Skill-based / Knowledge-based Architectural Pedagogies: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments

Abstract

This paper argues for a more responsive architectural pedagogy that enables future architects to create humane environments and that emerges from and responds to societal, cultural, and environmental needs. A critical analysis of a number of thematic issues is provided to delineate the gaps between skill-based and knowledge-based pedagogies in the educational process of architecture. The paper provides a number of scenarios that help bridge these gaps while integrating knowledge contents necessary for creating humane environments PREAMBLE Debates on higher education assert that a university mission should foster a campus environment that nurtures exploration, enlightenment and critical thinking among all students. Inquiry, investigation, and discovery are now viewed as activities central to undergraduate programs. These debates present new opportunities for us as academics to strengthen our programs, to enhance our role in shaping undergraduate education, and to improve the quality of that education. Reports with catchy and compelling titles continue to roll off the presses with increasing regularity at international, regional, and local levels. Examples of these titles are: "Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology," "Physics at the Crossroads," and "UNESCO Declaration on Higher Education." The reports, in turn, have generated lively and vibrant discussions in the literature of just about every discipline. Most important is not the quantity, but is the focus of this new round of debate; an emphasis on issues central to our own mission as architectural educators that simply involves the development of research skills and critical thinking abilities through active learning, while imbibing values in future graduates who are capable of creating humane environments.

Full text

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
SKILL-BASED / KNOWLEDGE -BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES:
AN ARGUMENT FOR CREATING HUMANE ENVIRONMENTS
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
7th Intl Conference on Humane Habitat-ICHH-05 – The International Association of Humane Habitat IAHH
Rizvi College of Architecture, Mumbai, India, January 29-31, 2005
Dr. Ashraf Salama
Associate Professor of Architecture, College of Environmental Design, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals-KFUPM
KFUPM, Box 848 – Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
asalama@kfupm.edu.sa
Abstract
This paper argues for a more responsive architectural pedagogy that enables future
architects to create humane environments and that emerges from and responds to societal,
cultural, and environmental needs. A critical analysis of a number of thematic issues is
provided to delineate the gaps between skill-based and knowledge-based pedagogies in
the educational process of architecture. The paper provides a number of scenarios that
help bridge these gaps while integrating knowledge contents necessary for creating
humane environments
PREAMBLE
Debates on higher education assert that a university mission should foster a campus environment that
nurtures exploration, enlightenment and critical thinking among all students. Inquiry, investigation, and
discovery are now viewed as activities central to undergraduate programs. These debates present
new opportunities for us as academics to strengthen our programs, to enhance our role in shaping
undergraduate education, and to improve the quality of that education.
Reports with catchy and compelling titles continue to roll off the presses with increasing regularity at
international, regional, and local levels. Examples of these titles are: “Shaping the Future: New
Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology,”
“Physics at the Crossroads,” and “UNESCO Declaration on Higher Education.” The reports, in turn,
have generated lively and vibrant discussions in the literature of just about every discipline. Most
important is not the quantity, but is the focus of this new round of debate; an emphasis on issues
central to our own mission as architectural educators that simply involves the development of
research skills and critical thinking abilities through active learning, while imbibing values in future
graduates who are capable of creating humane environments.
Architectural education, as one of the distinctive branches of education, requires the development of
creative capabilities. The primary concern of architects is to produce three dimensional space and
form to accommodate related human activities. Like other types of education, architectural education
conveys, conserves, and transmits the values of the profession and society at large. The position of
this author is that humane environments are those that enhance, celebrate, and support human
activities, those that reflect behavioural and cultural norms defined by society, those that ultimately
integrate economy, ecology, and society into “Urbo systems,” or are simply those everyday
environments. Since humane environments are created in a field of tension between reason, emotion
and intuition, architectural pedagogy should be viewed as training toward the manifestation of the
ability to conceptualize, coordinate, and execute the idea of building rooted in humane tradition. This
mandates a comprehensive understanding of two different but related types of pedagogies in
architecture: skill-based and knowledge-based.
THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM
Recent years have witnessed a number of phenomenal and continuous changes in the structure of
contemporary societies, the emergence of housing problems and squatter settlements, the
deterioration of the built heritage, and the rising complexity of large structures and new building types.
While these phenomena continue to exist, demands for multiple types of knowledge are clearly on the
rise: knowledge of how to create better environments for poor societies; how to involve people
affected by design and planning decisions in the process of making those decisions, how to protect

