A Framework for Learning? Adoption and Adaption of the Design Studio
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Bath
Department Name: Architecture and Civil Engineering
Abstract
Architectural education is founded on the ideological principles of social learning, independent reflection and practical skills acquisition (Schön, 1985). The studio remains the primary pedagogy of architectural education in the UK (McClean, 2009) and dominates both as a physical and symbolic environment where students are expected to conduct most of their learning (Anderson, 2013). At the University of Bath (UoB), the Critical Method (CM) described by Darke (1979), Brawne (2003) and Wright (2011) has been explicitly adopted as the dominant architectural pedagogy. CM is derived from Popper's (1963) critical rationalism, an interpretation of the scientific method that advances falsification rather than verification, through a process of conjecture followed by critical analysis.
The aim of the research is to understand student attitudes and values towards sustainability, how these are incorporated into design work in a critical design studio context founded on CM. Considering a 'bottom up' approach, the research will describe the challenge of sustainability from the point of view of the independent learner. The research has the following objectives:
- To reveal student attitudes towards sustainability in the critical design studio
- To establish the depth of learning in sustainability and to what extent its influence on design activities and outputs
- To place sustainability within the context of a critical learning environment from a learner perspective and identify barriers to its implementation
- To develop tools and pedagogies for the integration of sustainability in the design studio
The research will adopt a predominantly ethnographic methodology in the first phase. The Master of Architecture course at the University of Bath will provide the context for this study and this phase will develop a baseline understanding of sustainability in the architectural design studio. The second phase will involve the creation of pedagogic tools and a framework for effective integration of sustainability in the design studio to be tested and developed through a process of action research. Its implementation will be considered across the wide variety of architectural curricula in the UK.
The initial phase of the research will take place of the course of a year between October 2016 and May 2017 mapping the M.Arch students progress through their final year of study. The second phase will begin in September 2017 and complete in 2019.
The research will provide new insights into sustainability in the design studio from a learner perspective, currently absent from the literature. Furthermore, it will contribute to the growing discourse on how best to educate designers for the environmental challenges of the future. The research will have impact beyond architecture and will provide transferable pedagogies for engineering and design education.
References
ANDERSON, J. Undercurrent: Swimming away from the design studio. Proceedings of the first international conference of the Association of Architectural Educators-AAE:(un) common currency. Nottingham Trent University, UK. Available: http://architecturaleducators/. wordpress. com/conference-2013/conference-2013-papers/(accessed: 21 July 2014), 2013.
BRAWNE, M. 2003. Architectural Thought: The Design Process and the Expectant Eye, Oxford, Architectural Press.
DARKE, J. 1979. The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1, 36-44.
MCCLEAN, D. 2009. Embedding learner independence in architecture education: reconsidering design studio pedagogy. Doctor of Philosophy, Robert Gordon University.
POPPER, K. 1963. Conjectures and refutations, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
SCHÖN, D., A. 1985. The Design Studio, London, RIBA Publications Ltd.
WRIGHT, A. 2011. Critical Method: A pedagogy for design education. Design Principles and Practices, 5, 109-122.
The aim of the research is to understand student attitudes and values towards sustainability, how these are incorporated into design work in a critical design studio context founded on CM. Considering a 'bottom up' approach, the research will describe the challenge of sustainability from the point of view of the independent learner. The research has the following objectives:
- To reveal student attitudes towards sustainability in the critical design studio
- To establish the depth of learning in sustainability and to what extent its influence on design activities and outputs
- To place sustainability within the context of a critical learning environment from a learner perspective and identify barriers to its implementation
- To develop tools and pedagogies for the integration of sustainability in the design studio
The research will adopt a predominantly ethnographic methodology in the first phase. The Master of Architecture course at the University of Bath will provide the context for this study and this phase will develop a baseline understanding of sustainability in the architectural design studio. The second phase will involve the creation of pedagogic tools and a framework for effective integration of sustainability in the design studio to be tested and developed through a process of action research. Its implementation will be considered across the wide variety of architectural curricula in the UK.
The initial phase of the research will take place of the course of a year between October 2016 and May 2017 mapping the M.Arch students progress through their final year of study. The second phase will begin in September 2017 and complete in 2019.
The research will provide new insights into sustainability in the design studio from a learner perspective, currently absent from the literature. Furthermore, it will contribute to the growing discourse on how best to educate designers for the environmental challenges of the future. The research will have impact beyond architecture and will provide transferable pedagogies for engineering and design education.
