Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond

Critical Analysis

In this text, the author critically analyzes the generally accepted concept of Reflective Practice in architectural design education, identifying that it is an incomplete (and even incorrect) picture of what happens (or should happen) during architectural teaching and learning. She provides alternative theories for viewing studio, including the arguments of Bourdieu’s habitus, Lave and Wenger’s peripheral participation, and Foucault’s understanding of micro-technologies of power. She concludes that Schön’s arguments for reflective practice are likely indicative of the time in which he was writing and studying, and should be considered as-such: a theory suitable for a moment in time, but not for an entire educational practice.

Schön’s view of reflective practice has become the “dominant ‘theory of practice’ for all professional and vocational education.” But this perspective is incomplete, for several reasons. First, Schön “fails to recognize that there are other cognitive, affective and corporeal dimensions that take place both within the design studio and in other settings.” Next, an architecture student’s education consists of a larger set of experiences, which are not considered in the theory of reflective practice.

Foucault offers a lens through which to view education that is at odds with that of reflective practice. Education, for Foucault, is institutionalized micro-technologies of power, and formal programs reproduce those technologies. These impact the whole of a student, and Foucault argues that the technologies act as a form of discipline—similar to what might be observed in the context of architectural education.

Schön’s perspective also ignores the idea of the discipline of architecture beyond the ability to create a building. In Webster’s earlier work, she noted that by visiting different cities with different forms of architecture, attending lectures, “spending long hours in studio, and living in houses with other architectural students,” students performed better than those who focused only on the skills of architecture; she concludes that “it appears that students who take a deep approach to learning by fully engaging with the world of architecture appear to gain an understanding of the culture of the discipline.” This is an example of Lave and Wenger’s theories on peripheral participation, which place value on “students’ freedom to develop individual identities” while becoming more integrated into the world of architecture.

Webster also critiques the single-direction of Schön’s theory of practice, where instructors provide a single solution to a student during the reflective-practice desk interaction. This is a transmission model of teaching, but more recent educational research has “provided evidence that transmission teaching is not an effective way to inculcate learning.” This is a push towards a single way of viewing the profession, but Schön fails to acknowledge the “powerful ‘hidden curriculum’ that socializes and acculturates students into the values (particularly aesthetic, motivational and ethical values) and practices (including language, deportment and dress) of the discipline.” Bourdieu’s view of habitus provides a better way of viewing studio.

The author summarizes the main critiques of the epistemology of architectural educational practice: Schön’s view ignores the “devices” that are in play directing learning, ignores non-cognitive aspects of learning, and does not recognize the structure of learning, and the way the structure imposes on the agency of learners.

Research Value

The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:

• Confirms alternative perspectives on studio that refute reflective practice as the only model
• Adds detail to an alternative or hidden pedagogy of studio