closely at the criteria set out within the syllabus,

one can see the differing level of emphasis certain teaching approaches are

given. A theme outlined within the syllabus that was particularly relevant

to this study, was ‘Technology and Environment’. Within this section,

which focuses on the courses at the Part 1 and Part 2 stages of education,

there appears to be an emphasis on the requirement for students to

understand materials, and study the ‘technology of construction’, with the

aim of Part 1 graduates to gain grounding in principles of constructional,

structural and environmental design’, before moving onto the part 2 stage

(RIBA 2007 p23).

The commentary on the Part 1 element touches very briefly on the

types of teaching that might be adopted to gain such knowledge, and

these include lectures, seminars, laboratory sessions and private study

(RIBA 2007 p23). Commentary on the Part 2 element however, provides no

advice on types of teaching and the expectation for the students to have

previously gained some form of basic constructional understanding is

quite evident. Students are expected to integrate their previously gained

knowledge into project work, as well as beginning to study the specific

interest in more depth (RIBA 2007 p41). There is however, some further



37

opportunities for the expansion of knowledge through ‘case studies’ of

influential buildings (RIBA 2007 p41), although again there is no specific

advice on how these case studies might be undertaken.

After studying its content, it is quite clear that within the outline

syllabus the focus on types of teaching is intentionally vague, maintaining

the RIBA’s quest for ‘flexibility’ in their guidelines. However, one begins

to question this structure when it focuses so heavily upon the knowledge

to be gained, but not on the technique by which students gain that

knowledge. Our student analysis provides us with some useful

information regarding student’s opinions on various teaching techniques,

which in turn enables us to gauge craftsmanship’s importance and the

position it might take within future architectural curriculum and the

RIBA’s syllabus.



38

Student Voices on Craftsmanship

Student Survey

In order to gain some level of contemporary understanding of the

existence of traditional teaching within architectural pedagogy, as well as

their inherent benefits, we undertook a small survey of students studying

architecture related disciplines in the UK (See Appendix 1).

38 full and part time students undertaking architecture related

disciplines at both undergraduate and postgraduate level were

interviewed, and represented a total of 21 different universities from

across the UK (See Appendix 2). All of the schools of architecture at the

surveyed universities have courses which are guided by, and meet those

validation criteria set out by the RIBA, and have therefore obtained RIBA

accreditation (RIBA: 2010 p1-10).

Evidently such a small survey cannot possibly represent the views of

the population of UK architecture students as a whole. However, the

answers we have received are still very valid, as they give us an interesting

insight into the preferences of those students; as well the emphasis

craftsmanship is given within their particular schools.

Within the survey, we use two main terms- ‘construction

technology’ and ‘workshop-based learning’, and these are described to the

students prior to the survey. The term ‘construction technology’ is used

broadly to define the study of three technical aspects of design;

materiality, structures and construction processes. The term ‘workshop-based

learning’ relates to an apprenticeship style method of architectural

training, grounded in craftsmanship, and providing students with

experience through contact with building crafts, materials and

construction processes.

The survey was broken down into two main elements, relevant to

the two different areas of focus within architectural teaching that the

survey aims to understand. The first element focused on ‘course content’,

with the aim of highlighting the existence of various learning techniques



39

within the participant’s course as a whole. The second element focused on

the ‘process of design’, with the aim of understanding the extent to which

these learning techniques are used during the design process, as well as the

consequent skills and benefits they can bring to the students design

ability.

Results- Course Content

The first question asked students to identify which learning

techniques had been most beneficial to them while studying

‘construction technology’ on their course as a whole (See figure 3.1 for

results).

Following this question, the students were asked if any level of

‘practical, workshop-based approaches’ to construction technology

existed within the design studio element of their course (See figure 3.2 fro

results).

It is apparent from the feedback that empirical, workshop based methods

of learning have been given some level of emphasis in a significant

number of the attended architecture schools. Not only was this type of

teaching present on the design studio element of the courses, but also in

other ‘construction technology’ orientated elements of the course.

It is also important to analyse the other learning approaches that

were selected by students, as it allows us to understand their usefulness

during the design process.

The process of a one-on-one tutorial was recorded by students as

being equally beneficial to ‘hands-on’ learning, with ‘peer to peer’

conversation playing a slightly smaller, but still significant, role in

effective learning. Students believed that those theory-based approaches

and personal research played a less beneficial role during the learning

process.

The survey then goes on to analyse the students ideas surrounding

and reasons for the preferences they have expressed here.



40

In the following question, the participants were asked to elaborate further

on their experiences of various techniques when learning about

‘construction technology’, by explaining why exactly they felt certain

techniques were more beneficial than others.

