IWodels of Design in

Studio Teaching

i
t

i-|-|
i--

X--

Stefani Ledewitz is an assistant professor of

fundamental to, professional performance.

architecture at Camegie-Mellon University,

Despite the fact that we do not define it pre-

between different implicit messages, can be very

confusing to students. Implicit communication is

where she has taught for four years. She

received her education in architecture at Prince-

cisely, we can easily distinguish those students

especially difficult for students to deal with,

who have learned to "think architecturally" from

ton and Yale.

those who have not.

since it may make it impossible to pinpoint the

source of a contradiction.

Implicit Content of Studio Teaching

Moreover, there is great danger of what Schon

calls "learning binds," in which teacher and stu-

methods in studio teaching in different schools

The educational experience in studio involves

not only learning all three of these aspects, but
learning them all at the same time. Integrating
the skills, the language, and the approach to
problems is, in fact, a large part of learning to
design. Each becomes a means of learning the
others. Drawing skills, for instance, are essential
to learning to communicate spatial concepts.
Likewise, learning to recognize architectural
issues can inform and aid the development of
visualization skills. In teaching studio, therefore,

and even within one department. As a teaching

it is both difficult and ineffective to isolate these

architecture and design.6 This requires that we

The purpose of the studio in architectural education, as it is generally described, is to teach

architectural design. But we know from recent
research on studio teaching that this means different things to different people. Julian Beinart

has pointed out fundamental disagreements

among teachers over what is meant by both
"architecture" and "design."1 This is evidenced
in the tremendous diversity of content and

vehicle, the studio has been both praised and

condemned. It has been held up as a highly
sophisticated means of teaching creative problem-solving. With equal conviction, though, it
has been criticized for its lack of rigor: as merely

"training" without intellectual discipline or as "a

personal indulgence" in which "knowledge

comes not from an assimilation of external
information, but wholly from an internal dia-

dent are each acting on implicit cognitive

schemes the other doesn't understand. In an
extreme learning bind, the teacher, failing to

communicate, gives up on the student and/or

the student, unable to be understood, gives up

on the teacher. In order to avoid the dilemma of
mutually-reinforced misunderstandings, Schon
argues that we should try to build a series of
agreements with our students on the nature of

aspects of design education. This complicates

try to make more explicit the objectives, stan-

the formulation of explicit teaching objectives.

dards, and assumptions that underly our teach-

And for this reason, the attempt to articulate

ing, which, in turn, demands that we develop a

greater awareness of the implicit messages we
convey to students.

such objectives often seems artificial and perhaps even contrary to the ultimate purposes of
the studio.
There is also another reason why the content of
teaching in studio is not generally made more

Some of the most confusing messages for students concern the nature, purpose, and process
of designing.7 Taken together, these can be considered the "model of design" we present,
although such "models" are often neither

logue between the individual and his inner

self."2

explicit. All the aspects of design educationthe skills, the language, and the approach to
problems-are more effectively taught indirectly

coherent nor internally consistent. It may be for

The lack of clarity over the purpose and effec-

through experience than taught directly by expla-

this reason that discrepancies between implicit

tiveness of the design studio reflects its com-

nation. "The learner cannot really understand

ahead of time what it is he needs to learn, nor

Some design instructors present explicitly a ver-

plexity as a teaching/learning setting. It is char-

acterized by multiple and sometimes contradictory goals, implicit theories, and inherent

conditions of "inexpressibility, vagueness, and

ambiguity."3 It also reflects the heavy pedagogical responsibility the studio carries in architectural education. The studio is the primary means
of teaching at least three basic aspects of design
education. It is where students learn and practice a number of new skills, such as visualization and representation. It is also where stu-

dents learn a new language. Schon describes

design as a "graphic and verbal language
game," in which drawing and talking are complementary and inextricably linked.4 Words like

"form" and "scale" have new and complex

meanings that are not easy to internalize. Learn-

ing to explore and communicate ideas through

drawing is a new experience for most students.
Thirdly, and most significantly, the studio is
where students learn to "think architecturally."
In architecture, as in other fields, this "way of
thinking" refers to a particular domain of problems and solutions that characterize, and are

can he understand the meaning of what his

teachers tell him, until he has immersed himself

in various experiences that those who do understand make available to him."5 In fact, what we

consider most essential-the ability to "think

architecturally"-is the most difficult to explain
directly to a student who lacks such experience.
As a result, only a fraction of the content of

most studios is articulated explicitly and taught

and explicit messages in studio are common.

sion of the design process that contradicts what
is communicated implicitly in the studio. Far
more frequently, design instructors claim to be

"pluralistic" about the design process: "imposing" a model of design is considered too doctrinaire. Nevertheless, these instructors do communicate implicitly--and unintentionally-their
attitudes about design, and therefore may be
imposing them without recognizing it.

directly. The content is largely implicit in the

I would like to discuss here some of the ways

nature and organization of the projects we give.

