Real projects versus instructed protocols: a compromised profile for proposing architectural design teaching projects

J. Design Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2010 375

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Real projects versus instructed protocols: a compromised profile for proposing architectural design teaching projects

Mahmoud Ahmed Abdellatif* College of Architecture and Planning, University of Dammam, P.O. Box 397, Al-Dammam, 31451, KSA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Khaled Ali Youssef Faculty of Environmental Design, King Abdul Aziz University, P.O. Box 80210, Jeddah, 21589, KSA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: In teaching architectural design, schools have various perspectives concerning the projects taught in design studios. Some argue that students should challenge real design problems: the real project (RP) approach. Others claim that applying hypothetical projects could be more viable if they fit within the teaching protocol: the instructed protocol (IP) approach. Based on observations and a field survey comparing the RP approach, applied in Kunstuniversitat-Linz, Austria, and the IP approach, applied in Assiut University, Egypt, it was argued that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. To reach a compromise, a teaching profile called the instructed protocol real projects (IPRP) profile was proposed. The profile has two components: an instructed teaching protocol and four different scenarios for proposing educational design projects.

Keywords: architectural education; design studio; design profiles.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Abdellatif, M.A. and Youssef, K.A. (2010) ‘Real projects versus instructed protocols: a compromised profile for proposing architectural design teaching projects’, J. Design Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.375–391.

Biographical notes: M.A. Abdellatif is a Professor in the College of Architecture and Planning, University of Dammam, KSA. He obtained his PhD in Urban and Regional Science from TAMU and his Masters in Urban Planning from ISU, USA. He obtained his MSc in Urban Design and his BSc in Architectural Engineering from Assiut University, Egypt. He has published over 60 refereed papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. He conducted several funded projects and chaired scientific committees of several conferences in Egypt, the UAE and KSA. He has reviewed numerous scientific papers for regional and international journals and conferences. He designed and planned several projects in USA, Egypt, UAE and KSA. His areas of interest include: urban and regional planning, desert development and technology, development approaches, urban design, housing, architectural and urban education.

376 M.A. Abdellatif and K.A. Youssef

K.A. Youssef is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Design, King Abdul Aziz University, KSU. He obtained his Bachelors, MSc and PhD in Architectural Engineering from Assiut University, Egypt. So far, he has published 12 papers in seven refereed conferences held in six countries including: Spain, the UK, Egypt, KSA, Turkey and Malaysia. He participated in two research projects funded by Johannes Kepler University, Austria. In 2002, he was awarded the fifth prize for designing a ‘Stores and cars shelter’ building owned by Voest-Alpine Company-Linz, Austria. In 2005, he has been awarded the British Council PhD Research Competition Award in Egypt. His areas of interest and specialisation include theories of architecture and architectural design.

1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation

Design is an interactive, decision-making process that produces plans to meet human needs. According to Dutton (1991), Attoe and Mugerauer (1991), Correa and Learning from Ehalavya (1997), Potts (2000) and Kurt (2009), design studios can be considered the heart of most architecture curricula around the globe. The practice of architectural design in a studio setting is learned through a project-based teaching process; ‘learning by doing’, offering a prime example of a collaborative, multi-sensory, learner-centred, constructivist, experiential problem-based teaching environment (Kurt, 1994, 2009), where the architectural design educator can be seen as the motivator of students (Siddiqi, 2002). Using an assigned project, students learn how to practice various design activities. They investigate needs, define problems, determine resources and develop goals and objectives of prospectus users. They express and explore concepts, generate and evaluate alternatives, make decisions and take actions (Gross and Do, 1997).

Design activities can take place either within a RP-based teaching approach tackling real challenges and design situations; the real project (RP)1 approach, or through an unreal project-based teaching approach dealing with hypothetical design problems and situations proposed to cope with an instructed design teaching protocol set by the architectural school; the instructed protocol (IP)2 approach. Both approaches apply different teaching pedagogies to teaching/learning architectural design; serving various purposes, achieving numerous benefits and fostering amounts of limitations. Such a situation appears to highlight the absence of integration and emphasise the need for a compromise; providing this paper with an influential motive. Therefore, the aim of this research is to seek for a compromise solution that incorporates the advantages and minimises disadvantages.

1.2 Scope and limitations

It is apparent that there is a lack of research in the field of architectural education and design teaching practices; the fact that is evidenced by a preliminary review conducted by Salama (1995) of the abstracts of articles presented in three architectural and design journals. The review indicated that only 14% of the total number of articles presented in the Journal of Architectural Education (JAE) from 1980 to 1994 were concerned with

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248606506_An_analytic_study_on_the_traditional_studio_environments_and_the_use_of_the_constructivist_studio_in_the_architectural_design_education?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-aad3110a-9eca-4890-a3e3-d6f38d5e8fff&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MTc2MDA3MTtBUzo5ODU3NDM1NjQ1MTMzN0AxNDAwNTEzMzY2NDgx

Real projects versus instructed protocols 377

teaching architectural design. In the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (JAPR), the percentage of articles related to design education in architecture from 1984 to 1992 was 7.2%, while it reached 10% in the Journal of Design Studies from 1980 to 1994.

