This dissertation seeks to analyse the existence of ‘traditional teaching’ approaches within the context of twenty-first century UK architectural pedagogy. 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.


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.


15 pg. 17 pg. 11 pg. 21 pg. 21 pg. 16 pg. 24 3 . 10 pg. 10 pg. 23 pg. 14 pg. 16 pg. 13 pg. 23 pg. 22 pg. 6 pg. 5 pg. 18 pg. 19 Craftsmanship Today Contemporary Psychological Theory ‘The Hand Hits Back’ The Craft of the Glassblower The Pot and the Hand Ancient Letter Carving A Return to Ruskin pg. 9 pg. 18 pg.Contents List of Illustrations Introduction Definition of ‘Traditional Teaching’ Historical Context Wrens Royal Works Pupillage and Early Professionalisation The Arts and Crafts Resistance Ecole des Beaux Arts Model Beaux Arts in Britain Functionalism The Bauhaus ‘Vorkurs’ The Modernist Paradigm The Oxford Conference The ‘Official System’ Modernist Influence Today pg.

62 pg. 30 pg. 32 pg. 31 pg.Survey Results Course Content Curriculum Process of Design pg. 30 pg. 47 pg. 52 pg. 36 Craftsmanship Student Voices on Craftsmanship .Student Survey . 27 pg. 64 List of Illustrations 4 . 39 pg. 43 pg. 38 pg.Building in the Studio Oxford Conference 2008 The Unwritten Assumption INTBAU Training Model pg. 44 Conclusion References Bibliography Appendix pg. 25 pg. 38 pg. 28 pg. 28 - Contemporary Educational Models The ‘Pupillage/Apprenticeship’ Model The ‘Degree Laboratory’ Model The ‘Hooke Park’ Model The ‘Rural Studio’ Model pg. 33 - RIBA Control Over Curriculum pg.

Figure 1.8. Figure 3. Survey Results Q5.2. Group or Individual? Most beneficial? Results.) Survey Results Q2.7. Figure 3.5. Bauhaus Curriculum. Figure 3.1. Group or Individual? Results. (Naylor: 1985. Figure 3.1.6. Figure 3. 5 . Figure 3. Overall Results. Curriculum Analysis Results. Figure 3.4. Survey Results Q3. The Bauhaus Reassessed.3. Survey Results (Experience of workshops). Figure 3.

as well the views and preferences of those students who experience theoretical learning approaches first hand. and the learning advantages it brings to students. As a reaction to this perceived gap. an increasing awareness of the need for change within architectural education has become more and more evident.Introduction ‘… architects do not make buildings. based primarily on the complex gap that exists between academia and practice (Nicol and Pilling 2000 p 6). crudely describes the root from which this enquiry into traditional teaching approaches within architectural pedagogy stems. they draw them …’ Callicott & Sheil (2000) The ‘unwritten assumption’ asserted by Callicott and Sheil (Callicott and Sheil 2000 p72) above. 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). In recent years. 6 . 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. we will be discussing the changing presence of traditional teaching within architectural curriculum. 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. that appears to fragment the industry as a whole. will aid us with our discussion. Both theoretical and physical examples of such approaches.

The ‘student analysis’ will be undertaken through a survey which aims to question current architecture students.Methodology There will be three aspects to this study of traditional teaching within architectural pedagogy. We will also examine the RIBA’s current control over architectural curriculum. The ‘contemporary analysis’ element forms the second element of the literature review. and where necessary. It will also aim to understand the personal experiences of different learning approaches the students have used while studying. and outside of architecture. at various universities across the UK. This analysis will enable us to gauge the value that is placed on such approaches both within. consisting of a historical analysis. 7 . and focuses on the current intellectual ideas and theories. ensuring the writing remains accurate. as well as the content of the current criteria which is used to guide and validate schools of architecture. trends and educational systems have had on the state of today’s architecture schools. that support the approach we are considering. and a student analysis. It will form the first element of the literature review. on the existence of traditional approaches to learning present on their course. 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. a secondary research method that examines university curricula has also been adopted. as well as realised models of architectural pedagogy. as well as the influence past movements. so we can begin to consider if it does indeed have a place within architectural pedagogy. and has drawn content from an extensive range of books. a contemporary analysis. The ‘historical analysis’ element is fundamentally a chronological recollection of craft’s existence within architectural pedagogy over the past 300 years.

‘craftsmanship’. the introduction of traditional approaches to future architectural pedagogy. 8 . and consider the arguments for and potential barriers against. These include ‘traditional teaching’. Within this piece of writing. ‘hands-on’.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’. it is important to note that various terms. one model that would be most suitable for current architectural academia. This section will also identify from the discussed models for education. ‘empirical’. which hold the same meaning. and then consider how it might help to bridge or repair the perceived skills and knowledge gap between academia and practice. and ‘workshop-based’ learning. if this is at all the right thing to do. ‘crafts-based’. have been used interchangeably.

and providing student experience through contact with building crafts.Definition of ‘Traditional Teaching’ It is first important that we clearly define ‘traditional teaching’ within an architectural context. grounded in craftsmanship. 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. 9 . we will be seeking to understand an apprenticeship-style method of architectural training. When discussing ‘traditional teaching’.

in an apprenticeship form similar to that above. knowledge was passed down from masters to apprentices. Within the apprenticeship. as opposed to a traditional craft apprenticeship which focused on one trade (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16). DefinitionDefinition empirical -derived from or guided by experience or experiment. The delegation of duties that was seen at the Royal Works. 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. 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. being that from the master to his apprentice. 1.Historical Context Wren’s Royal Works Prior to the introduction of educational institutions for architecture. as well as on the building site. The Royal Works offered a quasi-medieval form of training. Initially it was very similar to that of the craft apprenticeship. This training allowed students to work practically with and in the presence of the building crafts (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16).a process within which the craftsman gained design skills empirically 1 (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p18). with the two routes being differentiated only by the fact 10 . became the basis for the training system of pupillage (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p22). the traditional craft apprenticeship had been one of the primary entry routes into the field of architecture. bricklaying or carpentry. and involved rigorous training in masonry. The architects training at this institution allowed movement across the various crafts and out of them. and was an alternative route into the profession of architecture at that time (Crinson and Lubbock p22). with experience taking place in an architect’s office.

theory based training (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p38). which changed architectural pedagogy routes from a building lodge style of training into a more academic. Initially. namely between the arts and the science and economics of 11 . it was soon coupled with attendance to an academy for lectures and drawing lessons. as well as foreign travel. and a variety of classes and backgrounds undertaking apprenticeships (Crinson and Lubbock p24). it was common for apprentices from a variety of classes and backgrounds to enter into a craft-apprenticeship under a master craftsman or architect. the apprentice exchanged his labour for his instruction (Earle: 1989 p85-6).a route which came to dominate entry into the profession by 1800 (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p26). and the requirement for payment in return for education. the rising popularity of pupillage. 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.that while the pupil paid for his education. as a result of the industry’s professionalisation. Traditionally. 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. The emergence of this common route helps to illustrate the transition that occurred in architectural training at this time. this teaching system evolved informally in architects offices. however. However. Ruskin clearly expresses his dismay over the deep division and contradiction that was occurring in early 19th century architecture. led to a difference in status with more of the professions recruits now coming from the middle classes (Saint: 1983 p57).

