276

17 Interdisciplinarity and Design: Tools for Teaching Urban

Morphology
Karl Kropf 39

Abstract As a taught subject, the interdisciplinary nature of urban morphology presents both challenges
and advantages. One challenge lies in providing some kind of structure or ‘scaffold’ that can aid the
student in bringing together the diverse strands of the subject. Conversely, addressing the very different
backgrounds of students who come from different disciplines might seem to undermine the benefits of
any common structure. Both of these potential problems can be turned to advantage in light of Howard
Gardner’s principle of multiple intelligences (2006) and the more general practice of differentiated
instruction. That is, the diversity of urban morphology as a subject lends itself to differentiated instruction
and the diversity in the backgrounds of the students and their different modes of thinking. Taking this
premise as a starting point, the chapter describes some of the practical methods used to teach urban
morphology in a graduate level course and reflects on the benefits of a differentiated approach. The
methods discussed include field visits, analytical and design exercises, presentations, critiques, project-
based course work and a studio environment for inter-student learning. The chapter concludes with
reflections on the role of design in providing a way into an exploration of the underlying principles of
urban morphology.

Keywords Interdisciplinary. Differentiated instruction. Multiple intelligences. Design. Aspects of urban

form. Experience

17.1 Multiple Aspects and Multiple Intelligences

This chapter is based on experience gained over ten years of teaching urban morphological analysis as
part of the Design for Conservation module on the post graduate course in historic conservation at the
School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University.
As will be argued, what is most relevant in this context is not so much that the aim of the module is to
‘teach design’ but that design, amongst other things, can be used to teach urban morphology and, perhaps
more importantly, make the subject more accessible.




39 Karl Kropf
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford, United Kingdom
kkropf@brookes.ac.uk
 277


In a simplistic way, this should be self-evident. If urban morphology is the study of the formation and
transformation of urban form, then learning about a stage in that process – design – should improve our
understanding of the results of the process – urban form.
What should be equally self-evident is that urban form as a subject of both study and design is not
simple. Cites and the wider built environment are complex and are part of a complex adaptive system that
includes ourselves within our communities, who create and use them. One of the consequences or
manifestations of that complexity is that urban form has many aspects that are of interest to and pursued
by a wide range of disciplines.
At a broad level (as argued in Kropf 2009, 2017), the aspects include: i) natural environment, ii) built
form, iii) use, iv) control, v) intention, vi) construction, vii) perception, viii) development and evolution,
and ix) flows of materials and resources.
Urban morphology, as a discipline or field, encompasses those aspects and is consequently used in a
wide range of other fields including architecture, urban design, planning, geography, archaeology,
history, anthropology, urban ecology and environmental psychology.
To some extent the different aspects of urban form are studied by the different disciplines – or at least,
some disciplines tend to focus on selected aspects; which supports Goethe’s original conception of
morphology (Goethe 1952). On the one hand it is both an ancillary discipline and an independent field.
On the other, as an independent field, morphology aims to bring together the varied findings of other
disciplines around the unifying aspect of ‘form’. In that conception, morphology is fundamentally and
structurally interdisciplinary. Ideally morphology gains from the insights provided by the other disciplines
and in turn contributes to them. It might be argued that this is all very well for the likes of a polymath
such as Goethe but teaching that conception of morphology must present an enormous challenge. In a
more critical vein, some have accused the polymathic idea of urban morphology as trying to claim the
territory of all those disciplines for itself. Which is an understandable reaction to what might appear to be
an unwarranted dismissal of expertise in other fields and their subsumption under a single explanatory
‘theory’, which, in its turn, if one were inclined to take such a view, would seem to deny the evident
complexity urban morphology is seeking to explain.
Rather, urban morphology needs all the other disciplines because it is not merely analytical but also
synthetic. The focus in the end turns to the consequential ‘relations’ between the different aspects,
elements and measures – how they all come together. But what is the case, to a greater or lesser degree, is
that the different aspects and disciplines tend to involve different types of phenomena and modes of
expression that most suit those types: text, number, shape, image, spatial relations, movement, sequence,
logical inference, emotional response and associations.
In the context of teaching and learning, this diversity is at the root of what is known as
‘differentiation’. In brief, the principle of differentiation in teaching starts with the premise that pupils do
not all think alike and in order to ensure that all pupils are fully engaged it is necessary to present the
material to be taught in different ways. A central foundation of differentiation is Howard Gardner’s
theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner 2006). According to Gardner, we all have a range of different
cognitive capacities and abilities in the interpretation of different types of phenomena. That is, different
 278