In his ‘New trend in architectural education: designing the design studio’, Salama (1995) identified, described and analysed ten revolutionary models of teaching architectural design. The study has revealed the methods and techniques in which each model operates; the conception of architectural design, the design process and the adopted teaching style. These models were argued to enhance and expand the teaching techniques of the conventional design studio, integrating missing elements in teaching practices and emphasising reality as an integral issue.

In investigating the complexity of redesigning the design studio, numerous issues appear to announce themselves, among which the way to propose educational projects. In this paper, the scope of the research will be limited to discussing the different ways of proposing educational projects; trying to provide a compromised profile.

1.3 Methods

In order to reach a compromise, the paper looks at what happens on the ground of the architectural design education when applying RP an IP approaches, in isolation. Out of the lessons gained from such investigation, the paper attempts to define a compromised profile for proposing educational design projects serving the academic and practical objectives of the design teaching/learning process. In order to sketch the intended profile, the paper is divided into three parts. First, RP and IP approaches are presented as they are applied to the design teaching processes in the undergraduate programmes of Kunst University, Institute of Architecture and Industrial Design (2004), Austria and Assiut University, Department of Architectural Engineering, Egypt, respectively. Once distinctions between both approaches are clear, the second part of the paper uses primary data collected from a questionnaire applied on random samples of students and design instructors from both schools to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches. In the third part, the paper constructs the proposed compromised instructed protocol real projects (IPRP) profile including a design teaching protocol and four suggested alternative scenarios. A general conclusion is presented summarising the research findings and future research work to be done.

2 Real projects (RP) and IP approaches

2.1 The RP approach

The RP approach may be defined as a way to offer educational design projects which advocates bringing reality into design studios. According to the approach, students are to be face-to-face with real design problems, trying to reach solutions with regard to the specific needs, problems and goals of a known client/s within available fixed resources. The RP approach is intended to kill two birds with one stone: teaching architectural design to students and providing realistic solutions; students designed and teaching team revised, to current or expected architectural problems. This concept has emerged to provide a balanced awareness, pertaining the constraints and complexities within the


architectural design studio. In 1969, this approach has been designed by Henry Sanoff and developed by Tomas Dutton in 1987. Further, James Griffin used the same concept at the University of Nebraska and many educators adopted it and employed it (Salama, 1995).

For many reasons, the literature substantiates and supports the necessity of dealing with RPs and design situations in design studios. According to Yao and Roesset (2002), realistic case studies in engineering/architectural education can not only strengthen the students’ awareness of the real world and enhance their practical experience but also support collaboration between industry and academia which will eventually produce more qualified engineers/architects. Bringing reality into design studios is a way to achieve Glasser’s (2000) vision of a studio environment that does not promote favourite ideologies and personal advancement of teachers and schools over educating thoughtful and socially responsible practitioners. He believes that dealing with reality helps the students create abilities to undertake modest commissions, with prudent judgement and sensitivity to the surrounding context. It has been evidenced that real teaching projects with real clients would offer additional learning benefits to students as well as users than traditional unreal studio projects do, not to mention the absence of users in the latter (Sara, 2000). Furthermore, RPs with real sites gives students the opportunity to explore the project real inputs and to get the impression of real places (Straub, 1978). Among many other important things, Feigenberg (1991) thinks that all people, especially the younger ones, learn best by actively and critically exploring their surrounding environment. In addition, Buxton (2003) argues that the value added by the place is one of the steering aspects when the design process takes place. The relationship between the teacher, students and the board is a matter of location that in turn identifies the role of each according to his/her real site.

The case study of the RP approach is the project-offering scheme applied in Kunst University, Institute of Architecture and Industrial Design, Austria. According to the study plan of the university, the duration of undergraduate study in architecture is 270 credit hours in at least ten semesters. The architectural programme puts a relatively high emphasis on design studios. This is evidenced by the allocation of about 50% of the total credit hours of the programme to architectural concepts and design courses (136 out of 270 credit hours). Further, architectural design studios apply RPs in real sites. In most cases, projects are chosen by the teaching team (professors and assistants) to produce architectural solutions to specific local problems. The teaching team’s role is to trace these problems, make the projects’ convenient proposals and offer them to the students as the design course projects. Several public and private entities help in this regard when they ask Kunst University to give them a hand in solving some of their architectural problems. These real situations can be also proposed by the teaching team to be students’ educational design projects based on their contacts with prospective beneficiaries.