Students learn much about what "architecture"

that models of design are conveyed implicitly in

the studio. In particular, I would like to suggest
that many of our common practices in teaching

is and what "design" is even in the type of

problems we select, in the questions we ask
(and don't ask), and in the schedule we plan.
Likewise, we read into what our students say or
do much about what we think they understand.

Because so much of the content of studio teaching is implicit, we should be aware of what we
are communicating so that we can be intentional
about it. Contradictions between what we say

studio derive from a model of design (the analysis-synthesis model) that we do not necessarily
subscribe to and that has been challenged as
"theoretically Iuntenable ... and practically confusing."8 Moreover, I would add that another
model of design (the concept-test model) would
lead to some different teaching methods that
might enable students to learn more effectively.

explicitly and what we convey implicitly, or

Winter 1985, JAE 38/2

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

m
Two-stage analysis-synthesis organization

group reviews. Students have the primary

Consequences

Although not necessarily formally entitled "anal-

responsibility for finding their way through the

Design has long resisted description because of

ysis" and "synthesis," a studio project is often

problem, and the instructor's role is to see that

its unpredictable and intangible character,

divided into two discrete and identifiable parts.

they do not stray too far off-course. Advice con-

marked by moments of insight, imagination,

The first part, which might take from a few days

cerning a student's process of design often con-

and "flights of fancy." It is difficult to document

to many weeks, is the analysis phase, in which

site, program, building type, context, and other
investigations are carried out. Analytic sketches,
diagrams (e.g., bubble diagrams), and reports
are produced, but preconceived design concepts
are discouraged as premature. This is perceived
as a "pre-design" phase by students, who tend
after a while to become impatient to "get into

sists of periodic reminders of presentation

Analysis-Synthesis Model and its

because "although outsiders can directly

observe behavioral and representational parts of
designing, they cannot directly observe cognitive

design processes taking place inside someone's

head."9 Early research into design aimed to
derive "systematic" design methods by defining
more explicit processes of decision-making.10
This work was founded, as Hillier, Musgrove,

and O'Sullivan pointed out in 1972, on rationalist-empiricist assumptions about the necessity of
objectivity in problem-solving: "the notion that

science can produce factual knowledge, which is

superior to and independent of theory; and the
notion of a logic of induction, by which theories
may be derived logically from an analysis of
facts. "11

The model of design derived from this paradigm

of knowledge "would characteristically and necessarily proceed by decomposing a problem into

its elements, adding an information content to
each element drawn as far as possible from scientific work, and 'synthesizing' (i.e., inducting)

a solution by means of a set of logical or procedural rules."12 It was assumed that non-quantifiable and intuitive aspects of design would have
an important role in the process, but would be
differentiated as much as possible from its
rational aspects. The process is thereby divided

into a rational, systematized "analysis" (problem-defining) stage and a creative, intuitive

"synthesis" (problem-solving) stage. The educational consequences of this model are that "students would be taught to analyze problems and
to synthesize solutions."13
Certainly not all design instructors subscribe to

this model of design. There are those, on the

one hand, who see design as mysterious artistic
inspiration (non-problem-solving) and, on the
other hand, those who see design as a far more
complex intellectual activity (meta-problem-solving). Yet, it is the analysis-synthesis model that
is most widely reflected in design studio teaching. Some common practices illustrate the prevalence of the model.

requirements or suggestions to "draw a section," or "consider how it will stand up," or

"begin looking at elevations," generally leaving
students a great deal of latitude in how they
work on a problem.
One-time distribution of project information

designing."

The major pertinent information about the proj-

At some point, the studio shifts in focus to the

for them to acquire) at the outset of the project.

design concept, and assignments change from

analytic exercises to design proposals. During
this stage, references are made "back"
to analysis work, but no new analysis assignments are made. This continues to reinforce the

ect is generally given to students (or assigned

On a typical first day of a project, students are

given the problem statement, program, site

maps, context maps, photographs, etc. It may

be no more than a few pages or it may be a
deluge of material, but it is generally all the

segregation of synthesis activities from

problem information students will be given.

analysis activities.

Material that is provided once the project is

Emphasis on design methods in analysis

The analysis stage of a studio project is com-

optional) reference material. In fact, if new or

monly characterized by well-defined, explicit

procedures, while the synthesis stage is relatively unstructured. During the early weeks of a
studio project, analytic assignments of short
duration (three weeks is a long assignment) are
often given to the class as a whole, conveying
the expectation that there are certain prescribed

procedures that everyone should undertake and

in the same sequence. Sometimes these are

group exercises, to which each individual is
expected to contribute to a team effort. Group

underway is more likely to be supplemental (and

contradictory information is introduced into the

studio (e.g., by an outside reviewer) later in the

project, it is often hard for students to digest,

and may even create a crisis of "indigestion" in

the studio, in which students question or reject
the given parameters and assumptions for
a project.

