Search results

This paper aims to investigate the architectural design jury in a university in the UAE. It explores the jury as an assessment tool, this system's formative value – i.e. significance for learning enrichment – and issues undermining it and power relations in the jury and their implications.

The study is carried out through surveys of students' views, reflection on the author's experience and literature review.

The paper finds that the jury emphasizes assessment over learning. Students are gradually disturbing unbalanced power relations in the jury, but power remains uneven and obstructive of the jury's developmental role. Despite the jury's shortcomings and scholars' call for abandoning it, students found the studio better with the jury, although they wanted the system to be enhanced. The persistent – albeit not unchallenged – power of the design jury institution and students' need for feedback from different sources and unawareness of any alternatives to the jury led to this position.

The paper recommends reforms to the design jury and suggests experimenting in supporting tools to direct this system toward student empowerment and learning enhancement.

This study fills a gap in the literature as it investigates persisting problematic components and practices in today's architectural design juries in university education in the Arab region, which have not received adequate attention. The context of the study and the new generation of students it involves enable a new perspective on the topic.

Based on the authors teaching experience, this essay presents an example of how the traditional design studio might be modified so as to foster democratic participation and egalitarian communication between the participating students and instructors. Open communication in the studio is seen as the key to incorporating important values such as collaboration, community and respect for the every day environment into the studio's hidden curriculum. The essay begins by discussing the potentials for and obstacles to meaningful communication in the studio. This discussion is followed by a description of a modified studio project that included continuous role-playing on the part of the students. The final discussion outlines and evaluates how these modifications enabled students to use previous knowledge and everyday language and permitted the discussion of topics not usually debated in the studio. The students, in their assumed roles, became critics, clients and members of a team of designers. Hence these changes influenced the distribution of power in the studio and the students gained more control over their learning experience.

The purpose of this paper is to test a studio pedagogy that originates from an experiment of a collaborative design studio held between two departments of Architecture, as a useful way for students to learn mutually. Meanwhile, it aims to capture the effectiveness, efficiency and impacts of this collaboration.

This paper presents a qualitative research study to observe the role of collaborative design studio in the pedagogical structure of architectural education. It combines the conventional studio with live projects as a unique pedagogy within the studio of Architectural Design-I (AD-I). Primary data collected using open-ended questionnaires from students and focal studio tutors at both architecture departments generated results.

Built on the analyses of the questionnaires, this paper answers the research questions based on the collaborative studio pedagogy for the course of AD-I and reports on lessons learnt from this collaborative experience. It proves that students can successfully work collaboratively and build confidence in their own abilities to solve a challenge and achieve a common goal through practical experience as well.

This research used a qualitative approach to evaluate the perspectives of 81 students and 6 tutors within a specific pedagogical approach. Given the small sample size and delimitation of the one-course approach, findings from this study are not generalizable to a broader population. Furthermore, a longer duration is needed to address collaborative learning challenges. Nevertheless, it provides valuable data for future studies and also offers pedagogical options for other schools to consider implementing and studying.

The collaborative pedagogical approach experimented in this study was the first initiative of its kind in Karachi, between a younger institution, AED-SSUET and a more established one which was DAP-NED. A four-week collaborative design studio exercise of AD-I engaging third-semester students of AED-SSUET[1] and DAP-NED[2] was a hybrid approach that combined conventional design studio with live project to promote a novel and effective collaborative learning method. In the process, students were encouraged to interact competitively with peers, facilitated by rigorous engagement of focal design tutors from both Architecture departments. It also influenced the active participation of experts from the industry and Architecture community and was exclusively designed to eliminate the pairing up of a single tutor with one student each. The students at AED-SSUET were also able to build a 1:1 scale project with an allocated budget and time-frame constraints.

Since the teaching of architecture is now carried out in architectural studios with the critique session as the core of its assessment, the aim of this paper is to analyse architecture students’ attitudes, satisfaction levels and experiences in terms of different critique and assessment methodologies.

The study relies on two main approaches – the literature and questionnaire survey. In addition, the study relies on the author’s personal observations in design studio teaching and as a practitioner of the method.

It is important to establish clear goals for design critique and assessment and to include different critique methodologies – self critique, peer critique, group critique and professional critique. All such methodologies should be undertaken in an interactive environment that facilitates communication and exchange of scholarly thoughts among students, instructors and other professionals.

The study involves the investigation of students’ responses and reactions to the various critique methodologies and their underlying practices in the context of Egypt. This is based on the questionnaire survey undertaken by the author in 2016. The questionnaire is designed to generate both qualitative and quantitative data.

This study aims to understand the students’ perspective about their design experiences with regard to studio-based learning and its impact on their education.

While the topic of design critique about students has been studied heavily in the Western world, there is a lack of similar information in most Egyptian universities. To fill this gap, the Architecture Program at Port Said University was closely observed.

Traditional architectural curricula have been based on the design studio model, which emphasizes learning by doing. Under this model, a typical architectural curriculum offers a sequence of design studios in which students learn to design by actually engaging in designing. Until very recently the design studio culture remained largely unchanged. The introduction of the virtual design studio and the paperless studio in early 1990s has resulted in fundamental changes in design studio pedagogy. The paper examines the impact of computers and information technology, as applied in the paperless studio and the virtual design studio, on design studio education. Based on literature reviews on paperless studio and virtual design studio and examination of architectural studio instruction, including several experiences in conducting paperless studios, the author considers the pedagogical shift occurring in design studio instruction as a result of integrating digital media in the design studio. The paper considers two types of transformations in studio instruction: pedagogical transformations related to using digital media as a design tool and pedagogical transformations related to distributing the design studio with some or all participants in remote locations.

Following the positive call for a special issue on Architectural Pedagogies and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the purpose of this overview article is to contextualise reflections on nine selected articles, within recent efforts made by professional organisations, which aspire to blend sustainable development into the collective psyche of both academics and future professionals.

This article adopts four lines of inquiry by capturing key insights on the place of sustainable design knowledge in architectural education validation and accreditation at both national and global scales; presenting analytical narratives on the recent global efforts that embrace excellence in architectural pedagogy through addressing SDGs; elucidating the two knowledge spaces, centred on pedagogy and sustainability, which are strengthened and supported by Archnet-IJAR, and offering reflections on the nine articles published in this special issue that aims at integration of the two knowledge spaces.

Contextualisation and reflective narratives offer insights into current efforts and demonstrate a clear commitment of professional organisations to embed values relevant to SDGs. Efforts of the Education Commission of the International Union of Architects and the UNESCO-UIA Validation Council of Architectural Education appear to have advanced significantly over recent years with a clear prospect for a sustainable future. The nine articles published in this special issue respond clearly to the goal of Quality Education (SDG4), but not all of them have addressed the goals related to Good Health and Well-being (SDG3) and Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11), and their place in architectural pedagogy. However, they take a step further to address aspects of climate change, globalisation, sustainable architecture and urbanism, social sustainability, global north/global south dialectics and decolonisation.

The findings offer opportunities to recognise efforts by professional organisations, map key pedagogical experiments into these efforts, while providing lessons learned from best practices aiming to effectively integrate SDGs into architectural pedagogy.

No serious effort has been made to articulate the integration of SDGs into architectural education at the level of research or design studio pedagogical practice. Addressing architectural pedagogies and sustainable development is predicated on the fact that there is very little written or known on integrating SDGs into architectural education and design pedagogy. Understanding, appreciating, and sharing various efforts and approaches to incorporate SDGs into architectural pedagogy is a key step towards a sustainable future.

This paper aims to discuss the potentials of interdisciplinary exercises that bring together art and design methodologies in expanding as well as redefining the given methods and principles of basic design in architecture education. The primary purpose is to improve the conventional, well-established principles and methodologies of basic design studios into fresh perspectives.

Focussing on the case study of a basic design studio assignment that translated Richard Serra's Verb List (1967-68) into space-generating operations, the authors analyse how a diagonal interdisciplinary approach to studio pedagogy opened up the basic design studio into the exploration of new concepts and approaches. The assignment encouraged architecture students to productively and creatively engage with a significant art historical work for the purposes of design thinking and exploration.

Findings reveal that the students explored the possible reciprocal influences between materials, actions, and issues of form and organisation, thereby operating in an interface between art, architecture and design surveying the possible interactions between these disciplines. Based on the outcome of this studio exercise, the authors argue that designing assignments that would bring together various and sometimes even conflicting approaches of different fields allow us to reassess and conceptualise anew the pedagogical aims and modi operandi.

The research is original in the ways in which it suggests many possibilities of dialogue, interaction and collaboration between art, design and architecture studios.

This cross-sectional study investigated differences in the learning styles of 127 undergraduate architectural students (first year through to final year) to examine the relationship between learning styles and learning autonomy.

For the investigation, the Felder and Solomon index of learning styles and the Macaskill and Taylor autonomous learning scale were used to identify how these variables relate to one another and how this relationship differs by gender and level of study.

The study provides evidence of a statistically significant impact of studio-based learning on both learning autonomy and style. Our findings, in conjunction with the absence of consistent findings from literature, provide suggestions for making learning in the studio more inclusive for all students. The authors also suggest that looking for learning style differences in the design studio is redundant. This is not intended to ignore the importance of learning styles, but when differences of learning preferences are apparent in one design studio, such finding would provide support for that specific learning setting, and only then conclusions can be drawn and suggestions can be introduced to help its learners, but not to be generalized to other studios.

Learning styles in the design studio literature has revealed only a few fragmentary and sometimes contradicting evidence that cannot be generalized. Although previous studies have explored learning styles in architecture in some detail, much uncertainty still exists about the relation between learning styles and other learning concepts such as autonomy, especially within studio-based subjects. In this research, the authors interrogated and critically review learning styles as applied to different design settings from different countries.