The design teaching procedures are almost the same in all Kunst University design studios. First, it is the students’ responsibility to freely select from among the offered projects list. Then, groups of students visit the sites to get necessary information, sketches, photographs and impressions. A meeting with the owner/user is arranged during the visit to identify needs and resources. After that, the design process inside the studio takes place under the teaching team’s supervision, with respect to the mentioned needs and resources. After reaching the alternatives and presenting the solutions, projects are evaluated by a jury that includes the teaching staff, other staff members and the owner/users of the projects. So, the design process and its activities are always applied to


actual situations, trying to create an atmosphere of reality that enables students to achieve high levels of practical and professional design skills.

2.2 The IP approach

In real life design practices or in learning situations inside studios, one may apply Simon’s view of the conceptual design process being a one in which the designer navigates through an abstract problem domain and employs various strategies to elaborate the problem description, articulation and solution (Simon, 1983). Based on that, Gero and Neil (1998), in their attempt to investigate how designers actually design, define a design protocol to be a system, which is used to describe a specific design situation or a process dealing with such a situation. A protocol is normally comprised from components and elements such as instructions, schemes and strategies. In that sense, we may all agree that it becomes highly desirable or even necessary for an architectural school to have its own protocol which describes and outlines the various schemes, instructions and strategies of the design teaching process. This protocol will be an important tool to guide the process toward its fruitful ending.

The IP approach, as it is meant here, is an approach which organises and structures the overall design teaching process covering the whole series of design studios in an architectural school. It precisely defines both the contents and the educational project type/s of each course. In the IP approach, educational projects are proposed and assigned to specific studios based on the instructions that are generally listed in the protocol and made available to instructors well in advance. Projects’ choice is normally left for the teaching team, according to their own interpretations of the protocol instructions. Most of the time, the assigned projects and their sites are hypothetical ones largely in order to fit the IP. But in a broader context, sometimes instructors believe that at least picking a real site for unreal project will be needed to allow the manipulation of the design process according to a certain architectural theory, philosophy or trend (Olgyay, 1998).

The case study of this approach is the protocol of the Department of Architectural Engineering, Assiut University, Egypt. After passing the basic preparatory year, the student has to attend architectural design courses in at least six consecutive semesters. Different from Kunst University, Assiut University architectural programme puts less emphasis on architectural concepts and design courses. They occupy only 18% of the total number of teaching hours of the programme (56 out of 310 credit hours). In Assuit University, there is a departmental protocol that constitutes a framework for teaching architectural design inside studios. As shown in Table 1, the protocol instructs the contents of the design courses, stating the main aims and skills students should achieve in every course through some suggested projects. So, it is now clear that the idea of the IP approach resides in the concept of step-by-step teaching/learning through an ordered scheme of sequential design projects that helps students gradually accomplish the ability to design over their study years.

In this scheme, both students and the teaching team are connected to the protocol which instructs the courses’ contents and suggests the design educational projects. Yet, there is still an area for the teaching team to freely choose the proper project according to their interpretations of the protocol instructions. In most cases, the chosen project/s, the site/s and the architectural programme/s are all unreal. The teaching team proposes the project/s with respect to the listed instructions, assumes the site/s whose dimensions,


area/s and features are suitable for the chosen project/s and the students’ level and, finally, offers the convenient architectural programme/s. Therefore, the architectural design instructor is the client, the author of the programme, the mastermind of the project details and the motivator of students; keeping the full control over the sailing of the design ship (Siddiqi, 2002). In summary, the projects and their architectural programmes are assumed in most cases and the sites do not physically exist. Table 1 The protocol of Assiut University, Department of Architectural Engineering

Design course Contents main topics Suggested projects Design principles and architectural graphics

• Architectural vocabulary and indications

• Furnishing • Architectural presentation

• Furnishing a small-scale villa or a flat

• A presentation of a modern building

• A presentation of a classical building

Architectural design (1) • Zoning and functional relationships

• Composing building facades

• A domestic-scale building, such as a villa or a rest house

Architectural design (2) • Wide-span structures • Spatial compositions • Horizontal circulation

• A simple building that has wide-span space/s, such as a bank, a museum or a gallery

Architectural design (3) • Composing with more than one mass

• Starting architectural design with nearly fixed form and then solving plans within

• An attached or detached simple architectural composition, such as a school, a motel or a small-scale hotel

Architectural design (4) • Multi-purpose buildings or architectural groups.

• Circulation in complicated-relationship buildings

• A cultural centre, an office building or a mall

Architectural design (5) • A residential building or complex with respect to legislation and market needs

• A residential complex or detached towers

Architectural design (6) • A multifunction, sophisticated vertical and horizontal circulation compact project

• A hospital, a tourist village/resort site or an airport

Graduation project • Applying the achieved skills to large-scale, multilevel projects

• A university, an airport or a similar scale project

3 RPs approach versus IP approach

Since the distinction between RP and IP approaches is now clear, a comparative analysis of them will help highlight their advantages and disadvantages, as a step towards deriving


the compromised IPRP profile. A questionnaire was formulated and applied to a sample of design instructors and students both in Kunst University and in Assiut University. The aim was to trace and examine the current situation of architectural design teaching processes inside studios in both schools, explore the real features of both approaches and give students the opportunity to express their reflections about their design studios.