The Analysis-Synthesis Model and

Learning Difficulties
Without respect to the validity of this model of

assignments in themselves entail negotiating

design, which will be discussed in the next section, I believe its consequences in studio teach-

agreed-upon objectives and methods for design,

which through that process are made more

ing can be criticized on pedagogical grounds.

These criticisms are echoes of dissatisfactions

explicit than in individual work.

often expressed about studio experiences by

students or teachers. I would like to suggest,
however, that there is a relationship between
each of these learning difficulties and the underlying analysis-synthesis model of design.

When synthesis begins, studio teaching

becomes more responsive to student-initiated
moves. It is far less typical of design instructors
in this stage to impose on a student pre-defined
external (to the student) procedures. And it is
even less likely that such procedures will be

imposed on the class as a whole. This does

occur to a very limited extent when one-day

sketch problems are assigned late in a project,

but even these are often designed to take students "out" of a problem, as a kind of relief.
The general mode of synthesis teaching is the
individualized board crit, with or without interim

Discontinuity between analysis and synthesis

One dissatisfaction frequently voiced by design
teachers is that the analysis of problems by students is not incorporated into their synthesis.
Jurors sometimes comment on the discontinuity
of thought between early analytic diagrams and
the final design proposal. This discontinuity is,
of course, fundamental to the analysis-synthesis
approach.14 Learning to overcome it is part of

Winter 1985, JAE 38/2

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

l
what the studio is perceived to teach, and some
students are more successful at learning it than
others. In some cases, major inconsistencies
between a problem definition and its solution are
not even recognized by the student, much less
reconciled. The dichotomy is even more
serious when students begin to see formmaking as entirely separate and different from

problem-solving.

means just "calling quits" at the last possible

understand it today, is not the aggregation of

minute to draw it up. For others, the response

objectively-derived facts, but a dialectic between

is almost the opposite: to hold fast to their

pre-conceived solutions and observed facts.

design at an early stage and "tinker" with it. In

either case, students may be unrealistically looking to their evolving design proposal itself to
define the endpoint of its evolution.

Fear of designing
Students, even very capable students, often feel

Intentions confused with solutions

Many students' final presentations are disap-

pointing because the physical form consequences of their design intentions have not been
explored. Although there are, of course, many
reasons why a design proposal is not fully

they have no control over the design process

and are fearful of it. This is one of the most
to design, and it can be attributed, in part, to

The model is also unrealistic in characterizing

the emphatic distinction between analysis and

that process as an aggregation of solutions,

whereas designing tends to deal primarily with
holistic issues.

synthesis. When this distinction is perceived as

a wide gap, it demands a "leap in the dark."

Summerson describes the dilemma of making

of analytic diagrams for a design solution. This

the leap from program to form: "The concep-

is the assumption Colquhoun calls the "onoma-

tions which arise from a preoccupation with the

topoeic relationship between forms and their

content."15 In such a case, the design intentions

into a final form and by the time the architect

expressed by the diagrams a student draws may

be thoroughly documented, but the physical
form to realize those intentions has not been

ception a weight of judgement, a sense of

authority which clinches the whole matter,

plans, but very little development in section or

elevation. In some instances, students with very

good analytical capabilities do not see the differ-

ence between a diagram of intentions and a

well-developed design concept, and may not

even engage in a truly synthetic process. The
segregation of analysis from synthesis enables
them to continue investigating the problem and

ing a confusing and inaccurate picture of what

designers actually do. It does not account, for
example, for the observed sequence of documents that architects in practice produce (schematic design, design development, construction

documents) in which the design ideas become

more specific and more refined at each stage.

occurs because a student mistakes elaboration

with the program"16 is a set of well-worked-out

criticized the analysis-synthesis model for creat-

serious difficulties we face in teaching students

developed, it is not uncommon to find that it

developed beyond a preliminary "layout" of

functions. Characteristic of this "preoccupation

Zeisel, Simon, Korobkin, and others have also

program have got, at some point, to crystallize

reaches that point he has to bring to his con-

causes the impending relationships to close into

a visually comprehensible, expressive whole."17
Dreading this leap, students often hope for "the
big idea" that will bridge the gap for them.18 If

the big idea, or the "right" design concept, is

seen as an unpredictable inspiration, it may
become the source of anxiety, oppression, and
a loss of self-confidence. Students who are con-

In practice, the analysis-synthesis model is

unwieldy; and the more closely a designer
adheres to the model, the more unwieldy the
process of designing becomes. The dilemma is
that the optimization of aggregated solutions on
which the eventual design solution depends is
unattainable for any problem complex enough to
warrant it. In the first place, that kind of detailed

information about person-environment relation-

ships is generally unavailable. Secondly, even

when it is available, the process of analyzing it
is very complicated and costly. But even more
fundamentally, the increased information and
complexity generated with this model actually
makes the task of synthesis more difficult, not

scious of the need for a strong design concept

easier. "Far from helping the designer escape

may therefore hold fast to an inconsequential

from his preconceptions, the effect of proliferat-

idea or an irrelevant metaphor, no matter how

ing technology and information is to force the

much difficulty they have in working it out.

designer into a greater dependence on them."23

The more articulated, systematized, and segregated from the synthesis process the analysis
is, the worse the "leap in the dark" becomes.

to keep deferring the commitment to a solution

in three-dimensional form.

