You are on page 1of 68

Abstract

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.

1
Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those individuals who have
helped me soldier through this long, but extremely rewarding, project,
and enabled me to complete this piece of writing to the best of my ability.

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


time and effort he has put into our meetings, maintaining good
communication and marking my (often poorly written) draft work. I
hope this piece of work reflects your efforts.

I would also like to thank my house mates Andrew and Benjamin, as well
as my girlfriend Caroline, for their support throughout this project.

2
Contents

List of Illustrations pg. 5


Introduction pg. 6
Definition of ‘Traditional Teaching’ pg. 9
Historical Context
- Wrens Royal Works pg. 10
- Pupillage and Early Professionalisation pg. 10
- The Arts and Crafts Resistance pg. 11
- Ecole des Beaux Arts Model pg. 13
Beaux Arts in Britain pg. 14
- Functionalism pg. 15
- The Bauhaus pg. 16
‘Vorkurs’ pg. 16
- The Modernist Paradigm pg. 17
The Oxford Conference pg. 18
The ‘Official System’ pg. 18
Modernist Influence Today pg. 19

Craftsmanship Today
- Contemporary Psychological Theory pg. 21
‘The Hand Hits Back’ pg. 21
The Craft of the Glassblower pg. 22
The Pot and the Hand pg. 23
Ancient Letter Carving pg. 23
A Return to Ruskin pg. 24

3
Building in the Studio pg. 25
Oxford Conference 2008 pg. 27
The Unwritten Assumption pg. 28
INTBAU Training Model pg. 28

- Contemporary Educational Models pg. 30


The ‘Pupillage/Apprenticeship’ Model pg. 30
The ‘Degree Laboratory’ Model pg. 31
The ‘Hooke Park’ Model pg. 32
The ‘Rural Studio’ Model pg. 33

- RIBA Control Over Curriculum pg. 36

Student Voices on Craftsmanship


Craftsmanship
- Student Survey pg. 38
- Survey Results pg. 38
Course Content pg. 39
Curriculum pg. 43
Process of Design pg. 44

Conclusion pg. 47
References pg. 52
Bibliography pg. 62
Appendix pg. 64

List of Illustrations

4
Figure 1.1. Bauhaus Curriculum. (Naylor: 1985. The Bauhaus Reassessed.)

Figure 3.1. Survey Results Q2.


Figure 3.2. Survey Results Q3.
Figure 3.3. Survey Results Q5.
Figure 3.4. Curriculum Analysis Results.
Figure 3.5. Overall Results.
Figure 3.6. Survey Results (Experience of workshops).
Figure 3.7. Group or Individual? Results.
Figure 3.8. Group or Individual? Most beneficial? Results.

5
Introduction

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

Callicott & Sheil (2000)

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


Sheil 2000 p72) above, crudely describes the root from which this enquiry
into traditional teaching approaches within architectural pedagogy stems.

In recent years, an increasing awareness of the need for change within


architectural education has become more and more evident, based -
primarily on the complex gap that exists between academia and practice
(Nicol and Pilling 2000 p 6). The emphasis on theoretical teaching within
architectural curriculum and a resulting lack of technical knowledge,
understanding and skills amongst students forms a significant element of
this gap and has gained particular attention in recent years through voices
within both architectural academia and practice (Nicol and Pilling 2000 p 6).

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


presence of traditional teaching within architectural curriculum, and the
learning advantages it brings to students. Both theoretical and physical
examples of such approaches, as well the views and preferences of those
students who experience theoretical learning approaches first hand, will
aid us with our discussion. Such exploration may then allow us to
understand better the ways in which traditional teaching might bridge
this gap and regain a long term position with the teaching of architectural
curriculum. We can then begin to analyse ways in which it might form a
common teaching platform that addresses and repairs other elements of
the ever present chasm, that appears to fragment the industry as a whole.

6
Methodology

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


architectural pedagogy, consisting of a historical analysis, a contemporary
analysis, and a student analysis.

The ‘historical analysis’ element is fundamentally a chronological


recollection of craft’s existence within architectural pedagogy over the past
300 years, as well as the influence past movements, trends and educational
systems have had on the state of today’s architecture schools. It will form
the first element of the literature review, and has drawn content from an
extensive range of books, ensuring the writing remains accurate.

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


literature review, and focuses on the current intellectual ideas and theories,
as well as realised models of architectural pedagogy, that support the
approach we are considering. We will also examine the RIBA’s current
control over architectural curriculum, as well as the content of the current
criteria which is used to guide and validate schools of architecture.
This analysis will enable us to gauge the value that is placed on such
approaches both within, and outside of architecture, so we can begin to
consider if it does indeed have a place within architectural pedagogy.

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


question current architecture students, at various universities across the UK,
on the existence of traditional approaches to learning present on their
course. It will also aim to understand the personal experiences of different
learning approaches the students have used while studying, as well as their
feelings on the introduction of traditional approaches in the future.
The survey aims to attain an understanding of the existence of
traditional approaches in UK architectural curriculum as a whole, and
where necessary, a secondary research method that examines university
curricula has also been adopted.

7
The final element of this piece of writing will examine the information that
has been collected for both the ‘contemporary analysis’ and the ‘student
analysis’, and consider the arguments for and potential barriers against, the
introduction of traditional approaches to future architectural pedagogy.
This section will also identify from the discussed models for
education, one model that would be most suitable for current architectural
academia, and then consider how it might help to bridge or repair the
perceived skills and knowledge gap between academia and practice, if this is
at all the right thing to do.

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


terms, which hold the same meaning, have been used interchangeably.
These include ‘traditional teaching’, ‘craftsmanship’, ‘crafts-based’,
‘hands-on’, ‘empirical’, and ‘workshop-based’ learning.

8
Definition of ‘Traditional Teaching’

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


architectural context. When discussing ‘traditional teaching’, we will be
seeking to understand an apprenticeship-style method of architectural
training, grounded in craftsmanship, and providing student experience
through contact with building crafts, materials and construction processes
(Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16).

It is also important to understand the historical route that


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

9
Historical Context

Wren’s Royal Works

Prior to the introduction of educational institutions for architecture, the


traditional craft apprenticeship had been one of the primary entry routes
into the field of architecture. Within the apprenticeship, knowledge was
passed down from masters to apprentices, and involved rigorous training
in masonry, bricklaying or carpentry- a process within which the
1. Definition empirical
Definition-
craftsman gained design skills empirically 1 (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p18).
-derived from or guided by
Such craft-apprenticeship methods first existed within teaching in the 17th experience or experiment.

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


its surveyor-general Sir Christopher Wren.
The Royal Works offered a quasi-medieval form of training, in an
apprenticeship form similar to that above, with experience taking place in
an architect’s office, as well as on the building site. This training allowed
students to work practically with and in the presence of the building
crafts (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16). The architects training at this
institution allowed movement across the various crafts and out of them,
as opposed to a traditional craft apprenticeship which focused on one
trade (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p16).
The delegation of duties that was seen at the Royal Works, being
that from the master to his apprentice, became the basis for the training
system of pupillage (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p22).

Pupillage and Early Professionalisation

Craft apprenticeships became a far less popular entry route into the field
of architecture following the introduction of Pupillage (Earle: 1989 p85-6).
Pupillage was a form of training introduced in the 18th century, and was
an alternative route into the profession of architecture at that time (Crinson
and Lubbock p22). Initially it was very similar to that of the craft
apprenticeship, with the two routes being differentiated only by the fact

10
that while the pupil paid for his education, the apprentice exchanged his
labour for his instruction (Earle: 1989 p85-6).
Traditionally, it was common for apprentices from a variety of
classes and backgrounds to enter into a craft-apprenticeship under a
master craftsman or architect. However, the rising popularity of pupillage,
as a result of the industry’s professionalisation, and the requirement for
payment in return for education, led to a difference in status with more
of the professions recruits now coming from the middle classes (Saint: 1983
p57), and a variety of classes and backgrounds undertaking apprenticeships
(Crinson and Lubbock p24).

Initially, this teaching system evolved informally in architects


offices, however, it was soon coupled with attendance to an academy for
lectures and drawing lessons, as well as foreign travel- a route which came
to dominate entry into the profession by 1800 (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994
p26).