In the questionnaire, 26 students and seven instructors in Assiut University, and 14 students and two instructors in Kunst University, a total of 49 have responded, formulating various points of view and enriching the debates. It is assumed that design course activities are divided into three main stages:

• project seeking and definition stage (proposing the project, site and architectural programme)

• project design stage (generation of design alternatives, selection of the best alternative and design development)

• project evaluation stage (continuous and final reviews and juries).

As a result, the questionnaire itself is divided into three groups of questions related to these three main stages. In this part, the paper analyses the questionnaire outcomes according to the proposed structure.

3.1 Project seeking and definition stage

Kunst University students are introduced to real design situations, like the ones they may deal with after graduation, following unclear projects offering protocol. The questionnaire outcomes have reflected students’ doubts about that, showing fuzzy impressions concerning the offering scheme. When such a scheme is absent, a certain type/s of projects can be missed out. When students are asked about this, they said: “It is the student’s responsibility to choose the right package of projects among the offered ones, to cover most of building types.” But even if the system copes with the atmosphere of freedom that students like and the offered projects of all semesters may cover most building types, the risk of missing a certain building type/s still exists. As Correa and Learning from Ehalavya (1997) pointed out: “Students tend to chose what interests them and not necessarily what would be most useful to them. Far from balancing out one’s education, the present system of haphazard studio choices only encourages students to be as self-indulgent as they think they can get away with.”

Further, the questionnaire has highlighted an incompatibility problem between the levels of educational projects and those of students. In fact, such incompatibility is expected because most design students in one studio are already of different ages and levels. Besides, as students receive the design problem from an external agency/client, in the form of a detailed list of requirements for a specific situation/s, these sets of requirements can eliminate instructors’ ability to define the architectural design problem that students should choose to adopt and solve, according to the sets of abilities and skills they are intended to achieve. To prevail over such a dilemma, Harfield (2007) raises the issue of ‘problem settings’ or ‘design problematisation’, not only to construe and conceptualise the appropriate design problem/s, but also to maximise students’ interestedness.


On the contrary and, as shown in Table 1, the IP approach of Assiut University offers projects according to a scheme that covers most of architectural building types, paying attention to students’ level in each design course. In fact, this offering scheme is so appropriate for this purpose but only up to a point. Since the protocol suggested projects are the same every year, or vary little bit, not to mention the assumed sites, most of the time, students and even instructors feel that the presented projects are similar within the class and also when compared with those of previous years and may be the following ones. This can deepen students’ desires to imitate rather than to create, affecting their tasks, performances and strategies during the design process.

In Kunst University, real sites help students explore the project real inputs and get the feeling of the environment, whereas students of Assiut University are losing this chance. The site has to be real in order to teach students how to benefit from the site offered opportunities and deal with its imposed challenges. In another sense, the owner/user of the real offered projects can help Kunst University students make the proposed architectural programme, whereas, students of Assiut University lose once again this chance. However, the owner/user’s special requirements sometimes stand in the way of proposing the ideal architectural programme that meets the course aims.

3.2 Project design stage

In design studios, Kunst University students are facing real design problems trying to have the benefits of the problem-solving approach, and being influenced by real inputs when representing the architectural design process. This design reality is always pushing both students and the teaching team towards achieving better realistic solutions (Leclercq and Locus, 2002). In contrast, Assiut University students are facing unreal, teaching team assumed design problems. These unreal problems negatively affect students’ wills during the project design stage. As expressed by both students and instructors, students sometimes feel that the given design inputs may stand in the way of reaching satisfactory solutions. When students are asked about what they do in such situations, some said: “Simply, you can ask for changing or modifying project inputs such as the site location, dimensions and orientation or even the architectural programme itself”. This of course sharply affects the credibility of the teaching process in Assiut University, whereas, students are not allowed to do so in Kunst University.

One of the crucial issues in this regard is the appropriateness of the project for students’ levels. Since the projects are chosen with respect to the protocol instructions, the design procedures and teaching tools of Assiut University are all directed to meet students’ level and the intended contents as well. In the absence of a detailed protocol, Kunst University students may face too difficult design problems, as they claimed, due to the fixed project inputs or the special requirements of the owner/user. But even though, some of Kunst University students still prefer the RPs over the hypothetical ones. One of the most convincing comments was: “Reality is not difficult, it is just real. You should deal with real inputs as the project law. If they are still too difficult, you can simply ask the teaching team to give you a hand. The problem occurs only when the projects are so small and simple than students’ expectations and levels.” Here comes the problem of ‘disinterestedness’ as Harfield (2007) called it, emphasising the importance of designing the design problem; i.e., the ‘problem-as-given’ not the ‘problem-as-taken’.


