Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Application-Of-Kolb-S-Experiential-Lear 👈

1. Checking your Typeset Proof
Multi-Authored Papers
In the case of multi-authored papers, authors are advised to collaborate when checking
the typeset proof. One author should be nominated to either accept or submit corrections
on behalf of all of the authors of the paper.
We can only accept one set of revisions, or one acceptance of the typeset proof, from the
nominated author. Once an author approves the typeset proof further revisions may not be
requested.
Replying to us
After you review the typeset SURRIRXQHHGWRFOLFNRQWKHµ$XWKRU9HULI7SHVHW
3URRI¶EXWWRQ DYDLODEOHDWWKHOLQNRXGRZQORDGHGWKHWSHVHWSURRIIURP RXZLOO
then need to select the appropriate option to proceed.
Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof
To be selected when your paper is ready for publication
- Please thoroughly check the typeset proof before accepting it. You will not have
further opportunities to make additional changes after the typeset proof has been
accepted.
- Once you have accepted the typeset proof of your paper it will be ready to be
published. You will be notified when your paper has been published and given
instructions on how to access the published version.
Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof
To be selected when your paper requires corrections
- 3OHDVHVHHVHFWLRQRQµ'RFXPHQWLQJRXURUUHFWLRQV¶
- The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the
corrections have been completed you will be notified of the availability of a
revised typeset proof for your approval.
Bibliographical Details
Please note that full bibliographical details (issue and page numbers) will not be available
until final publication of your paper. Once your paper has been published you will be able
to obtain these details. We will notify you as soon as your paper is published.

2. Checklist for Reviewing the Typeset Proof
We recommend that you print the typeset proof and proofread it slowly and with great
care. Request that a colleague also proofread your paper as they may notice errors that
you may miss due to your familiarity with the content.
Remember to check your typeset proof for:
- Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations and tables
- Correct title and subtitle
- Correct authorship and order of authors
- Current affiliation details
- Heading levels
- Position and size of illustrations and figures
- Matching of captions to illustrations and figures
- Position of tables
- Presentation of quotes
- Presentation of equations
- Footnotes and footnote numbering
- Inclusion of acknowledgements
- References and reference style
- Typesetting or conversion errors
Please check the Journal Standard Style prior to requesting changes to style as we adhere
to standard presentation requirements for all papers to ensure consistency throughout the
Journal.
It is important that all of your corrections (and those of your co-authors if applicable) are
submitted to us in one communication.
Please note that careful proofreading is solely your responsibility.

3. Journal Standard Style
Order of the Paper:
1. Cover page
2. Copyright/imprint page
3. Paper: title/subtitle; author names with affiliation; abstract; keywords; body of
paper; acknowledgement (if applicable); reference list; appendix (if any); about
the author section
4. Journal colophon
Journal Standard Style:
Paper title/subtitle and all headings appear in Title Case whereby only definite
DQGLQGHILQLWHDUWLFOHV HJµWKH¶DQGµD¶ FRQMXQFWLRQV HJµDQG¶ DQG
SUHSRVLWLRQV HJµLQ¶µRI¶HWF appear in lower case.
No italics in titles and subtitles.
Affiliation of the author will include only the name of the author, university or
organization name and country. Honorifics are not included.
Abstract will appear in italics as a single paragraph.
No italics included in the keyword list.
No footnotes attached to title/subtitle, authors or the abstract.
The first paragraph of the paper will appear in floating style - first three words
appear in capital case and bold.
Footnotes within tables have separate numbering to that of the footnotes within
the paper.
Hyphenation cannot be altered.
No underline will be included.
Figure captions are centred below the figure. The figure number and caption
appear on the same line.
Table titles appear above the table, left justified, in bold. The table number and
table title appear on the same line.
About the Author section: The honorific will reflect in this section. Contact
details such as email addresses will not be included.

4. Documenting your Corrections
Changes to the Abstract
If you wish to make changes to the abstract of your paper please provide the revised
abstract either as a Word document (if there are also changes to the text), or by entering it
in the text box provided when you select Option 2.
Additional Authors
If you need to add a co-author we require the following information for each additional
author to be added:
1. Name of the co-author
2. Affiliation details
3. Email address of the co-author (Mandatory)
4. Short Biography (limit of 30 words)
5. Long Biography (limit of 200 words one paragraph only)
Corrections to Text
If you have changes to the text please complete these in the Word version of your paper
available at the link where you downloaded this PDF (or an existing word version). You
can then upload the revised document for typesetting by selecting Option 2.
Corrections to Style:
You will need to clearly indicate all corrections in the following manner:
1. Page Number - paragraph number - line number - correction to be made
eg:
1. Page 4 - last paragraph, line 4, please put a comma after Tom in the sentence Mary,
Tom, Jane and her friends...
The page number is the actual page of the PDF. As the paper has not been paginated yet,
no numbers appear on the pages.
Submitting Corrections
OLFNWKHµ$XWKRU9HULI7SHVHW3URRI¶EXWWRQ available at the link you downloaded the
typeset proof from) and select Option 2.
Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof
- Please upload the corrected Word document, or add your instructions for
corrections in the text box provided
- Note that you can only upload one document, and this document must contain all
of the corrections (and those of your co-authors if applicable).
The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the
corrections have been completed you will be notified of the availability of a revised
typeset proof for your approval.