The participants that selected ‘one-on-one tutorials with studio

masters’ as one of the most beneficial techniques, then went on to state

that it allowed them to gain invaluable knowledge directly from studio

masters; allowed for discussions on problems areas which were unique to

them; as well as providing immediate solutions for personal queries.

Those participants that selected personal research and reading as

being particularly beneficial to their process of learning, then stated that it

gave them the freedom to build on basic lecture knowledge, creating

advanced knowledge; to explore a range of different reading material by

reading around the subject and applying it to a set task; as well as using

existing building case studies for guidance.

Those that selected ‘theory’ based approaches (lectures) as being

one of the most beneficial of all the learning techniques, then justified

their choice by stating that lectures were to the point; and helped to

provide a basic overview or foundation of knowledge from which to build

on.

The reasons outlined by those who selected ‘hands-on’ workshop

based learning, have been compiled along with answers gained from

question 7, on part 2 of the survey.

The collection of views analysed here helps to highlight the ways in

which students feel a certain technique is or has been beneficial to them

during the learning process, which in turn allows us to consider its

usefulness within architectural curriculum.



41

In the following question, participants were simply asked

whether their current learning techniques had provided them with, or

will provide them with, the expertise necessary for the transition into

architectural practice (See figure 3.3 for results).

Those participants that stated ‘no’ they were not ready for this

transition were then asked to consider which learning technique might

provide them with the necessary skills to do so. In response to this,

students detailed the following techniques:

• A more balanced combination of theory and practical work;

• Introduction of carpentry, bricklaying or similar craft courses;

• A greater emphasis on physics of buildings and structures inboth lectures and design studio time;

• A placement year with on-site training;

• Opportunities to interact with past students; and

• Opportunities to build their designs and evaluate their

constructability.

Although the answers given by those who answered ‘yes’ cannot betaken as completely accurate, as it is impossible to be sure whether each

individual has the necessary expertise for practice. It does however help to

highlight the level of confidence that students feel their current learning

technique has given them.

The answers given by those participants who have gained industry

experience either during or following their studies were however, far more

accurate, as they had experienced the transition being questioned. When

describing this transition, one postgraduate student stated that at

undergraduate level one-on-one tutorials and theory based learning had

been sufficient for movement into practice. They then go on to mention

how hands on workshops and direct contact with building contractors on

site enabled them to quickly build on this knowledge. A significant

proportion of them did however state that their education up until the

present had not completely covered all the basic skills required for

practice.



42

Those participants who were undertaking a part-time

undergraduate course- combining academic study with industry practice,

also revealed some interesting results. They highlighted the way in which

the topics covered within their syllabus are brought to life at work-

academia and practice working hand in hand to solidify their learning.

They also describe how fellow peers and superiors within the workplace

can play a similar role to that of a tutor within the design studio, aiding

them during the design process.

This desire for creating a balance between theory and real life

practice matches that of the pupillage based route in architectural

pedagogy which found its origins in the early 18th century (Crinson &

Lubbock p22). Understanding the benefits of such an approach to the

students themselves, helps us to then consider how it might take up a

more prominent role within architectural pedagogy in the future.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to survey architecture students from all

of the architecture schools within the UK, and the survey data does not

therefore give a completely fair and accurate depiction of the existence of

‘hands-on, workshop based learning’ techniques within the UK

architectural education as a whole.



43

Research into Curricula

To gain a more accurate understanding of the emphasis the remaining

UK schools had given to ‘hands-on, workshop based learning’ within

their teaching programmes, it was also necessary for us to analyse their

current curriculum. When undertaking our analysis, we highlighted any

mention of ‘workshop- based learning’ within the syllabus as a sufficient

indicator for its existence at that particular school. (See figure 3.4 for results).

The results collated from this survey, highlight that around half of

the remaining schools have placed some emphasis within their course

programmes on workshop based learning.

Summary

After successfully gathering information on the learning

approaches at all architecture schools, we were able to make an accurate

judgement of ‘traditional teachings’ existence within architecture

curriculum in the UK as a whole (See Appendix 3).

It was quite evident after collating the results from both the

student survey and the curriculum analysis, that ‘traditional teaching’

has a significant presence in architectural pedagogy in the UK, with just

over half of all schools of architecture outlining it within their syllabus

(See figure 3.5 for results).

The process of gathering results did prove problematic however, as

contradictions were identified between responses given by students

attending the same schools. In this situation, a final decision was made

through further research into that individual schools curriculum.



