International Journal of Pedagogics
1
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue04 2025
PAGE NO.
1-5
Integrating craft mediums into architectural studio
education: a pedagogical model for material
experimentation
Ahmet Yılmaz
Architecture Department, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
Received:
03 February 2025;
Accepted:
02 March 2025;
Published:
01 April 2025
Abstract:
This paper proposes a novel pedagogical framework for incorporating material experimentation and
craft techniques into architectural design studio education. In contrast to traditional methods that prioritize
abstract or digital design processes, this model emphasizes hands-on interaction with physical materials, fostering
a deeper understanding of material properties, sensory engagement, and the craft of construction. Through this
approach, students are encouraged to explore innovative architectural solutions by engaging with materials in a
tactile and intuitive manner. The study outlines the methodology for implementing such a pedagogical model,
details the learning outcomes, and discusses the implications for the development of more informed, creative,
and contextually responsive architects.
Keywords:
Architectural Education, Craft in Architecture, Material Experimentation, Studio Pedagogy, Hands-on
Learning, Tactile Design Process, Traditional Craft Techniques, Contemporary Architecture and Craft.
Introduction:
In recent years, the increasing reliance on
digital tools and computational design has led to a
disconnect between architects and the materials they
work with. While
digital technologies
have
revolutionized the design process, the role of hands-on
material exploration has been diminished in many
architectural design studios. This paper introduces a
model of architectural education that reestablishes the
importance of materiality and craft through direct
engagement with a variety of materials. By
incorporating experimental techniques from the craft
world into design education, the proposed model seeks
to expand students' sensory understanding and
creative potential.
Architectural education has evolved significantly over
the past few decades, with a predominant shift towards
digital design tools, computational methods, and
virtual simulations. While these technologies have
undoubtedly transformed the way architects conceive
and construct buildings, they have also led to a
distancing of students from the physical materials that
form the basis of architecture. In traditional
architectural education, materials were often explored
through hands-on workshops or direct experience,
where students could engage with physical properties,
such as texture, weight, and flexibility, in a more
intuitive and tactile manner. However, with the rise of
digital media and design software, this tangible
relationship with materials has become less prominent.
The loss of this direct engagement has resulted in a
disconnection between the designer and the very
materials that will ultimately shape their architectural
work.
This gap between digital design and physical materiality
poses a critical challenge for the next generation of
architects. Although digital tools allow for complex
geometries and precision, they often obscure an
understanding of how materials behave, their
limitations, and the tactile experience of constructing
with them. In response to this challenge, there has
been a growing recognition of the need to reintroduce
material experimentation into architectural education.
By bringing craft techniques and hands-on material
exploration back into the design studio, architecture
students can reconnect with the sensory and physical
qualities of the materials they use, while also gaining a
deeper understanding of the design possibilities and
International Journal of Pedagogics
2
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
constraints that material properties impose.
This paper proposes a pedagogical model for
integrating material experimentation and craft
techniques into architectural design studio education.
This approach seeks to bridge the gap between digital
abstraction and physical reality by encouraging
students to explore materials in a direct and
experimental
manner.
The
proposed
model
emphasizes the importance of engaging with a wide
variety of materials
—
such as wood, clay, textiles,
metals, and concrete
—
in ways that reflect the
practices of traditional craftsmanship, while also
incorporating modern design methodologies. By
experimenting with materials through crafting
processes, students develop a more nuanced
understanding
of
their
physical
properties,
performance characteristics, and potential for
innovation.
The primary aim of this pedagogical model is to foster
a learning environment where materiality and craft are
central to the design process. In this model, students
are not merely using materials to execute preconceived
ideas, but are actively engaging in a dialogue with the
materials
themselves.
This
active
interaction
encourages discovery and creativity, allowing students
to explore how materials can be manipulated,
combined, and reimagined in new architectural
contexts. In turn, this process promotes critical
thinking, spatial awareness, and a deeper connection
to the act of construction, which is essential for
producing architects who are not only skilled in digital
design but also well-versed in the hands-on realities of
building.