However. seen so far through the introduction of universities. the push towards professionalisation. the greatest period of influence gained by the Arts and Crafts movement on architectural training came in the 1890’s through William Lethaby.building. in response to the decline in building craftsmanship that had occurred after the industrial revolution (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p57). Ruskin. which was established alongside many other provincial schools with the aim of training designers and craftsmen for architecture (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p53). Lethaby too aimed to recuperate the practices and skills 12 . waging arguments similar to that of Pugin in the 1830’s and 1840’s (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p57). John Ruskin took up a position on this issue of professionalisation through examination in the 1860’s. London. an early member of the Arts and Crafts movement (Saint: 1983 p64).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). 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 1837.W. Significant resistance against this professionalisation of architecture and the ignorance of the crafts was formed through the precursorsnamely A. In 1834. one of the first institutions of this resistance set up by Pugin was the Government School of Design. 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). seen primarily as a result of the industrial revolution (St John Wilson 2000). He believed in the value and independence of craftsmanship within architecture.of the late 19th century artistic movement known as Arts and Crafts (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p50-53).N Pugin and J. was further supported by the establishment of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).

when it emerged from a system of government which sponsored the academic institutions established in France at this time (Salama: 2005 p41). 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. following the path and ideas of Ruskin (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p65). he went onto establish several schools which focused specifically on building trades (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p69). allowing 13 . At this point in time. Lethaby’s once prominent and highly influential position in architectural education was finally undermined in 1905. one which followed the precept of Ruskin. and was first directed by Nicholas Francois Blondel (Salama: 2005 p 42). Lethaby suggested the introduction of a new school of architecture and building trades. as support for the French method of training. it was felt that the academic education provided the necessary framework for a reformed architectural education (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p86).an institution that taught architecture as design. grew rapidly (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p72).that had been lost during the industrial revolution. and which ultimately materialised in the Central School of Arts and Crafts. 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. After realising this approach could not in itself re- orientate architectural training. craft and construction (Frampton: 2007 p49). 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). (which he jointly-directed).seen in the Ecole des Beaux Arts model. the objective of which was to provide advice and help in connection with Royal buildings. One of these institutions was the Royal Academy of Architecture. London.

45). resulting in a fundamental switch of values. Beaux Arts in Britain In the mid. as the school’s central ethos lay primarily in the development of the ’ individual’s imagination. There were however. which had prevailed in France. St John Wilson describes how architecture schools began to follow the Beaux Arts model. which became compulsory in 1882 (RIBA 2003 p5-6). At the same time the RIBA was beginning to make a significant push towards professionalisation. or surveyor (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p90).namely through their creation of the optional Examination in Architecture in 1863. Academies which focused on an abstract. some characteristics of the Beaux Arts system evident at the AA at this time. He then also goes onto discuss the emergence of Functionalism as a reaction 14 .the Beaux-Arts model. function and craftsmanship (St John Wilson: 1995 p44. replaced the traditional workshops whose essence lied in beauty.19th century Britain a strong reaction to this governmentcontrolled system of architectural pedagogy. to infiltrate the situation. Writing in The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture (St John Wilson 1995). rather than to the state (Balfour: 1995 p78). 45). The teaching methods of the Beaux Arts system quickly became an unchallenged. The design process saw a shift away towards the development of individual student ingenuity (St John Wilson: 1995 p44. universal practice in the setting up of the first schools of architecture.an educational institution operating outside of the governments’ control. The AA’s concept was spurred on by the realisation within society that an individual’s creativity belongs to them alone. was seen through the creation of London’s Architectural Association (AA) (Balfour: 1995 p78) . completing the separation of the role of the architect from that of the builder. engineer. ‘paper’ architecture. which was grounded in the academy.

The arrival of this set of ideas saw the birth of the modern movement. p181). Functionalism As a result of this fragmentation and the rapidly developing ‘science of statics’ and analysis of physical material properties.to this system. the term Sachlickheit was the most heavily coined at the end of the 19th century. which has had many different meanings since its first use in early 18th century Italy. and was related to the expression of the mechanics of structure (Forty: 2000. It is one of the German translations of function and was adopted when describing the emerging modernist agenda in Germany (Forty: 2000. literally means ‘thingness’. it became virtually a synonym for the newly found modernist system (Forty: 2000. and at the Bauhaus school of architecture in Weimar. p44. especially in relation to the increasingly modernist culture. 45). After the creation of this term. the industry saw an emergence of the movement known at the time as Functionalism (St John Wilson: 1995. 15 . Sacklickheit. it continued to be widely used up until the year 1920. p181). and the resulting birth of the modernist system of teaching. Although the term ‘Functionalism’ is a complex one. p180). one which would dominate architecture for the rest of the century. a system which eradicated that system preceding it.

and combined the Academy of Art with the School of Arts and Crafts.’ Walter Gropius. which aimed to develop individual design ingenuity through various design exercises. the Vorkurs. (Naylor: 1985) ‘Vorkurs’ At this time. Itten believed this technique could be 16 . the founder of the school of architecture known as the Bauhaus in the early 20th century.The Bauhaus ‘Modern Architecture is not a few branches of an old tree. claiming the medieval workshop as its method of doing so (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p91). design and craftsmanship into a new architecture (See figure 1. As the Bauhaus.1 . slowly matured. 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). He established the Bauhaus’s most influential technique for first year students. and to reunite all artistic disciplines.sculpture. It attempted to discover ‘laws’ in art that could be related to design and architecture.This diagram describes the curriculum structure of the Bauhaus.1) (Moffett: 2003 p512). 1. outlines here how historic architecture and tradition had been excluded from the syllabus of the Bauhaus (St John Wilson: 1995 p27). which began with the idea of craftsmanship as a means of art. painting.1Figure 1. 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).Bauhaus Curriculum . it shifted to craftsmanship for industrial production (Frampton: 2007 p126-127). The school strived to gather all the artistic ingenuity as one entity. The Bauhaus in Weimar was set up in 1919.it is a new growth coming right from the roots. (St John Wilson: 1995) Walter Gropius.

Evolutionary changes in other architecture schools were also evident at the time.an approach whose present day existence and inherent benefits we will aim to reveal through our student investigation. At this point. the modernist curriculum continued to replace that of the Beaux-arts system within many architecture schools. as opposed to the individualism seen in the Beaux-Arts system (Pearce and Toy: 1995 p107). rather than traditional. as well as at a theoretical level through the solving of contemporary. when Gropius’s interests shifted towards industrial design (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p92-93). Shortly after the Second World War. The Modernist Paradigm In the 1930’s. marking the leading edge of modernist change in British architectural education. Here we can begin to understand that although craft was central to the Bauhaus curriculum. quite simply through the students’ use of modernist examples for design inspiration. Modernists were gradually succeeding in gaining more and more 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. Ittens approach to architectural pedagogy soon changed however. it was more emphasised on the individualised exploration of craft. problems in the studio (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p106). through an increased focus on teamwork. which were based around the use of previous learning to develop further knowledge and skills. and by the 1950’s almost all schools considered they had a form of modernist education in operation. the AA was gradually moving its orientation towards modernism. The transition from the Beaux-arts system to modernism was also being seen through power shifts within the RIBA. This move was finally set in 1939. 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.