44

Results- Process of Design

Within the second element of the student survey, which was focused on

the ‘process of design’, the participants were first asked to specify if they

felt ‘workshop-based learning’ techniques were beneficial during the

design process (See figure 3.6 for results). They were then asked to provide

reasoning for these responses.

It is evident from these results that a significant number of

participants found the workshop based learning approach to be

beneficial to them. When asked to describe why it was beneficial, the

following answers were given:

• Provides a physical object, to be discovered, learned from

and remembered for future detailing;

• Provides a basic overview and 3-dimensional understanding

of technical details before proceeding onto a 2-dimensional

technical drawing;

• Enabled the complexities of the detail to become more easily

understood;

• Handling of construction materials and tools ensures

understanding of the materials properties, which can then be

applied during the design process; and

• Group workshop based learning allows students to work

closely with one another, bouncing knowledge back and

forth, with the addition of the workshop assistant’s guidance.

Those students that had not experienced any level of ‘workshop-

based learning’ were then asked whether they felt such an approach would

be beneficial to them, with all of them answering that ‘yes’ it would be a

valuable addition.

Specific reasons for this were very similar to those stated by

students who had experienced this learning approach, however, one

student highlighted an important barrier to the introduction of such an

approach- that of time. This barrier must be questioned seriously when



45

considering the position of ‘traditional teaching’ within architectural

curriculum.

The next set of questions focused on working methods within the

participant’s architectural education, firstly the emphasis either individual

work or group work is given during design projects on the course.

Following this, the participants were asked to select which working

method they felt would be more beneficial to them as part of their

education. (See figure 3.7 for results).

After analysing the responses on the dynamics of the design

process, the outcome is quite evident. There appears to be a heavy focus

on individual work within schools, with group work and a balanced

combination of both being significantly less important. This reveals a

trend within architecture schools which is reminiscent of those systems

seen at the Ecole Des Beaux Arts, and Bauhaus- where student ingenuity

was a primary focus.

Interestingly, a significant number of participants went on to

express their preference for a greater emphasis on group activities, as well

as a more equal balance with their syllabus. Such a desire therefore

represents a situation within academia that might sympathise with the

introduction of craftsmanship, and the group dynamics inherent within

it.

The final area of focus on the design process element of the survey,

enquired into the students experience of ‘workshop-based learning’ as

a means of learning about the properties and efficient usage of various

materials when designing (See figure 3.8 for results).

Those students that felt ‘workshop-based learning’ was beneficial to

them were then asked to describe their reasoning for this. Specified

reasons included the following:

• Enabled an understanding of a materials response to

specific conditions and its affect on the overall building in

terms of environment, aesthetics and function;



46

• Creation of ‘material consciousness’ through sensory

experience i.e. touch, visual perception; and

• Handling materials enables the student to remember and

visualise the materials properties and simultaneously inform their design projects.

The reasons outlined above helps to support those contemporary theories

set out in chapter 2, particularly those of Berman, Sennett, Kindersley

and Hotz, which discuss the relationship between the bodies’ sensory

experiences and the human minds learning efficiency.

It is possible to conclude from this section that there appears to be

a clear preference amongst students for a more conscientious and

thorough approach to the handling and use of materials during the design

process. And thus it could then be argued that craftsmanship, whose focus

lies partly in the understanding and direct treatment of materials and

tools, might be suitable to meet these preferences.



47

Conclusion

The primary aim of this dissertation has been to explore the existence of

traditional teaching approaches within architectural curriculum in the

UK; to understand student’s views on this approach; and ultimately gauge

the level of support that exists for the permanent introduction of such an

approach into architecture schools in the future, in the hope that its

introduction might help to bridge the perceived knowledge and skills gap,

particularly in technological areas, that exists between academia and

practice.

Prior to discussing the state of today’s education, the first chapter

sets out to provide a historical context for craftsmanship. This section is

supplemented with an extensive literature review that ensures the content

of the writing remains accurate.

The section following this analysed the existing support within both

architectural academia and practice for change in architectural pedagogy.

The extensive range of relevant literature we examined expressed both

psychological theories and physical, realised models of education with

craftsmanship at their core.

Many of the theorists we have explored paid special attention to the

relationship between the hand and the mind, and its ability to

dramatically improve creativity levels. Additionally, they also mention the

ability of craft within the workshop to create a fruitful, thriving

environment, as well as to provide knowledge, skills and a work ethic

within students that will always remain with them.

We were then able to analyse the realised models present within

architectural curriculum today. Those that we analysed all placed a value

on a ‘learning through making’ philosophy, however each individual

programme was executed slightly differently.