The emergence of this common route helps to illustrate the


transition that occurred in architectural training at this time. The
transition in turn led to the professionalisation of architectural education
through the setting up of the first schools of architecture, namely the
University College of London in 1826, which changed architectural
pedagogy routes from a building lodge style of training into a more
academic, theory based training (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p38).

The Arts and Crafts Resistance

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

John Ruskin (St John Wilson 2000)

In the quote above, Ruskin clearly expresses his dismay over the deep
division and contradiction that was occurring in early 19th century
architecture, namely between the arts and the science and economics of

11
building, seen primarily as a result of the industrial revolution (St John
Wilson 2000).

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


introduction of universities, was further supported by the establishment
of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)- an institution whose
objectives at the time aimed at advancing architecture and promoting the
‘acquirement of the knowledge of the arts and science connected
therewith’ (RIBA: 2003 p5).
Significant resistance against this professionalisation of architecture
and the ignorance of the crafts was formed through the precursors-
namely A.W.N Pugin and J. Ruskin- of the late 19th century artistic
movement known as Arts and Crafts (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p50-53). The
ideas of these individuals were aimed towards the rebirth of architecture
that ‘lives in detail’ rather than one that just looks good on the page
(Hanson: 1995 p107). In 1837, one of the first institutions of this resistance
set up by Pugin was the Government School of Design, London, which
was established alongside many other provincial schools with the aim of
training designers and craftsmen for architecture (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994
p53).

John Ruskin took up a position on this issue of professionalisation


through examination in the 1860’s, waging arguments similar to that of
Pugin in the 1830’s and 1840’s (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p57). He believed
in the value and independence of craftsmanship within architecture, a
philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement that was diminishing
quickly under the industry’s new structure (Saint: 1983 p64-65). He also had
a strong desire to separate engineering education from architectural
education, in response to the decline in building craftsmanship that had
occurred after the industrial revolution (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p57).
However, the greatest period of influence gained by the Arts and
Crafts movement on architectural training came in the 1890’s through
William Lethaby, an early member of the Arts and Crafts movement
(Saint: 1983 p64). Lethaby too aimed to recuperate the practices and skills

12
that had been lost during the industrial revolution, following the path and
ideas of Ruskin (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p65). He also correctly perceived
the emerging professionalisation as a symptom of the divide that was
occurring within the building industry (Saint: 1983 p64).
As a result of this, Lethaby suggested the introduction of a new
school of architecture and building trades, one which followed the
precept of Ruskin, and which ultimately materialised in the Central
School of Arts and Crafts, London, (which he jointly-directed)- an
institution that taught architecture as design, craft and construction
(Frampton: 2007 p49). After realising this approach could not in itself re-
orientate architectural training, he went onto establish several schools
which focused specifically on building trades (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994
p69).

Lethaby’s once prominent and highly influential position in


architectural education was finally undermined in 1905, as support for
the French method of training- seen in the Ecole des Beaux Arts model,
grew rapidly (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p72).

Ecole des Beaux Arts Model

The origins of the Ecole Des Beaux Arts approach to architectural


training date back to the end of the seventeenth century, when it emerged
from a system of government which sponsored the academic institutions
established in France at this time (Salama: 2005 p41). One of these
institutions was the Royal Academy of Architecture, the objective of
which was to provide advice and help in connection with Royal buildings,
and was first directed by Nicholas Francois Blondel (Salama: 2005 p 42).
The new paradigm that had evolved in France did not have a
significant impact on architectural pedagogy in England until the end of
the 19th century (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p77). At this point in time, it was
felt that the academic education provided the necessary framework for a
reformed architectural education (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p86), allowing

13
the Beaux-Arts model, which was grounded in the academy, to infiltrate
the situation.

Beaux Arts in Britain

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


controlled system of architectural pedagogy, which had prevailed in
France, was seen through the creation of London’s Architectural
Association (AA) (Balfour: 1995 p78) - an educational institution operating
outside of the governments’ control. There were however, some
characteristics of the Beaux Arts system evident at the AA at this time, as
the school’’s central ethos lay primarily in the development of the
individual’s imagination. The AA’s concept was spurred on by the
realisation within society that an individual’s creativity belongs to them
alone, rather than to the state (Balfour: 1995 p78).

At the same time the RIBA was beginning to make a significant push
towards professionalisation- namely through their creation of the optional
Examination in Architecture in 1863, which became compulsory in 1882
(RIBA 2003 p5-6).

Writing in The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture (St John


Wilson 1995), St John Wilson describes how architecture schools began to
follow the Beaux Arts model, resulting in a fundamental switch of values.
Academies which focused on an abstract, ‘paper’ architecture, replaced the
traditional workshops whose essence lied in beauty, function and
craftsmanship (St John Wilson: 1995 p44, 45). The design process saw a shift
away towards the development of individual student ingenuity (St John
Wilson: 1995 p44, 45).

The teaching methods of the Beaux Arts system quickly became an


unchallenged, universal practice in the setting up of the first schools of
architecture, completing the separation of the role of the architect from
that of the builder, engineer, or surveyor (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p90). He
then also goes onto discuss the emergence of Functionalism as a reaction

14
to this system, and the resulting birth of the modernist system of
teaching, a system which eradicated that system preceding it.

Functionalism

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


statics’ and analysis of physical material properties, the industry saw an
emergence of the movement known at the time as Functionalism (St John
Wilson: 1995. p44, 45).

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


many different meanings since its first use in early 18th century Italy, the
term Sachlickheit was the most heavily coined at the end of the 19th
century. It is one of the German translations of function and was adopted
when describing the emerging modernist agenda in Germany (Forty: 2000.
p180). Sacklickheit, literally means ‘thingness’, and was related to the
expression of the mechanics of structure (Forty: 2000. p181). After the
creation of this term, it continued to be widely used up until the year
1920, especially in relation to the increasingly modernist culture, and at
the Bauhaus school of architecture in Weimar, it became virtually a
synonym for the newly found modernist system (Forty: 2000. p181).
The arrival of this set of ideas saw the birth of the modern
movement, one which would dominate architecture for the rest of the
century.

15
The Bauhaus

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

growth coming right from the roots.’

Walter Gropius. (St John Wilson: 1995)

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


Bauhaus in the early 20th century, outlines here how historic architecture
and tradition had been excluded from the syllabus of the Bauhaus (St John
Wilson: 1995 p27). The school strived to gather all the artistic ingenuity as
one entity, and to reunite all artistic disciplines- sculpture, painting,
design and craftsmanship into a new architecture (See figure 1.1) (Moffett:
2003 p512).

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


means of art, slowly matured, it shifted to craftsmanship for industrial
production (Frampton: 2007 p126-127). It attempted to discover ‘laws’ in art Figure 1.1-
1.1 - Bauhaus Curriculum
- This diagram describes the
that could be related to design and architecture, and its fundamental aim curriculum structure of the Bauhaus.
(Naylor: 1985)
was to establish a universal language of form that would represent the
elimination of social as well as national barriers (Naylor: 1985 p9). The
Bauhaus in Weimar was set up in 1919, and combined the Academy of
Art with the School of Arts and Crafts, claiming the medieval workshop
as its method of doing so (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p91).

‘Vorkurs’

At this time, the Bauhaus was led by the figure of Johannes Itten whose
educational ideas drew upon studies on the educational effects of
environment and guided self-discovery (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p 92). He
established the Bauhaus’s most influential technique for first year
students, the Vorkurs, which aimed to develop individual design ingenuity
through various design exercises. Itten believed this technique could be

16
used as a tool to cleanse students of formal preconceptions in order to
achieve knowledge and skills that were their own. The approach marked a
radical shift away from the ideas of pupillage and academic training,
which were based around the use of previous learning to develop further
knowledge and skills. Ittens approach to architectural pedagogy soon
changed however, when Gropius’s interests shifted towards industrial
design (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p92-93).
Here we can begin to understand that although craft was central
to the Bauhaus curriculum, it was more emphasised on the individualised
exploration of craft- an approach whose present day existence and
inherent benefits we will aim to reveal through our student investigation.