‘Architecture: Art or Profession?’ (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994). The Official System functioned as a single mould for architectural education in Britain. in other words.positions on the RIBA board. An analysis of course content discussed within the book. officially now an academic. the fundamentals of which. An architect’s education was. took place and was attended by only 50 men. according to Crinson and Lubbock. 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). as well as achieving the long awaited institutional control over architectural education (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p137). the Oxford Conference on architectural education. 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). as a method of cementing a coherent and consistent policy towards teaching in architecture schools. which had its origin in the council at the RIBA. 18 . rather than a practical and pupillage. based form of pedagogy (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p154). which focused on various architecture schools across the country in the early 1990’s. all of whom were white and ‘came from within the bounds of the architectural profession’ (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). before suddenly acquiring complete power in the 1950’s (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p125). In 1958. The Oxford Conference The conference on architectural education was hatched intentionally by those modernists of the RIBA board. helps to support this assumption. 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). still exist within many of today’s architecture schools (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p165).

academy based style. These findings help to illustrate how the Official System had remained as the framework for architectural education up until the early 1990’s. in that it was an induction into the modernist way of thinking. as well as the designing of a small autonomous objects (Crinson and Lubbock p163). Summary This short. Many of these small design projects involved exercises in abstraction and the manipulation of pure forms and space. 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. and three-dimensional pattern making exercises that were based purely on the ingenuity of the individual designer (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p163). which incorporated student ‘cleansing’. identical to those seen in both the Bauhaus and Beaux-arts systems of teaching (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.Modernist Influence Today It found many characteristics within the typical architecture course. In addition to this. 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). 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. 19 . 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.

as well as to give them greater preparation for architectural practice.a result of the industry’s professionalisation and the influence of the modernist agenda.We have seen the slow decline of the apprenticeship and pupillage based approaches to teaching. as well as the current strength it has over their curriculum. as well as physical models illustrating their successful implementation into architectural teaching.the Ecole des Beaux Arts and the Bauhaus. Despite some resistance to these changes. structure and construction processes. We must then begin to discuss whether or not it would be possible to introduce hands-on. we saw the creation of two dominating models for architectural education. It will next be necessary to examine the extent to which the characteristics of the ‘Official System’ still exist within UK architecture schools. 20 . and their eventual replacement by the school of architecture. This was helped by the first Oxford Conference on architecture which created the mould for academic system of architecture prevalent in the UK today. Such a discussion will focus both on current theories on such approaches. namely through those who valued craft and tradition at the time. workshop based training into architectural curriculum in order to give students a greater understanding of materials.

and believes that they benefit greatly from the process of development and refinement inherent when crafting an object or product (Berman: 2008 p274). one that involves our whole body. and states that our sensory experiences contribute hugely to our three-dimensional understanding of form and space.with a particular focus of the relationship between the craftsman’s hands and the creative ability of their mind. which described in detail the essential and integral part our hands and bodily faculties play in the use of our human conceptual capabilities. 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.e.Craftsmanship Today In order to gain a broad understanding of the existence and support of craftsmanship and traditional teaching within architectural pedagogy today. 21 . Berman proposes that designing is a somatic experience i. 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 discusses how our hands express the full creative potential of the mind when used as tools for making and drawing (Berman: 2008 p274). ‘The Hand Hits Back’ Alan Berman presented a lecture at the 2008 Oxford Conference called ‘The Hand Hits back’. it is important for us to analyse the contemporary theories and realised models of education which incorporate this approach.

is the craft of the glassblower. Such a somatic experience ensures the craftsman remains stimulated throughout his work. he describes to the reader the steps the glassblower takes. Sennett quite cleverly uses the example of a glassblower and their typical working process.The Craft of the Glassblower In a similar way. and discusses how it can provide an insight into the techniques of experience. turning. which could be applied to any process of hands-on making. whose inherent skills are based in the ability of his hand and eyes to couple together and achieve concentration (Sennett: 2008 p173). valuable lessons can be learnt from his discussion.by becoming a part of the object on which he was working (Sennett: 2008 p174). which in turn can shape our dealings and interactions with one-another (Sennett: 2000 p289).blowing. Here. Although Sennett does not deal directly with this idea within the design process. and so on. Richard Sennett analyses the craft of making physical things. p149) Most importantly perhaps is Sennett’s explanation of the idea of unity between the head and the hand. within the book ‘The Craftsman’. 22 . From his writing we can begin to understand how such a relationship strengthens the craftsman’s physical articulation and skills. an idea which is portrayed in Immanuel Kant’s quote above. and ensures they remain intrinsically motivated throughout their work. turning. Initially. blowing. ‘The hand is a window onto the mind …’ Immanuel Kant. and has acquired a perfected technical skill that cannot be lost (Sennett: 2008 p177). But then goes on to explain how this process of refinement enabled the glassblower to develop a better awareness and coordination in a subconscious manner. (Sennett: 2008. moving the molten glass in and out of the furnace. adjusting posture. One example Sennett uses. as a way of describing the somatic relationship between the craftsman and his object.

At one point within the article. and one which could ultimately make the learning process far more efficient and enjoyable for all involved. When relating such an example back to academia. who specialises in lettering. through our senses. and the ‘ideological empathy’ that can exist between concept and user (Dutoit and McVicar: 2009 p3). as well as describing the human hunger to touch and explore. knowledge and understanding of materials. revealing a narrative of the craftsman’s ideas and knowledge process (Hotz: 2009 p5). expressing the joy inherent in seeing objects that are made by hand. students are able to ‘convey the ideas. knowledge. He goes on to justify this working technique. an act which is visually nourishing. we can begin to understand how it might prove advantageous to students of architecture. stone inscriptionsrather than computer generated carvings. Ancient Letter Carving Within a small chapter on ‘Ancient Letter Carving’ (Kindersley: 2008 p53) Richard Kindersley. Hotz describes the ability of crafted objects to transmit ‘tactile knowledge’ and ‘sensual experience’ direct to the user. as well as their work ethic. describes his own process of work and its heavy orientation towards hand carved.We are also able to use this example and apply it to academia. the objects that are crafted by others. considering how such an empirical process might help to improve the students design skills. ‘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). He then goes on to describe how these objects become a source of visual 23 . when he compares the intimate relationship between a pot and the hand of a potter. and perceptive tale’ (Hotz: 2009 p5) of their design process. Through crafted objects.

In the following writing however. A Return to Ruskin Writing within the article ‘Not Arts and Crafts’. not by resorting to concepts but by focusing on perfecting a single part of the building (Hanson: 1995 p107). Kindersley. Hanson (Hanson: 1995) states that in order to achieve Ruskin’s idea of an architecture that ‘lives in detail’. In relation to the idea of craft-based workshops within future architectural pedagogy. and finally learning about the whole of a building. In a theoretical manner. when he outlines their inherent qualities. 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.namely those of both pupillage and apprenticeship. within architectural pedagogy. to look more precisely at the advantages hands-on methods of teaching can bring within architecture or design schools. Hanson quite evidently emphasises his support for more traditional teaching approaches. a return to a pupillage/apprenticeship form of architectural education is required (Hanson: 1995 p107). another is learning through submitting yourself initially into somebody else’s idea of what is being aimed at. 24 . which express the essentially human aspect of spirit (Kindersley: 2008 p53). one can see the ideas expressed by Berman.nourishment. Sennett.which all place a great value on the use of the hand during the design process. Hanson (Hanson: 1995) and Lynch (Lynch: 2004) move away from this close relationship between the hand and the mind. and Hotz. rather than one that just looks good on the page. supporting the change in education we are discussing.