The educational model seen at ‘Hooke Park’ was particularly useful

to this study as it provided an excellent precedent and example for other



48

schools of architecture that might aim to change their learning approach

in the future. It also, however, highlighted the financial issues that exist at

many universities. As a privately funded school, the AA has significantly

greater financial power, when compared to other universities functioning

within the government-funded structure, and can therefore afford

facilities and resources of a much higher quality. Even with the ambition

for change towards a crafts-based approach, financial issues at certain

schools might act as a barrier to this change.

The 2008 Oxford Conference included many interesting proposals

for change in education, with some placing a significant emphasis on the

ability of craftsmanship to improve the learning processes in architectural

education and even as a method by which the fragmented industry might

be repaired.

We also studied the RIBA’s validation criteria, and while doing so,

its vagueness when discussing the delivery of learning was particularly

notable, especially when discussing workshop based approaches to

technology. It is quite evident that while this criterion remains

unchanged, it will be difficult to implement new approaches to learning,

because schools follow the criteria so closely. However, if the importance

of these traditional approaches is realised and it is incorporated into the

criteria, schools of architecture might begin to understand the value of

such approaches and as a result incorporate them into their curriculum.

The final chapter, which is driven by the primary research undertaken

through our student survey- as well as a further analysis of curricula, aims

to identify the actual existence of traditional teaching approaches within

schools of architecture today. In addition to this, it looks to the students’

views and feelings on such approaches, to inform our argument on the

change in education.

The results that emerged were interesting; a significant number of

schools (over 50%) displayed some emphasis towards traditional learning



49

approaches, and students identified such techniques as one of the most

beneficial approaches when learning about technological issues and

developing, as one student said, a ‘material consciousness’.

The survey also identified an area of architectural pedagogy that

craft and workshop-based learning might help to appease in the future. A

notable lack of groupwork activities during design projects- a method

preferred by the majority of survey participants was identified in most

schools of architecture. Craftsmanship often encompasses workshop-

based, group approaches to design problems which can create an efficient

learning environment, and thus could serve to fill this niche in the

curriculum.

In consideration of the data and research that has been collected, it is

important that we come to a conclusion on the writings outcome. The

evidence strongly suggests that although there is some emphasis on

craftsmanship and traditional teaching within current UK architecture

schools, there still remains a significant number of schools that do not

incorporate this approach. In addition to this, the existence of theoretical

and physical models of such an approach within current academia, show

vast support for the incorporation of hands-on, craftsmanship based

approaches.

It can therefore be said that there is indeed a place for more

traditional approaches to architectural pedagogy, and that its permanent

residence within architectural curriculum in the future would be

welcomed by students. Such approaches also allow students to get their

hands dirty, interact with one another in a stimulating fashion, and learn

somatically, and it might provide them with the knowledge and skills

required for the transition into architectural practice.

Doubts do remain however, over the likeliness of such approaches

being incorporated into architectural curriculum, especially with the

financial barriers present at many universities, and the content of the

current syllabus outlined by the RIBA which currently places little



50

emphasis on the learning approaches, let alone the alternative approach

we are discussing here.

As well as this, we must consider the important factor which was

identified by one survey participant, that of time. Will architecture

schools find time within their curriculum for such techniques? And if so,

what techniques will be sacrificed in its place? This is again an issue that

can only be addressed by the efforts of the individual architecture school,

or at a wider scale through changes in the guidance and criteria set out

within the RIBA outline syllabus. Without this, it may be some time

before any diversion from the norm is seen within architectural

curriculum, a situation that will in turn see the gap between academia and

practice become ever wider.



51

References

Books

BALFOUR, A., 1995.BALFOUR, A., 1995.BALFOUR, A., 1995.BALFOUR, A., 1995. The Architectural AssociationThe Architectural AssociationThe Architectural AssociationThe Architectural Association.... In: PEARCE, M., TOY, M., 1995.

Educating Architects. 1st ed. Academy Group Ltd. Manchester University Press.

CALLICOT, N., SHEIL,CALLICOT, N., SHEIL,CALLICOT, N., SHEIL,CALLICOT, N., SHEIL, BBBB.,.,.,., 2000.2000.2000.2000. The Degree Laboratory: The work of Unit Six at theThe Degree Laboratory: The work of Unit Six at theThe Degree Laboratory: The work of Unit Six at theThe Degree Laboratory: The work of Unit Six at the

Bartlett School, University College London.Bartlett School, University College London.Bartlett School, University College London.Bartlett School, University College London. In: NICOL, D., PILLING, S., 2000. Changing

Architectural Education: Towards a new professionalism. Spoon Press. London.