These students are caught in the grip of a

Inappropriate closure

quently cannot apply purposefully to solve

It is unusual for students, even in their fifth

design problems.

year, to bring their designing to closure at an

appropriate time: more often, they are either
frustrated by not "completing" a design or stop

The Concept-Test Model and its

the segregation of analysis from synthesis

denies the validity of any preconceptions in

Developments in the fields of cognitive psychol-

design.24 Yet as Colquhoun points out, the

impact of design precedents, typologies, and
other knowledge we carry with us is not only
inescapable but essential to creative problemsolving. "If . .. forms by themselves are rela-

design process they do not control and conse-

designing prematurely. Students who are taught

(even implicitly) the analysis-synthesis model are
led to expect that theoretically, given sufficient

information and a systematic process, they

should reach an optimal design solution. But,

short of reaching such a solution, this model of
design does not provide any way to know when
to stop designing. As a result, project deadlines
may be perceived as arbitrary and totally unrelated to the design process; and students have
little guidance in pacing their work toward the
final presentation. For most students, this

Consequences

ogy,19 information science and artificial intelli-

gence,20 and philosophy of science,21 have

raised serious questions about the foundations

of the analysis-synthesis model. Hillier, Mus-

grove, and O'Sullivan argue that the analysissynthesis model is theoretically untenable
because "factual (perceptual) knowledge"
cannot exist outside a theoretical (cognitive)
framework and because the logic of induction,
as demonstrated by Popper, is "both unattainable and unnecessary."22 Problem-solving, as we

Another important objection to the model is that

tively empty of meaning, it follows that the

forms which we intuit will, in the unconscious

mind, tend to attract to themselves certain associations of meaning. This could mean not only
that we are not free from the forms of the past
and from the availability of these forms as typol-

ogical models but that, if we assume we are

free, we have lost control over a very active sec-

Winter 1985, JAE 38/2

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

lB
tor of our imagination and of our power to communicate with others."25
From these theoretical and practical difficulties

with the analysis-synthesis model, the concept-

test model of design emerged as an alternative

that is both more tenable in theory and more
useful in practice. The concept-test model conceives design as a developmental process that
interconnects the activities of "conjecturing" and

"testing," or as Korobkin and Zeisel defined

them, "imaging, presenting, and testing."
These activities occur in a cyclical pattern that
Zeisel describes as a spiral converging on a
"domain of acceptable responses."26 By conjecturing, or imaging, a designer conceives of a
"solution in principle" early in the design process, which is progressively developed and
refined (or discarded). The representation of the
conjecture by drawing or making models is a
means of elaborating it and communicating it
back to the designer or to others for evaluation,
or "testing." "Testing is a feed-back and feedforward process, adjusting the relation between
a design product as it develops and the many
criteria and qualities the product is intended to
meet."27 The activities of conjecturing and testing, intuition and rationality, creative leaping and

rigorous analysis, thrive on each other; oscillating or cycling between them is what enables the
designer to learn from his or her work and progressively improve the design.

first cycle is short (perhaps only a few days)

and produces a very schematic proposal. The

cycles are successively longer and the proposals
successively more developed as they become
closer and closer approximations of an accept-

students can get caught up in (and intimidated

by) the tangible requirements of the problem.
On the other hand, if students are given too little

only be two cycles (the minimum); a more

to work with, they have a hard time relating

complex project might have four or five.

their sketch problem proposals to the problem

later on.

The subdivision of a project into a series of

design cycles gives recognition to the process of

successive approximations in design. Although it
is not intended to be the literal representation of
a design process, which includes much more
cycling, searching, and blind alleys, it is clearly
a non-linear progression. The important feature
of the multiple cycles is that, while their prod-

ucts change, their internal structure remains

constant: that is, each cycle represents the

designer's best effort to solve the problem in
terms of what he or she understands at that

point. It is a method that emphasizes the resolution of many issues simultaneously, since it
structures a problem holistically rather than by

focusing on individual issues. The repeated

cycles through the problem, and especially the
shorter cycles, call on students' abilities to
"juggle" many aspects of a design problem,
rather than to concentrate on only one or one at
a time.

Beginning backwards

From this rough sketch of the concept-test

model, which is already familiar to many, I

ceive of a solution to a problem before they are

would like to discuss its consequences for

teaching by describing some pedagogical methods for studio that I believe follow from adopt-

asked to analyze it. For example, a first-day

sketch problem is assigned in which, given only

a brief problem statement, students produce a
design solution in a very short time. The purpose of the sketch problem is to stimulate an
initial design concept, or parti, that, however
inadequate it may be as a "solution in princi-

definitive. They were selected because I have

some experience with them, particularly in several studios I taught with Louis Sauer to upper
level undergraduate students. My purpose
here is not so much to recommend this particular set of techniques as to demonstrate their

to produce a coherent proposal so quickly. This

relationship to an underlying model of design

is important: the ability to generate a design

that provides them a theoretical framework.

