See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326723558

EFFECT OF STUDIO CULTURE ON ARCHITECTURE PEDAGOGY IN NIGERIAN

UNIVERSITIES

Article · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 40

2 authors, including:

Dunsin Ajulo
University of Newcastle
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dunsin Ajulo on 31 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 09(01):243–250 (2016)

EFFECT OF STUDIO CULTURE ON ARCHITECTURE PEDAGOGY IN

NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

Clement Oluwole Folorunso and Moromoke Oluwadunsin Ajulo

Federal University of Technology, Nigeria

Studio culture is an intrinsic part of architecture education and it goes a long way in determining the
type of architects the students become. It is the social part to architecture where students learn to relate
among themselves and with the lecturers. The trend of having a good studio culture has declined and
has become a concern to researchers. This paper examines the effects of studio culture on architecture
pedagogy. It reviews the literature on the subject, examines the myths guiding most architecture studios
and itemised effects of both the good and bad studio culture adopted by students on architecture
pedagogy in Nigerian Universities. It focuses on two Universities in the south west of Nigeria. Findings
show that the school with better students/studio space ratio merely use the studios as classrooms only
for lectures while their design works are done elsewhere thus limiting knowledge sharing and all the
indices of studio culture. The school with lesser studio space also do not differ in the usage of the
studios. Students and studios’ mentors share fundamental common studio values of respect,
engagement, optimism, knowledge sharing and ideas generation only when there is suitable
environments for such.

Keywords: Architecture, Culture, Mentor, Pedagogy, Student, Studio.

Introduction

A significant decline in the culture of learning in architecture is evident in the architectural institutions
around the world. An architecture design studio is the home of learning for architecture students and it is
where their various design and drawing activities are carried out. According to Sidawi (2013), the design
studio is the core of architectural education which involves a number of varied activities. A design studio
is very important components of any school of architecture and the manner with which activities are
carried out within the walls of the studio have lasting impacts on the performance of the students and their
confidence in practice after school.
The prestigious Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, France that operated the studio system laid the
foundation for architectural education. The studio tradition that started in Europe greatly influenced the
pattern of architectural education in America especially in the nineteen century. The study of architecture
came to Nigeria in the 1950s at the University of Ibadan with this same idea. The idea of the studio
system that was based on assigning design challenges to students enhanced the needed close monitoring
tutelage of students. This model increased the intensity of competition among students and thus leads to
the generation of exquisitely designed projects in traditional architectural vocabularies.
Culture is generally understood as being a way of life of a group of people. Architecture as a
profession has its beliefs, customs and way of life which is usually imbibed by architects in their


243
244 Effect of Studio Culture on Architecture ...

institutions of learning. These customs, beliefs and ways of life that are based on interaction between
students to students and students to lecturers or mentors are learnt in design studios and are referred to as
the studio culture. Rensselaer (2015) stated that effective studio culture relies on open sharing of work
and thinking with a willingness to give, receive and respond to constructive criticism. Central to the
success of this manner of working is the dialogue between students within and across the studios.
Teaching architecture as a subject of learning involves imbibing the culture of architects into the
students. McAllister (2010) mentioned that the real danger is the fact that students pay too much attention
to the end product that they ignore the development of essential design process skills. According to
Friedman (2003), the design process is necessarily in transition from art and craft to form of technical and
social science that focused on how to do things to accomplish goals. The absence of enough interactive
spaces in various universities design studios poses a threat on the learning and the practice of architecture.
Studio culture encourages dialogue, collaboration, risk-taken, innovation and a learning-by-doing
pedagogy (Cornell University 2009)
Studio culture is an intricate part of architecture education and the resultant effects of the studio
culture adopted in the institutions of learning of the professionalism of their products are not negligible.
The unchecked increase in the population of Nigeria is exacting enormous pressure on the universities in
term of students’ intake on yearly bases into architecture programmes. This paper examines the adequacy
or otherwise of existing studio spaces in two notable Nigerian Universities and some literature on the
understanding of studio culture, architecture pedagogy and the effect studio culture has on the learning
and teaching of architecture in the light of current realities.