phenomena such as sound / music, bodily movement, numbers, words and spatial relations present the
brain with different kinds of tasks – which tend to be processed in different parts of the brain. From here,
Gardner makes two key points. One is that an aptitude for processing any one of these phenomena
represents a form of intelligence. As there are different kinds of phenomena, there are different kinds of
intelligence. The other point is that individuals vary in their aptitude for processing the different
phenomena. People are intelligent in different ways. Some are particularly adept at music while others
have a strong sense of spatial relations.
Gardner notes that any given individual tends to favour or excel in a particular type and its associated
modes of expression or symbolic system but also that a proclivity toward a particular type of intelligence
is not singular. Any individual is likely to favour several types. The key intelligences that Gardner
identifies are: i) musical, ii) bodily-kinaesthetic, iii) logical-mathematical, iv) linguistic, v) spatial, vi)
interpersonal, vii) intrapersonal and viii) naturalist.
Gardner’s argument for recognising the different kinds of intelligence is rooted in a critique of
conventional methods of teaching and assessing intelligence. In Gardner's view, there has been a long
standing bias toward the logical-mathematical and linguistic in ‘intelligence testing’, in particular with the
‘IQ test’ (Intelligence Quotient). By the IQ measure, someone with outstanding musical understanding
and ability but who is poor at logic and mathematics would be deemed ‘less’ intelligent. The
manifestation of this bias in teaching is that the logical – mathematical and linguistic modes of expression
have been favoured in the classroom over others. The consequence is that those pupils who excel in other
modes are at a disadvantage and tend to turn off or disengage from the material.
The aim of differentiation in teaching is, again, to use a range of different modes of expression
associated with the different types of intelligence in order to communicate as effectively as possible to the
full range of students with their different capacities. That is, an effort is made to translate ideas from the
‘normal’ modes into those more easily understood by pupils with different favoured modes.
An example of such a translation involves the binomial expansion in algebra (Eq.16.1). The normal
mode for mathematics and algebra is numeric equations – numbers and symbols in lines. For some
people, myself included, the brain does not seem to immediately engage with the lines. The interpretation
is just, ‘equation’. Some effort is required to work through the expansion.

(x + y)2 = x2 + 2xy + y2 (16.1)

More effort still is required to understand the generalized term of the expansion (Eq.16.2),

axbyc (16.2)

As it happens, the expansion can be represented in different ways. One is spatially/geometrically, as

in Fig. 17.1.
 279


Fig. 17.1 A graphic representation of the binomial expansion for the exponents 1, 2 and 3 (after Cmglee,
reproduced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

The point of the example is that different modes of expression can be used to communicate the
content in order to help people (like me) to find a way into the content who would otherwise be put off
and deemed ‘slow’ or less intelligent. Another way to view the idea of translation and ‘multiple
description’ is that using more than one way to express content can add depth and insight to everyone’s
perception of the content.
In the context of multiple intelligences and differentiation, the multiple aspects of urban form and the
interdisciplinarity of urban morphology can be seen as an asset. The different aspects provide different
‘ways in’ to the same subject. This allows students to ‘start’ with their preferred / favoured intelligence /
modes of expression. The initial insights provided by the favoured mode can then be used as a foundation
or scaffold for the aspects and modes that might be more challenging for them. They can build up the
composite image of urban form on a foundation with which they are most fluent and adept, tying in the
other aspects to that foundation with more confidence.
From the teachers’ point of view there is still a challenge. Building the composite image and seeing
the relations between the aspects takes time. For the most part ‘contact’ teaching time is limited and the
limited time does not allow for selecting or varying the presentation of aspects to suit each student. A
consequence is that a common complaint from some students on the Design for Conservation module is
that at the early stages they don’t see how things fit together and the module feels confused. Experience
shows that perseverance is rewarded. By the end of the process students commonly say that it is hard
work but well worth the effort. One of the keys to this is repetition of common binding structures that
illustrate how the parts fit together in a larger whole. The following section looks first at the differences in
the taught content of the Design for Conservation module that facilitate differentiation.
 280