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
the built heritage, how to deal with problems associated with special populations that form major
parcels of contemporary societies; the children, the disabled, the poor, and the under-represented. A
critical question can be posed here: Does current architectural pedagogy introduce these knowledge
types? A preliminary answer would be: Current architectural education still socializes its members into
a predominantly artistic paradigm that emphasizes personal feelings, intuition, imagination, and
subjective judgments at the expense of other paradigms capable of fostering the creation of humane
environments.
Other critical questions can be posed: Does the current system of architectural education place high
value on knowledge and research in architecture as an educational discipline and profession? Has it
responded to the dramatic changes of the profession? Has it responded effectively to the demands
placed in the profession by society? A preliminary answer to these questions would be: Architectural
education system still views its mission within the conventional perspective of architecture as an art
related discipline. Architecture in the past was concerned with producing individual works of art on
individual sites, where the method of design was intuitive and relied heavily on the experience,
judgment, and talent of the individual designer. Although this approach has resulted in some of the
most enduring noteworthy achievements of the previous generations, the profession and its education
today face severe challenges that threaten this traditional role of the architect. Physical development
of contemporary cities, towns, and communities corroborate that while architects manage individual
well enough the overall built environment is increasingly mismanaged.
THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT
In response to the preceding problematic concerns, this paper outlines a comprehensive
understanding of how architectural pedagogy can foster the development of skills and knowledge
necessary for creating humane environments, and how architectural pedagogy can enhance the
development of professionals who are socially, culturally, and environmentally responsive.
The idea of the paper is culled from a wide spectrum of issues the author has explored over a period
of two decades. However, it envisions five thematic critical issues that juxtapose traditional teaching
practices (skill-based) with new alternatives that invigorate the development of humane environments
(knowledge-based). Thematic issues are clustered around the following themes: paradigmatic shifts,
admission policies, knowledge contents, knowledge delivery methods, and studio teaching practices.
The discussions of these thematic issues are based on literature reviews and the results of a number
of surveys conducted by the author and others. The paper outlines a number of scenarios for
balancing knowledge-based and skill based pedagogies that are necessary for creating humane
environments.
ON PARADIGMATIC SHIFTS
In his manuscript, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn (1970) bases his theory of a scientific
revolution on paradigms that relate to rules and some necessary specifications of common ground in
the corresponding area. Along the same theory, De-Bono (1991) argues that a paradigm changes in
the way we think and approach problems. Based on the concept of paradigms, four shifts or shifting
attitudes about the environment can be identified (Salama, 1999 & 2002). The following is a brief
discussion of these shifts.
Things versus Relations between Things
According to Capra et al. (1992), the reductionism of the old paradigm was reflected in the belief that
the dynamics of the whole could be understood from the properties of the parts. But, in the new
paradigm, the properties of the parts can be understood only from the dynamics of the whole. John
Turner affirms this view when he argues that there are no parts at all, what we call a part is a pattern
in an inseparable web of relationships. Tracing back the literature that has been developed in the
sixties, one can find that this view has been introduced by Christopher Alexander (1966) who
identified three basic abilities for investigating and understanding the physical environment. These
are: a) the holistic behavior of the phenomenon which we are focusing on, b) the parts within the thing
and the interaction among those parts which causes the holistic behavior we have defined, and c) the
way in which this interaction among these parts causes the holistic behavior defined.
Taking housing as an example, this paradigm shift can be clearer. In the old paradigm, the value of
housing is assumed to be in the quantifiable attributes of dwellings, sometimes including their

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
immediate environments. In the new paradigm, housing values lie in the relationships between the
process, the product, the users, and the social and environmental contexts. In the old paradigm,
housing has been conceived in terms of what it is, rather than what it does for local populations and
the way in which people interact with built and natural environments (Turner, 1997). In this respect,
one can assert that by focusing on relationships the new paradigm converts the insoluble problems
into encouragingly practical tasks and promising ends.
Economy and Ecology: Isolation versus Integration
In the new paradigm, the concept of sustainability has emerged as a reaction to environmental
depletion and degradation. Many theorists are voicing the need to harmonize economy and ecology.
The old paradigm has been characterized by three basic assumptions: man is more valuable than
nature; man has the right to subdue and conquer nature, and has no responsibility for nature. On the
other hand, in the new paradigm the concept of sustainable development is conceived to value the
environment alongside economic development, and to value social equity alongside material growth.
In the new paradigm, the same technology that has been employed to conquer and subdue nature
needs to be employed for the benefits of nature and, in turn, for the long-term benefit of the human
race. It is believed that this characteristic of the new paradigm creates the need for mature and
competent professionals. Thus, the new sustainable society will need to identify non-material means
for non-material needs. In response, professional development will need to include the practice of
interdisciplinary and the practice of non-technical and lifelong learning skills.
Fight versus Fit with Nature: Techno-development versus Eco-development:
The difference between techno-development and eco-development is the difference between a
mechanical contrivance or tool and a living organism. Technology does not make built environments;
people make them. Techno-development is based on the modernist illusion of technological
determinism. It is an assault on nature. Eco-development is a package of concepts, ethics, and
programs that provides designers and planners a criterion of social and ecological rationality that are
different from the market logic (Sacks, 1987). It is rooted in the real need to fit human settlements
within the patterns of nature. Politically, eco-development is decentralized and democratic. Socially
and culturally, it reflects the diverse reality of human affairs and the tapestry of life, which makes
every portion of the built environment work well. Economically, it adopts the premise that economy
and ecology are both essentially to do with the flow of energy and materials through a system and
that value is a social construct.
Mechanistic Pedagogy versus Systemic Pedagogy
Based on conductive an inductive analysis of a number of studies (Schon, 1971; Ackoff, 1974;
Salama, 1991 & 1995), one can find that there is a strong evidence on the paradigm shifts in
education and pedagogy. Following the mechanistic paradigm, the educational process of
architecture is reduced to a large number of disconnected components. Education has been
decomposed into schools, curricula, grades, subjects, courses, lectures, lessons, and exercises. In
this respect, one can argue that formal education has never been treated as a whole, nor is it
appropriately conceptualized as part of a process much of which takes place within society; a
characteristic of the systemic paradigm.
The mechanistic orientation of pedagogy results in the treatment of students as if they were machines
with the combined properties and characteristics of tape recorders, cameras, and computers. The
student is evaluated with respect to his/her ability to reproduce what he/she has been told or shown.
In turn, examinations are tests of the ability to reproduce material previously presented to the
examined. They are designed to serve the system’s purposes rather than the students’ needs. In the
mechanistic paradigm, educators make little or almost no effort to relate the pieces of information they
dispense. A course in one subject does not refer to the content of another. This reinforces the concept
that knowledge is made-up of many unrelated parts. Inversely, the systemic paradigm focuses on
grasping the relationships between the parts of knowledge.
In the systemic paradigm, some alternative concepts have been introduced. These are exemplified
by: 1) some subjects are best learned by teaching them to oneself, 2) some subjects are best learned
by teaching them to others, 3) some skills are best learned through demonstration and instruction,
and 4) some fundamentals are attained in seminar discussions guided by one specialized in the
relevant area.