Definition of Terms

Studio

A studio is a large physical space for drawing and designing and where learning and teaching activities
take place. Davies and Jokiemi (2008) defined a studio as a large spacious room for drawing at a school
of art or design. A studio can be for an artist, for educational purposes, pottery and production. Crowther
(2010) explained that within the design professions a studio is described as a physical space which is the
actual place in which the learning and teaching activities take place and also the mode of engagement that
is, as a pedagogical strategy. According to Zavari, et al (2015), design studios are often referred to as a
place that knowledge and skills from any area of specialization are integrated and applied. Design studios
universally apply the semi-structured learning strategy of experiential learning.

Culture

Merriam Webster dictionary defines culture as the beliefs, customs, arts of a particular, group, place or
time. People such as Tylor (1817) and O'Neil (2006) observed that culture is the full range of learned
human behaviour patterns. Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law,
morals, custom, and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a society. Culture is the
social aspect of being which influences and defines human behaviour and way of life. Since culture is
learnt, architects being who they are should be trained in accordance to a particular pattern.

Studio Culture

Studio culture is characterised by the myths it perpetuates. These myths influence the mentality of
students and promote certain behaviours and patterns in the students. Abdullah et al., (2011) agreed that
these myths influence the mentality of students and promote certain behaviours and patterns. There's this
romantic notion that staying up all night needs to be part of architecture student’s life; a 100 percent
 Clement Oluwole Folorunso and Moromoke Oluwadunsin Ajulo 245

dedication and sacrifice to design. Or the best students are those who spend the most number of hours at
studio. Studio culture is the pattern of learning in an architecture studio that integrates critical discourse
and creative thinking (Koch, Schwennsen, Dutton, Smith, 2002)

Studio Pedagogy

This is a method of teaching that enhances interaction among students. It promotes problem-based
learning and learning by participating or doing. The Oxford dictionary defines pedagogy as the method
and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept. Dutton (1996) defines
pedagogy as all those practices that define what is important to know, how it is to be known, and how this
production of knowledge helps to construct social identities. These social identities are better shared
among students and between students and mentors in a studio where interaction is enhanced.

The Culture of the Architectural Studio

The architectural studio can be referred to as the grooming place of architecture students. Design studio
teaches critical thinking and creates an environment where students are taught to question all things in
order to create better designs. (Koch, Schwennsen, Dutton, Smith, 2002). Students in architecture studios
work in close proximity and the environment is intensively socialised which leads to informal
collaboration among students. Gross and Du (1997) believed that collaboration is assumed to be
fundamental to design practice and is often incorporated as a requirement for the course. Farivarsadri,
(2001) stated that the design studio is a very suitable place for the kind of education that challenges
student to take seriously their responsibility as moral citizens; to participate in the development of
conditions and critique that promote social transformation while uncovering and challenging the supposed
“naturalness” or “neutralness’” of the way things are. In its nature, studio education is mainly based on
communication between students and instructors, and student and students on one hand, and on the other,
on critical inquiry and criticism.
Wang, (2010) stated that all things considered, the culture of the design studio might be described as
a vital complex of material representation, social collaboration, creativity, emotionality, a tolerance for
uncertainty - If not outright confusion - balanced with a faith that meaningful designs will eventually
emerge.

The Sequence of Design Studio Pedagogy

Ameri (2008) divided the sequence of studios into three broad categories. The first category is Elemental
studios: The pedagogical goals of elemental studios may be summarized as learning; the language of
architecture, its formal elements and their expressive potential as well as learning how to speak this
language wilfully and effectively. The second category is the Analytical studios: the pedagogical goals of
the analytical studios may be defined as developing a thorough understanding of architecture as the
spatial dimension of culture, and buildings as ideological constructs. This entails learning how to design
in deference to specific ideologies or world-views. The third category is the Critical studios: The
pedagogical intent of these design exercises is twofold. The goal is to foster and further develop the type
of analytical skills essential to deciphering the complex relationship between architecture and the building
industry it perpetually serves. It is also the goal of these exercises to promote a conscious re-evaluation of
all the subconscious assumptions regarding spatial organization, the relationship of parts to whole, the
inside to the outside, the particulars of volume and mass, solid and void, path and place, structure and
material, ornamentation, proportion, scale, and others.
246 Effect of Studio Culture on Architecture ...