17.2 Differentiation in Delivering Content

The Design for Conservation module is a required part of the post-graduate Masters of Science course in
Historic Conservation at Oxford Brookes University. The module is also taken as an elective by Spatial
Planning, Urban Design and Tourism students. The role of the design element is discussed in more detail
in the third section. The focus here is on the specific component elements of the module and their
potential to engage the different intelligences identified by Gardner.
In very broad terms the module is about how new development can be accommodated in historic
environments and the issues relating to the conservation of areas within settlements as opposed to
individual buildings or artefacts. There are four main sub-sections to the module: i) Introduction, ii)
Analysis, iii) Design Guidance and Critique and iv) Design Proposal. Over the course of the module, the
students undertake an individual project studying a place of their choice that is broken down into the same
sub-sections. The intention is that the content presented to the students prepares them to undertake the
corresponding coursework, which in turn reinforces understanding of the content. In effect, lectures and
coursework run in parallel. About midway through the module the students give a short presentation and
then compile all the work into a final report, which, along with the presentation is the basis for assessment
on the module.

17.2.1 Introduction

A central aim of the module is to highlight the difference between describing the physical form and
history of the built environment on the one hand and participating in its creation on the other: between
‘looking’ and ‘making’. This is already to engage at least two of Gardner’s intelligences: the visual and
verbal on the one hand and the spatial and kinaesthetic on the other. It also involves different ways of
thinking and likely different parts of the brain. An analogy used in the introductory lecture is language.
Listening to and understanding language is one thing; it is another to put words together in order to speak
or write. Typically, it is easier for people to understand a foreign language as spoken by others than it is
to speak and take the risk of making a mistake – but it is by making mistakes that we learn.

The Design Exercise

An issue and challenge presented by the module is that the students who take it come from a wide range
of backgrounds. Some have a design or construction background such as architects, planners, technicians
and builders while others have backgrounds in history, language, journalism or economics. This
underscores that the students will have a range of intelligences in Gardner’s terms and reinforces the
potential benefits of differentiation. An exercise given to the students on the first day helps to bring out
the differences and provides a baseline for assessing individuals, taking into account their background.
 281


The students are given a single sheet of A4 paper and asked to draw and describe a proposal for a ‘garden
office’ – a free standing single room building in a back garden. No other requirements are imposed, which
forces the students to make their own assumptions about how to approach the task and so helps to reveal
what their assumptions and background knowledge are. The simple ‘brief’ is also intended to provide a
low risk environment to encourage those with little or no design experience to begin to ‘speak’ without
fear of ‘failure’. By asking for both a drawing and description, the task also helps to reveal the students
bias in terms of modes of communication – and so likely favoured type of intelligence.

Learning by Example

Another basic principle employed on the module is learning by example. As noted, the principal task of
the module and basis for assessment is the course work project – a document combining Analysis, Design
Guidance, Design Critique and Design Proposal. One of the most efficient and effective ways of
explaining what is required is to show the students examples of previous projects. Students are able to
quickly understand the kind of thing they must produce and can refer to the examples when they are
uncertain about what is involved.