References
ANDERSON, J. Undercurrent: Swimming away from the design studio. Proceedings of the first international conference of the Association of Architectural Educators-AAE:(un) common currency. Nottingham Trent University, UK. Available: http://architecturaleducators/. wordpress. com/conference-2013/conference-2013-papers/(accessed: 21 July 2014), 2013.
BRAWNE, M. 2003. Architectural Thought: The Design Process and the Expectant Eye, Oxford, Architectural Press.
DARKE, J. 1979. The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1, 36-44.
MCCLEAN, D. 2009. Embedding learner independence in architecture education: reconsidering design studio pedagogy. Doctor of Philosophy, Robert Gordon University.
POPPER, K. 1963. Conjectures and refutations, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
SCHÖN, D., A. 1985. The Design Studio, London, RIBA Publications Ltd.
WRIGHT, A. 2011. Critical Method: A pedagogy for design education. Design Principles and Practices, 5, 109-122.
Organisations
Studentship Projects
| Project Reference | Relationship | Related To | Start | End | Student Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP/N509589/1 | 01/10/2016 | 30/09/2021 | |||
| 1789456 | Studentship | EP/N509589/1 | 01/10/2016 | 30/09/2019 | Robert GROVER |
| Description | This research aimed to develop pedagogies and strategies for deep learning and enhancing the awareness, understanding and critical application of sustainability in the architectural design studio. It had the initial objectives to: reveal student attitudes towards sustainability in the critical design studio; establish the depth of learning in sustainability and to what extent its influence on design activities and outputs; place sustainability within the context of a critical learning environment from a learner perspective and identify barriers to its implementation; and develop tools and pedagogies for the integration of sustainability in the design studio. These were refined as described below and met in the research outcomes. The first objective sought to assess deep learning for sustainability in the architectural design studio. This was achieved through an analysis of an MArch design studio in phase 1 of the research. This provided not only a unique insight into this specific context, but also provided a thick description which is applicable to other design studios sharing similar characteristics. The second objective sought to develop strategies for deep learning for sustainability in the architectural design studio. This was done through the formation of an action group in phase 2 of the research. Strategies for implementation were developed collaboratively. This resulted in the creation of a model of sustainable design and a draft framework for implementation which could be tested in the design studio. The third objective looked to position the proposed strategies in the context of UK architectural design. This was done through interviews with practitioners which verified the typological categories implied by the model. This resulted in a picture of the state of the art of UK architectural practice which revealed the prevailing discourse in sustainable architectural design. This supported by the validation Delphi exercise. The fourth objective sought to develop, test and assess pedagogies for deep learning for sustainability in the design studio. This was done in phase 4 of the research in which the sustainable design model was used as a learning tool directly in the design studio. This gave rise to a framework for integration. |
| Exploitation Route | These findings might be taken forward by architectural educators and educational institutions to instigate lasting pedagogic change for sustainable design. The role of compliance with educational requirements could be examined. The RIBA and ARB are responsible for shaping architectural education in the UK and there are opportunities for enhancing their input regarding learning for sustainable design. The relationship between graduate attributes and curriculum design might provide insights into the specific culture of sustainable design in UK schools. The finding on UK practice raise further questions for the role of the profession in delivering sustainable design solutions. Professional bodies and policy makers can take these findings forward to inform directions in future sustainable practice. |
| Sectors | Construction,Education,Environment |
| Description | The findings have been used to inform the design and delivery of one year of an undergraduate architecture degree course. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2019 |
| Sector | Education |
| Impact Types | Societal |
| Description | University of Bath undergraduate architectural design studio |
| Geographic Reach | Local/Municipal/Regional |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| Description | University of Bath, Masters of Architecture, Environment and Sustainability course design |
| Geographic Reach | Local/Municipal/Regional |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| Description | Presentation to architectural practice |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Gave a presentation to a professional architects practice on the current findings of the research. It encouraged debate and and invitation from the practice to collaborate in possible future research opportunities. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | University of Bath, Architecture and Civil Engineering Department group workshop |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Approximately 40 masters level students at the University of Bath were engaged with in a number of active workshops. The workshops were structured around initial findings of the research however also informed future research. Follow up interviews with students confirmed changes in learning as a result of these workshops. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017,2018 |