Lynch describes how the process of building and refinement can become a ‘refuge for contemplation and reappraisal’. sometimes at full scale (Lynch: 2004 p55). and the ‘rhythm and logic of repetitive. the architect-in-residence and head of the Graduate Architecture Centre at Cranbrook Academy of Art. Lynch describes the process of craft and making as a ‘refuge’. physical and co-operative tasks’ (Lynch: 2004 p56). Summary The process of refinement and repetition within craftsmanship is mentioned by Sennett. In essence. the students are able to inject their own uniqueness into their work. and states that although slow. one which is derived directly from their own personal life experiences. 25 . within which a student can fully resolve their problem while simultaneously learning from the process. At one point. stating that the students use of hands-on techniques are an effective method of translating their own intuitions. He goes on to conclude his writing by making a similar assertion to that of Hotz (Hotz: 2009 p5). Lynch starts by describing the architecture students’ reliance within his studio on physical models. allowing students to understand the labour involved in craftsmanship. Lynch and Hanson as one which is paramount to ensuring students fully absorb information and acquire valuable technical skills. assemblies and structures. a metaphorical description that leaves us imagining a shelter.Building in the Studio In the educational publication ‘Back to School’ (Lynch: 2004) those qualities expressed by Hanson are strongly supported by Peter Lynch. it has value. desires and needs into physical constructions during the design process.

Kindersley then supports this notion. intuitions and desires into their work. He also describes crafted objects as visually nourishing. as well to help express our full creativity when designing. and is quite clearly opposed to the use of technology. 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. Additionally. And now we have analysed the actual theoretical and psychological benefits the ‘hands-on’ design process can foster and provide its participants. we can begin to understand the positive role such a technique can adopt for students while learning during the design process.a preference that also seems to be adopted by Berman when he criticises CAD machines. Lynch and Hotz both praise the opportunity for designers to use craftsmanship to transmit their own characteristics. When discussing those theories on craftsmanship and making set out above. by expressing the significant joy he receives when inscribing stones by hand. 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. while at the same time extracting significant enjoyment from the experience.

most evidently at the 2008 Oxford Conference on Architecture. as well as society.Oxford Conference 2008 We should note the significant level of support that has occurred in recent years. and continents to express their ideas on the future of architectural pedagogy (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). 27 . it marked a general change in attitudes within architectural academia and profession. which aimed to rethink the agenda for teaching in schools of architecture and to increase its relevance to changing circumstances around us (Maturana: 2008). The very existence of this conference represents a situation that is already sympathetic towards new. It provided an opportunity for key individuals of all sexes. colours. as well as proposals for how its structure and its teaching programmes might be changed. and an academic environment which will ensure greater credibility and success for these ideas in the futurecraftsmanship being one of those ideas (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). building and ‘hands-on’ learning techniques. particularly its inability to ready students for movement into practice. challenging ideas and proposals for architectural teaching programmes. and we will now analyse these in more detail to gain an understanding of the potential mould architectural pedagogy could take in the future. Many speakers at the conference highlight their scepticism of the techniques used within the current architectural teaching system. A number of these opinions had a particular focus on craft. 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. for a change in architectural pedagogy. creeds. Being the first conference aimed at re-evaluating architectural education since 1958.

p 409). which was presented at the 2008 Oxford Conference on architectural pedagogy. He also highlights the emphasis on the teaching of buildings as individual components of society. outlining its inability to teach the art of building successfully (Alexander: 2008. is given significant emphasis by Christopher Alexander in his lecture ‘The unspoken assumption and its antidotes’ during the introduction to the conference. Architecture and Urbanism UK’ (INTBAU UK) programme. lies in more practical ways of thinking and teaching within architectural pedagogy (Alexander: 2008 p5). He believes the antidote for this prescribed approach. training programmes and conferences. live design projects. It has developed new methods of ‘hands-on’ training of architecture students through workshops. These student views help set out the real benefits that are associated with the traditional approach. intertwining parts of the whole.The Unspoken Assumption The consideration and effort given to the building as whole. by Hardy. They also reveal the existence of support and the desire for practical approaches within architecture.rather than buildings which are interlocking. p4). INTBAU Training Model The ‘International Network for Traditional Building. are participants that must learn from one another. 28 .two requirements that the craftsmanship model might serve to achieve if it was implemented. has been exploring ways of promoting education in and an understanding of traditional buildings and places around the world (Hardy: 2008. an element of design that Hanson strongly supports (Hanson: 1995 p107-108). whether students or teachers. The programme fosters the belief that all involved in the design projects. whilst solving practical problems (Hardy: 2008. Alexander begins with some criticism on the state of architectural education over the last hundred years. p 405).

and one that supports the student desire and satisfaction that exists within UK architectural pedagogy for a more practical approach to design.Such an approach provides a suitable model of ‘practical. in order to create benefits simultaneously for both students and the teachers working alongside them. workshop based’ learning. It also acts as an example of the form pedagogy might take in the future. 29 .

physical object.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). The students undertook workshop-based studies in brickwork and in brick and flint. 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. Hanson also discusses the absence of the ‘concept’ and how this allows technology and details to develop freely. One project undertaken at the institute. and are key to making the building (Hanson: 1995 p107). It combines a workshop learning approach with an onsite. He believes that by building on this understanding of the building. focused purely on detail and the fine structure of a buildingwith the Visitors Centre at West Dean adopting the role as a live project focus (Hanson: 1995 p107). are in fact the core effort in the design process. Hanson discusses how the students are ‘giving life to details’ and therefore giving life to the building as a whole (Hanson: 1995 p107). This combination reveals some ways in which 30 . and played around with the materials properties. as well as the pupillage approach that replaced it. 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). while bearing the imprint of human feeling. which acts as a platform for the students application of newly found knowledge. involving more empirical processes. which in one case included alterations to the colour of mortar (Hanson: 1995 p107). and describes the student’s realisation that efforts on smaller elements of the building.

we might support craftsmanship. available equipment. In addition to this. namely. skills and materials. if it became a mainstream element of architectural pedagogy and curriculum in the future. After evaluating the programme. if that knowledge cannot be applied to a real life. introduces workshop-based practice into the design studio. This workshop focuses on creating an identity in student’s proposals through craft experimentation (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p72). and time/budget constraints (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p72). University College of London. 31 . Within the degree laboratory. and that of workshop where it can be viewed as a ‘purposefultest’. where they are deemed purely as failures. 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.that of the academic. in a teaching programme known as the ‘Degree Laboratory’ (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p71). 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). They also go on to compare ‘failed decisions’ within the two different working environments. and knowledge of a material or technique in the workshop. for both second and third year students. and they mention a set of parameters that craft is created within. one which forms a core part of a successful workpiece (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p73). Callicott and Sheil discuss the way in which craft is underpinned by a necessity to attain a ‘specific body of knowledge’. Questions might also be asked on whether it’s worth gaining a ‘hands-on’ understanding. they explain how the flirtation with the ‘mechanism/construct’ led to an expanded vocabulary of expression within students. The work of unit six at the Bartlett. physical object.

accommodation units. intellectual and human activity’ (Prizeman: 2005 p54). The ‘Hooke Park’ Model ‘Design with beauty. London. (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. 32 . but through case studies and ‘onerous’ research tasks (Prizeman: 2005 p54). as it closely relates to those theories on creativity discussed by Sennett. The addition of a timber workshop. enables students to understand material properties. London. The facilities at Hooke Park have since become part of the AA. M. to the AA’s current facilities. Motto.This programme is particularly useful for our exploration of craft today.’ AA. Prizeman begins his writing by describing the workshop-based method of education seen at Hooke Park. and working woodland at Hooke Park. cultural. attain knowledge and skills and begin to understand realistic constraints. But more importantly it begins to discuss how the exploration process inherent within craft. Prizeman then goes on to criticise some elements of current architectural pedagogy in the UK. which would be imperative when working on live projects within architectural practice. including basic building construction techniques which are not instructed conventionally-perhaps through a workshop. opened the doors for a new teaching programme grounded in the medium of making (Prizeman: 2005 p54). It is evident in the quote above that this ethos is also adopted at the AA. and hands-on learning. such as time and budget. build with truth. Dorset which was initially used for a furniture and forestry school in the 1980’s (Prizeman. 2005 p54). London and aim to use forest thinnings’ and off-cuts for highly efficient structural purposes during student projects.