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
The preceding paradigm shifts delineate that the way we think about our environments has changed,
that the interdisciplinary thinking is now taking place, that economy and ecology should be integrated,
that eco-development in the very near future will definitely replace techno-development, and that the
systemic pedagogy is replacing the mechanistic pedagogy. These shifts delineate the need to
investigate how these concepts are introduced to our students, our budding professionals. Thus, the
question that should be raised at this point is: has architectural pedagogy responded positively to
these preceding paradigm shifts? The following thematic issues represent an attempt to answer this
question.
ON ADMISSION POLICIES
The discussion of admission policies as a theme within the context of skill-based and knowledge-
based pedagogies is to raise questions more than to provide answers. Architects receive their
education and training in hundreds of schools of architecture around the world. Practice is usually
locally regulated, sometimes licensed. The practice of architectural design education appears to be
remarkably similar in many parts of the world due to the overriding primacy given to the studio as the
main forum for exploration, interaction, and assimilation. Such similarity enables significant mobility of
architects among firms, areas of expertise and locales, even where cultural differences are dominant.
It is still far from clear how similarities and differences between schools of architecture affect the
experience and performance of graduates. Little is known about architecture students, and even less
about ways in which schools exercise control over their intake of students via admission criteria they
practice (Goldschmidt et al, 2000).
Tracing back the history of admission in schools of architecture, one can find three different
mechanisms adopted by the Beaux-Arts in France, the Bauhaus in Germany, and the Vkhutemas in
Russia. The Ecole des Beaux-Arts ran like a confederation of Ateliers. Each atelier had its distinct
character through the leadership of a patron, usually an accomplished architect. Students joined the
atelier where they are trained toward the entrance competition that consisted of three parts (Carlhian,
1979). The first two parts represented sketch problems, “Esquisse.” In the first part candidates were
asked to design a simple architectural structure using classical motifs. In the second, candidates were
asked to produce a large-scale accurate drawing of a decorative architectural element such as a
capital of column (Salama, 1995). The third part of the competition was a comprehensive written test
that examined the scientific knowledge of the candidate.
The Bauhaus and Vkhutemas adopted different policies. However, the focus was still on the skills
required for carrying out different art and design assignments. In the Bauhaus, proof of adequate
previous education was a determining admission factor to be complemented by what is called today
“Portfolio” for those who wish admittance as apprentices. According to Wingler (1981), candidates
with more experience could apply as journeymen or junior masters. In this case, they were required to
submit certificates of previously completed training in the crafts. The Vkhutemas implemented an
entrance exam policy where prospective students’ abilities in drawing, painting, modeling and
technical drawings were tested. Entrance exams were not mandated by constraints of the school
intake capacity as in the Bauhaus. According to Lodder (1985), they were meant to establish an
adequate threshold of preparedness.
While these schools have influenced architectural education worldwide with varied degrees, it would
appear that not much has changed as far as admission policies to architectural schools are
concerned. What has changed is the complexity and diversity of tools used to determine suitability
and appropriate performance. Eight admission criteria are now carried out by schools of architecture.
These can be exemplified by high school records; general scholastic aptitude tests; special
architecture aptitude tests; interviews; portfolios; essays; written statements; and letters of
recommendation. Table 1 illustrates an analysis of admission criteria adopted by over 100 schools of
architecture at the end of the 20th century.

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
Table 1: Admission criteria as adopted by 118 schools of architecture in different regions
* Survey results based on Goldschmidt et al (2000), in an unpublished manuscript, University of Delft, Netherlands
** Survey results based on a survey conducted by the author in 2001, in Architectural Education Today: Cross Cultural Perspectives (2002)
- A considerable number of schools utilize a combination of admission criteria
The results of the analysis reveal that some admission criteria are more dominant than others.
Emphasis is placed on high school records (93.2%). About 40 % of schools adopt a skill-based
aptitude test. While these numbers cannot be generalized, the different admission policies that
emerged from the analysis reflect a sustained emphasis on the skills needed for enrolment while
knowledge and critical thinking abilities of applicants as they relate to the built environment appear to
take a back seat. By and large, admission policies reflect the tendencies of most schools of
architecture to emphasize skills in drawing and form manipulation, an aspect of architectural
pedagogy that continues to be emphasized throughout the duration of study in schools at the expense
of other pedagogical aspects and learning outcomes.
Some responsive attempts are now taking place to balance the two categories in entrance tests and
exams. One example to address in this context is the approach adopted by Rizvi College of
Region
Country
Schools Responded
High school Records
Aptitude Tests
Special Exams
Interview
Portfolio
Essay
Statement
Letter of Recommendation
Africa Egypt ** 22 22 5 0 0 0 1 1 0
Nigeria ** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sudan ** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Africa ** 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0
Asia Bahrain ** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
India * 3 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
Israel * 4 4 3 4 2 1 0 0 0
Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia ** 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Kuwait ** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oman ** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thailand * 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
United Arab
Emirates ** 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Europe. W. Belgium * 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denmark * 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
Finland * 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Netherlands * 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spain * 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sweden * 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Switzerland * 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
UK * 5 5 3 0 3 4 0 3 2
Europe. E. Poland * 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Slovakia * 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
North America Canada * 3 3 0 0 1 2 1 0 1
USA ** 44 41 37 2 8 22 9 4 9
Oceania Australia * 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Zealand * 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
South America Bolivia * 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Costa Rica * 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Guatemala * 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total Nos.
Total %
118
100
110
93.2
58
39.2
20
16.9
22
18.6
35
29.7
11
9.3
8
6.8
12
10.2