Effects of Studio Culture on Architecture Pedagogy

The effects of good studio culture are not farfetched on architecture students. A question then arises if
there are bad studio cultures. Fisher, (1991) observed that it is possible for architecture students to imbibe
bad studio culture. It was noted that architectural education based on the notion of survival and mere
degree acquisition should be an idea of the past. Dysfunctional behaviour had been observed to emerge in
some circumstances through studio culture. The effect of studio culture on students can be either negative
or positive (Abdullah et al., 2011). The responsibility lies on the design mentors to ensure that students
adopt and imbibe the right studio culture.
According to Koch et al (2002) and Abdullah et al. (2011), studio culture can also be characterized
by the myths it perpetuates. Some of the myths that guide most architectural studios are that:
x Architectural education should require personal and physical sacrifice
x The creation of architecture should be a solo, artistic struggle which is wrong in present day
realitieas
x The best students are those who spend the most hours in studio
x Design studio courses are more important than other architecture or liberal arts courses
x Success in architecture school is only attained by investing all of your energy in studio
x It is impossible to be a successful architect unless you excel in the design studio
x Students should not have a life outside of architecture school
x The best design ideas only come in the middle of the night
x Creative energy only comes from the pressure of deadlines
x The best design ideas only come in the middle of the night
x Creative energy only comes from the pressure of deadlines
x Students must devote themselves to studio in order to belong to the architecture community
x Collaboration with other students means giving up the best ideas
x It is more important to finish a few extra drawings than sleep or mentally prepare for the design
review
x It is possible to learn about complex social and cultural issues while spending the majority of time
sitting at a studio desk
x Students do not have the power to make changes within architecture programs or the design
studio
These myths apply to most schools of architecture all over the world whereas; they should not be
used as a determining factor for a good or bad student. Adaptation of these myths develops bad studio
culture in students. A good studio culture has the following effects on architecture pedagogy. They are:
I. Teaching students that the design process is as important as the product: These design-
thinking skills allow architects to build on their knowledge base and apply their abilities to an
infinite number of applications (Koch et al, 2002). A good studio culture should develop the
students with strong design-thinking processes.
II. Teaching students to understand the function of form: Studio culture teaches design students
two major issues concerning the form of a building; the social interaction and the navigability of a
building. (Schneider, et al, 2013).
III. Teaching students that collaboration is the art of design: Studio culture builds a strong
relationship between students and lecturers and helps the students to come up with better designs.
IV. Teaching students that design is an interdisciplinary art: It encourages the building of
connections, both within the architectural curriculum and between architecture and other
disciplines on campus among students. To achieve this is the single most important challenge
confronting architectural programs (Boyer and Mitgang, 1996). Architecture cuts across other
disciplines and this is a very important thing that studio culture teaches.
V. Teaching students’ hardwork: Studio culture encourages hardwork and promotes diligence
among students.
 Clement Oluwole Folorunso and Moromoke Oluwadunsin Ajulo 247

Case Study of Architecture Studios in Nigeria

Two Nigerian universities namely: Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) Ile-Ife and Federal University
of Technology, Akure were understudy in this paper. Both are located within the south western geo-
political zone of Nigeria. The sizes of the studios for each level were measured and compared with the
number of students that are using the studios during 2014/2015 academic session.
Table 1 presents the studios of the department of Architecture in the Federal University of
Technology, Akure (FUTA). From the table, Studio 2 is 108.135square meter with 112 students, an
average of 0.96m2 per student. Studio 3 is 97.2square meter with 98students, an average of 0.99m2 per
student. Studio 4 is also 90.63square meter with 104students, an average of 0.87m2 per student. Studio 5
is also 90.63square meter with113 design students, an average of 0.8m2 per student. The studio for the
masters’ students is 80.19square meter with 58students, an average of 1.38m2 per student. The available
space for each student shows that classes have to be divided into groups in order for the entire students to
assess the studios. These also imply that each student cannot have a permanent work station. The non-
availability of permanent work station according to Cornell University (2009) will hinder interaction
among students and mentors that in the finding of Demirbas and Dermirkan (2000) is the platform on
which design flourishes. It will also reduce the opportunity of students to share in, learn from and
contribute to one another’s work.

Table 1. Architecture Studios of the Federal University of Technology, Akure

S/n Studio name Studio size No of students

1 200 Level 8100 x 13350mm 112
2 300 Level 8100 x 12000mm 98
3 400 Level 7950 x 11400mm 104
4 500 Level 7950 x 11400mm 113
5 M TECH 6600 x 12150mm 58

Figures 1a and b. Federal University of Technology, Akure Architecture Studio

248 Effect of Studio Culture on Architecture ...

A steady increase in the number of students’ intake in the last couple of years which has now been
addressed by the school authority over stretched the carrying capacity of the studios. Although renewed
efforts are been made to expand existing facility, it is yet to be seen how this effort will impact on current
set of students. Although there are better drawing facilities, lack of enough spaces for movement and
flexibility as shown in figures 1a and b will hinder interaction and consequently reduce students’ interest
in using the studios. Students are seen crowding the only available space at one corner of the studio
however; no meaningful design can be achieved only through discussions without the opportunity of
practical action. Other complimentary facilities such as computers and computer tables are also not
provided for as seen in figures 1a and b. From this figure, it is obvious that students are forced to gather
around the inadequate illumination in the studio. It also suggests that since the studios cannot ensure even
minimum comfort for the students, they may find such studios uncomfortable to work in especially since
designs require long hours of serious concentration and hard work. This has diminished the studio culture
of interaction and peer learning that was bedrock of architectural education.
The physical measurements of the studios at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife (OAU) as shown
in table 2 indicate that Studio 1 is 148.8meter square with 45 students, an average of 3.3m2 per student.
Studio 2 is148.8meter square with 43students, an average of 3.46m2 per student. Studio 3 is of the same size
with studio 2 with the same number of students. Studio 4 is also of the same size with studio 2 but with
62students, an average of 2.4m2 per student. These studios’ individual spaces are sufficient enough to
accommodate all the activities of each student during design classes and after. The availability of this size of
space will promote sharing of thought, willingness to give and respond to constructive criticism (Rensselaer,
2015). Students will likely spend more time working and interacting in the studios in OAU than FUTA
because the students in OAU have the opportunity of having a space to them. In their spaces, they can create
private corners and also keep private belongings. The possibility of privacy for individual can promote or
decrease interaction (Demirbas and Demirkan, 2000) depending on the nature and stage of work of each
student and thus ensure the presence of large number of students in the studio at any given time.

Table 2. Architecture Studios of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife

S/n Studio name Studio size No of students

1 100 Level 18600 x 8000mm 45
2 200 Level 18600 x 8000mm 43
3 300 Level 18600 x 8000mm 43
4 400 Level 18600 x 8000mm 62

Figure 2 a and b. Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife Architecture Studios

 Clement Oluwole Folorunso and Moromoke Oluwadunsin Ajulo 249

Although the spaces are provided (as shown in figures 2a and b) in these studios, the current state of
facilities and drawing boards require a serious upgrade to enable them meet up with acceptable standard.
This accounts for the desertion of the studios which the students merely see now as a classroom. Each
work station lacks the needed complimentary computer since a combination of hand drawn and computer
aided design modules are taught in this school.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Interactive sections, sharing of ideas and criticism are parts of the learning process in architecture.
Maintaining a robust studio culture is an important part of architecture pedagogy and its effects cannot be
overemphasised. Culture imbibed in the studio can be good or bad depending on the social atmosphere
and the disposition of the mentors. A good studio culture increases the quality of graduates and their
professionalism in the outside world. It is expected that students and studios’ mentors share fundamental
common studio values of respect, engagement, optimism, knowledge and ideas. Stamps (1994) as cited by
Demirbas and Demirkan (2000) submitted that about one third to one half of the education time of a
design student is spent in the design studio. This suggests why the studio should provide a conducive and
liveable environment.
Institutions of learning should build up good studios that are large enough to accommodate all the
students at once. This will allow the students to work together, cross fertilize ideas and promote studio
culture among the students. These studios should be functional and properly equipped with minimum
comfort provided for each of the students' who as a matter of compulsion should have a defined space.
Where students are practising a bad studio culture such as noise making, abandonment of studios,
conversion of spaces for other purposes other than for learning should be corrected by the authorities.
Design mentors and lecturers are also expected to build a good relationship with the students to develop
their interest in working in the studio especially after classes.

References

1. Abdullah, N. A. G; Beh S. C; Tahir; M. M.; Che Ani A. I and Tawil, N. M. (2011) Architecture design studio
culture and learning spaces: a holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia
Social and Behavioural Sciences 15, 27–32
2. Ameri, A. (2008). Architecture Pedagogy, Cultural Identity, and Globalization. The International Journal of
the Arts In Society Vol. 2. www.Arts-Journal.com. Retrieved 29/04/2015.
3. Boyer, E. and Mitgang, L. (1996). Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education and
Practice. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
4. Cornell University (2009) Studio culture policy, Department of Architecture. Updated Fall, 2009. Students,
Faculty and staff handbook.
5. Crowther, P. (2010). Assessing architectural design processes of divergent learners. In Proceedings of the ATN
Assessment Conference: Sustainability, Diversity and Innovation, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW,
Australian Technology Network.
6. Davies, N. and Jokiemi, E. (2008). Dictionary of Architecture and Building Construction. ISBN: 978-0-7506-
8502-3.
7. Demirbas, O. O and Demirkan, H (2000) Privacy Dimension: A case study in the interior architectural design
studio, 20, 53-64
8. Dutton, T. (1996). Cultural studies and critical pedagogy: Cultural pedagogy and architecture. Reconstructing
Architecture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 158- 201.
9. Farivarsadri, G., (2001). A Critical View on Pedagogical Dimension of Introductory Design in Architectural
Education. Eastern Mediterranean University, Faculty of Architecture Department of Architecture,
Gazimagusa – T.R.N.C
10. Fisher, R. (1991). Patterns of Exploitation. Progressive Architecture.
 250 Effect of Studio Culture on Architecture ...

11. Gross, M. and Do, E. (1997). The Design Studio Approach: Learning design in Architecture Education.
Design Education Workshop, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
12. Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T., Smith, D. (2002). The Redesign of Studio Culture. A Report of the
AIAS (American Institute of Architecture Students) Studio Culture Task Force.
13. McAllister, K. (2010). The design process-making it relevant for students in design education: exploring
prospects for a better built environment. International journal of Architectural Research, 4, 76-89.
14. O'Neil, D. (2006). What is Culture?. www. palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm. Accessed 30/04/2015.
15. Rensselaer (2015). “The studio culture policy”. www.arch.rpi.edu/school/studio-culture/. Accessed on
30/04/2015.
16. Schneider, S., Kuliger, S., Holscher, C., Dalton, R., Kunert, A., Kulik, A., Donart, D. (2013). Educating
Architecture Students to Design Buildings from Inside Out: Experiences from a Research-based Design
Studio. Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax Symposium.
17. Sidawa, B. (2013). Design Studio Education to Foster Creativity: Influential Factors Revealed by a Case Study
of the University of Damman. International Journal of Archutecture, Engineering and Construction. 2, (4)
280-291.
18. Stamps, A. E. (1994). Jungian epistemological balance: A framework for conceptualizing architectural
education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48, 105-112.
19. Tylor, E., (1871). Primitive Culture.
20. Wand, T. (2010). “A New Paradigm for Design Studio Education”. NSEAD/ Blackwell Publishing Limited.
21. Zavari, S., Utaberta, N., Mohd Yunos, M., Ismail, N., Ismail, S. (2015). Pedagogical Framework Impact of
Join Design Studios. American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information. Advances in Environmental
Biology, 425-427

View publication stats