The Modernist Paradigm

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


modernism, through an increased focus on teamwork, as opposed to the
individualism seen in the Beaux-Arts system (Pearce and Toy: 1995 p107).
This move was finally set in 1939, marking the leading edge of modernist
change in British architectural education. Evolutionary changes in other
architecture schools were also evident at the time, quite simply through
the students’ use of modernist examples for design inspiration, as well as
at a theoretical level through the solving of contemporary, rather than
traditional, problems in the studio (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p106).
Shortly after the Second World War, the modernist curriculum
continued to replace that of the Beaux-arts system within many
architecture schools, and by the 1950’s almost all schools considered they
had a form of modernist education in operation. At this point, entry
routes into the profession were still fairly flexible with approximately half
of all architects entering through pupillage and part-time education
(Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p125. The transition from the Beaux-arts system
to modernism was also being seen through power shifts within the RIBA.
Modernists were gradually succeeding in gaining more and more

17
positions on the RIBA board, before suddenly acquiring complete power
in the 1950’s (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p125).

The Oxford Conference

The conference on architectural education was hatched intentionally by


those modernists of the RIBA board, as a method of cementing a
coherent and consistent policy towards teaching in architecture schools, as
well as achieving the long awaited institutional control over architectural
education (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p137).
In 1958, the Oxford Conference on architectural education, which
had its origin in the council at the RIBA, took place and was attended by
only 50 men, all of whom were white and ‘came from within the bounds
of the architectural profession’ (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). The RIBA council
hoped to reform all architectural institutions and to create a uniform
system aimed at serving a largely nationalised architectural production
(Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p137), an aim that was realised when the
conferences outcome ensured that nearly all current architectural schools
would be embedded into universities (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). An architect’s
education was, in other words, officially now an academic, rather than a
practical and pupillage, based form of pedagogy (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994
p154).

The Official System

The beginning of a dominating modernist paradigm in pedagogy was


clearly evident, adopting the title of the ‘Official System’ (Crinson and
Lubbock: 1994 p153). The Official System functioned as a single mould for
architectural education in Britain, the fundamentals of which, according
to Crinson and Lubbock, still exist within many of today’s architecture
schools (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p165). An analysis of course content
discussed within the book, ‘Architecture: Art or Profession?’ (Crinson and
Lubbock: 1994), which focused on various architecture schools across the
country in the early 1990’s, helps to support this assumption.

18
Modernist Influence Today

It found many characteristics within the typical architecture course,


identical to those seen in both the Bauhaus and Beaux-arts systems of
teaching (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p163).
The survey found that the first year in many architecture courses
was highly similar to that of the Vorkurs system seen at the Bauhaus in
Weimar, in that it was an induction into the modernist way of thinking,
which incorporated student ‘cleansing’, as well as the designing of a small
autonomous objects (Crinson and Lubbock p163). Many of these small design
projects involved exercises in abstraction and the manipulation of pure
forms and space, and three-dimensional pattern making exercises that
were based purely on the ingenuity of the individual designer (Crinson and
Lubbock: 1994 p163).

Another finding identified the presence of the design studio at the


centre of architectural education as it was when the Beaux-arts system
existed. Similarly to the Beaux-arts system the final year of the course also
incorporates a final ‘masterpiece’ project which will be the students’
primary focus of energy (Crinson and Lubbock: 1994 p163). These findings
help to illustrate how the Official System had remained as the framework
for architectural education up until the early 1990’s.

Summary

This short, chronological recollection of craft’s existence within


architectural pedagogy over the last 300 years clearly describes the
transformation from a practical, building lodge style of teaching to a more
theoretical, academy based style. In addition to this, it clearly outlines the
gradual professionalisation of architectural pedagogy and the key
architectural institutions and events that have left their stamp on the
architectural education system that is in place today.

19
We have seen the slow decline of the apprenticeship and pupillage
based approaches to teaching, and their eventual replacement by the
school of architecture- a result of the industry’s professionalisation and
the influence of the modernist agenda.
Despite some resistance to these changes, namely through those
who valued craft and tradition at the time, we saw the creation of two
dominating models for architectural education- the Ecole des Beaux Arts
and the Bauhaus. This was helped by the first Oxford Conference on
architecture which created the mould for academic system of architecture
prevalent in the UK today.

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


characteristics of the ‘Official System’ still exist within UK architecture
schools, as well as the current strength it has over their curriculum. We
must then begin to discuss whether or not it would be possible to
introduce hands-on, workshop based training into architectural
curriculum in order to give students a greater understanding of materials,
structure and construction processes, as well as to give them greater
preparation for architectural practice. Such a discussion will focus both on
current theories on such approaches, as well as physical models illustrating
their successful implementation into architectural teaching.

20
Craftsmanship Today

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


craftsmanship and traditional teaching within architectural pedagogy
today, it is important for us to analyse the contemporary theories and
realised models of education which incorporate this approach.

Contemporary Psychological Theory

The contemporary theories we will discuss help to outline some of


the psychological benefits and learning qualities that may result from
craftsmanship and the process of making- with a particular focus of the
relationship between the craftsman’s hands and the creative ability of their
mind.

‘The Hand Hits Back’

Alan Berman presented a lecture at the 2008 Oxford Conference


called ‘The Hand Hits back’, which described in detail the essential and
integral part our hands and bodily faculties play in the use of our human
conceptual capabilities. Berman discusses how our hands express the full
creative potential of the mind when used as tools for making and drawing
(Berman: 2008 p274). He then concludes by criticising CAD machines for
not having such inherent characteristics and for their lack of embodied
soul and creativity (Berman: 2008 p275).
Berman proposes that designing is a somatic experience i.e. one
that involves our whole body, and states that our sensory experiences
contribute hugely to our three-dimensional understanding of form and
space, and believes that they benefit greatly from the process of
development and refinement inherent when crafting an object or product
(Berman: 2008 p274).

21
The Craft of the Glassblower

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


analyses the craft of making physical things, and discusses how it can
provide an insight into the techniques of experience, which in turn can
shape our dealings and interactions with one-another (Sennett: 2000 p289).

‘The hand is a window onto the mind …’

Immanuel Kant. (Sennett: 2008. p149)

Most importantly perhaps is Sennett’s explanation of the idea of unity


between the head and the hand, an idea which is portrayed in Immanuel
Kant’s quote above. Although Sennett does not deal directly with this
idea within the design process, valuable lessons can be learnt from his
discussion.
One example Sennett uses, which could be applied to any process
of hands-on making, is the craft of the glassblower, whose inherent skills
are based in the ability of his hand and eyes to couple together and
achieve concentration (Sennett: 2008 p173). Initially, he describes to the
reader the steps the glassblower takes- blowing, turning, adjusting
posture, moving the molten glass in and out of the furnace, blowing,
turning, and so on. But then goes on to explain how this process of
refinement enabled the glassblower to develop a better awareness and co-
ordination in a subconscious manner- by becoming a part of the object
on which he was working (Sennett: 2008 p174). Such a somatic experience
ensures the craftsman remains stimulated throughout his work, and has
acquired a perfected technical skill that cannot be lost (Sennett: 2008 p177).
Here, Sennett quite cleverly uses the example of a glassblower and
their typical working process, as a way of describing the somatic
relationship between the craftsman and his object.
From his writing we can begin to understand how such a
relationship strengthens the craftsman’s physical articulation and skills,
and ensures they remain intrinsically motivated throughout their work.

22
We are also able to use this example and apply it to academia, considering
how such an empirical process might help to improve the students design
skills, knowledge and understanding of materials, as well as their work
ethic.

‘A Pot for the Hand’

Swan Hung Hotz discusses a similar theory to that of Sennett within the
article ‘A Pot for the Hand’ (Hotz: 2009 p5), when he compares the intimate
relationship between a pot and the hand of a potter, and the ‘ideological
empathy’ that can exist between concept and user (Dutoit and McVicar: 2009
p3). At one point within the article, Hotz describes the ability of crafted
objects to transmit ‘tactile knowledge’ and ‘sensual experience’ direct to
the user, revealing a narrative of the craftsman’s ideas and knowledge
process (Hotz: 2009 p5).
When relating such an example back to academia, we can begin to
understand how it might prove advantageous to students of architecture.
Through crafted objects, students are able to ‘convey the ideas,
knowledge, and perceptive tale’ (Hotz: 2009 p5) of their design process, an
act which is visually nourishing, and one which could ultimately make the
learning process far more efficient and enjoyable for all involved.

Ancient Letter Carving

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


Richard Kindersley, who specialises in lettering, describes his own process
of work and its heavy orientation towards hand carved, stone inscriptions-
rather than computer generated carvings. He goes on to justify this
working technique, expressing the joy inherent in seeing objects that are
made by hand, as well as describing the human hunger to touch and
explore, through our senses, the objects that are crafted by others. He
then goes on to describe how these objects become a source of visual

23
nourishment, which express the essentially human aspect of spirit
(Kindersley: 2008 p53).

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


architectural pedagogy, one can see the ideas expressed by Berman,
Sennett, Kindersley, and Hotz- which all place a great value on the use of
the hand during the design process, supporting the change in education
we are discussing.

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


(Lynch: 2004) move away from this close relationship between the hand
and the mind, to look more precisely at the advantages hands-on methods
of teaching can bring within architecture or design schools. In a
theoretical manner, Hanson quite evidently emphasises his support for
more traditional teaching approaches- namely those of both pupillage and
apprenticeship, within architectural pedagogy, when he outlines their
inherent qualities.

A Return to Ruskin

Writing within the article ‘Not Arts and Crafts’, Hanson (Hanson: 1995)
states that in order to achieve Ruskin’s idea of an architecture that ‘lives in
detail’, rather than one that just looks good on the page, a return to a
pupillage/apprenticeship form of architectural education is required
(Hanson: 1995 p107).

He outlines three distinctive qualities of these teaching


approaches. One is the process of learning something by repeating it
many times over until it is fully understood; another is learning through
submitting yourself initially into somebody else’s idea of what is being
aimed at; and finally learning about the whole of a building, not by
resorting to concepts but by focusing on perfecting a single part of the
building (Hanson: 1995 p107).

24
Building in the Studio

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


qualities expressed by Hanson are strongly supported by Peter Lynch, the
architect-in-residence and head of the Graduate Architecture Centre at
Cranbrook Academy of Art. Lynch starts by describing the architecture
students’ reliance within his studio on physical models, assemblies and
structures, sometimes at full scale (Lynch: 2004 p55).
Lynch describes how the process of building and refinement can
become a ‘refuge for contemplation and reappraisal’, and states that
although slow, it has value, allowing students to understand the labour
involved in craftsmanship, and the ‘rhythm and logic of repetitive,
physical and co-operative tasks’ (Lynch: 2004 p56).
He goes on to conclude his writing by making a similar assertion to
that of Hotz (Hotz: 2009 p5), stating that the students use of hands-on
techniques are an effective method of translating their own intuitions,
desires and needs into physical constructions during the design process. In
essence, the students are able to inject their own uniqueness into their
work, one which is derived directly from their own personal life
experiences.

Summary

The process of refinement and repetition within craftsmanship is


mentioned by Sennett, Lynch and Hanson as one which is paramount to
ensuring students fully absorb information and acquire valuable technical
skills. At one point, Lynch describes the process of craft and making as a
‘refuge’, a metaphorical description that leaves us imagining a shelter,
within which a student can fully resolve their problem while
simultaneously learning from the process.

25
Berman and Sennett also share similar ideas when they place
importance on the role of the whole body and its sensory experience to
provide us with a full understanding of three dimensional spaces and
form, as well to help express our full creativity when designing.
Additionally, Lynch and Hotz both praise the opportunity for
designers to use craftsmanship to transmit their own characteristics,
intuitions and desires into their work, while at the same time extracting
significant enjoyment from the experience. Kindersley then supports this
notion, by expressing the significant joy he receives when inscribing
stones by hand. He also describes crafted objects as visually nourishing,
and is quite clearly opposed to the use of technology- a preference that
also seems to be adopted by Berman when he criticises CAD machines.
When discussing those theories on craftsmanship and making set
out above, we can begin to understand the positive role such a technique
can adopt for students while learning during the design process. And now
we have analysed the actual theoretical and psychological benefits the
‘hands-on’ design process can foster and provide its participants, we will
consider some physical models and examples of how such an approach
might be realised within schools of architecture in the second element of
this chapter.

26
Oxford Conference 2008

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


recent years, for a change in architectural pedagogy- most evidently at the
2008 Oxford Conference on Architecture, which aimed to rethink the
agenda for teaching in schools of architecture and to increase its relevance
to changing circumstances around us (Maturana: 2008). Being the first
conference aimed at re-evaluating architectural education since 1958, it
marked a general change in attitudes within architectural academia and
profession, as well as society. It provided an opportunity for key
individuals of all sexes, creeds, colours, and continents to express their
ideas on the future of architectural pedagogy (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008). The
very existence of this conference represents a situation that is already
sympathetic towards new, challenging ideas and proposals for
architectural teaching programmes, and an academic environment which
will ensure greater credibility and success for these ideas in the future-
craftsmanship being one of those ideas (Roaf and Bairstow: 2008).

The readings from the conference are detailed within ‘The Oxford
Conference: A Re-evaluation of Education in Architecture’ (Roaf and
Bairstow: 2008) and these include many different views and opinions on the
current state of architectural pedagogy, as well as proposals for how its
structure and its teaching programmes might be changed. Many speakers
at the conference highlight their scepticism of the techniques used within
the current architectural teaching system, particularly its inability to ready
students for movement into practice. A number of these opinions had a
particular focus on craft, building and ‘hands-on’ learning techniques,
and we will now analyse these in more detail to gain an understanding of
the potential mould architectural pedagogy could take in the future.

27
The Unspoken Assumption

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


element of design that Hanson strongly supports (Hanson: 1995 p107-108), is
given significant emphasis by Christopher Alexander in his lecture ‘The
unspoken assumption and its antidotes’ during the introduction to the
conference. Alexander begins with some criticism on the state of
architectural education over the last hundred years, outlining its inability
to teach the art of building successfully (Alexander: 2008. p4). He also
highlights the emphasis on the teaching of buildings as individual
components of society- rather than buildings which are interlocking,
intertwining parts of the whole. He believes the antidote for this
prescribed approach, lies in more practical ways of thinking and teaching
within architectural pedagogy (Alexander: 2008 p5).
These student views help set out the real benefits that are associated
with the traditional approach. They also reveal the existence of support
and the desire for practical approaches within architecture- two
requirements that the craftsmanship model might serve to achieve if it
was implemented.

INTBAU Training Model

The ‘International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture and


Urbanism UK’ (INTBAU UK) programme, which was presented at the
2008 Oxford Conference on architectural pedagogy, by Hardy, has been
exploring ways of promoting education in and an understanding of
traditional buildings and places around the world (Hardy: 2008. p 405).
It has developed new methods of ‘hands-on’ training of architecture
students through workshops, live design projects, training programmes
and conferences. The programme fosters the belief that all involved in the
design projects, whether students or teachers, are participants that must
learn from one another, whilst solving practical problems (Hardy: 2008. p
409).

28
Such an approach provides a suitable model of ‘practical, workshop
based’ learning, and one that supports the student desire and satisfaction
that exists within UK architectural pedagogy for a more practical
approach to design. It also acts as an example of the form pedagogy might
take in the future, in order to create benefits simultaneously for both
students and the teachers working alongside them.

29
Contemporary Educational Models

The ‘Pupillage/Apprenticeship’ Model

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


Architecture has seen a reintroduction of methods which instil within
students those theoretical qualities of pupillage and apprenticeship
discussed by him in the article ‘Not Arts and Crafts’ (Hanson: 1995).
One project undertaken at the institute, involving more empirical
processes, focused purely on detail and the fine structure of a building-
with the Visitors Centre at West Dean adopting the role as a live project
focus (Hanson: 1995 p107). The students undertook workshop-based studies
in brickwork and in brick and flint, and played around with the materials
properties, which in one case included alterations to the colour of mortar
(Hanson: 1995 p107). Hanson discusses how the students are ‘giving life to
details’ and therefore giving life to the building as a whole (Hanson: 1995
p107), and describes the student’s realisation that efforts on smaller
elements of the building, are in fact the core effort in the design process,
and are key to making the building (Hanson: 1995 p107).
Hanson also discusses the absence of the ‘concept’ and how this
allows technology and details to develop freely, while bearing the imprint
of human feeling. He believes that by building on this understanding of
the building, a growing assurance in the student quite unlike the often
shallow attachment a student may have with an abstract concept is created
(Hanson: 1995 p107-108).

The teaching model discussed here at POW Institute of Architecture has


characteristics reminiscent of the apprenticeship schemes seen in the
educational model of the 17th century, as well as the pupillage approach
that replaced it. It combines a workshop learning approach with an on-
site, physical object, which acts as a platform for the students application
of newly found knowledge. This combination reveals some ways in which

30
we might support craftsmanship, if it became a mainstream element of
architectural pedagogy and curriculum in the future. Questions might
also be asked on whether it’s worth gaining a ‘hands-on’ understanding,
and knowledge of a material or technique in the workshop, if that
knowledge cannot be applied to a real life, physical object.

The ‘Degree Laboratory’ Model

A fairly recent precedent for the introduction of craft into architectural


pedagogy is the work at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University
College of London, in a teaching programme known as the ‘Degree
Laboratory’ (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p71). The work of unit six at the Bartlett,
introduces workshop-based practice into the design studio, for both
second and third year students. This workshop focuses on creating an
identity in student’s proposals through craft experimentation (Callicot &
Sheil: 2000 p72).

Within the degree laboratory, Callicott and Sheil discuss the way in
which craft is underpinned by a necessity to attain a ‘specific body of
knowledge’, and they mention a set of parameters that craft is created
within, namely; available equipment, skills and materials, and
time/budget constraints (Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p72). They also go on to
compare ‘failed decisions’ within the two different working
environments- that of the academic, where they are deemed purely as
failures; and that of workshop where it can be viewed as a ‘purposeful-
test’, one which forms a core part of a successful workpiece (Callicot & Sheil:
2000 p73).

After evaluating the programme, they explain how the flirtation


with the ‘mechanism/construct’ led to an expanded vocabulary of
expression within students. In addition to this, they outline how the
workshop enables projects to commence both as a form of site analysis
and as an exploration of material properties within the design process
(Callicot & Sheil: 2000 p75).

31
This programme is particularly useful for our exploration of craft
today, as it closely relates to those theories on creativity discussed by
Sennett. But more importantly it begins to discuss how the exploration
process inherent within craft, and hands-on learning, enables students to
understand material properties, attain knowledge and skills and begin to
understand realistic constraints, such as time and budget, which would be
imperative when working on live projects within architectural practice.

The ‘Hooke Park’ Model

‘Design with beauty, build with truth.’

AA, London. Motto. (Prizeman: 2005)

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


Prizeman argues a case for the nourishment of design-by-making as a
‘passionate, cultural, intellectual and human activity’ (Prizeman: 2005 p54).
It is evident in the quote above that this ethos is also adopted at the AA,
London.
Prizeman begins his writing by describing the workshop-based
method of education seen at Hooke Park, Dorset which was initially used
for a furniture and forestry school in the 1980’s (Prizeman, M. 2005 p54).
The facilities at Hooke Park have since become part of the AA, London
and aim to use forest thinnings’ and off-cuts for highly efficient structural
purposes during student projects. The addition of a timber workshop,
accommodation units, and working woodland at Hooke Park, to the AA’s
current facilities, opened the doors for a new teaching programme
grounded in the medium of making (Prizeman: 2005 p54).
Prizeman then goes on to criticise some elements of current
architectural pedagogy in the UK, including basic building construction
techniques which are not instructed conventionally-perhaps through a
workshop, but through case studies and ‘onerous’ research tasks (Prizeman:
2005 p54).

32
Although this hands-on laboratory experiment has not yet been
realised as a permanent teaching facility (Prizeman: 2005 p57), there is
however, a graduate diploma course at the AA titled ‘Design + Make’
which is due to commence in the 2010 academic year. The programme is
located in the heart of Hooke Park, and believes in the philosophy that
architects learn best by imagining, developing and realising full type
prototype structures. The AA believe that through the actual engagement
in all stages of making and building, students have the opportunity to
develop a rich understanding of architecture (AA: 2010 p1).

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


the growing support and belief that exists within the field of architectural
pedagogy for the ‘learning through making’ design philosophy inherent
within craftsmanship. It acts as a useful precedent for any future changes
that might be proposed within architecture schools who aim to adopt this
philosophy.
However, it is worth noting that the AA is a private education
institution, operating outside of the government-funded university system
pre-dominant within the UK and supported entirely by student fees
comparable to that of a private school (RIBA 2007 p9). As a result, it has
significantly greater funding for learning facilities such as those seen at
Hooke Park, funding which is not so prevalent among other educational
institutions within the UK. This example can therefore begin to teach us
how financial constraints might act as a barrier when proposing such a
future change in teaching philosophy.

The ‘Rural Studio’ Model

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


pedagogy when considering how craft might form a more dominant part
of today’s curriculum.

33
Auburn University’s ‘Rural Studio’ is an undergraduate teaching
programme within their school of architecture, grounded in hands-on
craft and aimed at fostering design and build projects for the deprived
local population (Forney: 2005 p92).
Within the article ‘Learning in Newbern- Rural Studio in Year
Ten’ (Forney: 2005) John Forney explains how the ‘Rural Studio’ tends to
local projects, learning and applying lessons of ‘custom and experience’
(Forney: 2005 p95). He emphasises the value of craft, and its ability to
encourage participants design ingenuity, as well as a positive attitude
towards constrained resources and skills.
Forney continues by comparing this hands-on, direct approach to
buildings, with the more abstract dealing which is common within
architectural curriculum today (Forney: 2005 p94). He writes that where
universities approaches often distinguish and distance their students
knowledge from the realities of industry and practice, the Rural Studio
model integrates its students into real community situations, while
simultaneously familiarising them with the building processes and
materials (Forney: 2005 p95).

This educational programme provides an excellent, realised model of a


craft-based approach to architecture that could be successfully applied and
integrated to other schools of architecture, creating significant benefits for
both the students and the local community they are collaborating with.
It represents an approach that takes craftsmanship and combines it
with a very much live, real working environment- similar to that approach
that was introduced by Hanson at the POW Institute of Architecture
(Hanson: 1995). Students are able acquire skills in craftsmanship, while at
the same time applying to them to a physical project, and creating notable
benefits for the community involved.

34
Summary

After exploring the different educational programmes within this section,


we can begin to consider the form architectural pedagogy might take, in
particular the way in which in would function- i.e. in the workshop alone,
or in combination with live projects, in a way reminiscent of pupillage
and apprenticeship schemes of the past.
Hooke Park’s facilities at the AA, proved to be particularly useful to
this study as it revealed a near perfect example of how workshop facilities
and craftsmanship might become a part of architectural pedagogy.
However, it also opened our eyes to the financial constraints that exist
within many universities, and how they might act as barriers to the
adoption of these techniques.

35
RIBA Control Over Curriculum

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


paramount that we understand the benchmarks that exist along the route
towards gaining RIBA chartered status as an architect, as well as the
emphasis traditional teaching methods are given with these criteria.
However, we must understand the way in which the professional body
that creates, implements and enforces these criteria, functions.
The RIBA sets an outline syllabus for educational institutions to
gain professional recognition for the architecture related courses they
provide (RIBA 2007 p6). The RIBA ensures schools of architecture comply
with the minimum standards required for RIBA accreditation (RIBA 2007
p8). The outline syllabus set out standards for recognition and validation
of all stages of architectural education; however, they are flexible, allowing
schools to meet criteria in their own unique way (RIBA 2007 p11).
If we look more closely at the criteria set out within the syllabus,
one can see the differing level of emphasis certain teaching approaches are
given. A theme outlined within the syllabus that was particularly relevant
to this study, was ‘Technology and Environment’. Within this section,
which focuses on the courses at the Part 1 and Part 2 stages of education,
there appears to be an emphasis on the requirement for students to
understand materials, and study the ‘technology of construction’, with the
aim of Part 1 graduates to gain grounding in principles of constructional,
structural and environmental design’, before moving onto the part 2 stage
(RIBA 2007 p23).

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


types of teaching that might be adopted to gain such knowledge, and
these include lectures, seminars, laboratory sessions and private study
(RIBA 2007 p23). Commentary on the Part 2 element however, provides no
advice on types of teaching and the expectation for the students to have
previously gained some form of basic constructional understanding is
quite evident. Students are expected to integrate their previously gained
knowledge into project work, as well as beginning to study the specific
interest in more depth (RIBA 2007 p41). There is however, some further

36
opportunities for the expansion of knowledge through ‘case studies’ of
influential buildings (RIBA 2007 p41), although again there is no specific
advice on how these case studies might be undertaken.

After studying its content, it is quite clear that within the outline
syllabus the focus on types of teaching is intentionally vague, maintaining
the RIBA’s quest for ‘flexibility’ in their guidelines. However, one begins
to question this structure when it focuses so heavily upon the knowledge
to be gained, but not on the technique by which students gain that
knowledge. Our student analysis provides us with some useful
information regarding student’s opinions on various teaching techniques,
which in turn enables us to gauge craftsmanship’s importance and the
position it might take within future architectural curriculum and the
RIBA’s syllabus.

37
Student Voices on Craftsmanship

Student Survey

In order to gain some level of contemporary understanding of the


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

38
within the participant’s course as a whole. The second element focused on
the ‘process of design’, with the aim of understanding the extent to which
these learning techniques are used during the design process, as well as the
consequent skills and benefits they can bring to the students design
ability.

Results- Course Content

The first question asked students to identify which learning


techniques had been most beneficial to them while studying
‘construction technology’ on their course as a whole (See figure 3.1 for
results).

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


‘practical, workshop-based approaches’ to construction technology
existed within the design studio element of their course (See figure 3.2 fro
results).

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


of learning have been given some level of emphasis in a significant
number of the attended architecture schools. Not only was this type of
teaching present on the design studio element of the courses, but also in
other ‘construction technology’ orientated elements of the course.
It is also important to analyse the other learning approaches that
were selected by students, as it allows us to understand their usefulness
during the design process.
The process of a one-on-one tutorial was recorded by students as
being equally beneficial to ‘hands-on’ learning, with ‘peer to peer’
conversation playing a slightly smaller, but still significant, role in
effective learning. Students believed that those theory-based approaches
and personal research played a less beneficial role during the learning
process.
The survey then goes on to analyse the students ideas surrounding
and reasons for the preferences they have expressed here.

39
In the following question, the participants were asked to elaborate further
on their experiences of various techniques when learning about
‘construction technology’, by explaining why exactly they felt certain
techniques were more beneficial than others.
The participants that selected ‘one-on-one tutorials with studio
masters’ as one of the most beneficial techniques, then went on to state
that it allowed them to gain invaluable knowledge directly from studio
masters; allowed for discussions on problems areas which were unique to
them; as well as providing immediate solutions for personal queries.
Those participants that selected personal research and reading as
being particularly beneficial to their process of learning, then stated that it
gave them the freedom to build on basic lecture knowledge, creating
advanced knowledge; to explore a range of different reading material by
reading around the subject and applying it to a set task; as well as using
existing building case studies for guidance.
Those that selected ‘theory’ based approaches (lectures) as being
one of the most beneficial of all the learning techniques, then justified
their choice by stating that lectures were to the point; and helped to
provide a basic overview or foundation of knowledge from which to build
on.
The reasons outlined by those who selected ‘hands-on’ workshop
based learning, have been compiled along with answers gained from
question 7, on part 2 of the survey.

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


which students feel a certain technique is or has been beneficial to them
during the learning process, which in turn allows us to consider its
usefulness within architectural curriculum.

40
In the following question, participants were simply asked
whether their current learning techniques had provided them with, or
will provide them with, the expertise necessary for the transition into
architectural practice (See figure 3.3 for results).
Those participants that stated ‘no’ they were not ready for this
transition were then asked to consider which learning technique might
provide them with the necessary skills to do so. In response to this,
students detailed the following techniques:
• A more balanced combination of theory and practical work;
• Introduction of carpentry, bricklaying or similar craft courses;
• A greater emphasis on physics of buildings and structures in
both lectures and design studio time;
• A placement year with on-site training;
• Opportunities to interact with past students; and
• Opportunities to build their designs and evaluate their
constructability.

Although the answers given by those who answered ‘yes’ cannot be


taken as completely accurate, as it is impossible to be sure whether each
individual has the necessary expertise for practice. It does however help to
highlight the level of confidence that students feel their current learning
technique has given them.
The answers given by those participants who have gained industry
experience either during or following their studies were however, far more
accurate, as they had experienced the transition being questioned. When
describing this transition, one postgraduate student stated that at
undergraduate level one-on-one tutorials and theory based learning had
been sufficient for movement into practice. They then go on to mention
how hands on workshops and direct contact with building contractors on
site enabled them to quickly build on this knowledge. A significant
proportion of them did however state that their education up until the
present had not completely covered all the basic skills required for
practice.

41
Those participants who were undertaking a part-time
undergraduate course- combining academic study with industry practice,
also revealed some interesting results. They highlighted the way in which
the topics covered within their syllabus are brought to life at work-
academia and practice working hand in hand to solidify their learning.
They also describe how fellow peers and superiors within the workplace
can play a similar role to that of a tutor within the design studio, aiding
them during the design process.
This desire for creating a balance between theory and real life
practice matches that of the pupillage based route in architectural
pedagogy which found its origins in the early 18th century (Crinson &
Lubbock p22). Understanding the benefits of such an approach to the
students themselves, helps us to then consider how it might take up a
more prominent role within architectural pedagogy in the future.

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


of the architecture schools within the UK, and the survey data does not
therefore give a completely fair and accurate depiction of the existence of
‘hands-on, workshop based learning’ techniques within the UK
architectural education as a whole.

42
Research into Curricula
To gain a more accurate understanding of the emphasis the remaining
UK schools had given to ‘hands-on, workshop based learning’ within
their teaching programmes, it was also necessary for us to analyse their
current curriculum. When undertaking our analysis, we highlighted any
mention of ‘workshop- based learning’ within the syllabus as a sufficient
indicator for its existence at that particular school. (See figure 3.4 for results).
The results collated from this survey, highlight that around half of
the remaining schools have placed some emphasis within their course
programmes on workshop based learning.

Summary

After successfully gathering information on the learning


approaches at all architecture schools, we were able to make an accurate
judgement of ‘traditional teachings’ existence within architecture
curriculum in the UK as a whole (See Appendix 3).
It was quite evident after collating the results from both the
student survey and the curriculum analysis, that ‘traditional teaching’
has a significant presence in architectural pedagogy in the UK, with just
over half of all schools of architecture outlining it within their syllabus
(See figure 3.5 for results).

The process of gathering results did prove problematic however, as


contradictions were identified between responses given by students
attending the same schools. In this situation, a final decision was made
through further research into that individual schools curriculum.

43
Results- Process of Design

Within the second element of the student survey, which was focused on
the ‘process of design’, the participants were first asked to specify if they
felt ‘workshop-based learning’ techniques were beneficial during the
design process (See figure 3.6 for results). They were then asked to provide
reasoning for these responses.
It is evident from these results that a significant number of
participants found the workshop based learning approach to be
beneficial to them. When asked to describe why it was beneficial, the
following answers were given:
• Provides a physical object, to be discovered, learned from
and remembered for future detailing;
• Provides a basic overview and 3-dimensional understanding
of technical details before proceeding onto a 2-dimensional
technical drawing;
• Enabled the complexities of the detail to become more easily
understood;
• Handling of construction materials and tools ensures
understanding of the materials properties, which can then be
applied during the design process; and
• Group workshop based learning allows students to work
closely with one another, bouncing knowledge back and
forth, with the addition of the workshop assistant’s guidance.

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


based learning’ were then asked whether they felt such an approach would
be beneficial to them, with all of them answering that ‘yes’ it would be a
valuable addition.
Specific reasons for this were very similar to those stated by
students who had experienced this learning approach, however, one
student highlighted an important barrier to the introduction of such an
approach- that of time. This barrier must be questioned seriously when

44
considering the position of ‘traditional teaching’ within architectural
curriculum.

The next set of questions focused on working methods within the


participant’s architectural education, firstly the emphasis either individual
work or group work is given during design projects on the course.
Following this, the participants were asked to select which working
method they felt would be more beneficial to them as part of their
education. (See figure 3.7 for results).
After analysing the responses on the dynamics of the design
process, the outcome is quite evident. There appears to be a heavy focus
on individual work within schools, with group work and a balanced
combination of both being significantly less important. This reveals a
trend within architecture schools which is reminiscent of those systems
seen at the Ecole Des Beaux Arts, and Bauhaus- where student ingenuity
was a primary focus.
Interestingly, a significant number of participants went on to
express their preference for a greater emphasis on group activities, as well
as a more equal balance with their syllabus. Such a desire therefore
represents a situation within academia that might sympathise with the
introduction of craftsmanship, and the group dynamics inherent within
it.

The final area of focus on the design process element of the survey,
enquired into the students experience of ‘workshop-based learning’ as
a means of learning about the properties and efficient usage of various
materials when designing (See figure 3.8 for results).
Those students that felt ‘workshop-based learning’ was beneficial to
them were then asked to describe their reasoning for this. Specified
reasons included the following:
• Enabled an understanding of a materials response to
specific conditions and its affect on the overall building in
terms of environment, aesthetics and function;

45
• Creation of ‘material consciousness’ through sensory
experience i.e. touch, visual perception; and
• Handling materials enables the student to remember and
visualise the materials properties and simultaneously
inform their design projects.

The reasons outlined above helps to support those contemporary theories


set out in chapter 2, particularly those of Berman, Sennett, Kindersley
and Hotz, which discuss the relationship between the bodies’ sensory
experiences and the human minds learning efficiency.
It is possible to conclude from this section that there appears to be
a clear preference amongst students for a more conscientious and
thorough approach to the handling and use of materials during the design
process. And thus it could then be argued that craftsmanship, whose focus
lies partly in the understanding and direct treatment of materials and
tools, might be suitable to meet these preferences.

46
Conclusion

The primary aim of this dissertation has been to explore the existence of
traditional teaching approaches within architectural curriculum in the
UK; to understand student’s views on this approach; and ultimately gauge
the level of support that exists for the permanent introduction of such an
approach into architecture schools in the future, in the hope that its
introduction might help to bridge the perceived knowledge and skills gap,
particularly in technological areas, that exists between academia and
practice.
Prior to discussing the state of today’s education, the first chapter
sets out to provide a historical context for craftsmanship. This section is
supplemented with an extensive literature review that ensures the content
of the writing remains accurate.

The section following this analysed the existing support within both
architectural academia and practice for change in architectural pedagogy.
The extensive range of relevant literature we examined expressed both
psychological theories and physical, realised models of education with
craftsmanship at their core.
Many of the theorists we have explored paid special attention to the
relationship between the hand and the mind, and its ability to
dramatically improve creativity levels. Additionally, they also mention the
ability of craft within the workshop to create a fruitful, thriving
environment, as well as to provide knowledge, skills and a work ethic
within students that will always remain with them.

We were then able to analyse the realised models present within


architectural curriculum today. Those that we analysed all placed a value
on a ‘learning through making’ philosophy, however each individual
programme was executed slightly differently.
The educational model seen at ‘Hooke Park’ was particularly useful
to this study as it provided an excellent precedent and example for other

47
schools of architecture that might aim to change their learning approach
in the future. It also, however, highlighted the financial issues that exist at
many universities. As a privately funded school, the AA has significantly
greater financial power, when compared to other universities functioning
within the government-funded structure, and can therefore afford
facilities and resources of a much higher quality. Even with the ambition
for change towards a crafts-based approach, financial issues at certain
schools might act as a barrier to this change.

The 2008 Oxford Conference included many interesting proposals


for change in education, with some placing a significant emphasis on the
ability of craftsmanship to improve the learning processes in architectural
education and even as a method by which the fragmented industry might
be repaired.

We also studied the RIBA’s validation criteria, and while doing so,
its vagueness when discussing the delivery of learning was particularly
notable, especially when discussing workshop based approaches to
technology. It is quite evident that while this criterion remains
unchanged, it will be difficult to implement new approaches to learning,
because schools follow the criteria so closely. However, if the importance
of these traditional approaches is realised and it is incorporated into the
criteria, schools of architecture might begin to understand the value of
such approaches and as a result incorporate them into their curriculum.

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


through our student survey- as well as a further analysis of curricula, aims
to identify the actual existence of traditional teaching approaches within
schools of architecture today. In addition to this, it looks to the students’
views and feelings on such approaches, to inform our argument on the
change in education.
The results that emerged were interesting; a significant number of
schools (over 50%) displayed some emphasis towards traditional learning

48
approaches, and students identified such techniques as one of the most
beneficial approaches when learning about technological issues and
developing, as one student said, a ‘material consciousness’.
The survey also identified an area of architectural pedagogy that
craft and workshop-based learning might help to appease in the future. A
notable lack of groupwork activities during design projects- a method
preferred by the majority of survey participants was identified in most
schools of architecture. Craftsmanship often encompasses workshop-
based, group approaches to design problems which can create an efficient
learning environment, and thus could serve to fill this niche in the
curriculum.

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


important that we come to a conclusion on the writings outcome. The
evidence strongly suggests that although there is some emphasis on
craftsmanship and traditional teaching within current UK architecture
schools, there still remains a significant number of schools that do not
incorporate this approach. In addition to this, the existence of theoretical
and physical models of such an approach within current academia, show
vast support for the incorporation of hands-on, craftsmanship based
approaches.
It can therefore be said that there is indeed a place for more
traditional approaches to architectural pedagogy, and that its permanent
residence within architectural curriculum in the future would be
welcomed by students. Such approaches also allow students to get their
hands dirty, interact with one another in a stimulating fashion, and learn
somatically, and it might provide them with the knowledge and skills
required for the transition into architectural practice.
Doubts do remain however, over the likeliness of such approaches
being incorporated into architectural curriculum, especially with the
financial barriers present at many universities, and the content of the
current syllabus outlined by the RIBA which currently places little

49
emphasis on the learning approaches, let alone the alternative approach
we are discussing here.
As well as this, we must consider the important factor which was
identified by one survey participant, that of time. Will architecture
schools find time within their curriculum for such techniques? And if so,
what techniques will be sacrificed in its place? This is again an issue that
can only be addressed by the efforts of the individual architecture school,
or at a wider scale through changes in the guidance and criteria set out
within the RIBA outline syllabus. Without this, it may be some time
before any diversion from the norm is seen within architectural
curriculum, a situation that will in turn see the gap between academia and
practice become ever wider.

50
References

Books

Association. In: PEARCE, M., TOY, M., 1995.


BALFOUR, A., 1995. The Architectural Association.
Educating Architects. 1st ed. Academy Group Ltd. Manchester University Press.

B., 2000. The Degree Laboratory: The work of Unit Six at the
CALLICOT, N., SHEIL, B.,
Bartlett School, University College London. In: NICOL, D., PILLING, S., 2000. Changing
Architectural Education: Towards a new professionalism. Spoon Press. London.

LUBBOCK, J., 1994. Architecture: Art or Profession?. 1ST ed. Prince of


CRINSON, M., LUBBOCK,
Wales Institute of Architecture. Manchester University Press.

EARLE, P., 1989. The Making of the English Middle Class- Business, Society and Family Life in
London [Online]... University of California Press. Berkeley.
Available from: http://escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft8489p27k;brand=ucpress
HU U

Accessed 25/02/210.

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

FRAMPTON, K., 2007. Modern architecture: a critical history. 4th ed. Thames & Hudson
Ltd. London.

Crafts. In: PEARCE, M., TOY, M., 1995. Educating


HANSON, B., 1995. Not Arts and Crafts.
Architects. 1st ed. Academy Group Ltd. Manchester University Press.

KINDERSLEY, R., Design In:


R., 2008. Ancient Letter Carving and Computer Type Design.
ADAM, R., HARDY, M., Tradition Today- Continuity in Architecture and Society. WIT Press.
Athenaeum press Ltd. UK

51
M., WODEHOUSE, L., 2003. A World History of Architecture.
MOFFET, M., FAZIO, M.,
Lawrence King Publishing Ltd. London.

NAYLOR, G., 1985. The Bauhaus Reassessed- Sources and Design Theory. The Herbert Press.
London.

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


NICOL, D.,
professionalism. Spoon Press. London.

PEARCE, M., TOY, M., 1995. Educating Architects. 1st Ed. Academy Group Ltd.
Manchester University Press.

ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BR 2003 . Tomorrow's architect : RIBA


BRITISH ARCHITECTS. 2003.
outline syllabus for the validation of courses, programmes and examinations in architecture :
incorporating prescription of qualifications : ARB criteria. RIBA Enterprises. London.

1983 . The Image of the Architect. Yale University Press. New Haven and London.
SAINT, A., 1983.

SALAMA, A., 2005. New Trends in Architectural Education- Designing the Design Studio. 3rd
ed. [Online] Ashraf Salama. United States Agency.
Available from: http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=6330
HU UH

Accessed 25/02/2010.

2008 The Craftsman. Penguin Group. Allen Lane. London.


SENNETT, R., 2008.

ST JOHN WILSON, C., 1995. The Other Tradition of Modern Architecture- the uncompleted
project. Academy Group Ltd. National Book Network INC. USA.

52
Journals

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

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

FORNEY, J., 2005. Ten In: SHEIL, B.,


2005 Learning in Newbern: Rural Studio in Year Ten.
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.

LYNCH, P., 2004. Architectural Education- arguement. In:


Education- the information and the arguement.
CHADWICK, M., 2004. Back to School. Architectural Design. Wiley Academy. UK.

PRIZEMAN, M., 2005. Education. In: SHEIL, B.,


20 05. Hooke Park: As a New Initiative in Education.
2005. Design Through Making.. Architectural Design. Wiley Academy.

53
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.

54
Curriculum/Prospectuses

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
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

London South Bank., 2010.


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

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Robert Gordon University., 2010.


MArch Architecture (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/architecture-construction-and-surveying/study-
HU

options/undergraduate-full-time/architecture U

Accessed: 16/03/2010

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

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

Accessed: 16/03/2010

55
Queens University Belfast., 2010.
Bsc Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/arc/Education/BachelorofScienceinArchitecture-
HU

PartI/ U

Accessed: 16/03/2010
MArch Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/arc/Education/MasterofArchitecture-PartII/
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

University of Ulster., 2010.


BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.adbe.ulster.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/6958
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010
Msc Architectural Studies (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.adbe.ulster.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/7750
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010
MArch Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.adbe.ulster.ac.uk/schools/archi_design/courses/view/course/7763
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Birmingham City Univerity., 2010.


MA Architectural Studies (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/architectural-studies
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010
BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/architecture-riba-part-i-exemption
Accessed: 16/03/2010
PGDip Architecture
Available at: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/courses/architecture-riba-part-ii-exemption-pgdip
Accessed: 16/03/2010

56
University of Cambridge., 2010.
BA Hons Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at:
http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Arct/Section.aspx?p=23&ix=23&pid=1214&prcid=4&ppid=1214
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010
MPhil (B) Architecture
Available at:
http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Arct/Section.aspx?p=23&ix=24&pid=1214&prcid=4&ppid=1214
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

University College
College for Creative Arts, Canterbury., 2010.
BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.ucreative.ac.uk/index.cfm?articleid=20463
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Edinburgh College of Art., 2010.


BA Architecture
MA (Hons) Architecture
MA (Hons) Architecture in Creative and Cultural Environments
Available at: http://www.eca.ac.uk/index.php?id=612
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Glasgow School of Art., 2010.


(Whole Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.gsa.ac.uk/downloads/prospectus/GSA_10-
HU

11_SCHOOL_OF_ARCHITECTURE.pdf Accessed: 16/03/2010


UH

57
University of Strathclyde., 2010.
Bsc Architecture Studies. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.strath.ac.uk/architecture/courses/undergraduatearchitecturalstudies/
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010

De Montfort University., 2010.


BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/art_and_design/ug_courses/arch.jsp
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010

University of Liverpool.,2010.
BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/lsa/ba_arch/index.htm
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Liverpool John Moores University.,2010.


BA Hons Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/factfiles/?CourseId=K100
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.,2010.


Bsc (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/programmes/bsc.htm
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010
PGDip Architecture
Available at: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/programmes/diploma.htm
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

58
London Metropolitan University.,2010.
BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/architecture/courses/undergraduate/ba-
HU

architecture.cfm UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

London South Bank University.,2010.


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

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Northumbria University.,2010.
BA (Hons) Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at:
http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/?view=CourseDetail&code=UUFARC1&page=detail
HU U

Accessed: 16/03/2010

University of Nottingham.,2010.
Dip Architecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ugstudy/course.php?code=019467
HU UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

Nottingham Trent University.,2010.


BArchitecture. (Course Prospectus)
Available at: http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/pss/courses/cf/60731-
HU

1/10/BArch_%28Hons%29_Architecture.aspx UH

Accessed: 16/03/2010

59
Reports

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)., 2007. Report of the RIBA Visiting Board to the
Architectural Association [Online]. RIBA. London.
Available at:
http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Education/Validation/BoardRep
HU

ortsSummaryReports/ArchitecturalAssociationLondon/Visiting%20Board%20Report%20200
7.pdf U

Accessed: 18/03/2010

Guides

Roberts, A., 2007. Problem Based Learning in Architecture. [Online] The Centre for Education
in the Built Environment (CEBE). Cardiff.
Available at:
http://wzww.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/cebe/documents/resources/briefingguides/BriefingGuide_
HU

11.pdf U

Accessed: 19/03/2010

60
Bibliography

ALEXANDER, C., 2002. The Nature of Order- An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature
of the Universe. The Process of Creating Life. Center for Environmental Structure. California.

AL- 2006. Changing Trends in


AL- QAWASMI, J., VASQUEZ DE VELASCO, GP., 2006.
Architectural Design Education (Proceedings from CSAAR 2006 Conference). CSAAR.

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

MATURANA,
MATURANA, B.,
B., 2008. Resetting Agendas- a conference on climate change. ARQ Vol 12.
No3/4. p210.

MORDANT CROOK, J., 1987. The Dilemma of Style- Architectural Ideas from the
Picturesque to the Post-Modern. John Murray Ltd. London.

MORDEN, I., RUEDI RAY, K., 2006. The Dissertation: An Architecture Students Handbook.
Architectural Press. Oxford. UK.

MORROW, R., BELFORD, T., 2008. Soft Garniture: developing hybrid materials
between academia and industry. In: ROAF, S., BAIRSTOW, A., 2008. The Oxford
Conference. A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture. WIT Press. Cambridge Printing.

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


WATSON, H., 1990.
editions. London.

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

61
SUMMERSON, J., 2006. The Classical Language of Architecture. Thames & Hudson World
of Art. London.

62
Appendix

1. Survey Example

The three-page survey, which is shown in the following, was produced online through a survey
company called smart-survey©. A link for the survey was distributed online through the social
networking site Facebook©, as well as other architecture student forums.
Students were asked for consent to undertake the survey prior to its commencement and
were informed that their answers would form part of a student dissertation project. The use of
the students name in the survey was clearly described as optional information.

Survey Page 1- Description and participant details.

63
Survey Page 2- Section 1- Course Content Q’s 2- 6.

64
Survey Page 2- Section 2- Process of Design Q’s 7- 13.

65
2. Surveyed Universities and Participants Table.

The table shown in the following outlines those universities that were included in the student
survey results, and the number of participants who undertook the survey from each of them.

66
3. Student Analysis and Curriculum Analysis Results.
The table in the following the combined results from our analysis on the existence of hands-on,
workshop base approaches to teaching construction technology and design.
(Individual References, for those universities whose prospectuses were analysed, have been
listed in the ‘Curriculum/Prospectus’ section within the references.)

67

You might also like