CRINSON, M., LUBBOCK CRINSON, M., LUBBOCK CRINSON, M., LUBBOCK CRINSON, M., LUBBOCK, J.,, J.,, J.,, J., 1994.1994.1994.1994. Architecture : Art or Profession?. 1ST ed. Prince of

Wales Institute of Architecture. Manchester University Press.

EARLE, P.,EARLE, P.,EARLE, P.,EARLE, P., 1989.1989.1989.1989. The Making of the English Middle Class- Business, Society and Family Life in

London [Online]..... University of California Press. Berkeley.

Available from:HU

http://escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft8489p27k;brand=ucpressU

Accessed 25/02/210.

FORTY, A., 2000.FORTY, A., 2000.FORTY, A., 2000.FORTY, A., 2000. Words and Buildings- A Vocabularly of Modern Architecture. Thames &

Hudson INC. USA.

FRAMPTON, K.,FRAMPTON, K.,FRAMPTON, K.,FRAMPTON, K., 2007.2007.2007.2007. Modern architecture: a critical history . 4th ed. Thames & Hudson

Ltd. London.

HANSON, B.,HANSON, B.,HANSON, B.,HANSON, B., 1995.1995.1995.1995. Not Arts and CNot Arts and CNot Arts and CNot Arts and Crafts.rafts.rafts.rafts. In: PEARCE, M., TOY, M., 1995. Educating

Architects . 1st ed. Academy Group Ltd. Manchester University Press.

KINDERSLEY, R KINDERSLEY, R KINDERSLEY, R KINDERSLEY, R., 2008.., 2008.., 2008.., 2008. Ancient Letter Carving and Computer Type Design Ancient Letter Carving and Computer Type Design Ancient Letter Carving and Computer Type Design Ancient Letter Carving and Computer Type Design. In:

ADAM, R., HARDY, M., Tradition Today- Continuity in Architecture and Society . WIT Press.

Athenaeum press Ltd. UK



52

MOFFET, M., FAZIO, MMOFFET, M., FAZIO, MMOFFET, M., FAZIO, MMOFFET, M., FAZIO, M., WODEHOUSE, L.,., WODEHOUSE, L.,., WODEHOUSE, L.,., WODEHOUSE, L., 2003.2003.2003.2003. A World History of Architecture.

Lawrence King Publishing Ltd. London.

NAYLOR, G.,NAYLOR, G.,NAYLOR, G.,NAYLOR, G., 1985.1985.1985.1985. The Bauhaus Reassessed- Sources and Design Theory . The Herbert Press.

London.

NICOL, DNICOL, DNICOL, DNICOL, D., PILLING, S., 2000.., PILLING, S., 2000.., PILLING, S., 2000.., PILLING, S., 2000. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a new

professionalism. Spoon Press. London.

PEARCE, M., TOY, M.,PEARCE, M., TOY, M.,PEARCE, M., TOY, M.,PEARCE, M., TOY, M., 1995.1995.1995.1995. Educating Architects . 1st Ed. Academy Group Ltd.

Manchester University Press.

ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BROYAL INSTITUTE OF BROYAL INSTITUTE OF BROYAL INSTITUTE OF BR RR RITISH ARCHITECTS.ITISH ARCHITECTS.ITISH ARCHITECTS.ITISH ARCHITECTS. 2003200320032003.... Tomorrow's architect : RIBA

outline syllabus for the validation of courses, programmes and examinations in architecture :

incorporating prescription of qualifications : ARB criteria. RIBA Enterprises. London.

SAINT, A.,SAINT, A.,SAINT, A.,SAINT, A., 1983198319831983.... The Image of the Architect . Yale University Press. New Haven and London.

SALAMA, A.,SALAMA, A.,SALAMA, A.,SALAMA, A., 2005.2005.2005.2005. New Trends in Architectural Education- Designing the Design Studio. 3rd

ed. [Online] Ashraf Salama. United States Agency.

Available from:HU

http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=6330UH

Accessed 25/02/2010.

SENNETT, R.,SENNETT, R.,SENNETT, R.,SENNETT, R., 2008200820082008. The Craftsman. Penguin Group. Allen Lane. London.

ST JOHN WILSON, C.,ST JOHN WILSON, C.,ST JOHN WILSON, C.,ST JOHN WILSON, C., 1995.1995.1995.1995. The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture- the uncompleted

project. Academy Group Ltd. National Book Network INC. USA.



53

Journals

CHADWICK, M., 2004.CHADWICK, M., 2004.CHADWICK, M., 2004.CHADWICK, M., 2004. Back to School . Architectural Design. Wiley Academy. UK.

DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR,DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR,DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR,DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR, M., 2009.M., 2009.M., 2009.M., 2009. MADE. MADE. MADE. MADE. Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff

University. Cardiff.