The AA believe that through the actual engagement in all stages of making and building. although not RIBA accredited. As a result. 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). It acts as a useful precedent for any future changes that might be proposed within architecture schools who aim to adopt this philosophy. 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 emergence of such a course. 33 . However. 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. it has significantly greater funding for learning facilities such as those seen at Hooke Park. and believes in the philosophy that architects learn best by imagining. The programme is located in the heart of Hooke Park. a graduate diploma course at the AA titled ‘Design + Make’ which is due to commence in the 2010 academic year. illustrates the growing support and belief that exists within the field of architectural pedagogy for the ‘learning through making’ design philosophy inherent within craftsmanship. developing and realising full type prototype structures. it is worth noting that the AA is a private education institution. students have the opportunity to develop a rich understanding of architecture (AA: 2010 p1).Although this hands-on laboratory experiment has not yet been realised as a permanent teaching facility (Prizeman: 2005 p57). there is however. funding which is not so prevalent among other educational institutions within the UK.

learning and applying lessons of ‘custom and experience’ (Forney: 2005 p95). and creating notable benefits for the community involved. while simultaneously familiarising them with the building processes and materials (Forney: 2005 p95). This educational programme provides an excellent. 34 . He emphasises the value of craft. realised model of a craft-based approach to architecture that could be successfully applied and integrated to other schools of architecture. the Rural Studio model integrates its students into real community situations. Forney continues by comparing this hands-on.Auburn University’s ‘Rural Studio’ is an undergraduate teaching programme within their school of architecture. He writes that where universities approaches often distinguish and distance their students knowledge from the realities of industry and practice. while at the same time applying to them to a physical project.similar to that approach that was introduced by Hanson at the POW Institute of Architecture (Hanson: 1995).Rural Studio in Year Ten’ (Forney: 2005) John Forney explains how the ‘Rural Studio’ tends to local projects. Students are able acquire skills in craftsmanship. real working environment. Within the article ‘Learning in Newbern. creating significant benefits for both the students and the local community they are collaborating with. as well as a positive attitude towards constrained resources and skills. It represents an approach that takes craftsmanship and combines it with a very much live. grounded in hands-on craft and aimed at fostering design and build projects for the deprived local population (Forney: 2005 p92). and its ability to encourage participants design ingenuity. with the more abstract dealing which is common within architectural curriculum today (Forney: 2005 p94). direct approach to buildings.

Summary After exploring the different educational programmes within this section.e. in the workshop alone.i. we can begin to consider the form architectural pedagogy might take. 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. it also opened our eyes to the financial constraints that exist within many universities. However. in particular the way in which in would function. in a way reminiscent of pupillage and apprenticeship schemes of the past. 35 . and how they might act as barriers to the adoption of these techniques. or in combination with live projects.

some further 36 . 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. they are flexible. one can see the differing level of emphasis certain teaching approaches are given. before moving onto the part 2 stage (RIBA 2007 p23). functions. Commentary on the Part 2 element however.RIBA Control Over Curriculum Prior to our analysis of current architecture students within the UK. Within this section. However. seminars. was ‘Technology and Environment’. Students are expected to integrate their previously gained knowledge into project work. we must understand the way in which the professional body that creates. allowing schools to meet criteria in their own unique way (RIBA 2007 p11). A theme outlined within the syllabus that was particularly relevant to this study. which focuses on the courses at the Part 1 and Part 2 stages of education. The outline syllabus set out standards for recognition and validation of all stages of architectural education. however. If we look more closely at the criteria set out within the syllabus. There is however. The commentary on the Part 1 element touches very briefly on the types of teaching that might be adopted to gain such knowledge. implements and enforces these criteria. The RIBA ensures schools of architecture comply with the minimum standards required for RIBA accreditation (RIBA 2007 p8). there appears to be an emphasis on the requirement for students to understand materials. as well as beginning to study the specific interest in more depth (RIBA 2007 p41). as well as the emphasis traditional teaching methods are given with these criteria. The RIBA sets an outline syllabus for educational institutions to gain professional recognition for the architecture related courses they provide (RIBA 2007 p6). and these include lectures. with the aim of Part 1 graduates to gain grounding in principles of constructional. laboratory sessions and private study (RIBA 2007 p23). and study the ‘technology of construction’. it is paramount that we understand the benchmarks that exist along the route towards gaining RIBA chartered status as an architect. structural and environmental design’.

one begins to question this structure when it focuses so heavily upon the knowledge to be gained.opportunities for the expansion of knowledge through ‘case studies’ of influential buildings (RIBA 2007 p41). maintaining the RIBA’s quest for ‘flexibility’ in their guidelines. 37 . although again there is no specific advice on how these case studies might be undertaken. However. 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. it is quite clear that within the outline syllabus the focus on types of teaching is intentionally vague. but not on the technique by which students gain that knowledge. After studying its content. Our student analysis provides us with some useful information regarding student’s opinions on various teaching techniques.

However. and these are described to the students prior to the survey. grounded in craftsmanship. and represented a total of 21 different universities from across the UK (See Appendix 2). materiality. The term ‘construction technology’ is used broadly to define the study of three technical aspects of design. as well as their inherent benefits. we undertook a small survey of students studying architecture related disciplines in the UK (See Appendix 1). The term ‘workshop-based learning’ relates to an apprenticeship style method of architectural training. we use two main terms. Evidently such a small survey cannot possibly represent the views of the population of UK architecture students as a whole. The survey was broken down into two main elements. the answers we have received are still very valid. as they give us an interesting insight into the preferences of those students. structures and construction processes. All of the schools of architecture at the surveyed universities have courses which are guided by.Student Voices on Craftsmanship Student Survey In order to gain some level of contemporary understanding of the existence of traditional teaching within architectural pedagogy. The first element focused on ‘course content’. relevant to the two different areas of focus within architectural teaching that the survey aims to understand. materials and construction processes. and meet those validation criteria set out by the RIBA. and providing students with experience through contact with building crafts. Within the survey. as well the emphasis craftsmanship is given within their particular schools.‘construction technology’ and ‘workshop-based learning’. 38 full and part time students undertaking architecture related disciplines at both undergraduate and postgraduate level were interviewed. with the aim of highlighting the existence of various learning techniques 38 . and have therefore obtained RIBA accreditation (RIBA: 2010 p1-10).

