Olena Gella (O.M. Beketov National University of Urban Economy in Kharkiv) & Kateryna Didenko (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)
This study examines a long-term pedagogical experiment at the Faculty of Architecture of the Kharkiv Institute of Civil Engineering (KhICE; later KhSTUCA, KhNUCEA), conducted between 1988 and 2022, spanning the late Soviet period and the subsequent decades of Ukraine’s independence. It originated in the crisis of late Soviet architectural education, when its initiators identified a gap between theoretical training, design practice, and the demands of professional practice. In response to fragmented curricula, reproductive teaching methods, and rigid teacher–student hierarchies, the Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialised Education of the Ukrainian SSR supported an experimental programme at the Department of Fundamentals of Architecture of KhICE, aimed at developing a new model of professional training.
The experiment integrated research with design, introduced new pedagogical methods, and fostered collaborative and reflective teacher–student relations. The Creative Educational Workshop ensured methodological continuity, transformed the curriculum and pedagogical culture supported the development of original author-designed courses, and trained several generations of architects. The professional achievements and competition successes of students and graduates attest to the model’s effectiveness and its evolution into a stable pedagogical tradition.
The experiment is interpreted as ahead of its time, as its principles aligned with approaches that later gained wide international currency in architectural and professional education: student-centred and competency-based learning, design-research models, reflective practice, design thinking, and research-led and inquiry-based education. While the studio model itself has a long history in architectural education, the experiment’s innovation lay in its methodological reinterpretation through research, reflection, and a new culture of teacher–student interaction.
Despite its effectiveness and evolution into a scientific and pedagogical school, the model was not extended to other schools of architecture in Ukraine. Its discontinuation following institutional reorganisation suggests that pedagogical traditions require mechanisms of institutional preservation. The study also addresses the reasons for this limited dissemination and disrupted continuity.