Teaching and Experimenting with Architectural Design

256 EAAE no 35 Teaching and Experimenting with Architectural Design: Advances in Technology and Changes in Pedagogy

Introduction

The curriculum reform process on the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade has started
about five years ago. As a vice dean for academic matters, and the coordinator of the
TEMPUS project, I was responsible to manage this process from the beginning until
the formal adoption and start of implementation of the reformed curriculum.
At the very beginning, the process was based on the following aspects:

• Forming the EHEA – European Higher Education Area (Bologna Process);


• The nature and structure of the University of Belgrade


• Tradition of teaching architecture in Serbia, and


• Contemporary tendencies in the architectural education promoted within EAAE-
  ENHSA (European Association of Architectural Education-European Network of
  Heads of Schools of Architecture)

In more than 160 years, the University of Belgrade has been structured on the different
ways, but always with breadth based on Humboldt’s principles. Nowadays, faculties
have remained with a great part of their autonomy. The Faculty of Architecture was
continuously the member of the group of technical faculties, and, its curriculum was
based on the tradition of central-European polytechnics.
Irrespective of this, in the last 50 years, the Faculty has been trying to follow the
contemporary approaches and teaching methods.
In this period, the studio-based approach was tested in different ways for a few
times. The School has organized the different teaching units, subjects and methods
which were based on the studio work^1. The first step was made in 1956. After this,
studio work, more less, has remained part of the teaching process. In 1976, the cur-
riculum has got the first modular elements.

After more than ten years of a social, academic crisis, the School has started the
reforming process in 2001.
But, with the faculty of 140 teachers, and the old curriculum which hasn’t been
changed more than ten years, this process was very difficult to manage. The Academic
society has shown both of its faces in the same time – a liberal and conservative one,
and a dialectic process, actually, was a leading stream to the final solution. Finally,
restructuring of the curriculum has been made on a radical level, and the implemen-
tation started in 2005.

Case

During the years of work on the reform, one of the members of teaching staff argued
that we have to think about the curriculum as the living thing, which should be
changed and developed continuously. So, when the new curriculum was settled, and
we start with implementation, good and weak points became clear. That's why, now
it is necessary to activate the regulatory mechanism, to synchronize the learning
outcomes and competences on the whole curriculum level.