Core Content

Aside from summarizing the structure, general content and requirements for the module, the Introduction
puts forward the core urban morphological concepts of social process, type and hierarchy (Kropf 2011) as
a common foundation that informs the different parts of the module. These concepts touch on and
embody the inherent diversity of urban morphology that makes it amenable to interdisciplinary study and
differentiation in teaching. In Garnder’s terms, the social process that produces the built environment is
rooted in and elucidated by interpersonal intelligence. Similarly, the concept of type and typological
analysis is likely to suit those with a strong naturalist intelligence while hierarchy is more conducive to
those with spatial and logical intelligence.
In terms of conceptual content with which the student might engage – as opposed to the modes of
communication – the defining relations of the aspects of urban form identified in section 17.1 above
suggest an alignment with the types of intelligence. That is to say, because the characteristics of the
aspects are different, they are likely to be more or less accessible to different types of intelligence. The
following list below sets out a suggested correspondence between the different aspects and intelligences
as a basic starting hypothesis.
i) Spatial relations (spatial, naturalist)
Natural environment
Built form (+ logical-mathematical)
ii) Human-form relations (spatial, kinaesthetic, intrapersonal)
Use (+ interpersonal)
Control (+ interpersonal)
 282


Intention (+ naturalist)
Construction (+ logical-mathematical)
Perception
iii) Temporal relations (spatial, logical-mathematical, naturalist)
Development and evolution
Flows of materials and resources.

17.2.2 Analysis

Text and Image

The analysis section of the module focuses on substantive techniques and their underlying concepts. A
primary mode of delivery is lectures that make use of visual presentation material. The use of images,
diagrams and examples provides the basic level of differentiation to accommodate visual and verbal
learners.

Walking Tour

In the second week, the programme includes a directed walking tour. The walk has a number of purposes
from an educational point of view and in terms of differentiation. First and foremost, the walk is a way of
presenting the material directly to all the senses in a primarily kinaesthetic mode. Over the course of the
walk, the tutor draws the students’ attention to selected aspects as examples of features that constitute the
built environment and the distinct differences that give places their identity. The tutor also encourages the
students to pay attention to their own responses and ‘gut feelings’ to the different places visited. This is an
appeal to intrapersonal intelligence. Being able to consciously probe ones emotional and associative
responses to places is a key skill to develop, in particular for designers and regulators. On the one hand it
is important to understand which aspects or elements of a place prompt particular responses in order to be
able to protect or use those aspects and elements if one wants to deliberately prompt that response. On the
other hand, it is equally important to understand ones’ own particular responses and the extent to which
they might be biased by ones’ personal history and experience.

Coursework and Analytical Exercises

The primary techniques of desktop analysis taught on the module include: historical development and
map sequencing, route structure analysis, urban tissue analysis, land use analysis and townscape analysis.
Again, the basic concepts and techniques are presented through lectures supported by images and
examples. Because the lectures and coursework are programmed to run in parallel, the verbal and visual
delivery is supplemented and extended by the more spatial and kinaesthetic modes through physically
 283


undertaking the analysis work with maps and drawings. This serves the dual purpose of providing an
alternative mode into the content as well as reinforcing the content in the lecture through experiential
learning. For some analytical methods, the students are given a brief sample exercise to do in class. This
provides further spatial and kinaesthetic experience and allows for direct and immediate feedback.
The analytical coursework, in particular route structure and urban tissue analysis, also involve spatial-
logical relations as well as numerical measures. Reference is also made in the lectures to Space Syntax
and other methods of quantitative and configurational analysis. These more relational-numerical methods
provide an opening for those who favour logical-mathematical and spatial intelligence.
At this point it is worth taking a quick step back to give a more detailed picture of the coursework
project. The brief for the project is to: select a study area within a settlement (or a whole small
settlement); undertake an analysis of the study area to identify the structure, characteristics and features
that give it its identity – and may make it worthy of protection as a heritage asset; select the
characteristics and features that contribute most to its character and historical significance; write guidance
for new development in the area that maintains and protects that character and significance; undertake a
critique of a new development within the area; formulate an alternative proposal for the site that, in the
view of the student and supported by the analysis, is a better design solution. Again, each student
produces an individual project, which is the principal basis for assessment for the module.
An important part of the initial analysis of the study area is a field survey. Undertaken by walking
through the study area in a structured way and making systematic records, the role of the field survey is to
check and augment the desktop analysis, record perceptual characteristics and features and gain an
understanding of the place through direct experience. In terms of differentiation and modes of thinking,
the field survey – as a self-directed, structured walking tour – has the same benefits as those discussed
above for the guided tour and similarly opens up an avenue for those who favour kinaesthetic, spatial and
intrapersonal intelligence.

Interim Presentation

About half way through the module, when the students have had time to complete the first parts of the
coursework, they are asked to give an individual presentation to the class on the results of their analysis.
From an educational point of view, the presentation has a number of different benefits. First and
foremost, it is a form of experiential learning in which the student is, to return to the analogy with
language, taking the risk of speaking. Another key role of the presentation is ‘peer-to-peer’ learning. By
attending the presentations of their classmates, the students pick up a great deal from each other, about the
content of the course, how to undertake and illustrate the different kinds of analysis as well as how to
make presentations. In terms of differentiation, the presentation and peer-to-peer learning are conducive
for those with strong interpersonal and verbal intelligence, who respond positively to active engagement
with others and open up to interactions.
 284


17.2.3 Design Guidance and Critique

Making Judgements

Throughout the module, in lectures, on the walking tour, in the presentations and informally, the students
are encouraged to make judgements about the built environment – the subject of their study: what do you
think and how do you feel about of this place? The question underscores what is one of the most
important ‘lessons’ of the module: to gain the ability to understand why you like or dislike something and
to articulate that reason to persuade others. The goal is to move from being judgemental to making
reasoned judgements and setting out the reasons for others to consider and assess.
Within the coursework, the judgements are exercised in two principal ways. Firstly, the students are
encouraged to decide which of the innumerable elements of the existing built environment, in their view,
make the most significant contribution to the character and identity of a particular place. What is most
important? What makes the most difference? What, if you took it away, would change the place most
drastically? Answering these questions and articulating the answer is the principal task of the Design
Guidance element of the coursework. The underlying assumption is that the primary goal of the guidance
is to maintain the exiting positive characteristics of the place, in particular the historical character but also
activities and vibrancy.
Secondly, when it comes to the critique, the students are asked to exercise judgement about the effect
and impact of a change or transformation – the removal of existing elements and the insertion of new
ones within the structure of existing features. Does the transformation maintain the character and identity
of the place? Does it exceed the limits of ‘acceptable’ change? As importantly, do the elements inserted
have a sense of integrity and coherence in and of themselves to the same degree as others within the area?
The judgements involved in the guidance and critique draw on a number of different types of
intelligence. There is a spatial logic to the modularity of forms that fit together to make up the physical
structure of a place as well as dimensional measures. The effects and impact of particular configurations –
and changes to them – are accessed primarily through visual, kinaesthetic and intrapersonal means. The
task of articulating and communicating the guidance and critique then rely on verbal, visual and
kinaesthetic skills (as far as drawing is kinaesthetic).
There is also a logical dimension to both the guidance and critique because both need to be supported
by a rationale that refers back to the analysis. It is necessary to follow through from analysis to guidance
to critique making consistent inferences from one to the other. The guidance is based on the analysis and
the critique in turn based on the guidance.

Discussions

In addition to the focused exercise of judgement in the guidance and critique, the students are prompted to
make judgements at various stages on the module. The prompting usually takes place – or results in – a
discussion. Ideally the discussions are an open interaction and exchange of views that offer another
 285


opportunity for the students to ‘risk’ putting together their own position and test it in a wider group. As
with the presentation, the discussions are an opening for those with strong interpersonal and verbal
intelligence.

17.2.4 Design Proposal

Within the coursework project, the design proposal element involves putting together a ‘counter proposal’
for the site that was the subject of the design critique, within the study area for which design guidance
was prepared and analysis undertaken. In principle, the proposal should address and ‘rectify’ the negative
points made in the critique – where the critiqued proposal failed to maintain the character and identity of
the area and did not present a coherent, integrated design. In blunt terms, it is a chance for the student to
show how they would do it better – or more appropriately.