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
Architecture in Mumbai. While the first part of the exam heavily emphasizes the students’ abilities in
drawing and conceptualizing spaces, the second part of the exam measures the way in which
applicants can critically understand issues that pertain to the city and its underlying social, cultural,
and human elements. Another approach is adopted by Misr International University in Cairo where an
aptitude test is developed in a manner that reflects students understanding of three dimensional
objects while at the same time it tests students’ backgrounds of art and architecture and their
understanding of the environment in which they live.
While the preceding analyses shed light on some tendencies toward admission policies, the impact of
those policies on the performance of students in schools and after graduation, and on their skills and
knowledge needed for creating humane environments represent that challenge. Now very little is
known about the success or failure of admission criteria and the way in which they may shape the
attitudes of future architects to understand the true meaning of humane environments. Concomitantly,
more in depth studies are urgently needed.
ON KNOWLEDGE CONTENT
In many parts of the world architectural education is accused of being largely unconcerned with the
creation of human environments and with the debates and trends raised by the international
community. Testing this hypothesis requires tracing two major paradigmatic trends: environment-
behavior studies and sustainability and environmental consciousness as major areas of architectural
curricula that may provide insights toward understanding of and dealing with humane environments.
There is in fact a great deal of discussions in design and architecture circles on these trends, and
widely varying opinions as to why and how they need to be introduced in architectural curricula.
Taking the Middle East as an example, an investigation of 14 programs in 8 countries was conducted
based on literature reviews and preliminary content analysis of the online and printed prospectuses.
While this study is still under analysis (Salama, and Amir, 2005) a preliminary investigation reveals
several results that are outlined below and illustrated in Tables 2 and 3.
Environment-Behavior Studies
• In 14 architectural programs in 8 Middle Eastern countries 29 environment-behavior related
courses are offered under different titles; of these there are 24 offerings within the core curriculum
while 5 are offered as elective courses. Philosophy statements and objectives refer to human
environment interactions. Most programs offer at least one course that covers the dialectic
relationship between culture, human behavior, and the built environment. The highest no. of
courses is noticed in the curriculum of King Faisal University and Misr International University
where each offers five mandatory courses as shown in Table 2.
• While environment-behavior paradigm appears to be well articulated in some programs, it
appears that it did not reach a mature level in others. The architectural program at the University
of Bahrain offers three elective courses but does not introduce any in the core curriculum.
Environment-behavior issues appear not to be of concern at Beirut Arab University, Damascus
University, and Sultan Qaboos University where no offerings exist either as core or elective
courses.
• Architectural programming is addressed explicitly in the titles and course contents in the
curriculum of Aleppo University, American University of Beirut, Kuwait University, and three Saudi
universities. On the other hand, post occupancy and facility performance evaluation are heavily
emphasized in the curriculum of King Faisal University, United Arab Emirates University, and
three Egyptian universities. In some cases, these issues are introduced under research and
design methods titles. One striking observation is that some programs realize the value of design
research to undergraduate architecture students as in the cases of King Faisal University, Misr
International University, and United Arab Emirates University where research methods is offered
as a mandatory course.
• While the contents of environment-behavior courses seem to address the balance between
theories as abstract knowledge and the contextual particularities of the local context, it is evident
that studio description in all the programs does not indicate whether knowledge delivered in a
lecture format is integrated into design assignments in the studio. Thus, it can be argued that
knowledge contents are offered in a fragmented fashion.

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
Table 2: The status of environment-behavior related courses in 14 schools/departments of architecture from the
Middle East.
Country
University
Environment-Behavior Related Courses
Bahrain University of Bahrain • Visual Perception (elective)
• Behavioral Factors in Architecture (elective)
• Research Methods in Architecture (elective)
Egypt Al Azhar University • Human Sciences and Architecture
• Design Methods and Theories
Cairo University • Human Sciences and Architecture
• Scientific Methods and Decision Making
• Design Methods
Misr International University- MIU • Human factors in Design
• Research Methods in Architecture & Urban
Design
• Design Methods and Theories
• Applications of Socio-Behavioral Studies in
Architecture
• Community Design Studios
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals-
KFUPM • Man and Built Environment
• Senior Project Programming
• Socio-Cultural Factors in Design (elective)
King Faisal University- KFU • Design Methods I
• Design Methods II
• Design Methods III
• Research Methods
• Research and Programming
King Saud University- KSU • Man and Built Environment
• Programming of Architectural Projects
Kuwait Kuwait University • Human Environmental Factors
• Professional Practice I: Pre-design &
Programming
Lebanon American University of Beirut- AUB • Architectural Programming
• Sociology of Cultural Production (elective)
Beirut Arab University • --------------------------------------------------
Oman Sultan Qaboos University • --------------------------------------------------
Syria Aleppo University • Architectural Programming
Damascus University • ----------------------------------------------------
United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates University- UAEU • Design and Research Methods
Sustainability and Environmental Consciousness
• Within the sample investigated, there are only 17 courses that address sustainability and
environmental consciousness paradigm in their content; of these there are 12 courses offered
within the core curriculum while 5 courses are offered as electives as shown in Table 3.
Philosophy statements and objectives of programs refer to relating design artifacts to the natural
environment. However, it is noticed that this is not reflected in most of the programs, course
contents, or even in elective offerings. Although it was expected that the more technical oriented
programs under engineering colleges would have more offerings addressing ecological principles
of sustainable design than other programs, the analysis reveals the opposite.
• Although reference is made to regional conditions in program structures, the terms sustainability,
sustainable development, ecological design, eco development, humane environments did not
appear at all in the course titles or descriptions. It should be noted that similar terms do exist such
as “energy conservation” as in the case of the University of Bahrain, Cairo University, Misr
International University, and Kuwait University; “ecological analysis” as in the case of King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, or “eco-system” as in the case of King Faisal University.
• While programs at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals and United Arab Emirates
University offer one mandatory course that relates environmental concerns to the local context
namely “hot-arid regions,” climatic issues are addressed in very generic terms at Aleppo
University, Beirut Arab University, Damascus University, King Saud University, and Sultan