In each case I will describe briefly the method

concept is necessary in order to get into the

cycle of concepts and tests. The sketch problem

and then discuss its relationship to the concepttest model.

works best, therefore, if it is a kind of problem

familiar to students in the class. The least suc-

Multiple design cycles

Studio projects are each subdivided into a series
of design encounters with a problem. Each
cycle, or stage in the project, concludes with a
design proposal for the project as a whole. The

most successful in the studios I have taught. If

the sketch problem is too long and informative,

able solution. On a small project there might

The starting point of a project that begins backwards is its solution: students are asked to con-

ing it. These methods are illustrative rather than

days, I have found the twenty-four hour version

ple," can be "tested" (developed or discarded).

Students are often surprised at their own ability

cessful sketch problem I have given involved

site planning at a scale (a city block) that most

of the class had not faced before.
The amount of time and information given for

the sketch problem can be significant. Having

varied the duration from three hours to three

Approaching a project this way is sometimes

thought to fixate students on a premature and
potentially inappropriate concept. But I would
contend that it is no more a problem at the outset of a project than at any point in its development, particularly if such preconceptions are
allowed to remain latent during the design pro-

cess. The "backwards" approach recognizes

and gives value to these preconceptions, including the knowledge of "solution types" and
"instrument sets" that students bring to the
problem. This is the "prestructuring" that Hil-

lier, Musgrove, and O'Sullivan argue is essential

to designing. Their argument, in fact, is that
better design can be achieved only by "restructuring the cognitive schemes which designers
bring to bear on their task."28 Instead of ignoring the way students prestructure their prob-

lems, beginning with a "pre-solution" is a way

of trying to understand-and help students
understand-what they bring to a problem that
will enable them to solve it better.

The pedagogical purpose of beginning backwards can also be seen as helping create for
students the perception of a need for knowledge. Perceived need, as we know from studies
of the learning process is a critical motivating

factor.29 This suggests that students who begin

by trying out the knowledge they have (synthesis) might see more value in acquiring additional
knowledge they need (analysis) and therefore
learn more in the process.

Incremental information

Instead of a comprehensive package of project

information that is presented to students at the

outset of a project, information about the project

is broken into a series of packages that students

acquire as the project progresses. The incremental information is prepared to correspond

with multiple design cycles: at each cycle,
information relevant to that level of design is
provided
In organizing the information for a project, my

approach has been to emphasize diversity in the

Winter 1985, JAE 38/2

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

lB
information at each design cycle: to introduce

ing an inventory of relevant form strategies, the

gent commitment) and defending design state-

from the start a full array of the kinds of infor-

development of an understanding of "the part

mation students will need, based on the issues

that modifications of type-solutions play in rela-

ments (absolute commitment) in the presentation of proposals.

they are expected to address. The information

tion to problems and solutions that are without

typically ranges, for example, from occupancy

requirements and client goals to codes and
materials. It is skeletal at first and becomes

precedent in any received tradition" can give rise

to more radically inventive solutions.30 A study

of solution types can provide a model for identi-

increasingly detailed. In this way, only as the

need for new and more detailed information

for differentiating the significant characteristics

arises in the design process, are students asked

of those precedents from what is simply appeal-

to deal with it.

One of the goals of decomposing the information is to teach students how to differentiate relevant from irrelevant information at each

stage-that is, to acquire information strategically. In later design cycles, therefore, students
are encouraged to take the initiative in identifying

and acquiring the information they need to test

fying appropriate precedents to a problem and

ing about them. It can not only challenge superficial notions of originality and the value of

uniqueness for its own sake, but it can also discourage unthinking adoption of prior solutions.
The key is to help students distinguish the perti-

nent characteristics of the precedents (including

the "prototypical" characteristics) from what is
irrelevant or inappropriate.

their ideas, though only a few very capable stu-

An investigation of solution types also demon-

dents have attempted to do this. It may be that

if information were incrementalized in a struc-

strates what is meant by a "solution," which is

tured way for students in early studios, they

would be better able to do it for themselves in

of worthy architectural solutions provide a point

not at all obvious to novice designers. Examples

later studios.