FORNEY, J.,FORNEY, J.,FORNEY, J.,FORNEY, J., 2005200520052005. Learning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year TenLearning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year TenLearning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year TenLearning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year Ten. In: SHEIL, B.,

2005. Design Through Making . Architectural Design. Wiley Academy.

HOTZ, S.H., 2009. A Pot for the Hand.HOTZ, S.H., 2009. A Pot for the Hand.HOTZ, S.H., 2009. A Pot for the Hand.HOTZ, S.H., 2009. A Pot for the Hand. In: DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR, M., 2009. MADE.

Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University. Cardiff.

LYNCH, P.,LYNCH, P.,LYNCH, P.,LYNCH, P., 2004. Architectural Education2004. Architectural Education2004. Architectural Education2004. Architectural Education---- the information and the arguementthe information and the arguementthe information and the arguementthe information and the arguement.... In:

CHADWICK, M., 2004. Back to School . Architectural Design. Wiley Academy. UK.

PRIZEMAN, M.,PRIZEMAN, M.,PRIZEMAN, M.,PRIZEMAN, M., 2020202005.05.05.05. Hooke Park: As a New Initiative in EducationHooke Park: As a New Initiative in EducationHooke Park: As a New Initiative in EducationHooke Park: As a New Initiative in Education.... In: SHEIL, B.,

2005. Design Through Making .... Architectural Design. Wiley Academy.



54

Conference Readings/Lectures

ALEXANDER, ALEXANDER, ALEXANDER, ALEXANDER, C., 2008.C., 2008.C., 2008.C., 2008. The unspoken assumption and its antidotes.The unspoken assumption and its antidotes.The unspoken assumption and its antidotes.The unspoken assumption and its antidotes. In: ROAF, S.,

BAIRSTOW, A., 2008. The Oxford Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture .

WIT Press. Cambridge Printing.

BERMAN, A.,BERMAN, A.,BERMAN, A.,BERMAN, A., 2008.2008.2008.2008. The Hand Hits Back.The Hand Hits Back.The Hand Hits Back.The Hand Hits Back. In: ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW, A., 2008. The

Oxford Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture . WIT Press. Cambridge

Printing.

HARDY, M., 2008. Experiments in traditional building, architecture and urbanismHARDY, M., 2008. Experiments in traditional building, architecture and urbanismHARDY, M., 2008. Experiments in traditional building, architecture and urbanismHARDY, M., 2008. Experiments in traditional building, architecture and urbanismeducation: INTBAU’s recent work.education: INTBAU’s recent work.education: INTBAU’s recent work.education: INTBAU’s recent work. In: ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW, A., 2008. The Oxford

Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture . WIT Press. Cambridge Printing.

MARTIN, L.,MARTIN, L.,MARTIN, L.,MARTIN, L., 1958. Proceedings from the ‘1958 RIBA Conference on Architectural1958. Proceedings from the ‘1958 RIBA Conference on Architectural1958. Proceedings from the ‘1958 RIBA Conference on Architectural1958. Proceedings from the ‘1958 RIBA Conference on Architectural

Education’Education’Education’Education’.

ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW,ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW,ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW,ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW, A., A., A., A., 2008.2008.2008.2008. The Oxford Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in

Architecture. WIT Press. Cambridge Printing. UK.



55

Curriculum/Prospectuses

Architects Association School of Architecture., 2010. Architects Association School of Architecture., 2010. Architects Association School of Architecture., 2010. Architects Association School of Architecture., 2010. AA Design + Make- AA Graduate

Diploma (Design & Make) /MArch Master in Architecture (Design & Make) (Course Brochure)[Online].

Available at:HU

http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/Downloads/HookPark/aa_dm_brochure.pdf UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

London South Bank., 2010London South Bank., 2010London South Bank., 2010London South Bank., 2010.

BA (Hons) Architecture (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://prospectus.lsbu.ac.uk/courses/course.php?UCASCode=K100U


Robert Gordon University., 2010.Robert Gordon University., 2010.Robert Gordon University., 2010.Robert Gordon University., 2010.

MArch Architecture (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.rgu.ac.uk/architecture-construction-and-surveying/study-

options/undergraduate-full-time/architectureU


University of BatUniversity of BatUniversity of BatUniversity of Bath., 2010.h., 2010.h., 2010.h., 2010.

Bsc Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.bath.ac.uk/catalogues/2009-2010/ar/UEAR-ANB08.htmU


MArch Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at: HUhttp://www.bath.ac.uk/catalogues/2009-2010/ar/UEAR-ANB08.htmU




56

Queens University Belfast., 2010.Queens University Belfast., 2010.Queens University Belfast., 2010.Queens University Belfast., 2010.