Tutorial Sessions

In terms of differentiation, the principal mode of delivery for design proposal stage is individual tutorial
sessions supported by a design studio environment. In brief, students book a face-to-face session with the
tutor which is held in the lecture room that is treated as a studio space so that all students are free to come
and use the room to work on their project. The tutorial session is open ended and interactive with the
student encouraged to focus on points and issues about which they have questions or would like advice.
Other students are also free to listen to the session. While the design proposal itself involves the spatial,
visual logical and intrapersonal modes, the interactive nature of the tutorial and studio environment are
predominantly interpersonal. Both the student-tutor and student-student interactions allow for and
facilitate more focused and nuanced exploration of concepts, principles and techniques as well as the
sharing of pragmatic tips and know-how.

The Act of Design

As a learning exercise, the design proposal it is a further step toward adopting the ‘making’ frame of mind
and another opportunity for the students to try to ‘speak’ the language of the built environment. In the
gamut from making judgements, formulating guidance and taking a critical position, the design proposal
takes the student furthest away from the support provided by what has already been made by someone
else. Design involves formulating in ones’ head something that is ‘not there’. It may be composed of
familiar elements but the specific combination in that particular place does not exist. It also involves
seeing existing places not as settled and complete but as an opportunity for something different, for its
potential. The act of designing is then an iterative process of generate and test, trying out possibilities and
seeing if they work. That process involves alternating between the two general perspectives of ‘looking’
and ‘making’. In the generation stage, one takes the perspective of opportunities and potential, looking for
ways to satisfy human needs and accommodate current ways of life. In the test stage, one switches to the
 286


view of the observer of the settled state of things. How does it all fit together, as if one were to come
across it by chance? In the longer term, the alternating perspectives give a greater degree of
understanding. There is a common underlying logic to both points of view that is embodied in the design
process as a whole. As discussed in more detail in the next section, that underlying logic is the basis for
using design as a method for teaching urban morphology.

17.3 Using Design to Teach Urban Morphology

The foregoing seeks to show that the diversity of content that makes urban morphology amenable to
interdisciplinary approaches also makes it amenable to differentiation. The range of specific subject
matter embodied in the different aspects of urban form and the modes of expression most suited to them
provide alternative ways for people with different favoured types of intelligence to engage with the
material with greater ease than might be the case with more ‘monomodal’ subjects.
The discussions above also suggest that there is a relationship between urban morphology and design
that provides another avenue into the subject. One manifestation of the link is the alternating viewpoints
taken in the iterative process of generate and test: the analytical, ‘looking’ view and the generative,
‘making’ view. To some extent the link lies in the ‘process’ but there is also an underlying logic.
The logic starts with the fact that design is already a part of urban morphology. Design is part of the
process of formation and transformation that is studied by urban morphology. If it is part of the process, it
offers a perspective from which to view that process. From another point of view, the logic works from
the premise that urban morphology has a role in urban planning and design. If the principles and ideas of
urban morphology can inform planning and design decisions as an ‘input’, then the same argument can be
run backwards so that design can be used to teach urban morphology as an ‘output’.
As is appropriate to the task of teaching, the steps back are perhaps best stated as questions. What is
the overall structure of the process of formation and transformation of which design is a part? What are
the steps to and from design and who are the agents in the design process? What ideas and information
are required to go through that process? How does a designer get that information? The following
discussion poses some provisional answers to these questions based on the Design for Conservation
module. In this context, the coursework project for the module can be seen as a reflective ‘design
exercise’ that has been drawn out and articulated.

Aspects of Urban Form and the Typological Process

Having noted the design is part of the process of formation and transformation studied by urban
morphology, in terms of the aspects of urban form set out in 17.1 design falls within the the general
aspect of ‘intention’. Design is the explicit formulation of an intention to build: ‘I want to build
something and this is what I want to build’. A useful way to illustrate both these points is a diagram of the
typological process (see Fig. 17.2). At the more general level, as suggested in Kropf (2017), the diagram
 287


can be used to show the relationships between the aspects of urban form. That is, what might normally be
presented as a list of aspects can also be shown as a process diagram because the relationships that define
the aspects as categories also define general roles or steps in the process (though not limited to those).