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
Qaboos University. This takes place under the heading of “climate and architecture,” where
discussions are centered on physical aspects at the expense of understanding their impact on
people and the way in which they use the environment.
• The program of the American University of Beirut does not offer any mandatory courses that
address sustainable design issues. However, up-to date terms appear in the electives: “energy
and sustainable architecture, and intelligent building” though offered in abstract terms without
reference to the local environment. Al Azhar University did not go beyond environmental controls
issues since no offerings exist.
Table 3: The status of sustainability and environment related courses in 14 schools/departments of architecture
from the Middle East.
Country
University
Sustainability and Environmental
Consciousness Related Courses
Bahrain University of Bahrain • Climatic Architecture
• Energy Conservation in Buildings (elective)
Egypt Al Azhar University • ----------------------------------------------
Cairo University • Environmental Design, Planning and
Energy Conservation (elective)
Misr International University- MIU • Appropriate Building Technology
• Energy Conservation in Architecture
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals-
KFUPM • Design Determinants in Arid Regions
• Ecological Analysis (elective)
King Faisal University- KFU • Eco-system in Islamic Traditions
King Saud University- KSU • Climate and Architecture
Kuwait Kuwait University • Solar Energy in Buildings
Lebanon American University of Beirut- AUB • Energy and Sustainable Architecture
(elective)
• Intelligent Building (elective)
Beirut Arab University • Climate and Architecture
Oman Sultan Qaboos University • Climate and Architecture
Syria Aleppo University • Climatic Architecture
Damascus University • Climate Architecture
United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates University- UAEU • Architecture of Hot Arid Zones
ON KNOWLEDGE DELIVERY METHODS
While architectural educators strive to impart the requisite knowledge necessary for successful
practice, the way knowledge is transmitted has significant professional and social implications.
Concomitantly, there is an urgent need to confront issues that pertain the nature of reality “WHAT”
and the way knowledge about that reality is conveyed to our budding professionals “HOW”. Common
teaching practices suggest that gaps exist between the “WHAT” and “HOW”. A set of idiosyncrasies
and misconceptions can be envisioned (Anthony, 1991; Boyer and Mitgang, 1996; Cuff, 1991; Koch et
al, 2002; Salama, 1995, 1998, 2002; Sanoff, 2003; Schon, 81, 83, 85, 1988; Stamp, 1994; Teymur,
1996):
• Artistic versus Socio-Cultural Paradigms: The current system of architectural education tends to
socialize its members—teachers and students--into a predominantly artistic paradigm that
emphasizes personal feelings, subjective judgments, intuition, and imagination at the expense of
social and professional responsibilities. In order for future architects to function within cultural
contexts and address societal realities and understand the true meaning of humane
environments, the socio-cultural paradigm should be introduced. In essence, this requires the
development of students’ skills that go beyond the capacity of the artistic paradigm. The intention
is to add and develop, not to replace or omit.
• The Real versus the Hypothetical: Educators tend to offer students hypothetical experiments in
the form of hypothetical design projects where many contextual variables are neglected. In this
respect experiential and action learning should be introduced. Real life experiences can provide
students with opportunities to understand the practical realities and different variables affecting

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
real-life situations. Typically, educators focus on offering students ready-made interpretations
about the built environment rather than developing their abilities to explore issues that are
associated with the relationship between culture and the built environment. When they do, they
place emphasis on one single culture, which is their own.
• Science as Body of Knowledge versus Science as a Method of Exploration: When teaching any
body of knowledge, educators tend to present it as a body of facts and theories and as a process
of scientific criticism. The processes that led up to this product are always hidden and
internalized. There should be a distinction between the types of knowledge resulting from
research in architecture and student should be made aware of them and experience them as well.
First, knowledge results from research that seeks to understand the future through a better
understanding of the past; research that tests accepted ideas. Second, knowledge results from
research that develops new hypotheses and visions; research that probes new ideas and
principles which will shape the future.
• Learning Theories about the Phenomena versus Getting the Feel of the Behavior of the
Phenomena: Knowledge is usually presented to students in a retrospective way where abstract
and symbolic generalizations used to describe research results do not convey the feel of the
behavior of the phenomena they describe; the late Donald Schon emphasized this view. The term
retrospective here means extensive exhibition of the performance of the work of an architect over
time. There should be an understanding of the parts within the phenomena and the interaction
among those parts, which causes the holistic behavior. In this context, the analysis of precedents
as part of the curriculum should be introduced. How projects were created and in what context,
what the client nature and intentions were, how the project was delivered, and how construction
was undertaken are integral parts of learning. The story telling attitude tends to ignore these
issues.
• Knowledge versus Design: The architectural design studio—the backbone of architectural
education—rarely includes any research activity, based on the view that the content of design
should be directed toward practical ends. It can be argued in this context that knowledge is not a
substitute for architectural imagination but inadequate knowledge would handicap the general
level of design. Being satisfied to manipulate formal configurations does not provide insights into
the human experience. If the different types of knowledge which architecture requires are ignored,
the profession will lose its credibility in the eyes of society. Simply, different types of knowledge
should be integrated with design assignments.
ON STUDIO TEACHING PRACTICES
A continuous assessment of traditional studio teaching practices is carried out by this author based on
surveys, reviews, interviews, and practice. This assessment process has resulted in a number of
crucial issues-- stated in the literature-- that are integral to contemporary studio teaching. Such
issues are classified into two categories; negative tendencies and positive attitudes—as outlined in
Tables 4 and 5, each of which is decomposed into two components that represent the overall studio
teaching approach. The two components are: the design process in the studio and the teaching style
adopted by the studio director. This classification is based on the fact that the processes and
procedures applied in the studio are governed by the way in which studio assignments are delivered
in terms of content and key issues. On the other hand, instructors tend to approach each design
assignment with a collection of ideas and techniques that, when coordinated, become a teaching style
that is influenced by the route taken in the studio.
While the assessment corroborates very alarming negative tendencies and shortcomings, a number
of positive attitudes are observed. By and large, the results reveal a growing interest and awareness
of the importance of addressing the process as an integral component of studio teaching pedagogy,
and of addressing the interaction with social and cultural issues, community groups, and with real life
situations.

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
Table 4: Negative tendencies resulted from a preliminary assessment of architectural design pedagogy.
Category Author Negative Tendencies
Design
Process in
the Studio
Kay J 1975
Watson D 1993
Watson D 1993
Weber C 1994
Salama A 1995
Salama A 1995
AIAS 2003
AIAS 2003
• The process of problem definition is crucial and needs to be addressed in the studio
• Design experience is limited to concept formation and schematic design
• Students have insufficient opportunity to attain the ability to explore the nature of design
• Design studios place an emphasis on the finished presentation of a sketch design rather
than the route taken in the studio
• Design instructors focus on the how of design although what and why of design are
unavoidable components in the design process of a real life project
• Although many architectural educators believe that research should be introduced in the
design studio, a large number of them do not have a clear definition of research, and
how to introduce it in the studio
• Students work side by side, but alone, often guarding their ideas from each other,
competing for the attention of the studio critic
• The synthetic processes of design in which negotiation and collaboration are most critical
and difficult, are limited to individual efforts
Teaching
Style Schon D (80s)
Cuff D 1991
Anthony K 1991
Weber C 1994
Seidel A 1994
Salama A 1995
AIAS 2003
• The design studio assumes the mastery of the instructor and the student has to believe
in the power of the instructor
• The design studio focuses on individualistic work eventhough the profession of
architecture is a result of group work and a collaborative effort
• Evaluating students performance encourages the view of architecture as a result of
individualistic effort
• The pivotal ritual of the studio is the desk critique, since it is based on the assumption
that teachers know how to design and how to respond to particular problems
• Design instructors are not clear about their studio goals or objectives and will change
them right up from the beginning of the studio and during the assessment process
• Design instructors tend to consider teaching practice to be an intuitive process based on
subjective view points and personal feelings
• Current studio culture rewards students with the best looking projects
Table 5: Positive attitudes resulted from a preliminary assessment of architectural design pedagogy.
Category Author Positive Attitudes
Design
Process in
the Studio
Simmons G 1978
Sanoff H 1979
Sanoff H 1979
Robinson J 1983
Robinson J 1983
Goldschmidt G 1983
AIAS 2003
• The process emphasizes acquiring knowledge while producing design alternatives
• The process encourages group discussion for identifying design intentions
• The process focuses on transforming behavioral information into architectural form
• The process is to explore design rather than to simply reach a solution
• The process represents the programming phase as a crucial part in the studio
• The process includes information gathering and defining imperatives as primary steps
• The ability to serve design as a process serves a graduate for a lifetime
Teaching
Style Simmons G 1978
Sanoff H 1979
Sanoff H 1979
Goldschmidt G 1983
Ledewitz S 1985
Davis H 1983
Wendler W 1983
Penny T 2003
Habraken J 2004
• The style is based on self and peer evaluation.
• The style focuses on individual and group activities
• The style permits learning about the process of change in a dynamic environment
• The style is based on instruction and reaction modes of thinking
• The style is based on teaching students how to differentiate relevant from irrelevant
information
• Students’ individual differences are a major concern
• Integrating knowledge generating ideas into design should be part of the everyday
practices in the studio environment
• If we want professionals to be confident contributing leaders in society, we should take
every care in making sure that the educational system encourages confidence (not
defensiveness), empathy (not self centeredness), and team work (not a star mentality)
• We need to integrate knowledge about the everyday environment in design teaching
EPILOGUE: CREATING HUMANE ENVIRONMENTS AND THE SCENARIOS FOR
BALANCING KNOWLEDGE-BASED / SKILL-BASED PEDAGOGIES:
The preceding analysis of the five thematic issues convey that gaps exist in the formation of future
architects; gaps that are a direct result of the continuous reliance on skill based pedagogy while
knowledge based pedagogy continues to be ignored or oversimplified or continues to rely on other
disciplines. Knowledge about humane environments, the everyday environment in which lay people,
workers, employees, school children, and senior citizens live, work, learn, and entertain is even
viewed from a skill based perspective. Current admission policies, knowledge content and delivery

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
methods, and studio teaching practices corroborate the artistic side of architecture at the expense of
society-based or environment-based side of architecture. In his key note address to EAAE conference
in 2003, John Habraken argues:
“… We need to teach knowledge about everyday environment. How it is structured,
what we can learn from historic and contemporary evidence, how different examples
compare, how it behaves over time and responds to change of inhabitation or other
circumstances. Teaching architectural design without teaching how everyday
environment works is like teaching medical students the art of healing without telling
them how the human body functions. You would not trust a medical doctor who
does not know the human body. Knowledge of everyday environment must
legitimize our profession… (Habraken, 2003):
If the gaps between skill-based and knowledge-based architectural pedagogies be bridged then a
number of scenarios can be a proposed. While these scenarios do not provide answers to all the
concerns raised underlying the five thematic issues, they provide forms of panacea and represent
attempts at balancing and harmonizing skill-based and knowledge-based pedagogies in the
educational process of architecture.
• Thinking Globally and Acting Locally: The catch phrase of Rene Dubos who called for thinking
globally and acting locally should be introduced. Educators should provide students with
mechanisms through which they can see beyond their own space, time, and culture, and
understand the larger context and processes of human habitation. On the other hand, when they
encounter design problems they should be able to create concrete solutions for specific contexts
that have specific social structure.
• Reconciling Lectures and Studios: This scenario emphasizes the integration of theoretical
knowledge provided in the formal lecture into the process of making judgments in the studio.
Design should be grounded on theories that should be tested with respect to the problem at hand.
It should be conceived as a conversation between the materials of a given situation. In essence, it
is an “action-reaction” activity where action is the process and reaction is the investigation of the
result. The curriculum policy needs to encourage the incorporation of knowledge in different
learning settings.
• Utilizing the Built Environment as an Open text Book: It is critical to make students of architecture
aware of the fact that the built environment is designed to enhance and support human activities,
and celebrate a desirable human behavior. By implementing the experiential learning model,
students can learn through their urban experience. A wide spectrum of activities can be
introduced to implement this approach, ranging from walkthrough evaluation exercises to
presenting movies in order to illustrate how actors interact with the built environment.
• Developing Students Abilities to Search and Think Critically: An emphasis needs to be placed
upon research, how it is conducted, how to use its findings in design. Cross case analyses linking
between different local and international experiences are critical in this respect. Students’ skills
should be developed in a manner that allows them to comment, criticize, and debate international
experiences, and about the role of architecture in enhancing or inhibiting cultural and behavioral
attitudes. Immersing students in studying and designing in the local context only has not proved to
be a panacea for understanding the local problems. Critical thinking abilities are a key to this
understanding.
Environmental Evaluation as a Strategy for Acquiring Knowledge in the Studio
Evaluation research is intended to provide reliable and valid information to those who make decisions
about the environment. Evaluation studies, in this sense, are intended to provide a knowledge base
for improving the quality of decision-making. Evaluation belongs to the concept of values, where
feelings, attitudes and beliefs are employed as a frame of reference.
The evaluation of existing environments provides architecture students in the design studio with
insights into variations in the quality of different environments. It offers students the ability to identify
emerging cultural problems and societal needs. Students can identify the adequacy of an existing
environment and can conceptualize ways to renovate, rehabilitate and upgrade. Evaluation, as a

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
strategy for acquiring knowledge in the design studio, provides feedback, systematic learning from
past experiences and guidance for the future.
Evaluation is a feedback process that seeks to identify values, needs, and problems, goals and
objectives, and environmental domains, utilizing specific methods and tools for measurements.
Architecture students can be involved in the evaluation process before developing design solutions in
the studio. However, this process should be conducted objectively and systematically – not through
casual interviews or observation that may only reveal what is already known. Results of evaluation
can be utilized and integrated in the design development process. The most important question in this
process is what environment will be evaluated and what aspects should be taken into consideration.
The answer to this question lies in the nature of the project at hand, and objectives of the design
studio in which this process occurs.
Knowledge Acquisition and Developing Design Criteria
Developing design criteria in the design studio can be achieved by introducing the concept of
programming. Programming can be seen as an information processing system; it represents a source
for a systematized process that provides a structured framework for accumulating, categorizing and
classifying different types of knowledge necessary for design.
According to Sanoff (1992), programming, as an analytical process, encourages decision-making
through objective procedures rather than individual assumptions or personal preferences. Effective
programming depends on what types of knowledge are needed and on selecting the appropriate tools
of obtaining and documenting such knowledge. In this sense, programming is a process of
investigating and developing information, and analyzing clients/users’ needs and concerns. There are
four distinct stages of programming that can be introduced in the studio. They are generic and apply
to all programming activities:
• Investigating the existing situation, where students are involved in a process of developing an up-
to-date profile,
• Defining needs and trends, where students are involved in a process of identifying current and
future opportunities and constraints,
• Generating solutions, where students are involved in a process of determining alternative ways of
meeting requirements, and
• Resolving needs and resources, where students are involved in a process of selecting and
documenting the design solution that is most direct and feasible.
The programming process involves serial and holistic modes of thinking about the design problem. It
involves serial thinking because each step leads to another, culminating in space specification. It also
involves holistic thinking because the sequence of the steps requires simultaneous tasks, repetitive
cycles and feedback.
Participatory Architecture: A Knowledge Tool in the Studio
Introducing the concept of participatory architecture in the architectural design studio seeks to
empower students to better understand the physical and social environment, to appreciate it and to be
able to make decisions about it. It attempts to demystify the process of design through its inclusion of
non-designers. In this sense, it returns architecture to its former position of being an expression of
society, and arising from within it.
User participation as a research tool in the studio goes beyond published literature and interviews to
explore issues and needs comprehensively and specifically for each unique situation. It fosters
sensitivity in the student to listen to the clients and users, and to be able to filter the relevant
information necessary for designing. Collaboration is one of the important factors that participation
relies on. In this regard, participation harnesses collaboration toward the making of a coherent
architectural product. Participation is, hence, seen as a philosophy that should be internalized by
students to be better prepared for professional practice.
There are several strategies for introducing the concept of participation in the architectural design
studio:

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
• One strategy can be exemplified by allowing students within a studio group to play different roles.
The students can act as clients, users, and designers. They can review each other to introduce a
layer of evaluation different from and equally influential to self-evaluation. The design instructor
could also play one of the roles needed to simulate a real life situation. Interdisciplinary design
studios, that include students from different disciplines related to the design field, are beneficial
since such studios replicate the professional environment, where a group of specialists will
collaborate to create a coherent design solution.
• The best strategy for stimulating participation lies in offering students the opportunity to interact
directly with real clients and real users. Community design development centers provide one of
the few links between architectural education and society. Such centers provide invaluable
experience to students and offer design services to the community.
SUMMARY
The intent of this paper has been to critically analyze the relationship between skill based and
knowledge architectural pedagogies. Paradigmatic shifts, admission policies, knowledge content and
delivery methods, and studio teaching practices have been identified as thematic issues that put this
analysis into focus. The analysis conveys a continuous emphasis on the skills required for successful
practice while the acquisition, assimilation, and the production of knowledge often take a back seat. A
more effective integration of humane environments as a form of knowledge into the teaching practice
of architecture is proposed by introducing a number of scenarios that involve real interaction with the
everyday environment, integrate different fragments of the curriculum, and foster critical thinking and
understanding the environment. The scenarios have attempted to incorporate the type of knowledge
necessary for creating humane environments. Within these scenarios environmental evaluation,
architectural programming, and participatory architecture have been introduced to delineate the
balance and harmony of the skill-based and knowledge-based pedagogies that are crucially needed
in the architectural education of the future.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. New York, NY: John Wiley
Alexander, C. (1966). Systems Generating Systems. Systemat (1). Los Angeles, California
Anthony, K. (1991). Design Juries on Trial.: The Renaissance of the Studio. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Boyer, E. and Mitgang, L. (1996). Building Community: A new Future for Architectural Education and Practice. Ewing, NJ: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
BCEURU-Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate
Education: A blueprint for America's Research Universities.
http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/webform/images/$File/boyer.txt
Capra, F., Steindle-Rast, D., Matus, T. (1992). Belonging to the Universe: New Thinking about God and Nature.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books
Carlhian, J. P. (1979). The Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Journal of Architectural Education. Vol. 33 (3). PP. 7-17.
Cuff, D. (1993). Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Bono, E. (1991). I am Right, You are Wrong. London: Penguin Books.
Gerlenter, M. (1988). Reconciling Lectures and Studios. Journal of Architectural Education. Vol. 41 (2). PP. 46-52.
Goldschmidt, G. et al (2000). Who Should Be a Designer? Controlling Admission into Schools of Architecture. Unpublished
Research, Delft, Netherlands: University of Delft.
Habraken, J (2003). Questions the Will not Go Away: Some Remarks on Long Term Trends in Architecture and their Impact on
Architectural Education. Keynote Speech: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Association of Architectural
Education-EAAE. Hania. PP. 32-42.
Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T., and Smith, D. Eds. (2002). The Redesign of Studio Culture. Studio Culture Task Force.
Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architecture Students.
Lodder, C. (1985). Russian Constructivism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Salama, A. (1995). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio. Raleigh, NC: Tailored Text and
Unlimited Potential Publishing.

Dr. Ashraf Salama, ICHH – 2005
SKILL-BASED- KNOWLEDGE - BASED ARCHITECTURAL PEDAGOGIES: An Argument for Creating Humane Environments
Salama, A. (1995). Teaching Environmental Design: Cross Cultural Study. . Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the
Environmental Design Research Association-EDRA: Cambridge, MA.
Salama, A. (1998). A New Paradigm in Architectural Pedagogy: Integrating Environment-Behavior Studies into Architectural
Education teaching Practices. In J. Teklenburg, J. Van Andel, J. Smeets, and A. Seidel (Eds.), Shifting Balances: Changing
Roles in Policy, Research, and Design. Eindhoven, Netherlands: EIRSS Publishers. PP. 128-139.
Salama, A. (1999). Incorporating Knowledge about Cultural Diversity into Architectural Pedagogy. In W. O’Reilly (Ed.),
Architectural Knowledge and Cultural Diversity. Lausanne, Switzerland: Comportments. PP. 135-144.
Salama, A., O’Reilly, W. and Noschis, K. Eds. (2002). Architectural Education Today: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Lausanne,
Switzerland: Comportments.
Salama, A. and Amir, A. (2005). Paradigmatic Trends in Arab Architectural Education: Impacts and Challenges. Paper intended
for Publication and presentation at the International Congress of Architecture: The International Union of Architects-UIA:
Istanbul. Turkey.
Sanoff, H. (1992). Integrating Programming, Evaluation, and Participation in Design. England: Avebury.
Sanoff, H. (2003). Three Decades of Design and Community. Raleigh, NC: College of Design, North Carolina State University.
Schon, D. (1971). Beyond the Stable State. New York, NY: Random House
Schon, D. (1981). Learning a Language, Learning to Design. Architectural Education Study. Cambridge, MA: Consortium of
East Coast Schools of Architecture.
Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Schon, D. (1985). The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Tradition and Potentials. London, England: RIBA Publications.
Schon, D. (1988). Toward a Marriage of Artistry and Applied Science in the Architectural Design Studio. Journal of Architectural
Education. Vol. 41 (4). PP. 16-24.
Seidel, A. (1994). Knowledge Needs the Request of Architects. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the
Environmental Design Research Association-EDRA: St. Antonio, TX. PP. 18-24.
Stamp, A. (1994). Jungian Epistemological Balance: A Framework for Conceptualizing Architectural Education. Journal of
Architectural Education. Vol. 48 (2). PP. 105-112.
Teymur, N. (1996). City as Education: Habitat II Edition. London, England: Question Press.
Turner, J. F. (1997). The Role of the Professional. In R. Burgess et al. (Eds.) the Challenge of Sustainable Cities. London: ZED
Books
Wingler, H. M. (1981). The Bauhaus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals-
KFUPM. He extends his thanks to his colleagues that-- through continuous online and face to face
discussions-- contributed to the development of many ideas discussed in this paper.