Table 2 RP approach versus IP approach

RP approach IP approach

Adv

anta

ges

• Real design situations like those after graduation

• Real sites, actual inputs and useful impressions

• Owner/user’s contribution to the architectural programme

• Clear projects offering scheme, covering most of building types

• No gap between the course level and students’ one

• No negative influence of the owner/user on the programme

Proj

ect s

eeki

ng

Dis

adva

ntag

es

• Unclear projects offering scheme

• A risk of missing a certain type/s of buildings

• A possible gap between projects level and students’ one

• The owner/user’s requirements can negatively affect the programme

• The similarity of the presented projects, due to the fixed scheme

• Missing the real site inputs and the place impressions

• No owner/user’s contribution to the programme

Adv

anta

ges • Benefiting from the

problem-solving approach.

• Design process clarity.

• Reality gives the will to go ahead towards better outcomes.

• Design procedures and tools are directed to meet students' levels and course aims.

• No external inputs can negatively affect the design process

Proj

ect d

esig

n

Dis

adva

ntag

es

• The fixed inputs or owner/user certain needs may result in too difficult design problems, or too easy ones

• Possible disinterestedness

• Assumed inputs negatively affect students’ wills during the design process

• Modifying the project inputs negatively affects the credibility

• Pushing more than needed can prevent students from getting the targeted skills

• Fuzzy impressions due to the different interpretations of the assumed inputs

Adv

anta

ges • Reality among other evaluation

criteria – is clearly claimed to be an effective criterion

• The evaluation is steered to judge projects according to the protocol listed contents

• Avoiding the influence of external effects

Proj

ect e

valu

atio

n

Dis

adva

ntag

es

• The owner/user, being biased, can negatively affect the evaluation process

• The criteria can be affected by the varying interpretations of jurors

• Reality is not present, though it is one of the most effective criteria

Other students argue that real inputs, being fixed and unchangeable, make the project much clearer and easier to deal with than hypothetical projects that can become much more difficult. This is because once you open the door to change project inputs; it will not be the last time to do so. Assiut University students support the notion that inputs of unreal projects can, sometimes, become so difficult that the teaching team has to contribute too much than needed to push students forward; but this is by no mean a bad thing, it opens opportunities for more and better learning experience. One of the


important results of the questionnaire is the one related to design process clarity and sequence when dealing with unreal projects. As stated in the outcomes, they are negatively affected because of the different interpretations and assumptions of the design projects inputs.

3.3 Projects evaluation stage

In Kunst University, the reality atmosphere is again present in evaluating the projects. Students argue that adherence to reality is often clearly claimed as an evaluation criterion. But, such a criterion is sometimes negatively affected when the user/owner is one of the jury members, being over emphasising his/her personal prejudice and preferences or economic agenda over other functional, environmental and even formal criteria.

In Assiut University, the questionnaire outcomes have shown that reality, that is how projects are coping with the local needs and resources, though important, is not claimed to be one of the evaluation criteria. Instead, evaluation is directed toward how students achieve the IP contents and the pre-stated points of emphasis. Once again, the teaching team’s different interpretations of projects’ inputs come to the surface in Assiut University. For the second time, this problem is highlighted in the questionnaire to show that it is strongly affecting the credibility of the evaluation process itself.

In the light of the stated comparative analysis one can undoubtedly argue that both the RP and IP approaches have proven well and served many purposes, having the potential to push the architectural design teaching/learning a step forward. Table 2 summarises the advantages and the disadvantages of both approaches, in the project seeking and definition, design and evaluation stages.

Here, one can argue that many of the mentioned disadvantages can be caused by the curricular teaching characteristics or the lack of sufficient monitoring and advising in the two institutes; rather than being inherited in the IP and RP approaches. Indeed, disadvantages such as: missing out certain building types when allowing students to freely choose among the offered projects, the incompatibility problem between the levels of educational projects and those of the students, the negative effect of the owner/user on the programme and the possible disinterestedness might take place whether these approaches are adopted or not. Due to poor educational disciplines or inadequate institutional monitoring such problems can probably occur. But what the paper points out here, being supported by the questionnaire outcomes, is that adopting these approaches might raise the occurrence possibility of these problems; notably exaggerating their impacts. For example, being stuck to reality when adopting the RP approach is to force students to choose among the limited number of real educational projects offered by the institute; promoting the problem of missing out certain building types to come to the surface with a greater momentum. So, the nature and magnitude of this problem can dramatically differ when the teaching deficiency, as a possible factor, is coupled with the stickiness to reality. Further, the limited number of real educational projects would once again promote and accelerate the rise of the incompatibility problem between the levels of educational projects and those of the students; since it is not allowed to modify the project inputs to make them more adequate to the students’ level. Of course, deficient monitoring and advising would lead to the same end; but once again stickiness to reality appears to foster reaching it. Similarly, disadvantages such as the negative effect of the owner/user on the programme, design ‘problematisation’ and evaluation process, the possible disinterestedness, the similarity of projects, the negatively affected credibility


and the varying interpretations of jurors can take place in the absence of integrated and comprehensive educational profile; but the full adoption of RP and IP approaches is argued to accelerate the rise of such problems and make them more severe and forceful.