of reference to which students can aspire and by

which they may evaluate their own work. More-

Acquiring information as a means of testing

clarifying the formal issues in a problem, which

over, they can be a means of articulating and

Self-evaluation
Students are encouraged in board crits and in
group reviews to take initiative in evaluating their

own work. I try, for example, to structure

reviews to serve as models of self-evaluation for

students. Participating critics are asked to take

on the role of the designer of the project and to
communicate to students their "self"-evaluation.
In turn, the students attempt to understand the

vicarious "self"-evaluation so that they can write

their own self-evaluation after the review. These
experiences in crits and reviews are intended to
enable students to see that the development of
their design skills entails developing self-criticism skills. This is a reinforcement of the role of

evaluation, or "testing," in the design process,

which must eventually become second nature to
a designer.
A last-day sketch problem is sometimes
assigned to correspond to the first-day sketch
problem in scope and issues, in order to help
students evaluate their own progress in

tions, the necessity for external knowledge as a

Short design exercises, or "experiments," are

means of evaluating their own ideas, and the

assigned either individually or to the entire class

the studio. Its purpose is to make students

more aware of the way their cognitive schemes
are developed through their studio experience.
By setting out comparable problems and
requirements in a situation designed to
focus on the way students prestructure a prob-

importance of that evaluation in every cycle of

to help students increase their design facility. In

lem, the growth (or not) of that prestructur-

their design. As the need for information is seen

each case, the idea of physical form as the realization of specific design intentions is empha-

significant if we take the restructuring of those

design ideas is a fundamental aspect of the concept-test model. In order to design, students
have to understand the difference between external sources of knowledge and their own percep-

to arise from the design (or specifically from the

design conjectures), so can the nature of the

information that is needed.

Form experiments

sized. In-class (one-day) exercises have

included, for example, increasing the area
requirements in the program, adding an adja-

Solution type studies

Projects include a solution type study in which
form-generating strategies relevant to the project
are derived from analyzing architectural prece-

dents. The purpose of studying solution types is

to enable students to see alternative form orga-

nizations, or design concepts, that suggest

approaches to the problem-at-hand. This is not
a functional building type study, which defines

programmatic requirements, but an examination

of the characteristics and implications of different form organizations.

Familiarity with solution types is useful because

it not only gives recognition to the cognitive

scheme a student brings to a problem, but

builds on it by relating it to a larger set of simi-

lar (or dissimilar) solutions. In addition to creatWinter 1985, JAE 38/2

otherwise can be very difficult for students to

see, yet are fundamental to generating form.

cent lot to the site, diagramming two different

structural systems (steel and concrete) for the

building, and changing a major client goal.

Longer assignments require students to design
for multiple conditions (such as a housing unit
for two occupant groups) or to develop alternative proposals.

ing capability can be seen. This is particularly

cognitive schemes as one of the goals of

architectural education.
Self-evaluation is fundamental to the concept-

test model because, according to this conception of design, as Schon suggests, the object of
the designer is not rationality but "reflexivity":

the ability to reflect on and learn from one's

work.31 He suggests that this must be taught by

discussion and by example, where the instructor
shares with the student reflections on the stu-

The intent of these form experiments is to

dent's work and the instructor's own expecta-

develop "contingent thinking" abilities. This is

tions. Such shared reflections afford the opportunity to address not only the current status of

the designer's capacity for detached commitment-to propose an idea with full commit-

ment, then to evaluate it as a detached criticthat is the core of the concept-test model. It is
an ability that is essential to what we mean by
"thinking architecturally." An indication of contingent thinking in the studio is the difference

between exploring design experiments (contin-

the student's project, but the design intentions it

reveals and the underlying cognitive scheme
from which it evolved.

Articulated criteria for evaluation

Both informally throughout the studio and for-

mally at key points along the way, explicit crite-

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

lB
ra for evaluation are discussed that are derived

* To recognize the connections among the

from the concept-test model of design. As

implications of design moves in terms of various

teaching tools, the criteria are used with the

different design factors.

intention of reinforcing a coherent understanding

* To evaluate the consequences of design moves:

of design through their content and through the

to relate design decisions to design intentions.

? To work out coherent pattems of design

way they are applied. Their purpose is to assess

students' progress in developing their design

process. They address such capabilities as generating a comprehensive design concept and
identifying and responding to diverse issues in
the design problem.
Talking with a student about the progress he is
making in a problem in relation to a particular

model of design can help him to see more

clearly what he is doing, to be more purposeful
about it, and to gain better control of it. Formal

decisions, consequences, implications, and

evaluations.
I am not suggesting that such process-oriented
criteria should be the only basis for evaluation in
studio. An understanding of what a "good"
design process is must be part of and consistent with an understanding of what constitutes

"good" architecture. The purpose of leaming

how to make design decisions, after all, is only
to leam how to make better decisions. Evalua-

criteria discussed at the beginning of the term

tion of a student's total performance in studio

must therefore be based on a broader set of cri-

and at the end of a project or project cycle can

teria. Those that focus specifically on the

serve these same functions, enabling students

to know what is expected of them and to direct
their performance to meet those objectives.