as it allows us to understand their usefulness during the design process. workshop based methods of learning have been given some level of emphasis in a significant number of the attended architecture schools. as well as the consequent skills and benefits they can bring to the students design ability. Students believed that those theory-based approaches and personal research played a less beneficial role during the learning process. It is apparent from the feedback that empirical. the students were asked if any level of ‘practical. The survey then goes on to analyse the students ideas surrounding and reasons for the preferences they have expressed here.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. Following this question. The process of a one-on-one tutorial was recorded by students as being equally beneficial to ‘hands-on’ learning.1 for results). but still significant. It is also important to analyse the other learning approaches that were selected by students.2 fro results). The second element focused on the ‘process of design’. with ‘peer to peer’ conversation playing a slightly smaller.within the participant’s course as a whole. workshop-based approaches’ to construction technology existed within the design studio element of their course (See figure 3. but also in other ‘construction technology’ orientated elements of the course. with the aim of understanding the extent to which these learning techniques are used during the design process. 39 . role in effective learning. Not only was this type of teaching present on the design studio element of the courses. Results.

then justified their choice by stating that lectures were to the point. Those that selected ‘theory’ based approaches (lectures) as being one of the most beneficial of all the learning techniques. The participants that selected ‘one-on-one tutorials with studio masters’ as one of the most beneficial techniques. creating advanced knowledge. by explaining why exactly they felt certain techniques were more beneficial than others. The reasons outlined by those who selected ‘hands-on’ workshop based learning.In the following question. to explore a range of different reading material by reading around the subject and applying it to a set task. allowed for discussions on problems areas which were unique to them. Those participants that selected personal research and reading as being particularly beneficial to their process of learning. 40 . the participants were asked to elaborate further on their experiences of various techniques when learning about ‘construction technology’. which in turn allows us to consider its usefulness within architectural curriculum. then stated that it gave them the freedom to build on basic lecture knowledge. and helped to provide a basic overview or foundation of knowledge from which to build on. as well as using existing building case studies for guidance. as well as providing immediate solutions for personal queries. 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. on part 2 of the survey. then went on to state that it allowed them to gain invaluable knowledge directly from studio masters. have been compiled along with answers gained from question 7.

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. A greater emphasis on physics of buildings and structures in both lectures and design studio time. Introduction of carpentry. Although the answers given by those who answered ‘yes’ cannot be taken as completely accurate. and Opportunities to build their designs and evaluate their constructability. one postgraduate student stated that at undergraduate level one-on-one tutorials and theory based learning had been sufficient for movement into practice. the expertise necessary for the transition into architectural practice (See figure 3. When describing this transition. students detailed the following techniques: • • • A more balanced combination of theory and practical work.3 for results). The answers given by those participants who have gained industry experience either during or following their studies were however. 41 .In the following question. bricklaying or similar craft courses. In response to this. 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. It does however help to highlight the level of confidence that students feel their current learning technique has given them. 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. participants were simply asked whether their current learning techniques had provided them with. as they had experienced the transition being questioned. Opportunities to interact with past students. far more accurate. as it is impossible to be sure whether each individual has the necessary expertise for practice. • • • A placement year with on-site training. or will provide them with.

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. also revealed some interesting results. it was not possible to survey architecture students from all of the architecture schools within the UK. workshop based learning’ techniques within the UK architectural education as a whole. Understanding the benefits of such an approach to the students themselves. and the survey data does not therefore give a completely fair and accurate depiction of the existence of ‘hands-on. helps us to then consider how it might take up a more prominent role within architectural pedagogy in the future. 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). 42 .Those participants who were undertaking a part-time undergraduate course.combining academic study with industry practice. Unfortunately. They highlighted the way in which the topics covered within their syllabus are brought to life at workacademia and practice working hand in hand to solidify their learning.

it was also necessary for us to analyse their current curriculum. we were able to make an accurate judgement of ‘traditional teachings’ existence within architecture curriculum in the UK as a whole (See Appendix 3). The process of gathering results did prove problematic however. It was quite evident after collating the results from both the student survey and the curriculum analysis. a final decision was made through further research into that individual schools curriculum. (See figure 3.Research into Curricula To gain a more accurate understanding of the emphasis the remaining UK schools had given to ‘hands-on. that ‘traditional teaching’ has a significant presence in architectural pedagogy in the UK. In this situation. Summary After successfully gathering information on the learning approaches at all architecture schools.5 for results). with just over half of all schools of architecture outlining it within their syllabus (See figure 3.4 for results). highlight that around half of the remaining schools have placed some emphasis within their course programmes on workshop based learning. 43 . When undertaking our analysis. workshop based learning’ within their teaching programmes. we highlighted any mention of ‘workshop. as contradictions were identified between responses given by students attending the same schools. The results collated from this survey.based learning’ within the syllabus as a sufficient indicator for its existence at that particular school.

with all of them answering that ‘yes’ it would be a valuable addition. and • Group workshop based learning allows students to work closely with one another. This barrier must be questioned seriously when 44 . one student highlighted an important barrier to the introduction of such an approach. which can then be applied during the design process. They were then asked to provide reasoning for these responses.that of time. the following answers were given: • Provides a physical object. It is evident from these results that a significant number of participants found the workshop based learning approach to be beneficial to them. the participants were first asked to specify if they felt ‘workshop-based learning’ techniques were beneficial during the design process (See figure 3. • Enabled the complexities of the detail to become more easily understood. to be discovered. Specific reasons for this were very similar to those stated by students who had experienced this learning approach. which was focused on the ‘process of design’. • Provides a basic overview and 3-dimensional understanding of technical details before proceeding onto a 2-dimensional technical drawing.6 for results). Those students that had not experienced any level of ‘workshopbased learning’ were then asked whether they felt such an approach would be beneficial to them. with the addition of the workshop assistant’s guidance. bouncing knowledge back and forth. learned from and remembered for future detailing.Process of Design Within the second element of the student survey. When asked to describe why it was beneficial. • Handling of construction materials and tools ensures understanding of the materials properties. however.Results.

Interestingly. and Bauhaus. 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.7 for results). the participants were asked to select which working method they felt would be more beneficial to them as part of their education. Those students that felt ‘workshop-based learning’ was beneficial to them were then asked to describe their reasoning for this. aesthetics and function. (See figure 3.considering the position of ‘traditional teaching’ within architectural curriculum. 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. a significant number of participants went on to express their preference for a greater emphasis on group activities. The final area of focus on the design process element of the survey. 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. firstly the emphasis either individual work or group work is given during design projects on the course.where student ingenuity was a primary focus. This reveals a trend within architecture schools which is reminiscent of those systems seen at the Ecole Des Beaux Arts. 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. 45 . The next set of questions focused on working methods within the participant’s architectural education. the outcome is quite evident. After analysing the responses on the dynamics of the design process.8 for results). Following this.

And thus it could then be argued that craftsmanship. and • Handling materials enables the student to remember and visualise the materials properties and simultaneously inform their design projects. 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. The reasons outlined above helps to support those contemporary theories set out in chapter 2. whose focus lies partly in the understanding and direct treatment of materials and tools. Sennett. visual perception. might be suitable to meet these preferences.e. Kindersley and Hotz. particularly those of Berman. touch. which discuss the relationship between the bodies’ sensory experiences and the human minds learning efficiency.• Creation of ‘material consciousness’ through sensory experience i. 46 .