4 A compromised profile for proposing architectural design educational projects

In the light of the drawn comparison, differences between the two approaches become clearer and more tangible. Previous views extracted from the literature and the study sample respondents lead us to believe that both reality and structured protocols are desirable characteristics that must be in any design teaching system. Therefore, the intent of this part is to sketch a profile that tries to meet the requirements of the ideal design educational process, maximising the advantages and minimising the deficiencies of both approaches. In this compromised profile, named the instructed protocol-real projects profile (IPRP), a well IP and alternative scenarios are offered for proposing real or close-to-real architectural design educational projects.

4.1 A well IP

Being motivating by the virtues of the IP approach, the first part of the suggested profile is a well IP that offers the course contents and suggests the types and sequence of projects to be taught in design studios. The aim is to provide a clear offering scheme that meets the students’ level in each grade and avoids the similarity and repetition of projects. The contents of each design course should clearly identify the course goals, objectives, materials, resources, intended learning outcomes and assessment strategy.

In order to achieve its aims, the protocol should provide the teaching team with methods and techniques to teach the courses, to evaluate the teaching/learning process and to assess the design skills achieved by the students in the light of protocol-listed learning outcomes (Welsh School of Architecture Protocol, 2002). The protocol should also suggest a number of projects that are appropriate for the design course contents and aims. These suggested projects give the teaching team the opportunity to choose proper ones from among them, or similar to them, with regard to the course context, the staff own experience and points of view and the students levels and interest. Further, the hidden curriculum of the teaching staff, e.g., type of study, socio-cultural attributes, availability of techniques, personal experience and moral crux, is to be given the opportunity to be celebrated, together with the given curriculum (Siddiqi, 2002).

According to Brady (1996) a successful design teaching protocol should facilitate the integration of the practice and theory of architectural design in the studio settings. It should also become an important tool to insure that students are introduced to a variety of building types, issues and scales in a limited amount of time. Such a protocol, however, should not be a plain introduction of a variety of discrete building types and issues to be studied by students in the studio year after year. It should provide students with the opportunity to make the studio a forum for understanding the relationship of disparate aspects of an architectural project in different contexts and with different constraints.

Based on that, and in the light of the reviewed arguments and the questionnaire outcomes, one can argue that a sound design teaching protocol should direct instructors to


consider some aspects when proposing projects design programmes for each studio, including:

• reinforcing the sense of step-by-step teaching/learning within a well-instructed, clear and flexible protocol

• deepening students’ awareness of reality during the three main stages of the design course

• applying design projects to real, or close-to-real, sites to get the virtues of real inputs

• offering projects close to those expected in real life after graduation

• considering the appropriateness of the projects for students’ levels and the design skills they have achieved and should achieve

• paying attention to the owner/user’s influence on the course activities.

Of course, there is no way to propose a fixed protocol that can achieve all the stated advantages and avoid all the mentioned disadvantages when applied. Contextual aspects and varying standards of the architectural school as well as the local context would play a considerable role in customising the best fitting design teaching protocol. It is then the responsibility of the school of architecture to work on this protocol, according to the local learning atmosphere, prevailing needs and available resources.

4.2 Alternative scenarios for offering educational architectural design projects

Since the course contents (aims, methods, resources and outcomes) are clearly introduced in the IP for offering educational design projects, projects for different design studios in the programme could be freely chosen by instructors with regard to these contents. The easiest scenario occurs when instructors are able to find study projects that are real, offered by a specific client, a person or a company, and appropriate for the contents of the protocol. In such a case, projects are considered valid and as such strongly recommended to be applied in the design course. But, if RP are not available or available but do not match the contents of the protocol, one of the following alternative scenarios may be followed. The purpose of these scenarios is to provide an insight as to how instructors might customise real or close-to-real study projects of their own which fit, at the same time, the contents of the design teaching protocol instructed by the architectural school.

4.2.1 Scenario (1)

The idea of this scenario is to choose an educational project/s from those offered in the protocol, and apply it/them to a well chosen actual site/s. Then, students’ duty will be to make a survey tracing appropriate sites for the offered project/s and the course level as well. Survey of site location and scale can be offered by students and revised by the teaching team to give them a hand in analysing, comparing the sites and recommending the most suitable one/s. If there is more than one convenient site, students can freely choose one site from among them to apply the educational design project to. The diversity of sites can enrich the design teaching process.