Schon has proposed a set of "design subcom-

design process are of value because through

them we acknowledge that learning how to
design is an intrinsic and important part of the
content of the studio.

petences" that derive specifically from a con-

Some Conclusions

cept-test model.32 They emphasize, for example,

If we think of teaching studio as designing learn-

the cyclical process of decision-making, the

dialectic between conception and observation, and
the contingent nature of design decisions. A

loose adaptation of Schon's subcompetences

suggests a set of criteria that can be used to

ing experiences, we might consider the "models

of design" that underly our practice of teaching
as well as our practice of architecture. By conceiving of teaching as itself a process of design,

Notes
1 Beinart, Julian "Analysis of the Content of Design," Architec-

ture Education Study Volume 1, 1981.

2 Balfour, Alan "Captive of Love and Ignorance: Architecture
Education and Practice," Architecture Education Study Vol-

ume 1, 1981, p. 797.

3 Schon, Donald "Learning a Language, Learning to Design,"
Architecture Education Study Volume 1, 1981, p. 426.

4 Ibid, p. 349.
5 Ibid, p. 414.
6 For a thorough discussion of the problem of "learning

binds," see Don Schon's "Learning a Language, Learning to

Design" Architecture Education Study Volume 1, 1981.
7 Argyris, Chris "Teaching and Learning in Design Settings,"
Architecture Education Study Volume 1, 1981.
8 Hiller, Bill, Musgrove, John, O'Sullivan, Pat "Knowledge and
Design," in Mitchell, William (ed.) EDRA-3: Proceedings of
the Third Annual Conference Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross
(Stroudsburg, Pa) 1972, reprinted in Proshansky, Ittelson,
and Rivlin (eds.) Environmental Psychology: Man and His
Physical Setting (2nd ed.) Holt Rinehart and Winston (New

York, NY) 1976, p. 74.

9 Zeisel, John Inquiry by Design Brooks/Cole Press (Monterey,

CA) 1981, p. 5.
10 The most thorough and influential elaboration of design proc-

ess was Christopher Alexander's Notes on the Synthesis of

Form Harvard University Press (Cambridge, MA) 1964. Other
design research is described in Gregory, S. A. The Design
Method Butterworths (London) 1966, and Jones, J. C.
Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures John Wiley and

Sons (New York, NY) 1970.

11 Hillier et al., op.cit, p. 73.

12 Ibid., p. 73.
13 Ibid., p. 70.
14 "It is easy to bring out the contrast between the analytical
nature of the program and the synthetic nature of its realiza-

evaluate students' design capabilities and might

be applied with some modification to different
levels of experience.

we may be able to inform the way we teach

tion . . . (T)he tree of sets (analysis) is obtained by succes-

through our understanding of the design pro-

sive division and partition. The tree of diagrams (synthesis)

cess. In particular, if we understand design to

be a cyclical process of concepts and tests, then

der, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, p. 93-94.

Students should be able:

teaching might be considered a process of

developing concepts and testing them.

* To demonstrate an appreciation for the givens

of site and program, and their implications for
design.
? To articulate their design intentions.
* To construct a conceptual framework for design
within which to evaluate different design

decisions.

* To make appropriate use of precedents; to

demonstrate an understanding of the relevance
of particular solution-types to the problem.

? To apply to design the consideration of a rich

variety of design factors, such as climate,
lifestyles, context relationships, materials, etc.;
to recognize an appropriate set of factors for a
given problem; and to be aware of priorities
among those factors.
* To make choices among altematives with an
appreciation for their consequences.
? To detect and follow through the implications of
earlier moves.

A "concept-test" approach to teaching suggests

that we should be engaged in "reflection-inaction," a process of trying to articulate and

evaluate our understandings of design and

architecture. As designers of leaming experiences, we should expect as much of ourselves
as of our students: to be able to construct a
conceptual framework for our teaching, to
understand its implications for the way we

teach, and to evaluate its consequences for our

students. Just as the restructuring of the cognitive schemes our students bring to designing

enables them to become better designers, so

.. is made by successive composition and fusion." Alexan15 Colquhoun, Alan "Typology and Design Method" in Gutman,
Robert (ed.) People and Buildings Basic Books (New York),

1972, p. 404.
16 Summerson, John "Case for a Theory of Modern Architec-

ture" The Builder Volume 192 (May 24, 1957), p. 947.

17 Summerson, ibid., p. 947.
18 Summerson sees the gap between analysis and synthesis as
the "missing architectural language" ibid., p. 947.
19 See, for example, Bruner, Jerome Beyond the Information
Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing Norton (New

York, NY) 1973.

20 Two major works are Newell, Allen and Simon, Herbert,
Human Problem Solving Prentice-Hall (Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
1972, and Reitman, Walter Cognition and Thought. An Infor-

mation-Processing Approach John Wiley and Sons (New

York, NY) 1965.
21 See Karl Popper's work, especially Conjectures and Refutations Oxford University Press (New York, NY) 1963 and
Simon's later book The Sciences of the Artificial MIT Press

(Cambridge, MA) 1969.

the restructuring of the cognitive schemes we

bring to studio teaching should enable us to

become better designers of our students' learning experiences. m

Winter 1985, JAE 38/2

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

lB
References

22 Hillier et al., op. cit., p. 72.

Alexander, Christopher, Notes on the Synthesis of Form Har-

Gregory, S. A. (ed.), The Design Method Butterworths (Lon-

23 Hillier et al., op. cit., p. 77.

vard University Press (Cambridge, MA) 1964.

don) 1966.

