COMPARATIVE LEARNING ANALYSIS BETWEEN DESIGN PRACTICE

AND PRINCIPLES IN UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO:

PROF. LORIEFE S CARNICE

FINAL REQUIREMENT FOR

ENGLISH 201; ACADEMIC WRITING, 5:30- 6:00 PM

BY;
MARK JEFF V. CALLANTA
CHRISTIAN RENN L. GARDOSE
JEDD DARYL D. MANULAT
YVONNE R. MARZADO
JESSA ROSE B. MOLE
MAY JOY B. VISTAL
AUSGUST 2015

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Educators in architecture say debates over the appropriate balance
between theory and practice have been going on for centuries. On one side,
educators argue that graduate programs should not be technical schools but
should teach students to analyze, design and think. Those taking the other
side say schools have become so skewed toward theory that firms hiring
interns have to start from scratch when training them. from the article, For
would-be Architects, Grad School is Like Boot Camp
University of Mindanao develops student in two different ways due to
the demands of the industry and the competencies all around the world. For
many years of teaching architecture in University of Mindanao, graduates of
the said institution have proven its competencies, skills and achievements.
But looking through the percentage on the learning of the students in terms of
architectural principles, many students cannot attain the standards of its titile.
University of Mindanao students lack the proper competencies in terms of it.
Architectural principles are badly needed by the students to become more
effective architects.
Base on some commentaries of Arct. Felino Palafox Jr. having this
issue most especially in the Philippines are quite challenging more especially

in learning more ideas in designing. May students nowadays seem to have

less idea of what arethey are studying.Graduates are not fully qualified to their
course. Students training must give emphasis before graduation. Learning all
principles and be able to apply these can really help the students in their
chosen field.
This kind of dilemma seems to blot the worlds education about
architecture. These problems are actually a great sense to study most
especially in preserving the real thoughts of the field. According to some study
taken in Australia, (Understanding Architectural Education in Australasia
(January, 2008), almost half of the architecture curriculum in a typical school
dedicated to design, it is not surprising that both staff and students tend to
identify design as the most important skill for an architect. However, almost all
of the research that has been undertaken into the profession and its
operations points to a misalignment between the focus on design in
architectural education, and the focus on construction and management in
architectural practice. The response of educational researchers is that design
is a skill that has to be developed early in an architects career (because it
takes time to mature) and it is ideally taught in a university environment. While
there is evidence that this is true, the dominance of design within schools can
also cause problems.
However, almost all of the research that has been undertaken into the
profession and its operations points to a misalignment between the focus on
design in architectural education, and the focus on construction and

management in

architectural

practice. The

response

of educational

researchers is that design is a skill that has to be developed early in an

architects career (because it takes time to mature) and it is ideally taught in a
university environment.
Learners may engage in a variety of metacognitive processes to
monitor and control their learningassessing the task at hand, evaluating
their own strengths and weaknesses, planning their approach, applying and
monitoring various strategies, and reflecting on the degree to which their
current approach is working. Unfortunately, students tend not to engage in
these processes naturally. When students develop the skills to engage these
processes, they gain intellectual habits that not only improve their
performance but also their effectiveness as learners.

Review of Related Literature

Presented in this section are the analysis of the research that support
the study Comparative analysis between design practice and principles to
provide ample information on the variables under the effectivity of the two.
Included in this chapter is the overview of a topic to be discussed and the
studies conducted in the University of Mindanao, Matina Campus Davao City.
According to Aknesil 2001, the ancient Roman practices of architectural
education have parallels to both the Egyptian and Greek traditions. Vitruvius,
the author of the most extensive architectural treatise surviving from that era,

offers a list of knowledge that an architect should possess, but he is less clear
on how that knowledge should be developed.
As the first architectural design studio course, the Foundation I studio
establishes a fundamental understanding of representation and abstraction to
which more of your own thoughts and ideas about spatial thinking can be
added. This will involve, by means of the architectural studio, a reiterative
investigation into the relationship of technique, form, and meaning through
study, invention, testing, and evaluation. During this semester a series of short
problems will be given to expose you to the complexities of visual
communication and the design act; to develop skills of spatial manipulation; to
give you the self-confidence in making valid decisions within set time limits; to
develop the skills of graphic presentation necessary for interpreting and
communicating your architectural intentions; and above all, to instill the ability
to combine insight with the rigorous analytical study in a design process that
is efficient, personally effective, and which becomes second nature to you as
a working process (Summer Preparatory Studio, 2015).
Design practice is an introductory architectural design studio through
which students develop critical, analytical and speculative design abilities in
architecture. Students develop representational techniques for the analysis of
social and cultural constructs, and formulate propositions for situating built
form in the arena of the urban and suburban environment. The studio initiates
innovation through a sequence of projects, spatial models and rule sets that
introduce each student to rule-based design processes-- in which a reversal

of expectations leads to the creation of novel spaces and structures. It

introduces computation, geometric techniques, and digital fabrication. Projects
explore the formation of space in relation to the body, and the developments
of small scale public programs.
The American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS) (Koch et al.,
2006) analyzed the design studio problem and expressed doubts on the
effectiveness of current studio practices in providing adequate design-thinking
education. The report indicates that studio culture values project appearance
instead of the actual design process. In recent years, similar problems have
been the topic of debates in Khartoum. Criticisms are mostly centered on the
observation that students show no interest in the design process and tend to
focus on form making. As a result, efforts to teach design methods and to
restore the balance between creativity and rationality in the design process
have failed.
Robert Gutmans study of architectural practice in North America in the
1980s famously observed the tension that exists between the profession,
practitioners and schools. In the 1990s Francis Duffy reiterated Gutmans
argument that architecture is a profession which is changing spectacularly in
response to remorseless economic and social pressures, but which cannot,
for profound psychological as well as historical reasons, acknowledge that
change. This tension between practitioners and the profession continues to
exist today, between the requirement to adapt to a changing commercial
landscape and the desire to control access to, and the constitution of,

architectural knowledge. Duffy argues that a growing disconnection between

practitioners and the academy exacerbates this tension. For Duffy, if
Gutmans work is to be believed, there is now no connection between what
happens in architectural practice and what is taught in the schools. However,
Duffy acknowledges that the problem is a difficult one: the widening gap
between the schools and contemporary architectural practice makes it seem
practically impossible to prepare students adequately. Antony Vidler agrees in
part that the profession has always seen itself as ill-served by the schools
and in turn, the schools have always guarded their positions as educational
rather than training institutions. Moreover, in the short time available for
academics to educate students, they will never be more than rudimentarily
prepared for practice.
A related reason for the disjunction between academics, practitioners
and the profession, is that each has different ways of engaging with
architectural knowledge. Academics are interested in developing, testing and
propagating knowledge; an approach that involves research and scholarship.
Practitioners are concerned with short-term or rapid responses to situations
and, while working on conventional projects, are unlikely to develop a
substantial new knowledge base or share this knowledge freely. This
approach is about the strategic deployment of knowledge. The profession has
a longer-term perspective centered on refining and defining knowledge. The
limits of knowledge, and the determination of competences, are important for
this last category.

According to Summer Preparatory Studio (2015), Physics for Architects

or History of Architecture the first of three required courses is the history and
theory of architecture, this is a lecture course with discussion groups that
meet weekly with teaching assistants. The course explores fundamental ideas
and models of architecture that have emerged over the past three hundred
years. The history and theory of architecture is a lecture course that examines
selected topics, figures, projects, and theories from the history of architecture
and related design fields during the 20th century. The course also draws on
related and parallel historical material from other disciplines and arts, placing
architecture into a broader socio-cultural-political technological context.
Seminars with teaching assistants complement the lectures. In the system of
architecture design, theory helps in providing useful guidelines However, the
broad principles employed in the final outcome provide a general way of
thinking about such large complex engineering systems.
In addition to the above reasons for a division between the profession
and the academy, there is a difference of opinion about the purpose of
architectural education. In some countries (like Italy) an undergraduate
education in architecture is considered an excellent generalist degree for
people who wish to work in a wide range of fields. In other countries (including
Australia) the curriculum is largely constrained by the needs and expectations
of the architectural profession. Many researchers argue that it is in everyones
interests to open architectural education to as broad a range of students as
possible; to educate people in the value of architecture and of architects.

A complicating factor in all of these points of view is that the schools

are not static; the education environment is evolving. Ernest L. Boyer and Lee
D. Mitgang note that architecture programs are typically expensive in terms of
space and staffing levels and that these programs provide little research
revenue for universities. This is a commercial reality of architectural
education; it demands a substantial financial investment. Boyer and Mitgang
note that if more architectural research was produced in the schools, which is
exactly what is expected of academics, then universities may be more willing
to invest in them and in turn employ more academics to support students.
Peter Cook and Christine Hawley (Architectural Design 2004)
disagree with what they see as the dumbing down of architectural education
that has occurred because of the rise of bureaucracy in universities; what Tom
Heneghan describes as the university sector standardizing mediocrity. Cook
and Hawley strongly reject the new emphasis on journal publications, rather
than experience in design or professional practice, as a criteria for academic
appointment. Cook goes further when he condemns career academics and
calls for practicing architects to teach architecture once more.42 Cook is
especially critical of people earning PhDs who intend to practice architecture;
he sees the two as mutually exclusive.
According to some analysis, as architects, the concept of balancing
between two masters; the search for beauty, and the reality of construction; is
not a new one. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio explained the importance of
maintaining equal aspects of both in saying, Architects who have aimed at

acquiring manual skill without scholarship have never been able to reach a
position of authority to correspond to their pains, while those who relied only
upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow, not the
substance. Too much practical knowledge and one could never hope to rise
above the status of a laborer; too much theory and nothing solid would be
built. Paper Architecture is a recent term for the latter case, in which buildings
are developed in drawings but are never built. This type of theoretical focus
has been a part of the profession since Etienne-Louis Boulee and Piranesi,
and continues in todays architectural discourse in the work of Zaha Hadid or
Daniel Libeskind who, though building some projects, have a well-known body
of drawn work. Regardless of the influence of these theoretical works to the
field, architecture is, a bimodal profession, and it requires its practitioners to
have a feel for both good design and the infrastructure required to bring these
to life.
On the side of a proper theoretical education, there is the belief that
preparing students with the ability to think in a critical fashion allows for
graduates to apply their minds towards a variety of careers, offices and roles.
There is an acknowledgment that there is a big difference between training
and education, and that architecture schools are located in universities for a
reason; students are expected to learn to explore a variety of solutions, not
simply how to do something right instead of wrong.
Dietrich Elger and Peter Russell suggest that history, geometry,
mathematics, construction, logistics and economics are all of equal

importance to design in architectural education. Yet, by emphasizing design,

architecture schools mislead students both about the reality of architectural
practice and the wider values of society. David Nicol and Simon Pilling argue
that the focus on design is unhealthy in schools because it venerates the
product, not the process. Many different knowledge domains are involved in
design and play an equal role in this process, but because the focus is on the
final product, only design is valued. Tony Aldrich reinforces this view with his
criticism of design teaching that it remains concerned with the finished object,
but not the impact of that design on the user or inhabitant. Aldrich calls for
architecture students to develop self-awareness and empowerment from a
participatory approach that encourages them to imagine the actual impact of
their designs.
Probably the greatest tension recorded in research on this topic is
between design and construction. Paul Segal argues that architects have lost
their historic position of primacy in the built environment because they have
placed design ahead of construction in their system of values. Boyer and
Mitgang and Ali Ihsan Unay and Cengiz Ozmen separately express their
concern about the dominance of design over construction and technology in
the curriculum. Peter Murray records that architecture students themselves
often call for more emphasis on construction and architectural science in the
curriculum. Mark Crinson and Jules Lubbock agree that the focus on design
often leads to the production of graduates with little or no awareness of
construction methods, or the trades that support the construction process.

In addition, after graduation, architecture students typically express a

low level of satisfaction with their educational experience. Cuff argues that
graduates become frustrated when they first enter architectural practice
because of the uncertainty this step entails. Duffy and Hutton claim that the
problem isnt uncertainty, but lack of preparedness. They argue that
architecture schools fixation with the Star system and design is the root
cause of so many graduates unrealistic expectations and this results in
widespread disappointment. Nicol and Pilling are less specific in defining the
problem, but they are clear that it results from the gap between the student
experience in the academy and the graduate experience in commercial
practice. The former is largely unable to replicate a practice environment and
the latter is unable to simulate an educational environment.
An additional explanation for graduates unhappiness with their
educational experience relates to workload. Architecture students complain of
exhaustion, isolation and stress. Leonard and Christine Bachmans analysis of
students workload identified that excessive loss of sleep, poor diet, lack of
exercise and marginal family and social activity are all common characteristics
of the life of architecture students. However, Bachman and Bachman also
found that only one activity, design, accounted for the majority of workload
pressures. The design process also caused a range of anxieties that lead
directly to students feelings of dissatisfaction and depression.
In connection with these there are also study that it is a curiosity, which
is noted in some historical research, that the atelier model, which was once

seen as a radical approach to teaching and learning, is now ubiquitous in

architecture. Indeed, such is the importance of the design studio, that schools,
which do not possess anything resembling a studio space or system, still label
their curriculum structures to clearly identify a studio component.
Dalibor Vesely argues that, in architecture, the key place for all
educational

activities

is

the

studio.

Furthermore,

any

exploration,

investigation or research into the programme and content of a project should

be based on a visual hypothesis of the project that is developed in the studio.
Mark Wigley also offers an educational model for architecture wherein
Everything is organized around the design studio as it should be. Wendy
Potts similarly accepts that Studio teaching is central to the pedagogy of
architectural education. Dana Cuff agrees that the design studio is the heart
of architectural education but she also adds that the studio is potentially its
greatest flaw.
While the studio ostensibly provides a social context for practice, in
reality it can generate an unhealthy clannishness between students. David
Clarke proposes that the problem of the design studio is precisely that it
encourages professional isolation; it separates architecture students from
other disciplines. Nicol and Pilling support this point of view when they
observe that the design studio is so internally focused that it separates the
student from the world in which architecture is produced and inhabited.
Stevens is also critical of the way the design studio promotes a singular form
of enculturation often at the expense of education. On a more pragmatic level,

university administrators and academics see the studio as the most

expensive and least understood component of architectural education. They
ask: what does it achieve that cannot be achieved in other ways and do we
fully understand it, can we explain it and can we quantify its benefits?
The primary characteristics of the Beaux-Arts atelier were that it
promoted long working hours, deliberately isolated architecture students from
other disciplines, encouraged them to bond with each other and develop
appropriate cultural values, and it promoted design as the pre-eminent skill of
the architect. Fundamentally, the strengths of the design studio are also its
flaws.
Conceptual Framework
PRINCIPLES

Awareness of

the

DESIGN
links

Ability to engage imagination,

between architecture and other

think

creative disciplines.

provide design leadership.

Awareness of

the

relevant

creatively, innovate

Ability

to
define

codes, regulations and standards

gather

and

information,

problems,

apply

for planning, design, construction,

analyses and critical judgement

health, safety and use of built

and

environments.

action.

Ability

to

act

with

knowledge

of natural systems and built

Ability

formulate

to

strategies

think

for

three-

dimensionally in the exploration

environments.

of design.

Understanding

of

the

processes of technical design and

the

integration

construction
services

of

structure,

technologies
systems

into

and
a

Ability

to

reconcile

factors, integrate knowledge and

apply skills in the creation of a
design solution.

functionally effective whole.

Fig. 1 The schematic diagram of the variables of the study

Statement of the Problem

1.) What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
School Year

divergent

 Gender
2.) What is the level of performance of Architecture students in terms of
design practice?
3.) What is the level of performance of architecture students in terms of
learning principles of architecture?
4.) Can design practice affect the learning of architecture principles?
5.)

How confident are the student with their architectural knowledge to

become a good architect?

Assumptions
Architecture students and academics tend to prioritize design as the most
important activity in the curriculum. However, by focusing on design other
important areas of study may be undermined and students might graduate
without an appropriate breadth and depth of architectural knowledge. With
almost half of the architecture curriculum in a typical school dedicated to
design, it is not surprising that both staff and students tend to identify design
as the most important skill for an architect.

CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the descriptive research use in the procedure

study. The research design and the respondents of the study as well as the
data gathering procedure, the research instrument and the statistical of data
will be discussed.

Research Design
In this study the researcher wants to aim the importance of the two
individual techniques in dealing of their profession using the two alternative
ways of learning: design practice and learning principles. This research
design used the comparative method which is used to compare the
contemporary events.
Thus, the researcher aims to know the difference and the effectivity
between two alternative ways of learning and to determine which method of
learning must be given emphasis and to prioritize according to the needs of
the students especially the Architecture students of University of Mindanao.

Research Subjects
The respondents of this study were the students of the University of
Mindanao from College of Architecture and Fine Arts Education specially the
Architecture students who were enrolled for School Year 2015-2016. The
researchers randomly selected 30 students. The study were conducted inside
the University of Mindanao, Matina Campus.

Research Instrument

The researcher developed a structured questionnaire to the

respondents, which was constructed based on the readings and findings of
different literatures from books, internet, and also from the researcher
questions itself base on the respondents proficiency. The questionnaire has
attached the description of the purpose and importance of the study covers
the topic of the learning between Design practice and Architectural principles
in the students of Architect in University of Mindanao.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher study included analysis of all the research and articles
that support the study of the learning between Design practice and
Architectural principles to provide information on the variables under this
study.
The following were the steps undergone by the researchers in
conducting the study:
Seeking Permission to Conduct the Study.
The researchers provide a letter of permission or endorsement letter
and submitted to the office of the dean of College of Architecture in the
University of Mindanao to conduct the study and survey.
Upon the approval receive from the deans office the researchers
personally immediate administered the gathering instrument with the
assistance of teachers in University of Mindanao.

Administration and Retrieval of the Questionnaire. The researchers

personally distribute the questionnaire were thoroughly given the instruction.
Questions and clarification were entertained and after each respondent was
done answering the questionnaire the researchers immediately retrieved.

Retrieval of the Instrument.

The gathered data through the

questionnaire were collated, tallied, and was subjected to statistical analysis

and carefully encode and presented.

Statistical of Data
The responses of the participants through questionnaire were tested
using the following statistical tools:
Mean. This was used to determine the difference and the learning
between Design practice and Architectural principles preparing by the
Architecture students of University of Mindanao.
Person-r. This is a measure of relationship between the two alternative
ways. This was used to determine the significance of the learning between the
Design practice and Architectural principles that exerted by the students of
Architecture.
T- test. This analysis is appropriate whenever you want to compare the
means of two groups. This assesses whether the difference and the learning
between Design practice and Architectural principles are statistically different
from each other.

References
ACSA. ACSA Reports from the ACSA Topic Groups Preparing for the October
2008 NAAB Accreditation Review Conference. Washington, D.C.: 2008.

Schn, Donald. The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and

Potentials. London: RIBA Publications Limited, 1985.
. Vitruvius (1960) Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture, translated by
Morris Hickey Morgan, New York: Dover
Literature references Cross, N. (1984) Developments in Design Methodology,
Chichester: Wiley. Dorst, C.H. (1997)
Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms, PhD thesis, Delft: Delft
University of Technology. Jones, J.C. (1980)
Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures, London: Wiley Interscience. Rittel,
W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973)
Planning Problems are Wicked Problems, In Cross, N. Developments in
Design Methodology, Chichester: Wiley. Rowe, P. (1987)
Design Thinking, London: MIT Press. Simon, H. (1969)
The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Vitruvius (1960)
Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture, translated by Morris Hickey Morgan,
New York: Dover.
Digi-Blast I, Summer Preparatory Studio, Physics for Architects or History of
Architecture
Problems in the British Architecture School regime By Kevin Rhowbotham

Balancing Architectural Theory with Practical Education, Architecture's Mythos

/Culture, As an Architect or Intern, At School

CURRICULUM
VITAE

CHRISTIAN RENN L. GARDOSE

TRENTO, AGUSAN DEL SUR
__________________________________
PERSONAL DATA
BIRTH DATE: September 30, 1995
NATIONALITY: Filipino
__________________________________
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
ELEMENTARY: Trento Central Elem. School
Trento, Agusan Del Sur
HIGH SCHOOL:Trento National High School
Trento, Agusan Del Sur
COLLEGE: University Of Mindanao
COURSE: Bachelor in Science in Architecture

MARK JEFF V. CALLANTA

MANDAY, COTABATO CITY
09363367038
__________________________________
PERSONAL DATA
BIRTH DATE: April 12, 1991
NATIONALITY: Filipino
__________________________________
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
ELEMENTARY: Cotabato City Central Pilot School
Cotabato City
HIGH SCHOOL: Notre Dame Village National High School
Cotabato City
COLLEGE & COURSE: Notre Dame University (BS in Electronics and
Communication Engineering)
University Of Mindanao (Bachelor in Science in Architecture)

JEDD DARYL D. MANULAT

BUCANA, DAVAO CITY
09499280793
__________________________________
PERSONAL DATA
BIRTH DATE: April 03, 1997
NATIONALITY: Filipino
__________________________________
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
ELEMENTARY: Cesario Villa Abrile Elem. School
Bucana, Davao City
HIGH SCHOOL: Davao City National High School
F. Torres St., Davao City
COLLEGE: University Of Mindanao
COURSE: Bachelor in Science in Architecture

JESSA ROSE B. MOLE

TORIL, DAVAO CITY
09301472810
__________________________________
PERSONAL DATA
BIRTH DATE: November 13, 1997
NATIONALITY: Filipino
__________________________________
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
ELEMENTARY: Don Juan dela Cruz Central Elem. School
Toril, Davao City
HIGH SCHOOL: Davao Central College
Toril, Davao City
COLLEGE: University Of Mindanao
COURSE: Bachelor in Science in Architecture

MAY JOY B. VISTAL

TORIL, DAVAO CITY
09153407489
__________________________________
PERSONAL DATA
BIRTH DATE: August 15, 1996
NATIONALITY: Filipino
__________________________________
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
ELEMENTARY: Don Juan dela Cruz Central Elem. School
Toril, Davao City
HIGH SCHOOL: Davao Central College
Toril, Davao City
COLLEGE: University Of Mindanao
COURSE: Bachelor in Science in Architecture

YVONNE R. MARZADO
IGALOS, SAMAL CITY
09127201257
PERSONAL DATA
BIRTH DATE: October 02, 1997
NATIONALITY: Filipino
__________________________________
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
ELEMENTARY: Tambo Elem. School
Igalos, Samal City
HIGH SCHOOL: Nieves Villarica National High School
Igalos, Samal City
COLLEGE: University Of Mindanao
COURSE: Bachelor in Science in Architecture