4.2.2 Scenario (2)

The second scenario suggests that students of the course are divided into two main groups. The first group makes a field survey in a certain zone of a local community, searching for a number of valid sites that are appropriate for the course projects as offered in the protocol. The second group, based on applied design and planning standards, conducts a parallel survey of the same zone finding out the missing services and uses. In a following step, a survey of residents’ views of missing services can be used to support the students’ preliminary needs assessments, and to help them propose a more realistic architectural programme. Specifications of the location and project scale and other details can be offered by students and revised or recommended by the teaching team. The final selected educational project/s should meet the protocol contents and instructions.

If there is more than one appropriate project and more than one suitable site, students can choose from among these alternatives, enriching the design process more than it is in the first scenario. The second scenario is expected to kill two birds with one stone. First, the educational process will be applied to a custom made, very close-to-RP/s and to a real site/s producing more realistic solutions. Second, design projects are highly compatible with the protocol instructions fulfilling the pre-planned educational objectives.

4.2.3 Scenario (3)

The concept of the third scenario is to apply one (or more) of the protocol proposed projects to an existing abundant building/s that is not in use at the moment. The first step will be to ask students to survey their local community and trace proper building/s that should be renewed, revitalised or even demolished. The features of the traced building/s should be extensively discussed and revised by the teaching team, to find out which of these buildings are valid as the course educational design project/s. The teaching team should also make sure that the features of the building/s are not too difficult or too easy for students to deal with.

The second step of this scenario is to propose the architectural programme. Within this programme, students can offer new activities and functions with regard to the protocol contents, and the existing building/s resources as well. It will be one of the teaching team’s main tasks to help students achieve the skills of proposing convenient activities within highly fixed and constrained inputs and circumstances. Students can be allowed to choose one of the protocol offered projects, to be applied to one of the traced building/s. Again, the diversity of projects and sites can enrich the design teaching process, especially when projects oral presentation takes place.

4.2.4 Scenario (4)

The main idea of the fourth scenario is to develop an existing building or a building group to fit newer requirements, with respect to prevailing resources. First, students conduct a survey in a certain zone of a local community, tracing a project/s to be developed. The selected building or building group should be close to the ones offered in the teaching protocol. When projects are approved by the teaching team, students can then develop the architectural programme and the convenient development scheme, in the light of the users/owners needs, design standards and the available resources as


well. Once again, educational projects of this scenario are intended to serve two purposes: matching the protocol teaching instructions and providing solutions for real clients.

It will be the teaching team’s own decision to choose from among these four scenarios, or even look for others. An important requisite is to meet the protocol instructed contents. Students will have a chance to participate in defining the scheme that they are going to learn architectural design according to. In addition to providing alternative ways to sketch a design teaching profile that reinforces the sense of step-by-step learning, these scenarios introduce reality or customised reality in the process of teaching architectural design inside studios. Figure 1 shows a flowchart outlining the sketched profile as it is suggested in the paper.

Figure 1 IPRP flowchart for proposing architectural design educational projects

To move a step towards application, the proposed IPRP approach and its four scenarios were adopted and tested in Assiut University, Department of Architectural Engineering. In the academic years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009, the 3rd and 4th year students in Assiut University, Department of Architectural Engineering (2004) were given the chance to choose architectural design and graduation projects according to the proposed profile, experiencing a level of its offered opportunities and highlighting the issues of freedom, reality, structuring, integration and environmental responsibility. Despite the fact that the application has its explicit advantages, the experiment is to be extensively evaluated and assessed, to be the issue of a future research work.


5 Concluding remarks

In selecting educational projects for design studios, one of two approaches is prompted: the RP approach and the IP approach. In this paper, sample views of students and design instructors in two architectural schools: Kunst University, Austria and Assiut University, Egypt, demonstrate that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. To reach a compromise, the paper proposes an approach that derives its characteristics from both approaches, namely the IPRP profile. The paper builds the IPRP profile by thoroughly describing a design teaching IP then complementing the protocol with four alternative scenarios to be used in proposing an architectural design project in a design studio. The purpose of the proposed protocol and scenarios is to make design studio teaching more realistic and more structured at the same time. One important benefit of the proposed profile is that it ensures and encourages active participation of students along the various stages of the design process, but more significantly in the problem and site selection and programme preparation stages. It also enhances the students’ feelings of their surrounding environment, and definitely it improves their practical and professional skills. In this context, the compromise profile and its worked out scenarios can not only solve some of the problems of design teaching is Kunst University and Assiut University, but also contribute to various design studio teaching pedagogies worldwide; being a more universally applicable approach.