5. Volume 5
Application of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory
to Teaching Architectural Design Principles
Badrinarayanan Srinivasan

6. ! # $
% ' ()** !$ ! + +
, $$ '
$$ ' # $
*-.. *-/0
1 ()** 2 ' 3 ' ! ! 4+ ! 2 4
1 ()** 2 # ! ' ' ! $! 4 $$ '
3 ' ! 5 $ 5! ' ! 5 5 ',+ ! # + # # $
3 ! $ ' ' ! #! # , ! + ! 5 6 $!,
' # ' , ! , # $ 5 $ %
$ ! ' 7 + ! # !#
8# 9# $$ ' # $:
3 '+ ' , # 5 # 5 # ' ! # ! 6 ! '
7 ! ! 3 # $$ ! ,+ ! , # ! 6 5 ! ! #
! ' 5 #! # '
, $$ ' ;! 6 ! ! $ # !
, , $
# $$ ' # $ 5 !

7. Application of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory to
Teaching Architectural Design Principles
Badrinarayanan Srinivasan, Pearl Academy of Fashion, New Delhi,
India
Abstract: Design studios of architectural schools in India conventionally use the ‘design project’ as
the primary vehicle of learning. The theoretical basis of this is ‘Problem-Based-Learning’ (PBL),
which assumes that if the ‘problem’ is solved, design principles are ‘learnt’ automatically, but this is
not true as a lot of the design knowledge remains ‘tacit’. Usually, the ‘Design-project’ is announced
in the beginning of the semester, with a project-brief and a site plan. A linear progression of ‘stage-
submissions’ is also announced—such as site analysis, program analysis, case studies, site zoning,
concept, sketch design, etc, leading up to the inal presentation. Each stage is graded separately.
Several problems have been observed with this linear sequence of design as a ‘learning tool’. The
students are unable to carry forward and integrate learnings from one stage to the next. They ind it
dificult to revisit some earlier design decisions which might qualitatively improve the design. Since
the feedback on each stage is usually only through marks, they often confuse ‘principle’ with ‘product’.
The system privileges a few ‘genius’ rather than ‘overall competence’ across the class. In response
to this, several experimental studios were conducted on a cyclical format of learning based on Kolb’s
Theory. The design problem was broken down into a series of smaller problems which grew from
simple-wholes to complex-wholes. Speciic tasks were devised to focus on speciic design issues and
to engage learners sequentially in all learning modes. The results, when compared to conventional
pedagogic sequence show that there is a signiicant increase in the overall student motivation, of un-
derstanding and integration of design principles, transfer and continuity of learning from one exercise
to the other, and overall competence levels across the class.
Keywords: Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory, Design Studio Pedagogy, Architectural Design
Principles
Theoretical Background
A
RCHITECTURAL EDUCATION IN India is built on the fundamental notion
that design is learnt in the design studio and that the theory subjects added to the
design skills go towards the making of the total architect. The design studio,
therefore, occupies a central place in the architectural curriculum. It is supposedly,
simultaneously a ‘site’ for gaining competence and proiciency in the discipline of architec-
ture, as well as a ‘method’ of exploring, testing and integrating all architectural knowledge.
Yet in actual practice design studios are rather erratic and inconsistent in delivering this
crucial promise. Some studios seem to ‘click’ while others lop. Both productive and unpro-
ductive studios are often conveniently ascribed to ‘good or bad’ teachers or students. There
is little attempt to arrive at an understanding of actual student learning.
The design studio has come in both for praise as well as criticism as a method of learning.
Donald Schon (1984), after a study of various professional courses, singled out the architec-
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal
Volume 5, 2011, http://www.Design-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1874
© Common Ground, Badrinarayanan Srinivasan, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