as well as to provide knowledge. realised models of education with craftsmanship at their core. This section is supplemented with an extensive literature review that ensures the content of the writing remains accurate. Many of the theorists we have explored paid special attention to the relationship between the hand and the mind. thriving environment. to understand student’s views on this approach. Prior to discussing the state of today’s education. The educational model seen at ‘Hooke Park’ was particularly useful to this study as it provided an excellent precedent and example for other 47 . Additionally. The section following this analysed the existing support within both architectural academia and practice for change in architectural pedagogy.Conclusion The primary aim of this dissertation has been to explore the existence of traditional teaching approaches within architectural curriculum in the UK. and ultimately gauge the level of support that exists for the permanent introduction of such an approach into architecture schools in the future. The extensive range of relevant literature we examined expressed both psychological theories and physical. We were then able to analyse the realised models present within architectural curriculum today. however each individual programme was executed slightly differently. in the hope that its introduction might help to bridge the perceived knowledge and skills gap. the first chapter sets out to provide a historical context for craftsmanship. they also mention the ability of craft within the workshop to create a fruitful. Those that we analysed all placed a value on a ‘learning through making’ philosophy. particularly in technological areas. and its ability to dramatically improve creativity levels. skills and a work ethic within students that will always remain with them. that exists between academia and practice.

to inform our argument on the change in education. and while doing so. it will be difficult to implement new approaches to learning. The 2008 Oxford Conference included many interesting proposals for change in education. In addition to this. and can therefore afford facilities and resources of a much higher quality. its vagueness when discussing the delivery of learning was particularly notable. aims to identify the actual existence of traditional teaching approaches within schools of architecture today. a significant number of schools (over 50%) displayed some emphasis towards traditional learning 48 . As a privately funded school. schools of architecture might begin to understand the value of such approaches and as a result incorporate them into their curriculum. However. We also studied the RIBA’s validation criteria. It also. if the importance of these traditional approaches is realised and it is incorporated into the criteria. The final chapter. financial issues at certain schools might act as a barrier to this change.schools of architecture that might aim to change their learning approach in the future. The results that emerged were interesting. 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. especially when discussing workshop based approaches to technology. the AA has significantly greater financial power. which is driven by the primary research undertaken through our student survey. when compared to other universities functioning within the government-funded structure.as well as a further analysis of curricula. it looks to the students’ views and feelings on such approaches. however. because schools follow the criteria so closely. Even with the ambition for change towards a crafts-based approach. It is quite evident that while this criterion remains unchanged. highlighted the financial issues that exist at many universities.

A notable lack of groupwork activities during design projects. and students identified such techniques as one of the most beneficial approaches when learning about technological issues and developing. there still remains a significant number of schools that do not incorporate this approach. Craftsmanship often encompasses workshopbased. especially with the financial barriers present at many universities. The evidence strongly suggests that although there is some emphasis on craftsmanship and traditional teaching within current UK architecture schools. Such approaches also allow students to get their hands dirty. The survey also identified an area of architectural pedagogy that craft and workshop-based learning might help to appease in the future. as one student said. a ‘material consciousness’. group approaches to design problems which can create an efficient learning environment. Doubts do remain however. and learn somatically. and it might provide them with the knowledge and skills required for the transition into architectural practice. In addition to this. the existence of theoretical and physical models of such an approach within current academia. and the content of the current syllabus outlined by the RIBA which currently places little 49 . In consideration of the data and research that has been collected. over the likeliness of such approaches being incorporated into architectural curriculum. craftsmanship based approaches. and thus could serve to fill this niche in the curriculum. It can therefore be said that there is indeed a place for more traditional approaches to architectural pedagogy. it is important that we come to a conclusion on the writings outcome. and that its permanent residence within architectural curriculum in the future would be welcomed by students. interact with one another in a stimulating fashion.approaches.a method preferred by the majority of survey participants was identified in most schools of architecture. show vast support for the incorporation of hands-on.

that of time. we must consider the important factor which was identified by one survey participant. or at a wider scale through changes in the guidance and criteria set out within the RIBA outline syllabus. a situation that will in turn see the gap between academia and practice become ever wider. 50 . it may be some time before any diversion from the norm is seen within architectural curriculum. 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. let alone the alternative approach we are discussing here. Will architecture schools find time within their curriculum for such techniques? And if so. As well as this. Without this.emphasis on the learning approaches.

London. Thames & Hudson Ltd. P. LUBBOCK. Academy Group Ltd. Ancient Letter Carving and Computer Type Design In: ADAM. 1ST ed.. A. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a new professionalism. Thames & Hudson INC... 1995. Manchester University Press. R.. 4th ed. Manchester University Press. FORTY. 2007. The Degree Laboratory: The work of Unit Six at the Bartlett School. London. LUBBOCK. University College London.org/editions/view?docId=ft8489p27k. TOY.brand=ucpress HU U Accessed 25/02/210. The Making of the English Middle Class. S. 2000. M. B. J. 1995. 2008. Modern architecture: a critical history. M. Educating Architects. CRINSON. D.. PILLING. Words and Buildings.References Books Association. In: PEARCE. M... R. Crafts.. K.. Academy Group Ltd. KINDERSLEY. Not Arts and Crafts. Athenaeum press Ltd. HANSON... . 1989. R. 2000.Business. M. In: NICOL. 1st ed. TOY. FRAMPTON. M. 1995. Spoon Press. Manchester University Press.Continuity in Architecture and Society. Tradition Today. UK 51 . 1st ed. Educating Architects..... Available from: http://escholarship. Prince of Wales Institute of Architecture. SHEIL. Berkeley. WIT Press. CALLICOT. N. University of California Press. 1995. The Architectural Association. A. Society and Family Life in London [Online].A Vocabularly of Modern Architecture. 1994. M. In: PEARCE. B....... Architecture: Art or Profession?. HARDY. Design. USA. BALFOUR. EARLE. B. 2000.

Available from: http://archnet. 1985. New Trends in Architectural Education.. A. The Herbert Press. NICOL. London. 52 . SAINT. 1995. M. M. 2003. Spoon Press. London. C.org/library/documents/one-document. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a new professionalism.. L.. 2000. London. London. 2005.... [Online] Ashraf Salama. The Image of the Architect. 2003 . NAYLOR. United States Agency. ST JOHN WILSON. M. London. BR 2003. 1st Ed..Sources and Design Theory.. D. A. Penguin Group. 2008 The Craftsman. MOFFET. Yale University Press. WODEHOUSE. A World History of Architecture. 2008. Academy Group Ltd. 1983. 3rd ed. Allen Lane.. FAZIO. National Book Network INC. Educating Architects. SENNETT. Tomorrow's architect : RIBA outline syllabus for the validation of courses. Manchester University Press.the uncompleted project. G. The Bauhaus Reassessed.. M. SALAMA. D ..Designing the Design Studio.jsp?document_id=6330 HU UH Accessed 25/02/2010.. TOY. RIBA Enterprises.M. programmes and examinations in architecture : incorporating prescription of qualifications : ARB criteria.. 1995.. PILLING. 1983 . Lawrence King Publishing Ltd. ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS. Academy Group Ltd. PEARCE. New Haven and London. The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture. R. S. USA.


CHADWICK, M., 2004. Back to School. Architectural Design. Wiley Academy. UK. DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR, M., 2009. MADE. Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University. Cardiff. 2005. Ten. FORNEY, J., 2005 Learning 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. In: DUTOIT, A., MCVICAR, M., 2009. MADE. Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University. Cardiff. Educationarguement. LYNCH, P., 2004. Architectural Education- the information and the arguement. In: CHADWICK, M., 2004. Back to School. Architectural Design. Wiley Academy. UK. 2005. Education. PRIZEMAN, M., 20 05. Hooke Park: As a New Initiative in Education. In: SHEIL, B., 2005. Design Through Making. Architectural Design. Wiley Academy. .


Conference Readings/Lectures

ALEXANDER, C., 2008. 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., 2008. 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 urbanism 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., 1958. Proceedings from the ‘1958 RIBA Conference on Architectural Education’. Education’ ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW, A., 2008. The Oxford Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture. WIT Press. Cambridge Printing. UK.


