From Constructivist pedagogy to Problem Based Learning.

In the history of design teaching the method developed at the Bauhaus stands out; not just for its originality and objectives but for its ongoing influence. The first year foundation Vorkurs is an obvious and somewhat well-worn reference for first year teaching. Yet it is worth considering the objectives that Walter Gropius stated in The New Architecture and the Bauhaus in 1936:
We did not base our teaching on any pre-conceived idea of form, but sought the vital spark of life behind life's everchanging forms.The Bauhaus was the first institution in the world to embody this principle in a definite curriculum.

The Bauhaus An Introductory Survey L. Hirschfeld-Mack 1963

There are even stronger resonances in the teaching techniques of Iakov Chernikov, the Constructivist architect. Our program is a direct example of the method that Chernikov recommends and his objectives are also very similar:
Unquestionably, one of the best means of nurturing a new type of architect and designer is the conscious application of those forms which are in general termed 'non-objective'.......By this training in the free generation of logically constructed fantasies, our inventive capacities will be developed to their full potential.

As a total process, this will give us the possibility 'to become accustomed to assembling' a representation, and to innoculate the pupil with a feeling for form, volume and space - a feeling for rhythm and a feeling for beauty.

Iakov Chernikov quoted by Catherine Cooke in Architectural Design Vol 54 9/10-1984

Whilst these positions were not explicitly referenced when the program was developed, their inspiration underlies our approach and, as precedents, they reinforce our objectives. It is reassuring to find that the teaching of ‘formless’ design has been perpetuated so long and so far. The haptic focus of the Bauhaus Vorkurs drew together Arts and Crafts and machine cultures and freed its students to produce new and original work in many fields of design. This was seen as an ideal that would give our students both a grounding in formal manipulation and subjects for technical exercises. These are core skills for future architectural learning. They became involved in detail with the creations of their colleagues as well as manipulating their own materials: “The elements placed in one’s cube must take into consideration the elements hovering around the adjacent cubes”Student statement by Muhammad Hafiz bin Muhammad Fazillah

Material on Problem-Based Learning (PBL) which is readily available online also encouraged the development of this programme. This approach to learning originated in the 1960s in the need for medical students to relate the knowledge they learned to the problems presented by patients. It shows the differences between problem-solving learning and the use of scenarios which encourage students to engage themselves in the learning process, problem-based learning. The attraction of problem-based learning ...... related to a growing recognition that there needed to be not just a different view of learning and professional education, but also a different view about relationships between industry and education, between learning and society and between government and universities.

It was clear that the structure proposed fitted the approach and objectives of PBL:

Students ...... are expected to engage with the complex situation presented to them and decide what information they need to learn and what skills they need to gain in order to manage the situation effectively......increased understanding and examination of perspectives and frameworks is encouraged through problem-based learning because it offers students opportunities to examine their beliefs about knowledge in ways which lecture-based learning and narrow forms of problem-solving learning do not.Without problems that encompass both a large goal and specific objectives which students must find on their way to reaching the goal's solution, there is a good chance that important information will not be studied....... It has even been speculated that if students divert from their anticipated directions during their solution generation, they may completely miss the main content if not redirected by their instructor (Mandin, 1995).

The example of PBL techniques and approaches reinforced our confidence in the utility of the exercises and in particular confirmed the value of facilitation over instruction; a point stated beautifully by Peter Zumtor as quoted by Dean Hawkes in The Architect and the Academy arq 4/1 2000: “Practising architecture is asking oneself questions, finding one's own answers with the help of the teacher, whittling down, finding solutions. Over and over again.”

PBL materials are widely promulgated and many elements are readily available, though it appears that the approach has not yet been published for an architectural application. Engineering examples were encountered and provided useful reinforcement as well as information on subjects such as assessment.

Skills Teaching Strategies
The RAIA Education Policy 2000 sets out criteria which graduates from an undergraduate program should satisfy. As well as knowledge criteria, it proposes a number of skills criteria, many of which our program addresses:
• skills of collaboration, speaking, writing, drawing, modeling and evaluation
• understanding of the theory of representation and communication methods
These should be linked by integrative skills,which include:
• engage imagination and to think creatively
• gather information and apply analysis and critical judgment
• utilise divergence, speculation, iteration and reflection in the elucidation of issues
• understand the processes of working within a team and how to collaborate with others in the development of a design solution

These skills are basic to the ongoing learning of architecture as well as to practice and therefore should be addressed as a priority in first year studies. Our program does this in a form that, of itself, necessitates development of other process skills, in particular negotiation and team working. This was explicitly required in some exercises, which asked students to organise teams of a stated size, but was implicit in others which demanded a collective response.

So the exercise to link the ‘territory’ of every student by means of a path involved extensive discussion and repeated negotiation, but also required that the scale and spatial presence of the spaces had to be considered in sequence. A sequential approach to the spaces had not been referenced up to that point but the issue was reinforced with a descriptive exercise on “the experience of my cubes”.

Surprise was another ‘real-world’ component of the program. Each exercise was quarantined from the next and responses were therefore immediate and unmediated by future considerations. Analytic exercises were conducted extempore and student questions were frequently made the subject of group enquiry. Lastly, the objectives of an exercise were seldom revealed until afterwards and often only to an interested after-class group.

In all these ways, the program rewarded the level of student input and and comprehension by responding to the development of sensitivity and awareness. It left open to each the amount of work that was done on each exercise, the research that was undertaken to background the exercises and the degree of complexity with which each part of the work was addressed.