8. tural design studio for its eficacy of learning through ‘action’ and ‘relection on action’,
and rejected the notion that professional knowledge is a result of ‘basic science and theory’
being ‘applied’ to ‘practice’1
. In 1996, a report by Ernest Boyer and Lee Mitgang commis-
sioned by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Association of Collegiate Schools
of Architecture (ACSA) and the American Accreditation and Registration Boards, described
the design studio as indispensable to an integrated curriculum and lauded it for its interdis-
ciplinary nature 2
.
However, there have been doubts raised regarding the eficacy of studios in producing
professional architects. David Nicol and Simon Pilling (2000) argue that the isolation of the
studio, its disregard for pragmatic considerations, its promotion of the individual, and lack
of systematic development of communication and interpersonal skills disengage students
from working with the demands of various design participants in the professional setting,
such as working with the demands of users and statutory authorities 3
. These concerns have
also been voiced by many practitioners such as John Hartray (1984) who maintain that the
richness of design actually arises out of dealing with real constraints 4
.
There have been concerns in India regarding the ‘isolation’ of architectural education
from professional and other contexts. In an interactive discussion on architectural education
held in Delhi, academics, professionals, alumni and students expressed many shortcomings.
A. G. K. Menon (2002) summed up these opinions on qualities of a ‘good architectural
education’ as the following:
• It should cultivate critical thinking
• It should offer a deeper understanding of society and development processes
• It should provide a deeper understanding of architectural practice and how it relates to
other professions
• It should provide exposure to ‘real’ problems
• It should provide the basis for specialization (in other words the objective should not be
only to produce ‘design’ architects)
• It should allow for time to relect
• It should provide the basis for teacher learning/development
• It should provide good a relationship between studio and theory
• It should provide a good relationship between the school and the profession
• It should provide a good relationship between the school and local community 5
The UNESCO-UIA (International Union of Architects) charter on architectural education
describes the overall purpose of architectural education thus: 1. to produce competent, creative,
critically minded and ethical professionals, and 2. to produce good world citizens who are
intellectually mature, ecologically sensitive and socially responsible designers and builders.6
David Brain (2004) summarizes what the student must learn through architectural education
on the whole –“Architectural education has to be more about methods of inquiry, process
of problem-solving, and the habits of lifelong learning, than passing on a body of know-
ledge…. The solution seems to be to design a curriculum that provides conceptual tools and
cultivates intellectual habits necessary to learn constantly from the world around us.” 7
Steven Hurtt (2004) observes that in the design studio, students must develop the following
mental skills:
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

9. 1. Develop the mental agility to move back and forth between two contrasting brain
functions that cannot be engaged simultaneously--left brain, linear, analytical thinking
and right brain, lateral, synthetic thinking
2. Develop an ability to postulate a range of possible solutions for all or parts of the
problem/project
3. Develop a high degree of tolerance for ambiguity related to seeking multiple and imper-
fect solutions as a means to inding comparatively excellent solutions 8
Whether one wants to promote ‘competence’ or ‘genius’ seems to directly inluence the
nature of studio pedagogy. Steven Hurrt (2004) does a useful analysis of ‘genius-based’ and
‘competence-based’ approaches to studio pedagogy. He reveals that although both are valid
objectives, the former tends to be implicit, unstructured and teacher-centered; the latter tends
to be explicit, holistically structured and learner-centered. Genius based pedagogy seems to
promote cutting edge research and the avante-garde and is more useful at advanced levels
of education. Competence-based pedagogy makes the ‘body of knowledge’ the focus and
makes is accessible to a wider cross-section of learners 9.
Stamps (1994) argues that architectural education in the West has stressed too much on
‘introverted artistic’ ability that is self-limiting and calls for a ‘balanced epistemology’ that
includes all Jungian psychological states of thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition, introversion,
and extroversion 1 0
.
The evolution from simple to sophisticated epistemology has a parallel in the evolution
of pedagogy. Malcom Knowles (1962) distinguished between ‘Pedagogy’ (science and art
of teaching children) from ‘Andragogy’ (science and art of teaching adults) 1 1
. These ideas
have helped in the development of ‘Humanistic’ learning theories that have greatly inluenced
the policies and practices followed in higher education in the USA.
Dr Zull (2002) looks at the psychological motivations and conditions of learning through
evolutionary biology and neurology 1 2
. Mihalyi (1997) outlines the ‘auto-telic’ conditions
that lead to a ‘state of low’ of continuous engagement and enjoyment with one’s work that
is self-rewarding 13
. Howard Gardner (1983) established in his MI Theory that there are
multiple intelligences through which people learn 14
. Bigge and Shermis (1991) outline the
principles and importance of transfer of learning (applying generalized principles of one
learning episode to another) as the primary purpose of any education 15
.
Donald Schon (1984) argues that the primary skill of the designer is not ‘Rationality’ but
‘Relexivity’, the ability to relect and learn from one’s own work 16
. Chris Argyris (1980)
developed the technique of ‘Double Loop Learning’ or ‘Thinking about thinking’ 17
.
There are two major philosophies of knowledge with their own profound implications on
learning, teaching, and the role of the teacher. Objectivists believe that knowledge is universal,
‘out there’, can be categorized, and transmitted from teachers (full vessels) to passive learners
(empty vessels). Knowledge is therefore fragmented into ‘subjects’. Constructivists on the
other hand believe that knowledge is ‘actively constructed’ by the learner based on prior
knowledge and experience. Knowledge is therefore integrated, contextual and the role of
the teacher is to facilitate this ‘construction of knowledge’ 18
.
However, there seems to be an apparent conlict between a learner acquiring competence
that demands ‘well-structured, existing body of knowledge’ (Objectivism), as opposed to a
learner acquiring knowledge autonomously, through experience (Constructivism). This di-
lemma seems to call for a more ‘dynamic’ model of knowledge that alternates between ‘self-
BADRINARAYANAN SRINIVASAN

