Wood, A (2006) Demystifying construction: Technology in architectural education. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2(1-2), pp. 5-18. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Construction is often seen, among both students and staff at schools of architecture, as a distinct subject taught separately from design. It is often delivered by lectures, divorced from design studio and relying heavily on published sources. Even when it is integrated into design studio, it is often conducted as an add-on project, a separate exercise set after the design is 'finished'. This is, in the author's opinion, a flawed train of thought that is largely accountable for the increasing ill-preparation of architectural graduates for the realities of working practice and the corresponding frustration of the profession and industry who receive them. This paper presents an alternative approach to the teaching of construction in schools of architecture. Based on a model successfully implemented at the University of Nottingham, it explores the teaching methodology, learning outcomes, methods of assessment and possible implications for both schools of architecture and the profession as a whole. In doing this, it suggests a strategy to help bridge the widening divide between academia and architectural practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; construction; practice; profession; teaching |
| Index terms: | methodology, profession, design studio, architectural practice, academia, learning outcome, exercise, architectural education, strategy, working practice |
| Subjects: | research methods, management, design practice, student development, educational institutions, health behaviours and lifestyles, institututions, business, curriculum design |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Education, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here