Bsc Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/arc/Education/BachelorofScienceinArchitecture-

PartI/U



Available at: HUhttp://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/arc/Education/MasterofArchitecture-PartII/UH


University of Ulster., 2010.University of Ulster., 2010.University of Ulster., 2010.University of Ulster., 2010.

BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.adbe.ulster.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/6958U


Msc Architectural Studies (Course Prospectus)

Available at: HUhttp://www.adbe.ulster.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/7750U



Available at:HU

http://www.adbe.ulster.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/7763U


Birmingham City Univerity., 2010.Birmingham City Univerity., 2010.Birmingham City Univerity., 2010.Birmingham City Univerity., 2010.

MA Architectural Studies (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/architectural-studiesU



Available at: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/architecture-riba-part-i-exemption


PGDip Architecture

Available at: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/architecture-riba-part-ii-exemption-pgdip




57

University of Cambridge., 2010.University of Cambridge., 2010.University of Cambridge., 2010.University of Cambridge., 2010.

BA Hons Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:

HUhttp://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Arct/Section.aspx?p=23&ix=23&pid=1214&prcid=4&ppid=1214UH


MPhil (B) Architecture

Available at:

HU

http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Arct/Section.aspx?p=23&ix=24&pid=1214&prcid=4&ppid=1214UH


University CollegUniversity CollegUniversity CollegUniversity College for Creative Arts, Canterbury., 2010.e for Creative Arts, Canterbury., 2010.e for Creative Arts, Canterbury., 2010.e for Creative Arts, Canterbury., 2010.


Available at:HU

http://www.ucreative.ac.uk/index.cfm?articleid=20463U


EdinburghEdinburghEdinburghEdinburgh College of Art., 2010.College of Art., 2010.College of Art., 2010.College of Art., 2010.

BA Architecture

MA (Hons) Architecture

MA (Hons) Architecture in Creative and Cultural Environments

Available at:HU

http://www.eca.ac.uk/index.php?id=612UH


Glasgow School of Art., 2010.Glasgow School of Art., 2010.Glasgow School of Art., 2010.Glasgow School of Art., 2010.

(Whole Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.gsa.ac.uk/downloads/prospectus/GSA_10-

11_SCHOOL_OF_ARCHITECTURE.pdf UH




58

University of Strathclyde., 2010.University of Strathclyde., 2010.University of Strathclyde., 2010.University of Strathclyde., 2010.

Bsc Architecture Studies. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.strath.ac.uk/architecture/courses/undergraduatearchitecturalstudies/U


De Montfort University., 2010.De Montfort University., 2010.De Montfort University., 2010.De Montfort University., 2010.


Available at:HU

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/art_and_design/ug_courses/arch.jspU


University of Liverpool.,2010.University of Liverpool.,2010.University of Liverpool.,2010.University of Liverpool.,2010.


Available at:HU

http://www.liv.ac.uk/lsa/ba_arch/index.htmUH


Liverpool John Moores University.,2010.Liverpool John Moores University.,2010.Liverpool John Moores University.,2010.Liverpool John Moores University.,2010.

BA Hons Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/factfiles/?CourseId=K100UH


Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.,2010.Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.,2010.Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.,2010.Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.,2010.

Bsc (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/programmes/bsc.htmUH


PGDip Architecture

Available at:HU

http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/programmes/diploma.htmUH




59

London Metropolitan University.,2010.London Metropolitan University.,2010.London Metropolitan University.,2010.London Metropolitan University.,2010.


Available at:HU

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/architecture/courses/undergraduate/ba-

architecture.cfmUH


London South Bank University.,2010London South Bank University.,2010London South Bank University.,2010London South Bank University.,2010.


Available at:HU

http://prospectus.lsbu.ac.uk/courses/course.php?UCASCode=K100UH


Northumbria University.,2010.Northumbria University.,2010.Northumbria University.,2010.Northumbria University.,2010.


Available at:

HUhttp://www.northumbria.ac.uk/?view=CourseDetail&code=UUFARC1&page=detailU


University of Nottingham.,2010.University of Nottingham.,2010.University of Nottingham.,2010.University of Nottingham.,2010.

Dip Architecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ugstudy/course.php?code=019467UH


Nottingham Trent University.,2010.Nottingham Trent University.,2010.Nottingham Trent University.,2010.Nottingham Trent University.,2010.

BArchitecture. (Course Prospectus)

Available at:HU

http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/pss/courses/cf/60731-

1/10/BArch_%28Hons%29_Architecture.aspxUH




60

Reports

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)., 2007.Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)., 2007.Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)., 2007.Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)., 2007. Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the

Architectural Association [Online]. RIBA. London.