10. experience’ and ‘body of knowledge’. David Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory
is argued as a viable alternative model that is not only essentially ‘Constructivist’ but also
helps learners access and assimilate an existing ‘body of knowledge’19
.
Kolb’s Theory states that adults learn in a cyclical sequence starting with Concrete Exper-
ience (CE), followed by Relective Observation (RO), leading to Abstract Conceptualization
(AC), followed by Active experimentation (AE), which leads to the next cycle of concrete
experience (CE), etc, in a continuous spiral. For effective learning to occur, all four stages
are necessary and need to follow each other in this sequence (Fig. 1).
Fig.1: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory
Kolb also established that people have preferred learning habits or ‘Learning Styles’ (Diver-
gent, Assimilative, Convergent, and accommodative) depending on whether they rely more
on one stage of learning than another. Although Kolb’s Theory has been applied to diverse
professional educations, such as education, management, computer science, psychology,
medicine, nursing, accounting and law, there is very little evidence of it being applied to
architectural education or to design studio pedagogy.
It is argued that this well-established, widely accepted and tested theory offers a practical
model for architectural education, as it ‘alternates dynamically’ between ‘theory-practice’,
‘convergent-divergent’ learning and accommodates learners with diverse ‘learning styles’.
It involves all psychological modes of thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition, introversion,
and extroversion and therefore ensures ‘epistemological balance’. It can be deployed effect-
ively for shaping reality, theories or the learners’ ‘self’. The model allows the teacher also
to be an ‘active learner’ while teaching, rather than a ‘full vessel’ that transmits knowledge
to ‘empty vessels’.
David Clews (2002) reveals origins of Problem Based Learning (PBL), and its potentials
and limitations in design education. It has been observed that at present when PBL is com-
bined with Behaviorist methods of reward and punishment at every stage, the learning be-
comes fragmented and isolated 2 0
(Fig. 2).
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

11. Fig. 2: PBL Sequence in Architectural Design
As opposed to the linear sequence, it is argued that when Kolb’s Theory is used as a learning
sequence, it would ensure a continuity of learning from one task to the next (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3: The Experiential Learning Spiral (Source: Waterhouse and Crook)
The above strategies when applied to studio pedagogy led to the following Hypothesis for
reforming the design studio:
Andragogy that is explicit and based on holistically structured tasks based on Kolb’s
Theory is more effective for developing high average competence and criticality among
learners in the design studio than genius based pedagogy which is implicit, linear, and
episodic.
Testing the Hypothesis
Since the objectives of the research are to irst identify an appropriate theory and practice
it, reine the application, test it again, etc, the methodology adopted is ‘Action Research’,
BADRINARAYANAN SRINIVASAN

12. which affords equal emphasis on ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. The term ‘Action Research’ was
irst coined by Kurt Lewin (1946) who developed the adult learning cycle, upon which Kolb
developed his Experiential Learning Theory 21
.
In action research “Much of the researcher’s time is spent on reining the methodological
tools to suit the exigencies of the situation, and on collecting, analyzing, and presenting data
on an ongoing, cyclical basis” 22
. This process is illustrated in the diagram below that shows
the cyclical nature of the typical action research process (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4: Simple Action Research Model 55 (from MacIsaac, 1995) Each Cycle has Four Steps:
Plan, act, Observe, and Relect
The manner in which Action Research was applied to this study was as follows:
1. Identifying anomalies and shortcomings in the current teaching practices in the design
studio through maintaining a research journal, observations and analysis of previous
teaching experiences, document collection and analysis, participant observation record-
ings, juror questionnaire surveys, structured and unstructured interviews, and case
studies, etc
2. Understanding patterns of observed phenomenon through a critical survey of existing
literature and theories on the subject. Based on the corroboration of observed experiences
and existing literature, to propose paradigm shifts in architectural education, leading
to a hypothesis for the reformed studio
3. Evolving and reining studio teaching methodology, to address the paradigm shifts in
education, while addressing the speciic studio objectives (at Semester 3 and 4 levels),
through ‘hands on’ studio teaching experiments (Trial Experiments 1, 2, 3 and 4),
conducted over four semesters in two architecture schools (School of Planning and
Architecture and TVB School of Habitat Studies) in Delhi
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

13. 1. Application and testing of the teaching method (based on the hypothesis, using Kolb’s
Learning Theory, and Constructivist learning principles) in two further ‘Test Experiments
1 and 2’ over two consecutive semesters in two parallel design studios; one following
the conventional method and the other the experimental method, and to have the results
evaluated by a panel of independent jurors
2. Documentation and comparative analysis (qualitative as well as quantitative) of the
experimental studio process and the results to test the hypothesis
The results of Test Experiment 1, and Test Experiment 2 were compared, by the adopting
the following method of assessment:
1. Comparative analysis of a random selection of students written ‘narratives’ on their
learnings of the semester from Sections A and B
2. Comparative analysis of written comments by the two ‘oficial jurors’ on student per-
formance (all students from Sections A and B) as well as the studio program. Compar-
ative analysis of written comments by the four ‘unoficial jurors’ on a random selection
of students (8 students each from Sections A and B) on their performance and the
teaching methodology
3. Comparative statistical analysis of all the students’ scores as evaluated by the two ‘of-
icial jurors’ across Sections A and B, on various parameters of their work
Limitations of the Study
In comparing student works across the sections, one could not mix the students’ works and
conduct a ‘double blind’ jury although this would have been ideal. One was restricted by
the logistical, administrative procedures prevalent at the institutions. A limitation of this
method (of comparing students’ performance scores across Sections A and B), is that while
awarding scores, Jurors tended to compare students works against benchmarks ‘within’ each
section, rather than ‘across’ both sections.
Also as one Juror revealed later, if one program was found to be better structured than the
other, Jurors hesitated to let this relect in their scores as ‘students could not be penalized
for a badly structured program’. This was especially true in Test Experiment 2, when the
two sections visited different contexts and designed different building programs of different
scales, which made direct comparisons of the quality of end-products dificult. In this case
Jurors had to rely on comparing the diverse processes and the end products of Sections A
and B with the overall learning objectives that were common to both the Sections. This made
the task very demanding on the Jurors. For the above reasons the comparison of academic
scores was accorded the least weightage in the inal assessment, and more weightage accorded
to Juror’s written comments on the studio program, and the most weightage was given to
students’ own narratives.
Questions can also be raised about the assumption whether ‘good pedagogy’ would imme-
diately manifest in ‘good performance’ as a simple cause and effect, or would it have a
delayed impact few semesters hence. The purpose of the research was to investigate if explicit
pedagogy would reduce this time gap that is taken for granted at present.
The reformed pedagogy attempts to achieve high ‘average competence’ among cohorts,
rather than a few ‘brilliant stars’. Ideally the hypothesis should be tested consistently over
BADRINARAYANAN SRINIVASAN

14. many semesters, but due to limitations of time, could only be tested on a target group over
two consecutive semesters, i.e. one academic year. One would have liked to test it too at
other levels of architectural education in addition to Semesters 3 and 4, but again there was
a constraint of time, as the previous two years were spent in trial experiments and in reining
the pedagogy.
Findings: Students’ Written Narratives
A comparison of student narratives of Test Experiments 1 and 2, between Section A and B
are as follows:
Narratives of students from Section A (conventional pedagogy) revealed the following:
• Students gave general descriptions of exercises that they went through but were unable
to articulate speciic design learnings
• They were unable to form explicit connections between one exercise and the next
• There were no connections formed between design and non-design subjects
• They were unable to connect learnings from the design studio to experiences of architec-
ture outside the studio
• They seem to have enjoyed working on some of the exercises, but as compared to Section
A, did not exhibit a fresh interest, an enthusiasm or motivation to learn more
• There was no expressed sense of conidence or empowerment, but a sense of freedom
of ‘artistic self-expression’
Narratives of students from Section B (experimental pedagogy based on Kolb’s Theory)
revealed the following trends:
• Students from Section B were able to recall and articulate speciic details, design prin-
ciples, procedures and tools learnt through the semester
• They were able to recall and apply such learnings from one task to the next
• They were able to relate design studio with non-design subjects better
• They were able to relate what they learnt in the design studio with their experiences of
architecture outside the studio
• They seemed to have developed a fresh interest in the design studio and were highly
motivated and enthusiastic to learn more
• There was a sense of conidence and empowerment and ‘thinking for oneself’
Findings: Jurors’ Written Comments
The Jurors comments (both oficial and unoficial) regarding the students’ works and studio
programs of Section A and B, were as follows:
• While the best students’ works were of comparable quality across both sections, average
competence levels were appreciably higher in Section B as compared to Section A
• Students in Section B seem to ‘know’ what they were doing and were using design moves
with deliberation. Students in Section A had ‘lighty’ concepts but could not describe
design moves as clearly
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

15. • Students in Section B seemed to have ‘inhabited’ and ‘experienced’ their designs more
intimately as compared to Section A
• Jurors found that studio programs in Section B may have imposed too many constraints
such as ‘buildability’, and ‘response to context’ as compared to programs in Section A
which afforded complete ‘freedom of self-expression’
• In Test Experiment 1, more variety in design approaches were found in Section B, al-
though quality of presentation was better in Section A
• Jurors found that Section B had done a more rigorous and thorough familiarization of
the context that helped them with their design responses, as compared to Section A
• On the whole, jurors found the program in Section B to be better structured and coherent
than in Section A
Findings: Students’ Scores
The jurors were requested to award scores on 5 aspects of design , in order to make the
comparisons more nuanced. Comparative statistical analysis of students’ scores of Section
A and B in Test Experiments 1 and 2 revealed the following trends.
For the purpose of analysis, the scores of each section were compared as ‘weighted aver-
ages’ that took into account ‘frequency distribution’. The overall average of Section B was
found to be a little higher than Section A in both the semesters (Test experiment 1 and 2),
but the difference was not ‘statistically signiicant’. Larger number of students scored above
70% and 80% in Section B, which also had double the number of ‘repeaters’ (weak students
who were repeating second year), compared to Section A, a factor that could have evened
out the averages. In terms of break-ups, students in Section A scored higher averages in as-
pects such as ‘abstract concepts’ and ‘presentation’, while Section B scored higher on
‘translation’, ‘resolution’, and ‘maturity’, which was emphasized in the pedagogy (Figs.
5,6).
BADRINARAYANAN SRINIVASAN

16. Fig.5: Comparison of Students’ Scores, Test Experiment 1
A1: Understanding fundamentals of elements of enclosure
A 2: Abstract architectural conceptualization
A 3: Translation of concepts into design
A 4: Level of design resolution (buildability)
A 5: Presentation
Fig. 6: Comparison of Students’ Scores, Test Experiment 2
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

17. A 1: Research and Documentation of architectural context
A 2: Conceptual response to ‘context’
A 3: Level of design resolution (buildability)
A 4: Presentation
A 5: Maturity
The performance of students of Section A and B in the Test Experiments 1 and 2, when seen
together, are as shown in the graph below (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7: Comparison of Overall Average Scores, Test Experiments 1and 2
Conclusions
Following the methodology of assigning reducing weightages to student narratives, jurors’
comments and student scores, it would seem that the hypothesis is proved correct and that
the experimental teaching method is indeed more effective than the conventional teaching
method in achieving high student motivation and average design competence. However, two
semesters may be too short a duration to conclusively test a teaching methodology and perhaps
it needs to be tested consistently across all nine semesters for a few years to see how learners
develop. It must be said that the student narratives and jurors comments were extremely
encouraging.
BADRINARAYANAN SRINIVASAN

18. One criticism could be that high levels of student involvement and motivation in Section
B could be the result of ‘good teachers’ rather than a good ‘methodology’. The purpose of
this research was precisely to establish what makes a ‘good teacher’ and ‘good teaching
practice’.
As a relective teacher, one’s own personal learnings from the trial experiments and the
test experiments have been documented and compiled into ‘effective studio teaching tech-
niques’. This, by no means is intended as a ‘formula’, but as documentation of generalized
principles, procedures and techniques that have worked, in a given context, to be tested,
contested, veriied or modiied to suit other contexts. To sum up, the following points would
be useful for a teacher intending to apply Kolb’s Cycle to studio pedagogy.
1. What is the overall focus of learning, in terms of values, skills and knowledge?
2. What concrete experience/s could be devised that provide opportunities to explore the
above?
3. What techniques could be used to encourage divergent relective observations of the
above experiences amongst the learners?
4. What techniques could be devised to help students ‘express’ their tacit knowledge that
the above observations generated, in a common language that everyone could share?
5. What generalizations could be drawn from the divergent observations? What contrasting
or different points of view or concepts could be drawn?
6. How could these concepts be connected to existing theories or body of knowledge?
7. How to facilitate individual students to loat new hypotheses based on these concepts?
8. What experiments could be devised to test out these hypotheses, in terms of materials,
medium and constraints?
9. What conclusions could be drawn from the experiments?
10. How to facilitate students to compare the new experiences generated by their designs
with their prior experiences?
Kolb’s Theory, when applied to the design studio, offers the sense of ‘continuity’; of exper-
ience, observation, conceptualization and experimentation. It is this sense of continuity that
is missing in the present linear, episodic sequence. The cyclical sequence engenders a self-
perceived sense of progress and movement for the learner, whereby tacit knowledge from
experience becomes explicit knowledge. Devising speciic studio tasks to engage CE, RO,
AC, and AE ensured greater participation of students with diverse learning styles across the
cohort.
Explicit pedagogy meant that one relied less on individual desk crits and more on collective,
participatory reviews. This not only helps in development of a coherently structured sequence
of exercises but also a ‘shared’ language and value system among students and faculty, which
seems to promote peer dialogue and collaborative learning among cohorts.
References
1. D. Schon, ‘The Architectural Studio as an Exemplar of Education for Relection-in-Action’,
Journal of Architectural Education (Vol.38 (1), 1984), pp. 2-9.
2. E. L. Boyer and L. D. Mitgang, ‘Building Community--A New Future for Architecture Education
and Practice: A Special Report’ (Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, 1996), p. 85.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

19. 3. D. Nicol and S. Pilling, ‘Architectural Education and the Profession: Preparing for the Future’,
Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism (London: Spon Press,
2000), pp. 1-24.
4. J. Hartray, Architectural Record (June 1984), pp. 49-63.
5. A+D SPA Alumni Interactive Session on ‘Architectural Education: Should it be Market Driven?’
New Delhi, April 2002.
6. UIA And Architectural Education, Relections and Recommendations, Document prepared by the
UIA Architectural Education Commission, Text adopted by the XXIIth UIA General As-
sembly (Berlin: July 2002), p. 1111.
7. D. Brain, ‘From Windsor to Viseu: Relections on Architectural Education’, in Stephanie E. Bothwell,
et al, editors, Windsor Forum on Design Education, Towards an Ideal Curriculum to Reform
Architectural Education (Miami, Florida: New Urban Press, 2004), p. 423.
8. S. W. Hurtt, ‘Characteristics of Studio Education in Architecture: A Primer for the Uninitiated, a
Critique for the Informed’ in Stephanie E. Bothwell, et al, editors, Windsor Forum on Design
Education, Towards an Ideal Curriculum to Reform Architectural Education (Miami, Florida:
New Urban Press, 2004), p. 267.
9. Ibid
10. A. E. Stamps, ‘Jungian Epistemological Balance: A Framework for Conceptualizing Architectural
Education?’, Journal of Architectural Education (Vol. 48(2) 1994), pp. 105-106.
11. M. S. Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (Cam-
bridge: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1980).
12. J. Zull, The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology
of Learning (Virginia: Stylus Publishing, 2002).
13. M. Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow and Psychology of Discovery and Invention (New York:
Harper Collins, 1997), p. 111.
14. M. K. Smith, ‘Howard Gardner and Multiple Intelligences’, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education,
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm accessed on 20 March 2006.
15. M.L. Bigge S.S. Shermis, “Learning Theories for Teachers’(5th ed, New York: Harper Collins
Publishers, 1991)
16. D. Schon, ‘The Architectural Studio as an Exemplar of Education for Relection-in-Action’,
Journal of Architectural Education (Vol.38 (1), 1984), pp. 2-9.
17. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm, accessed on 7 June 2007
18. http://www.personal.psu.edu/txl166/kb/theory/objcon.html, accessed on 24 April 2005
19. D. A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development, (New
Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984).
20. D. Clews, ‘Imaging in Education’ (Shared Visions, LTSN 2002).
21. R. O’Brian, ‘An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research’, (1998) ht-
tp://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arinal.html, accessed 20 January 2007.
22. Ibid
About the Author
Dr. Badrinarayanan Srinivasan
Badrinarayanan Srinivasan (born 1961) graduated from School of Planning and Architecture
(SPA)Delhi in 1982. He started his own Design consultancy irm in 1994, designing archi-
tecture,interiors, furniture, graphics, exhibitions, sets for stage and TV, lighting, products,
etc. Badrinarayanan has also been teaching architectural design for the last two decades
which led to his PhD thesis titled, “Architectural Education in India: Reforming the Design
BADRINARAYANAN SRINIVASAN

20. Studio”. He has been writing about design education and has many publications to his
credit. Interests include design pedagogy, traditional craft and vernacular architecture, Indian
classical music, and Buddhist philosophy. He is currently professor at the Department of
Interior Architecture and Design, Pearl Academy of Fashion,New Delhi.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

21. Editors
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Editorial Advisory Board
Genevieve Bell – Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, USA.
Michael Biggs – University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.
Thomas Binder – Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jeanette Blomberg – IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA.
Eva Brandt – Danmark Designskole, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter Burrows – RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Monika Büscher – Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Patrick Dillon – Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
Michael Gibson, University of North Texas, Denton, USA.
Loredana Di Lucchio, Sapienza Universita di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Judith Gregory – IIT Institute of Design, Chicago, USA; University of Oslo, Norway.
Clive Holtham – City of London University, London, UK.
Lorenzo Imbesi, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Hiroshi Ishii – MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, USA.
Gianni Jacucci – University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Klaus Krippendorff – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Terence Love – Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Bill Lucas, MAYA Fellow, MAYA Design, Inc., Pittsburgh, USA.
Ezio Manzini – Politecnico of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Mario Minichiello, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham, UK.
Julian Orr – Work Practice Technology Associates, Pescadero, USA.
Mahendra Patel – Leaf Design, Mumbai, India.
Toni Robertson – University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Terry Rosenberg – Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.
Keith Russell – University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Liz Sanders – Make Tools, USA.
Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos – University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lucy Suchman – Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Ina Wagner – Technical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

22. The Design Principles Practices Community
This knowledge community is brought together by a shared interest in the process of
design and their conceptual foundations. The community interacts through an
innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round virtual relationships in
a weblog, peer reviewed journal and book imprint – exploring the affordances of the new
digital media. Members of this knowledge community include academics, designers,
administrators, educators, consultants and research students.
Conference
Members of the Design Community meet at the International Conference on Design
Principles and Practices, held annually in different locations around the world. The
Design Conference was held at Imperial College London, in 2007; in conjunction with
the University of Miami, Florida, USA in 2008; and at Technical University Berlin,
Germany in 2009. In 2010, the conference will be held at the University of Illinois,
Chicago, USA.
Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe.
Intellectually, our interests span the breadth of the field of design. The Conference is a
site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emerging scholars and
practitioners. Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtual participation in
which community members can either submit a video and/or slide presentation with
voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in the
Journal.
Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.
Publishing
The Design Community enables members of its community to publish through three
media. First, by participating in the Design Conference, community members can enter
a world of journal publication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums – a result
of the responsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal provides a framework for
double-blind peer review, enabling authors to publish into an academic journal of the
highest standard.
The second publication medium is through the book imprint On Design, publishing
cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and manuscript
submissions are welcome.
The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news
updates from the Design Community, as well as major developments in the field of
design. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our
email Newsletter.

23. Common Ground Publishing Journals
AGING
Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal
Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/
ARTS
The International Journal of the Arts in Society.
Website: www.Arts-Journal.com
BOOK
The International Journal of the Book
Website: www.Book-Journal.com
CLIMATE CHANGE
The International Journal of Climate Change:
Impacts and Responses
Website: www.Climate-Journal.com
CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT
The International Journal of the
Constructed Environment
Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal
DESIGN
Design Principles and Practices:
An International Journal
Website: www.Design-Journal.com
DIVERSITY
The International Journal of Diversity in
Organizations, Communities and Nations
Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com
FOOD
Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/
GLOBAL STUDIES
The Global Studies Journal
Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com
HEALTH
The International Journal of Health,
Wellness and Society
Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal
HUMANITIES
The International Journal of the Humanities
Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com
IMAGE
The International Journal of the Image
Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal
LEARNING
The International Journal of Learning.
Website: www.Learning-Journal.com
MANAGEMENT
The International Journal of Knowledge,
Culture and Change Management.
Website: www.Management-Journal.com
MUSEUM
The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum
Website: www.Museum-Journal.com
RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
The International Journal of Religion and
Spirituality in Society
Website: www.Religion-Journal.com
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY
The International Journal of Science in Society
Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com
SOCIAL SCIENCES
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences
Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com
SPACES AND FLOWS
Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of
Urban and ExtraUrban Studies
Website: www.SpacesJournal.com
SPORT AND SOCIETY
The International Journal of Sport and Society
Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal
SUSTAINABILITY
The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural,
Economic and Social Sustainability
Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com
TECHNOLOGY
The International Journal of Technology,
Knowledge and Society
Website: www.Technology-Journal.com
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING
Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/
UNIVERSITIES
Journal of the World Universities Forum
Website: www.Universities-Journal.com
For subscription information please contact
subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com