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

Accessed: 16/03/2010

2010. London South Bank., 2010 BA (Hons) Architecture (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://prospectus.lsbu.ac.uk/courses/course.php?UCASCode=K100

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Robert Gordon University., 2010. MArch Architecture (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/architecture-construction-and-surveying/studyHU


Accessed: 16/03/2010

Bath., University of Bath., 2010. Bsc Architecture. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/catalogues/2009-2010/ar/UEAR-ANB08.htm

Accessed: 16/03/2010 MArch Architecture. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/catalogues/2009-2010/ar/UEAR-ANB08.htm

Accessed: 16/03/2010


Queens University Belfast. BA (Hons) Architecture.ulster.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/7763 HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 Birmingham City Univerity.uk/courses/architecture-riba-part-i-exemption Accessed: 16/03/2010 PGDip Architecture Available at: http://www.qub. 2010.ac.bcu..adbe. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.ac.ac. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.adbe.uk/schools/arc/Education/BachelorofScienceinArchitectureHU PartI/ U Accessed: 16/03/2010 MArch Architecture.ulster.uk/courses/architectural-studies HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 BA (Hons) Architecture.. 2010.qub. 2010. Bsc Architecture.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/7750 HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 MArch Architecture.ulster.bcu.uk/courses/architecture-riba-part-ii-exemption-pgdip Accessed: 16/03/2010 56 . (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.ac.ac.ac.ac.uk/schools/arc/Education/MasterofArchitecture-PartII/ HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 University of Ulster. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www. MA Architectural Studies (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.adbe.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/6958 HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 Msc Architectural Studies (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.bcu.

arct. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.ucreative.ac.uk/Arct/Section.aspx?p=23&ix=24&pid=1214&prcid=4&ppid=1214 HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 College University College for Creative Arts. BA Hons Architecture..uk/index. BA Architecture MA (Hons) Architecture MA (Hons) Architecture in Creative and Cultural Environments Available at: http://www..cfm?articleid=20463 HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 Edinburgh College of Art.ac. (Whole Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.arct. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/Arct/Section.ac.php?id=612 HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 Glasgow School of Art. BA (Hons) Architecture.uk/index. Canterbury.eca. 2010. 2010. 2010.gsa.pdf Accessed: 16/03/2010 UH 57 . 2010...ac.cam.University of Cambridge.ac.aspx?p=23&ix=23&pid=1214&prcid=4&ppid=1214 HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 MPhil (B) Architecture Available at: http://www.uk/downloads/prospectus/GSA_10HU 11_SCHOOL_OF_ARCHITECTURE.cam.

bartlett.. 2010. 2010.ac.2010. BA Hons Architecture.jsp HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 University of Liverpool. BA (Hons) Architecture... (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.bartlett. UCL.htm HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 PGDip Architecture Available at: http://www.ucl. BA (Hons) Architecture.strath.University of Strathclyde.uk/courses/undergraduate/factfiles/?CourseId=K100 HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 Bartlett School of Architecture.htm HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 58 .2010.uk/lsa/ba_arch/index.ac. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.ac. Bsc (Hons) Architecture.ac. Bsc Architecture Studies.ac. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/architecture/courses/undergraduatearchitecturalstudies/ HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 De Montfort University..dmu. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/architecture/programmes/diploma.2010. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/architecture/programmes/bsc..ljmu.htm HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 Liverpool John Moores University.liv.ucl.ac.uk/faculties/art_and_design/ug_courses/arch.

uk/courses/course. Dip Architecture..nottingham. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/?view=CourseDetail&code=UUFARC1&page=detail HU U Accessed: 16/03/2010 University of Nottingham. BA (Hons) Architecture.lsbu.London Metropolitan University.ntu.ac.2010 BA (Hons) Architecture.2010. London South Bank University. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www..londonmet. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/apps/pss/courses/cf/60731HU 1/10/BArch_%28Hons%29_Architecture.2010.2010.php?code=019467 HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 Nottingham Trent University. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://www.uk/architecture/courses/undergraduate/baHU architecture.2010...ac..northumbria. BA (Hons) Architecture.cfm UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 University.ac.aspx UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 59 ..php?UCASCode=K100 HU UH Accessed: 16/03/2010 Northumbria University.ac.uk/ugstudy/course.2010. BArchitecture.ac. (Course Prospectus) Available at: http://prospectus.

2007. Cardiff. Available at: http://wzww.. 2007. London.heacademy. Problem Based Learning in Architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Education/Validation/BoardRep HU ortsSummaryReports/ArchitecturalAssociationLondon/Visiting%20Board%20Report%20200 7. Available at: http://www.. A.pdf U Accessed: 18/03/2010 Guides Roberts.Reports Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). [Online] The Centre for Education in the Built Environment (CEBE).architecture. RIBA.pdf U Accessed: 19/03/2010 60 . Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the Architectural Association [Online].uk/assets/cebe/documents/resources/briefingguides/BriefingGuide_ HU 11.ac.

CSAAR. ARQ Vol 12... The Oxford Conference. 2008. 1999.. The Process of Creating Life. MORDEN. T. A. I. New York. H.An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe.. A.. Modern Architecture Since 1900. 2008. 1990. p210. SCOTT. London. Center for Environmental Structure.QAWASMI.. VASQUEZ DE VELASCO. UK.. RUEDI RAY. WILLIAM. The Dilemma of Style. GP. California.A Study in the History of Taste. Soft Garniture: developing hybrid materials between academia and industry. Academy editions. 1987.Bibliography ALEXANDER. PAPADAKIS.. 2002. B. The Dissertation: An Architecture Students Handbook.W Norton Company INC. Architectural Press.. WATSON. C. Cambridge Printing. The Nature of Order. Resetting Agendas. USA 61 . 2008. MORROW. Changing Trends in Architectural Design Education (Proceedings from CSAAR 2006 Conference). London.R. No3/4. G.. R. MORDANT CROOK. New Classicism: Omnibus Volume. 2006.. WATSON. AL. S. J. CURTIS J. Oxford. In: ROAF. Phaidon Press Ltd. BELFORD... BAIRSTOW.. John Murray Ltd. K.. MATURANA. 1996. AL2006. 1990 . MATURANA. B.Architectural Ideas from the Picturesque to the Post-Modern. W. J. 2006. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture. The Architecture of Humanism..a conference on climate change. WIT Press.

Thames & Hudson World of Art. The Classical Language of Architecture. J.SUMMERSON. 62 . London. 2006..

63 . which is shown in the following. Survey Page 1. Survey Example The three-page survey. The use of the students name in the survey was clearly described as optional information. A link for the survey was distributed online through the social networking site Facebook©. 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.Appendix 1. as well as other architecture student forums.Description and participant details. was produced online through a survey company called smart-survey©.

64 .Section 1.Course Content Q’s 2.Survey Page 2.6.

13.Survey Page 2. 65 .Section 2.Process of Design Q’s 7.

and the number of participants who undertook the survey from each of them. The table shown in the following outlines those universities that were included in the student survey results. 66 .2. Surveyed Universities and Participants Table.

) 67 . The table in the following the combined results from our analysis on the existence of hands-on. Student Analysis and Curriculum Analysis Results. for those universities whose prospectuses were analysed. have been listed in the ‘Curriculum/Prospectus’ section within the references.3. workshop base approaches to teaching construction technology and design. (Individual References.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.