Available at:

HU

http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Education/Validation/BoardRep

ortsSummaryReports/ArchitecturalAssociationLondon/Visiting%20Board%20Report%20200

7.pdf U


GuidesGuidesGuidesGuides

Roberts, A., 2007.Roberts, A., 2007.Roberts, A., 2007.Roberts, A., 2007. Problem Based Learning in Architecture. [Online] The Centre for Education

in the Built Environment (CEBE). Cardiff.

Available at:HUhttp://wzww.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/cebe/documents/resources/briefingguides/BriefingGuide_

11.pdf U




61

Bibliography

ALEXANDER, C., 2002. ALEXANDER, C., 2002. ALEXANDER, C., 2002. ALEXANDER, C., 2002. The Nature of Order- An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature

of the Universe. The Process of Creating Life. Center for Environmental Structure. California.

AL AL AL AL----QAWASMI, J., VASQUEZQAWASMI, J., VASQUEZQAWASMI, J., VASQUEZQAWASMI, J., VASQUEZ DE VELASCO, GP., 20DE VELASCO, GP., 20DE VELASCO, GP., 20DE VELASCO, GP., 2006.06.06.06. Changing Trends in

Architectural Design Education (Proceedings from CSAAR 2006 Conference). CSAAR.

CURTIS J.R, WILLIAM., 1996.CURTIS J.R, WILLIAM., 1996.CURTIS J.R, WILLIAM., 1996.CURTIS J.R, WILLIAM., 1996. Modern Architecture Since 1900. Phaidon Press Ltd. New

York.

MA MA MA MATURANA, BTURANA, BTURANA, BTURANA, B.,.,.,., 2008.2008.2008.2008. Resetting Agendas- a conference on climate change. ARQ Vol 12.

No3/4. p210.

MORDANT CROOK, J., 1987.MORDANT CROOK, J., 1987.MORDANT CROOK, J., 1987.MORDANT CROOK, J., 1987. The Dilemma of Style- Architectural Ideas from the

Picturesque to the Post-Modern. John Murray Ltd. London.

MORDEN, I., RUEDI RAY, K.,MORDEN, I., RUEDI RAY, K.,MORDEN, I., RUEDI RAY, K.,MORDEN, I., RUEDI RAY, K., 2006.2006.2006.2006. The Dissertation: An Architecture Students Handbook .

Architectural Press. Oxford. UK.

MORROW, R., BELFORD, T., 2008. Soft Garniture: developing hybrid materialsMORROW, R., BELFORD, T., 2008. Soft Garniture: developing hybrid materialsMORROW, R., BELFORD, T., 2008. Soft Garniture: developing hybrid materialsMORROW, R., BELFORD, T., 2008. Soft Garniture: developing hybrid materials

between academia and industry.between academia and industry.between academia and industry.between academia and industry. In: ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW, A., 2008. The Oxford

Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture . WIT Press. Cambridge Printing.

PAPADAKIS, A., WATSOPAPADAKIS, A., WATSOPAPADAKIS, A., WATSOPAPADAKIS, A., WATSON, H., 1990N, H., 1990N, H., 1990N, H., 1990.... New Classicism: Omnibus Volume. Academy

editions. London.

SCOTT, G., 1999.SCOTT, G., 1999.SCOTT, G., 1999.SCOTT, G., 1999. The Architecture of Humanism- A Study in the History of Taste. W.W

Norton Company INC. USA



62

SUMMERSON, J., 2006.SUMMERSON, J., 2006.SUMMERSON, J., 2006.SUMMERSON, J., 2006. The Classical Language of Architecture . Thames & Hudson World

of Art. London.



63

Appendix

1. Survey Example

The three-page survey, which is shown in the following, was produced online through a survey

company called smart-survey©. A link for the survey was distributed online through the social

networking site Facebook©, as well as other architecture student forums.

Students were asked for consent to undertake the survey prior to its commencement and

were informed that their answers would form part of a student dissertation project. The use of

the students name in the survey was clearly described as optional information.

Survey Page 1- Description and participant details.



64

Survey Page 2- Section 1- Course Content Q’s 2- 6.



65

Survey Page 2- Section 2- Process of Design Q’s 7- 13.



3. Student Analysis and Curriculum Analysis Results.

The table in the following the combined results from our analysis on the existence of hands-on,

workshop base approaches to teaching construction technology and design.

(Individual References, for those universities whose prospectuses were analysed, have been

listed in the ‘Curriculum/Prospectus’ section within the references.)

is there a place for 'traditional teaching' techniques within today's architecture...

Documents