By reintroducing craft into the architectural design
studio, this model advocates for a holistic approach to
architectural education that emphasizes the value of
physical
engagement,
problem-solving
through
material manipulation, and a more human-centric
approach to design. In the following sections, this paper
will outline the methodology used to implement this
pedagogical framework, discuss the learning outcomes
observed in student projects, and reflect on the
broader implications for architectural education in the
digital age. Through this process, it will become evident
that material experimentation is not merely a
supplemental aspect of architectural practice, but
rather an integral part of developing a well-rounded,
creative, and informed architect.
METHODS
This experimental pedagogical model was tested in a
series of design studio courses at an architecture
school. The studio framework was structured around
two
main
components:
hands-on
material
experimentation and the integration of craft
techniques. Students were introduced to various
materials such as wood, clay, metal, textiles, and
concrete, and were tasked with developing prototypes
and small-scale models. The design process
encouraged iterative work, where students explored
material properties through tactile experimentation,
allowing them to see how their designs could evolve
from raw material to conceptual form.
The course was divided into three phases:
1.
Material Familiarization: Students were
exposed to the properties and possibilities of different
materials through workshops and direct interaction
with craft experts.
2.
Prototype Development: Using the knowledge
gained in the first phase, students began designing
models that explored material limits and their potential
in architecture.
3.
Integration into Design Process: In the final
phase, students incorporated their crafted prototypes
into larger architectural design projects, focusing on
how the tactile qualities of the materials could inform
the architectural form.
The study was evaluated based on student feedback,
the quality of the work produced, and the development
of both practical and conceptual skills.
RESULTS
The
incorporation
of
craft-based
material
experimentation led to significant improvements in
students' understanding of material properties, their
creative expression, and their problem-solving abilities.
Students reported a greater sense of connection to the
materials they worked with, describing how physical
interaction influenced the conceptualization of their
designs. Prototypes created in the studio helped
students better understand the spatial and structural
implications of their ideas. Furthermore, students
demonstrated increased sensitivity to the tactile and
sensory qualities of materials, with many incorporating
these aspects into their final architectural proposals.
Student feedback also indicated that the hands-on
nature of the process helped them to develop a more
intuitive approach to design, where experimentation
with materiality could lead to unforeseen, yet
innovative, solutions. The studio setting encouraged
collaboration and knowledge sharing, as students
learned from one another's approaches to material
manipulation.
DISCUSSION
The integration of craft into architectural education
challenges the traditional separation between digital
and physical modes of design. By emphasizing material
International Journal of Pedagogics
3
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
experimentation,
students
gain
a
deeper
understanding of the practical and aesthetic qualities
of materials, which often become abstracted or
overlooked in conventional architectural education.
This approach not only strengthens their design skills
but also encourages a more holistic and integrated
approach to architecture that considers the
relationship between form, material, and environment.
Additionally, the pedagogical model fosters critical
thinking about sustainability, as students are prompted
to explore materials that are locally sourced,
recyclable, or have minimal environmental impact. The
iterative process of material experimentation
encourages students to reflect on the long-term
implications of their choices and develop more
responsible architectural practices.
The integration of material experimentation and craft-
based techniques into architectural design studios
presents a compelling opportunity to reframe the way
architectural students engage with materials and
design processes. This model of education challenges
the increasingly prevalent separation between digital
and physical design practices, where digital tools and
virtual simulations are prioritized, often at the expense
of tactile, sensory engagement with materials. While
digital design allows for precision, complexity, and
rapid prototyping, it can sometimes obscure a deeper
understanding of materiality and construction. By
reintroducing hands-on material exploration, the
model proposed in this study suggests that students
can develop a more profound and holistic
understanding of architectural design.
Reconnecting with Materiality
One of the core tenets of this pedagogical model is the
reconnection of students with materiality. In traditional
studio settings, especially those influenced heavily by
digital design, students may overlook the inherent
qualities of materials such as texture, weight, flexibility,
and how these properties influence the behavior of a
structure. Often, the focus is placed on the conceptual
and digital aspects of design, while the physical
constraints and opportunities offered by materials are
relegated to secondary consideration. This model
proposes that through tactile experimentation with
materials, students can intuitively understand how
these properties manifest in real-world applications.
For example, when working with wood, students may
begin to appreciate the grain direction, the limitations
of bending, and the natural imperfections that
contribute to the material's aesthetic. Similarly,
working with clay or concrete allows students to
experience the malleability, weight, and texture that
are often lost in digital simulations. This physical
engagement encourages a deeper empathy for the
material, which in turn informs the design process.
Rather than using materials purely as a medium to
"realize" a design conceived digitally, students learn to
allow the material to shape the design itself, thus
fostering a more organic, iterative process that is
informed by both intuition and knowledge.
Craft as an Integral Learning Tool
The introduction of craft-based techniques is another
key element of the proposed model. Historically,
architecture was intimately tied to the craft of building,
with architects often being skilled artisans in their own
right. However, as architectural education has shifted
towards a more theoretical and abstract framework,
the craft dimension has become increasingly
marginalized. By incorporating craft into the design
studio, students gain exposure to a range of making
processes, from hand-building to more advanced
fabrication techniques. This reintroduction of craft
does not mean a rejection of digital technologies;
rather, it seeks to integrate both the analog and digital
realms.
Craft encourages students to embrace the idea of
making as a process of discovery. In traditional crafts,
the maker often learns by doing
—
by iterating, testing,
and refining. This process is inherently experimental
and non-linear, offering students the opportunity to
explore their creative potential through direct
manipulation of materials. Craft also promotes an
understanding of scale, proportion, and the
relationship between form and function
—
concepts
that are sometimes less evident in purely digital
models. For example, students working with textiles
may explore how materials fold, stretch, or drape,
informing their understanding of the potential for
fabric to be used in architectural applications like
facades or interior partitions. In this way, craft
techniques provide valuable experiential learning that
cannot be fully captured through digital models or
virtual simulations.
Fostering Innovation and Problem-Solving
Another significant outcome of incorporating material
experimentation into the design studio is the
development of innovative problem-solving skills.
When students work directly with materials, they are
often confronted with unforeseen challenges and
limitations that would not be encountered in a purely
digital workflow. For instance, when working with
concrete, students may find that their initial design
ideas are unfeasible due to the material's drying time
or its structural capacity. Similarly, a student working
with wood may realize that their design requires
reinforcement to support a particular weight
International Journal of Pedagogics
4
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
distribution. These limitations force students to adapt
and rethink their designs, making adjustments that
consider the practical realities of construction.
This kind of problem-solving fosters creativity, as
students are encouraged to find new and inventive
solutions to overcome the challenges posed by the
materials themselves. Instead of relying on software to
modify their designs, students learn to think critically
about how materials can be manipulated or combined
in novel ways. This results in a more pragmatic yet
creative approach to architecture, where the design
process is not merely driven by aesthetic vision or
computational analysis, but by a comprehensive
understanding of material capabilities, limitations, and
potential.
Sensory Awareness and Contextual Sensitivity
The material experimentation model also promotes a
heightened awareness of the sensory experience of
space and design. The tactile qualities of materials
—
how they feel, sound, or even smell
—
are critical
components of architectural design that are often
overlooked in digital representations. Craft techniques
inherently involve a hands-on approach, where
students are not only learning how to manipulate
materials but also developing a greater sensitivity to
how these materials will ultimately be experienced by
occupants. The weight of a stone wall, the smoothness
of a polished wood surface, or the warmth of a wool
textile all contribute to how a building is experienced
on a sensory level. Understanding these aspects can
lead to more contextually responsive design decisions,
as students can incorporate local, cultural, and
environmental considerations that are informed by the
materials' sensory qualities.
Additionally, the tactile process of working with
materials often leads students to question the
environmental impact of their choices. As students
explore the practicalities of material selection and
crafting, they gain a better understanding of the
sustainability of various materials, including their
sourcing, life cycle, and the energy required for their
fabrication. This fosters a more conscious approach to
architectural design that prioritizes not just aesthetics
and functionality but also sustainability. For example,
students may choose to work with locally sourced
materials that minimize transportation costs and
carbon emissions, or explore natural materials that
offer both aesthetic value and ecological benefits.
Expanding Design Thinking and Creativity
Finally, this pedagogical approach helps to break down
the traditional boundaries between art and science in
architecture. Digital tools and techniques have often
created a divide between those who are focused on the
artistic and aesthetic dimensions of architecture and
those who prioritize technical expertise. The hands-on
material approach unites these two aspects, allowing
students to explore the full range of design possibilities.
Through craft, students can better understand the
relationship between form and function, aesthetics and
engineering, structure and skin. The experimental,
iterative nature of working with materials encourages
a more playful, creative approach, leading to
unexpected solutions and designs that push the
boundaries of traditional architectural practice.
By providing students with the tools and freedom to
experiment with materials in an open, non-judgmental
environment, the pedagogical model encourages risk-
taking and imaginative thinking. The process of making,
breaking, and remaking offers students the opportunity
to embrace failure as a learning tool, rather than an
obstacle to overcome. Through these cycles of
experimentation, students gain the confidence to
innovate and explore new architectural concepts that
may not have emerged through a purely theoretical or
digital approach.
The incorporation of material experimentation and
craft techniques into architectural education offers a
transformative opportunity to reconnect students with
the physical, tactile, and sensory aspects of design. This
model of education fosters a deeper understanding of
material properties, enhances problem-solving skills,
promotes creativity, and cultivates an intuitive
approach to architectural design. By bridging the gap
between digital abstraction and material reality, this
approach helps to develop well-rounded architects
who are not only proficient in digital design but also
sensitive to the nuances of materiality and
construction. Ultimately, the integration of craft and
hands-on experimentation enriches the architectural
design process, creating architects who are better
equipped to respond to the complex, multifaceted
challenges of the built environment.
CONCLUSION
The pedagogical model outlined in this paper
demonstrates the value of incorporating material
experimentation and craft-based learning into
architectural design studios. By providing students with
opportunities to work directly with materials and craft
techniques,
the
model
cultivates
a
deeper
understanding of material properties, sensory
awareness, and creative problem-solving. This hands-
on approach has the potential to produce architects
who are not only technically proficient but also
sensitive to the environmental and tactile qualities that
shape the built environment. Ultimately, the
integration of craft into architectural education
International Journal of Pedagogics
5
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
represents a return to the roots of architecture,
emphasizing the importance of materiality in both the
design and construction of buildings.
REFERENCES
Ahlin, E. M. (2019). Semi-structured interviews with
expert practitioners: Their validity and significant
contribution
to
translational
research.
Sage
Publications. [Google Scholar]
Alexander, C., Fox, J., & Gutierrez, A. (2019).
Conceptualising
teacher
professionalism.
In
Professionalism and teacher education (pp. 1
–
23).
Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Allen, J., Rowan, L., & Singh, P. (2019). Status of the
teaching
profession
—
Attracting
and
retaining
teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
47(2), 99
–
102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
(AITSL).
(2018).
Accreditation
standards
and
procedures.
Available
online:
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/deliver-ite-
programs/standards-and-procedures (accessed on 8
October 2024).
Ball, S. J. (2000). Performativities and fabrications in the
education economy: Towards the performative
society? Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1
–
23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of
performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215
–
228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the
slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8),
1046
–
1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biesta, G. (2017). Education, measurement and the
professions: Reclaiming a space for democratic
professionality in education. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 49(4), 315
–
330. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Bowne, M. (2017). Developing a teaching philosophy.
Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(3), 59
–
64. [Google
Scholar]
Boyer, E. L. (1991). The scholarship of teaching from:
Scholarship
reconsidered:
Priorities
of
the
professoriate. College Teaching, 39(1), 11
–
13. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2019). CHE principles:
Facilitating authentic and dialogical semi-structured
interviews in educational research. International
Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(1), 76
–
90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buchanan,
J.
(2020).
Challenging
the
deprofessionalisation of teaching and teachers:
Claiming and acclaiming the profession (1st ed.).
Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency in an
era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching, Theory
and Practice, 21(6), 700
–
719. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, M. F. (1986). Rhythms in
teaching: The narrative study of teachers’ personal
practical knowledge of classrooms. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 2(4), 377
–
387. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and
education: An essay on the market agenda and its
consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99
–
112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crawford, R. (2019a). Connected2Learning: Thinking
outside the square
—
Final project report: Curious about
learning? Why? Monash University. [Google Scholar]