24 In Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Alexander's purpose is to

eliminate the role of personal prejudice in design. In his later

work, especially A Pattern Language, his emphasis shifts to

Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein with

Hillier, Bill and Leaman, Adrian, "How is Design Possible?" in

Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, Sh!omo Angel, A Pattern

Journal of Architectural Research Volume 3, Number 1 (January

Language Oxford University Press (New York, NY) 1977.

1974).

Archer, L. Bruce, "The Structure of the Design Process" in

Hillier, Bill, John Musgrove, and Pat O'Sullivan, "Knowledge

25 Colquhoun, op. cit., p. 403.

Broadbent and Ward (eds.), Design Methods in Architecture

and Design" Mitchell, William (ed.), EDRA-3: Proceedings of

26 Archer, L. Bruce "The Structure of the Design Process" in

Architectural Association (London) 1969.

the Third Annual Conference Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross

reconfiguring those preconceptions from personal prejudices

into universally valid patterns.

Broadbent, Geoffrey and Ward, Anthony, (eds.) Design Methods in Architecture Architectural Association (London) 1969.

27 Zeisel, op. cit., p. 9.

Archer, L. Bruce, "Systematic Method for Designers" Series of

articles in Design Volumes 172-188, April 1963-August 1964.

28 Hillier et al., op. cit., p. 71.

Argyris, Chris, "Teaching and Learning in Design Settings"

29 See Bruner's Beyond the Information Given Norton (New

Architecture Education Study Volume 1, 1981, pp. 551-660.

York, NY) 1973.

Balfour, Alan, "Captive of Love and Ignorance: Architecture

30 Colquhoun, op. cit., p. 405.

31 Schon, Donald "The Design Studio as Education for Reflection in Action" Paper presented at ACSA Northeast Region

Conference (October 1982), revised version in Journal of

Architectural Education Fall 1984, Volume 38 Number 1.

32 Schon, Donald "Learning a Language, Learning to Design"

Architecture Education Study Volume 1, 1981, pp. 406ff.

Education and Practice" Architecture Education Study Volume

1, 1981, pp. 771-801.

Beinart, Julian, "Analysis of the Content of Design" Architec-

ture Education Study Volume 1, 1981, pp. 3-157.

Broadbent, Geoffrey, "A Plain Man's Guide to Systematic
Design Methods" Royal Institute of British Architects Journal

Volume 75, May 1968, pp. 223-227.

Broadbent, Geoffrey and Ward, Anthony (eds.), Design Methods in Architecture Architectural Association (London) 1969.
Bruner, Jerome S., Beyond the Information Given: Studies in
the Psychology of Knowing Norton (New York, NY) 1973.
Bruner, Jerome S., The Process of Education Harvard Univer-

sity Press (Cambridge, MA) 1960.

Colquhoun, Alan, "Typology and Design Method," Arena Volume 83 (June 1967), reprinted in Robert Gutman (ed.) People

and Buildings Basic Books (New York, NY) 1972, pp. 395-405.

(Stroudsburg, PA) 1972, reprinted in Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., and Rivlin, L. G. (eds.), Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting (2nd ed.) Holt Rinehart and

Winston (New York, NY) 1976, pp. 69-83.

Jones, J. Christopher, Design Methods: Seeds of Human
Futures John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (New York, NY) 1970.
Korobkin, Barry J., Images for Design Harvard School of

Design (Cambridge, MA) 1976.

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (rev.

ed.) University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL) 1970.

Moore, Gary T. (ed.), Emerging Methods in Environmental

Design and Planning MIT Press (Cambridge, MA) 1970.

Newell, Allen and Simon, Herbert A., Human Problem Solving

Prentice-Hall, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ) 1972.

Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations Oxford University

Press (New York, NY) 1963.

Reitman, Walter R., Cognition and Thought: An Information-

Processing Approach John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (New York)

1965.

Schon, Donald, "Learning a Language, Learning to Design"

Architecture Education Study Volume 1, 1981, pp. 339-471.
Schon, Donald, "The Design Studio as Education for Reflection
in Action." Paper presented at ACSA Northeast Region Conference (October 1982); revised version in Journal of Architectural
Education Fall 1984 Volume 38 Number 1.
Simon, Herbert A, The Sciences of the Artificial (rev. ed.) MIT

Press (Cambridge, MA) 1969.

Summerson, John, "Case for a Theory of Modern Architecture"

The Builder Volume 192 (May 24, 1957), pp. 947-948.

Zeisel, John, Inquiry by Design Brooks/Cole (Monterey, CA)
1981.

Winter 1985, JAE 38/2

This content downloaded from 111.68.103.228 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:57:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms