Hatem Ezzat Nabih



This article presents a process-based learning approach to design education where theoretical coursework is taught in studio-style. Lecture-based coursework is sometimes regarded as lacking in challenge and broadening the gap between theory and practice. Furthermore, lecture-based curricula tend to be detached from the studio and deny students from applying their theoretically gained knowledge. Following the belief that student motivation is increased by establishing a higher level of autonomy in the learning process, I argue for a design education that links theory with applied design work within the studio setting. By synthesizing principles of Constructivist Learning and Problem-Based Learning, PBL students are given greater autonomy by being actively involved in their education. Accordingly, I argue for a studio setting that incorporates learning in studio style by presenting three design applications involving students in investigation and experimentation in order to self-experience the design process.


Design studio; design process; constructivist learning; problem-based learning PBL

Full Text:



Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J. & Groh, S. E. (1996). The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory science courses. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers, (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp.43-52). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Anderson, R. S. & Puckett, J. B. (2003). Assessing students’ problem-solving assignments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, pp. 81-87.

Akin, O. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London, UK: Pion Ltd.

Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (1997). Changing problembased learning. Introduction to the second edition. In D. Boud, & G. Feletti, (Eds.), The challenge of problem based learning (pp.1-14). New York: St. Marin’s Press.

Brown, G. & Gelernter, M. (1989). Education: veering from practice. Progressive Architecture , 3, pp.61-67.

Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural interpretation: architects vs. non-architects. Journal of Architectural and Planning

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Drake, J. (2003). Architectural education for the new millennium: Issues, innovations, and traditions. Proceedings from UIA/UNESCO Architectural Education Conference: Alexandria, Egypt.

Edwards, M. (1974). Comparison of some expectations of sample of housing architects with known data. In D. Canter and T. Lee (Eds.), Psychology and the built environment. (pp.38-47). London: Architectural Press.

Gifford, R. et al. (2002). Why architects and laypeople judge buildings differently. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19 (2), pp.131-148.

Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post Modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, pp. 2-22.

Koschman, T., Phillip, G. & Conlee. M. (2000). When is a problem-based tutorial not tutorial? Analyzing the tutor’s role in the emergence of a learning Issue. In. D. H. Evenson & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problembased learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp.53-74). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Lawson, B. (1999). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Maitland, B. (1995). Problem-based learning for architecture and construction management. In D. Boud, & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem based learning (pp.211-217). New York: St. Marin’s Press.

Maitland, B. & Cowdroy, R. (2001). Redesigning PBL: resolving the integration problem. In. P. Schwartz, S. Mennin. & G. Webb. (Eds.), Problem-based learning: case studies, experience and practice (pp.90-97). London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Maya, J. M. (1988). Critical reasoning for an enlightened architectural practice. Journal of Architectural Education, 41, pp. 46-57.

Miflin, B. & Price, D. (2001). Why does the department have professors if they don’t teach? In P. Schwartz, S. Mennin. & G. Webb. (Eds.), Problem-based learning: case studies, experience and practice (pp.98-103). London: Kogan Page.

Nelson, W. A. (2003). Problem solving through design. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, pp. 39-44.

Purcell, A.T. (1985). Architectural education and practice: ritualistic, rhetorical, reactionary. Architecture Australia, 4, pp. 62-67.

Rambow. R. & Bromme, R. (1995). Implicit psychological concepts in architects knowledge - How large is a large room? Learning and Instruction, 5, pp. 337-355.

Royal Institute for British Architects. (1965). Architectural practice and management handbook. London: RIBA Publications.

Savery J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson, (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in Instructional design. (pp. 135-148). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Schön. D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Weiss, R. E. (2003) Designing problems to promote higher-order thinking. New directions for teaching and learning, 95, pp. 25-31.

Wilson, B. G. (1996). Introduction: What is a constructivist learning environment? In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 3-8). New Jersy: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2015 International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR


- ISSN (Online) #1938 7806 - ArchNet-IJAR is covered by ArchNet@ MIT Libraries, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCO, CNKI, Pro-Quest, Scopus-Elsevier, Web of Science.

- Published work in ArchNet-IJAR is licensed under Creative Commons: CC-BY--NC-ND license, see

Copyrights © Archnet-IJAR 2007-2018


Hit Counter
Visitor Hits Since 15 Jan 2014