Fig. 17.2 A diagram of the typological process that illustrates the relationships between the aspects of
urban form (source Kropf 2017)

With respect to design, what the diagram emphasises is that the sources for any given design include
both the experience of using and interacting with existing forms and the range of active, latent and
embodied types ‘in circulation’ in that particular time and place. It also emphasises the role of control and
construction in moving from the idea to the physical reality of the form. So, in teaching, rather than
presenting design as one of the abstract categories and a step in an abstract sequence, the aspects and
process can be brought to life by animating them through the perspective of a design project. Situating
design within the process opens up a way to explore the central concepts of the aspects of urban form and
the typological process. With design taken as the starting point, the process can be followed through with
a specific example, the diagram being used to highlight the precursors to the act of design – we don't start
from nothing – as well as looking at the results and consequences of design and the potential future life of
the forms created.

Design and the Hierarchical Structure of Built Form

When presented as purely abstract concepts, the ideas that urban form is the product of a social process
involving socially generated, repeating patterns of form that establish a multi-level hierarchical structure
can be somewhat opaque, particularly to students new to the field. The hierarchical structure of built form
is, however, one of the central urban morphological concepts that can be most forcefully illustrated
 288


through a design exercise. Any product of design in the built environment has both a specific location and
an internal structure. Two of the central tasks of design are i) to get the object to fit into and work in its
particular location, and ii) to get the internal parts to work together and create a coherent whole; all to
ensure the object satisfies the aims of the original intention. Once the student sees that the object of
design is necessarily part of something larger and has its own internal parts there is a tangible basis for
introducing the compositional hierarchy of built form. The building that you design on its plot fits into a
street that in turn fits into an urban tissue. The rooms that make up the house are in turn composed of
structures, themselves composed of materials (Fig. 17.3). Once the principle has been illustrated with a
tangible example, it is a smaller step to show examples at other levels that lead to the overall structure.

Fig. 17.3 A diagram of the generic structure of built form illustrating the hierarchical relationships
between generic types of built form (source Kropf 2017)

17.4 Conclusions

While in some lights the diversity of urban morphology as a subject might be considered a challenge for
teaching, this paper has sought to show that it can be taken as an asset. The multiple aspects of urban
form that are investigated by urban morphology – and which lend the field to interdisciplinary approaches
– also provide a rich means for making the subject more accessible through differentiation in teaching.
One might say that the basis for differentiation is ‘built in’ to the subject. In setting out the methods used
in teaching the Design for Conservation module, the chapter identified the types of intelligence that
would benefit from each of the methods and modes of communication used. The result of correlating
methods and types of intelligence shows that the range of methods used in the module – lectures and
visual presentations, a brief design exercise, walking tours, analytical exercises, student presentations,
discussion sessions, tutorial sessions held within a design studio environment – provides wide scope for
differentiation.
The task of design brings together these various methods for differentiation as well as the associated
methods of learning. In simple terms, the underlying logic in using design to teach urban morphology is
that, if design is an element within one of the aspects of urban form studied by urban morphology
(intention) and urban morphology can be used to inform design, we can ‘work backwards’ and explore
 289


the principles of urban morphology through a design exercise. On this basis design becomes a tangible
platform or portal to explore the more abstract principles of urban morphology.
In the end, the aim of the chapter has been to reflect on and articulate in more formal terms what
developed over time in a gradual, informal way. To a significant extent, the structure and methods of the
module came about through of a process of generate and test: trying things out and dropping or modifying
them depending on the results and response form the students. That is to say, the module has developed
using some of the same methods of learning as used within the module itself. While the articulation of
those methods through reference to Gardner's theory and principles moves in the direction of a more
formal ‘meta-learning’ for teaching, it is openly not attempting a formal assessment of those methods. If
there is a formal aim it is to present the results of reflecting on the experience of teaching as an example
so that they might be taken up by others: using the results of learning by experience to promote learning
by example.

References

Gardner H (2006) Multiple intelligences: new horizons. Basic Books, New York
Goethe JW (1952) Goethe’s botanical writings. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
Kropf K (2009) Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology 13:105-120
Kropf K (2011) Morphological investigations: cutting into the substance of urban form. Built
Environment 37:393-408
Kropf K (2017) Handbook of urban morphology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester