Architecture plays a vital role in the development and transformation of societies, serving as a crucial component that requires highly skilled professionals. Architectural education holds immense significance as it plays a pivotal role in equipping students with the essential knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to meet the demands of the architectural profession. The particularity of teaching architecture lies in applying a unique learning model called design studio, which is entirely different from traditional forms of university education in its methodology. The research presented in this paper is a preliminary and exploratory study of teaching architectural design skills at academic institutions in the Republic of Serbia. To make an overview of the current situation in the field, the research uses the methods of document analysis and desk-based curriculum review with the aim of comparative assessment of the established structure of study programs. The research results presented in this paper represent the first step towards a comprehensive investigation of learning and teaching architecture in Serbia. Researchers still do not consider this topic adequately and systematically, although our country has a tradition of educating architects for almost two centuries.
References
1.
Boyer Ernest L, Lee M, D. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice. 1996;
2.
Peter R, G. Design Thinking. 1987;
3.
Kokotovich V, Purcell T. Mental synthesis and creativity in design: an experimental examination. Design Studies. 2000;21(5):437–49.
4.
Senturer A, Istek C. Discourse as Representation of Design Thinking and Beyond: Considering the Tripod of Architecture–Media, Education, & Practice. Journal of Art & Design Education. 2000;19(1):72–85.
5.
Dorst K, Cross N. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies. 2001;22(5):425–37.
6.
Smith K. Curiositas and Studiositas: Investigating Student Curiosity and the Design Studio. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2011;30(2):161–75.
7.
Tepavčević B. Design thinking models for architectural education. The Journal of Public Space. 2017;2(3):67.
8.
Hernan C. Metaphors in the Design Studio: Implications for Education. 2004;265–73.
9.
Kowaltowski DCCK, Bianchi G, de Paiva VT. Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2009;20(4):453–76.
10.
Wang T. A New Paradigm for Design Studio Education. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2010;29(2):173–83.
11.
Uia. 2017;12.
12.
Guita F. Critical view on pedagogical dimension of introductory design in architectural education. Architectural Educators: Responding to Change. 2001;1–11.
13.
Öztürk MN, Türkkan EE. The Design Studio as Teaching/Learning Medium — A Process‐Based Approach. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2006;25(1):96–104.
14.
Brandt CB, Cennamo K, Douglas S, Vernon M, McGrath M, Reimer Y. A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2011;23(2):329–48.
15.
Soliman AM. Appropriate teaching and learning strategies for the architectural design process in pedagogic design studios. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2017;6(2):204–17.
16.
Ghonim M. Toward Calibrating Architectural Education: An Approach to Promote Students’ Design Abilities. The International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial, and Environmental Design. 2017;11(4):37–62.
17.
Ghonim M, Eweda N. Investigating elective courses in architectural education. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2018;7(2):235–56.
18.
Michael O, Anthony W. Understanding Architectural Education in Australasia: volume 1 An Analysis of Architecture schools, Programs, Academics and students. 2008;
19.
Ashraf S, Abdulgader A. Paradigmatic trends in Arab architectural education: impacts and challenges.
20.
Porras Álvarez S, Lee K, Park J, Rieh SY. A Comparative Study on Sustainability in Architectural Education in Asia—With a Focus on Professional Degree Curricula. Sustainability. 2016;8(3):290.
21.
22.
Curry T. A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies. 2014;35(6):632–46.
23.
David K, R. 2002;(4):212–8.
24.
Robert A, Joseph H, Edmond S. Teaching Architects and Engineers: Up and Down Bloom’s Taxonomy. 2009;
25.
Savic M, Kashef M. Learning outcomes in affective domain within contemporary architectural curricula. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2013;23(4):987–1004.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
