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.

Architectural Education, Craft in Architecture, Material Experimentation

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]