Defying a legacy or an evolving process? A post-pandemic architectural design pedagogy

Abstract

The Covid-19 condition has prompted serious questions about the challenges facing the established two-centuries old canons of education in architecture and urbanism. This paper establishes an evolutionary account on how design education in architecture and urbanism has arrived at the pre-Covid-19 condition, explores current challenges, and, in the process of encountering the Covid-19 condition asks the question of what the scope of opportunities to meet these challenges is. A chronological analysis of design pedagogy is undertaken to instigate a debate on its future in a post-pandemic environment. The paper captures the salient characteristics of the legacy model which is inherited from historical schools, demonstrates the influence of, and resistance to, this model (1960s), identifies the qualities of various alternatives including 10 ground-breaking alternative pedagogies (1970s-1990s), highlights strengths of further alternative approaches including critical inquiry, the process-based and learning-by-making pedagogies (2000s) and the social construction-based pedagogies (2010s). Scrutinising the consequences of the Covid-19 condition and the associated “Transitional Emergency Model,” the analysis articulates the persisting challenges and examines current adaptations while outlining the scope of future opportunities for a future responsive pedagogy for architecture and urbanism in a post-pandemic world.

Defying tradition or maintaining the status quo? Moving towards a new hybrid architecture studio education to support blended learning post-COVID-19

“…Additionally, Salama and Burton (2022) argue that to address the shortcomings of traditional design studio models and address any weaknesses in the current model, it is necessary to continue promoting alternative syllabi. They suggest the need to reassess the current model and adopt a “dynamic conservatism” approach, which involves being agile and flexible in one's approach to teaching architecture.…”

Students’ Public success and private breakdown?

“…Flynn et al (2022) explicated that design critiques within the instructivist paradigm align with the master-apprentice model rather than the widely shared idealised perspective of the design studio as a student-centred (social) constructivist model. The master-apprentice model is solely a simplistic punishment-or-reward principle (Salama & Burton, 2022) that discourages radical explorations and innovation due to the potentially high rejection from the masters (Achten, 2015). Another characteristic of the master-apprentice model may provide prompt answers at first instances without an extended discussion to alleviate students' confusion (Green & Bonollo, 2003).…”

Urban design as a specialised, evidence-based, coordinated educational and professional endeavour

“…Theirs and our socially oriented vision for urban design transcends the principal focus of attention on material fabric and spatial organisation characterised by other built environment disciplines, and yet is made possible by treating the built environment as a physical system, which allows to account for the holistic nature of the human-environment relationship. From a pedagogical viewpoint, our vision relies on a combination of critical inquiry, process-based and social-constructs approaches, within flexible and adaptive contexts, aims and outcomes (Salama and Osborne Burton, 2022). Furthermore, the learning process will be cumulative across years: each learning experience becomes an element of the following starting points, as part of learning process is in fact about adding to the knowledge base of urban design.…”