The objective is not to replace the current situation, but to add, improve and develop the way of proposing the educational projects. Studio instructors no longer have to choose between RP and IP approaches to conduct the design teaching process. They can apply the compromise IPRP profile proposed in this paper and use one of its suggested scenarios. They can even define a scenario of their own, with respect to the educational atmosphere and local circumstances. However, what remains to be thought of more thoroughly is how such a design teaching profile can be used effectively and successfully by students, instructors and school administrators as an educating, organising and administrative tool.

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to acknowledge Prof. Peter Kuglstatter (Kunstuniversitat Linz, Austria) for his support and help, both in proposing the scenarios and revising the paper. Also, the team would like to acknowledge Dr. Ahmed Refaat (Assiut University, Egypt) for his aid in submitting the questionnaire in Assiut University.

References

Assiut University, Department of Architectural Engineering Protocol (2004) Assiut, Egypt, available at http://www.aun.eun.eg/fac_eng/Dpart/Arch/Arch_ugr.htm.

Attoe, W. and Mugerauer, R. (1991) ‘Excellent studio teaching in architecture’, Studies in Higher Education, p.41.

Brady, D. (1996) ‘The education of an architect: continuity and change’, Journal of Architectural Education, 1 September, Vol. 50, pp.32–44.


Buxton, B. (2003) ‘Location, location, location: a sense of place in design’, The 1st International DOM-Conference: Towards an Interactive and Integrative Design Process, Kunst University, Linz, Austria.

Correa, C. and Learning from Ehalavya (1997) in Pollak, M. (Ed.): The Education of Architect: Historiography, Urbanism and the Growth of Architectural Knowledge, Essays Presented to Stanford Anderson, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dutton, T. (Ed.) (1991) ‘The hidden curriculum and the design studio: toward a critical studio pedagogy’, in Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural, Political and Pedagogy, pp.165–192, Bergins & Garvey, New York.

Feigenberg, A. (1991) ‘Learning to teach and teaching to learn’, in Dutton, T. (Ed.): Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural, Political and Pedagogy, pp.265–278, Bergins & Garvey, New York.

Gero, J. and Neil, T. (1998) ‘An approach to the analysis of design protocols’, pp.21–61, Journal of Design Studies, Vol. 19.

Glasser, D. (2000) ‘Reflections on architectural education’, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.250–252.

Gross, M. and Do, E.Y-L. (1997) The Design Studio Approach: Learning Design in Architectural Education, University of Washington, USA.

Harfield, S. (2007) ‘On design ‘problematization’: theorising differences in designed outcomes’, Design Studies, Vol. 28, pp.159–173.

Kunst University, Institute of Architecture and Industrial Design Protocol (2004) Linz, Austria, available at http://www.ufg.ac.at/arch/studienrichtung/.

Kurt, S. (1994) ‘Tasarım sürecinde analitik yakla��ımlar ve kamu yönetim binalarının doku dili kullanılarak irdelenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi’, unpublished Master thesis, in Kurt, S. (2009) ‘An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education’, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, Vol. 1, pp.401–408.

Kurt, S. (2009) ‘An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education’, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, Vol. 1, pp.401–408.

Leclercq, P. and Locus, M. (2002) ‘Representation of an architectural design process: between formal and functional’, The International Design Conference: Design 2002, Dubrovnik.

Olgyay, V. (1998) ‘Integrating sustainable design into architectural education’, Electronic Green Journal, 9 December.

Potts, W. (2000) ‘The design studio as a vehicle for change: the ‘Portsmouth model’, in Nicol, D. and Pilling, S. (Eds.): Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism, pp.241–251, Spon Press, London.

Salama, A. (1995) New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio, International Standard Book Numbering, USA.

Sara, R. (2000) ‘Introducing clients and users to studio projects: a case study of ‘live’ project’, in Nicol, D. and Pilling, S. (Eds.): Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism, pp.77–83, Spon Press, London.

Siddiqi, A. (2002) ‘Architectural design studio projects and the charades of curriculum’, The 6th Saudi Engineering Conference, December, Vol. 1, p.173, KFUPM, Dhahran.

Simon, H.A. (1983) ‘Search and reasoning in problem solving’, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 21, pp.7–29.

Straub, C. (1978) Design Process and Communications, Kendall/Hunt publishing Co., USA. Welsh School of Architecture Protocol (2002) UK, available at

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/archi/courses/bsc/bscmodules1.hlml. Yao, J. and Roesset, J. (2002) ‘Engineering education’, AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, available at

http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.YB020295 (accessed on 13 March).


Notes 1 RP approach implies proposing RPs in real sites for real clients, as the design studio

educational projects. 2 IP approach implies proposing hypothetical projects in hypothetical sites for non-existing

clients. The issue is to keep close to the protocol instructed by the institute.

Documents

Real projects versus instructed protocols: a compromised profile for proposing architectural design teaching projects