Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Iteration As A Strategy For Teaching Architectural Technologies in An Architecture Studio
Iteration As A Strategy For Teaching Architectural Technologies in An Architecture Studio
To cite this article: Susan Shannon & Antony Radford (2010) Iteration as a strategy for teaching
architectural technologies in an architecture studio, Architectural Science Review, 53:2, 238-250,
DOI: 10.3763/asre.2009.0058
The linking of architectural technologies and design is problematic in the education of architects. While students can
understand how environment, building performance, structure, construction and building services interact and work in a
particular building, they often find devising strategies and technologies for designs of their own to be difficult. In this article,
we describe the learning outcomes and student responses to an experimental integrated building design studio that explored
whether planned iteration would promote learning of these issues and technologies. By planned iteration we mean the
programming of the explicit cycles in which the same issues and technologies are revisited several times in a way that recog-
nizes and develops a student’s increasing understanding. This positions design (in a broad sense) as a cyclical process of
reflective practice, where the design situation and potential are only fully understood through the process of postulating
and reflecting on design proposals. The design knowledge needed is only fully apparent once the process is underway.
Results indicate that ‘low-risk attempt followed by feedback’ is an effective mode of learning. Such an approach has dangers
of requiring unrealistic staff time in providing feedback; in this experimental studio most feedback was offered to groups rather
than individuals.
Keywords: Architecture; construction; design; education; evaluation of student learning outcomes; integration; iteration;
teaching; technology; services; studio
development, construction documents, materials and iteration. The second cycle consisted of four iterations of
methods, structures, etc., are generally taught as isolated designing through the ‘building’ and review of detailed
subjects and transfer into studio designs is often negli- physical models. The project vehicle was again a café, but
gible. . . .Technology is most meaningful when integrated this time on a different student-selected site that could be
into the studio context, and there is no substitute for located anywhere in the world.
hands-on experience. . . .Structure, detailing, design The proposition behind the research and the studio is
issues, and construction strategy are all debated in the that iteration in the assignment tasks would facilitate
hands-on atmosphere of three-dimensional reality. The student learning by allowing students to immediately apply
best architects understand the logic and poetics of con- not only their pre-existing and new understanding from
struction and the best way to teach this is to build. lectures, but also their revised understanding following
(Carpenter, 1997, p46, quoted in Jann, 2009) feedback on ‘errors’ and omissions. It would reinforce
learning through repetition and allow a second and even
In our experience, the process of students developing the third and fourth attempt for a student who failed to grasp
basic professional knowledge of ‘how to build’ that is key ideas. In doing so, it would encourage and facilitate
expected of a graduate is rarely easy. This capacity to not students’ self-reflection on their work in a process of reflec-
only understand ‘how to build’, but also how to engage crit- tive practice (Schön, 1983, 1987; problematized by Webster,
ically with other technical project consultants early on in the 2008).
design and build process is a critical graduate attribute, very If the iterations simply repeated the original task, then
worthy of curriculum exploration: able students would likely feel bored and frustrated, so the
iteration extended the task each time with higher expec-
Integrated design, which is the crux of sustainable build- tations of detail and presentation so that able students
ing design, necessitates early involvement of all project could demonstrate their increasing understanding and
consultants in the design process. A shared understanding refine, or even radically modify, their design proposals.
of the client’s objectives in building and occupying the Our understanding and direction to students about the
building is essential . . .Thus construction students must notion of iteration in the studio therefore refer to the architec-
be educated with a ‘whole building’ mentality so they tural technologies and issues to be addressed at increasingly
can realise the interrelatedness of building components sophisticated levels, and not to iteration of unchanged tasks
in lieu of the current method of teaching compartmenta- and expectations. The educational theories that underpin this
lised information applicable only to constructors. thinking about iteration are outlined by Bruner, who postu-
(Hayles and Holdsworth, 2008, pp29, 30) lates the following:
In this article, we describe the organization and student [a] curriculum as it develops should revisit the basic ideas
response to an experimental integrated project-based repeatedly, building on them until the student has grasped
design studio that explored whether planned iteration the full formal apparatus that goes with them
would promote learning of these issues and technologies. [t]o be in command of these basic ideas, to use them
By planned iteration we mean the programming of explicit effectively, requires a continual deepening of one’s own
cycles in which the same issues and technologies are understanding of them that comes from learning to use
revisited several times in a way that recognizes and develops them in progressively more complex forms
a student’s increasing understanding. It positions design as a [t]here is much still to be learned about the spiral cur-
cyclical process of reflective practice, where the design situ- riculum that turns back on itself at higher levels.
ation and potential are only understood through the process (Bruner, 1960, p13)
of postulating and reflecting on design proposals. The
knowledge needed is only fully apparent once the process Scaffolding of learning is at the heart of the tutor’s role in the
is underway. iterative studio.
In this ‘integrated’ studio, the learning agenda and
expected learning outcomes linked and sought cohesion Scaffolding is the process that enables a child or novice to
between environmental (site and sustainability), social (func- solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal that
tion, symbolism and aesthetics) and technical (construction, would be beyond his unassisted efforts. This scaffolding
structure and services) aspects of building design. The organ- consists essentially of the adult ‘controlling’ those
ization of the studio nested four iterations of detailed design elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s
production within two cycles of tackling the design project capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and
as a whole. For the first and larger cycle, the project complete only those elements that are within his range
vehicle was a café on a student-selected site alongside the of competence. The task thus proceeds to a successful
Torrens River through Adelaide, Australia. Aspects of the conclusion. We assume, however, that the process can
design were tackled first in group work, and then in three potentially achieve far more for the learner than an
more iterations of individual work with feedback after each assisted completion of the task. It may result, eventually,
in the development of task competence by the learner at a individual students with feedback on task completion
pace that would far outstrip his unassisted efforts. clarity and whether tasks have been well communicated,
(Wood et al., 1975, p90) but is poor at aiding students in self-calibration against
expert judgement (because very able students are stringent
In opposition to the positive features of project-based learn- judges of their own, and others’ capacity, while poor stu-
ing, such as increasing student motivation, problem solving dents are lenient judges of their own and others’ capacity)
and higher-order thinking skills (Banerjee and De Graaff, (Boud, 2009; Webster, 2008, p67).
1996), a common criticism is that the largeness of the This goal of incorporating opportunities for peer learning
agenda can tend to inhibit the ambition of the designs. If stu- was achieved by scheduling the first iteration of group work
dents are required to understand and show the many environ- during class time, soon after conventional lectures in which
mental, social and technical aspects of a design, then they the required knowledge was outlined. Good examples of
may ‘play safe’ in what they do. In this experimental later individual work were digitally projected and briefly dis-
studio, this risk was acknowledged and addressed by two cussed at the start of the following week’s lecture session.
cycles of the whole design proposal. In the first cycle, over These features will be discussed later in this article.
the first eight weeks of a 12-week semester, the focus was In summary, the objectives for the iterative course design
on design for architectural technologies. The overriding were to
aim was for the students to know how to build what they
designed. This did not mean that the aesthetic, symbolic † Provide for students to review, revise and improve their
and functional aspects of the design did not matter. Rather, work within the course.
it meant that the way in which these issues were manifested † Have two parts: (1) designing within a student’s develop-
in design form should be within the student’s knowledge ing knowledge of architectural technologies and (2)
of the environment, building performance, structure, pushing design boundaries to an extent that a student
construction and building services as it developed during may not have all of the associated construction and tech-
the course. nical knowledge, but would understand the principles.
In the second cycle, over the last four weeks of the semes- † Provide opportunities for students to learn from the work of
ter, the emphasis was on design for delight. The overriding other students during and after each iteration, so that this
aim was to make a building that people would want to comparison of their own work with the work of their peers
experience. This did not mean that the environment, building could be an input into the next iteration of their own work.
performance, structure, construction and building services
did not matter. Rather, it meant that what was designed The final course driver is restated by Tucker and Rollo
should be potentially buildable but not necessarily within (2005) – discussing Milliner’s (2003) concerns (as RIBA
the student’s – or even the teacher’s – expertise. This Director of Education) about resourcing pressures on tra-
pushed the boundaries of students’ technological knowledge ditional studio teaching, pressures that also drove this experi-
and raised questions for discussion about technologies that mental iterative course design.
supported the aim of ‘designing for delight’.
Integral to this iterative course design was the principle that With the current pressure on resources (our statistics show
students should learn from each other and that examples of that the number of staff in schools has declined by 30%
good student work would be visible to others as benchmarks since 1998, and those remaining are under increased
for their own work in later iterations. The rising expectations pressure to undertake research and a greater share of
of each iteration were effectively conveyed in this way. The administration), nothing is left unchallenged. Hot
impact of peer learning is well understood and discussed by desking, decreasing space, working from home, increased
many authors, including Boud, Cohen and Sampson, who use of IT, diminishing staff contact, the consequences of
describe successful peer group tutoring of students: student debt in terms of time available for study, all eat
away at our preconceived notions of what a studio is,
[T]he experience of peer learning is known to be a signifi- and require those on the ground to be ever more creative
cant component of a student’s overall academic experience about how, where and when to teach design.
and skills developed from working closely with peers are (Milliner, 2003, p2 in Tucker and Rollo, 2005, p15)
also considered very relevant preparation for most work-
places. This is especially the case in the project-based
work environment of contemporary organizations [such
as architectural practice].
(Boud et al., 2001, p10)
RESEARCH METHOD
The research method is based on a case study of the experi-
Boud asserts that peer learning and peer assessment are bene- mental studio outlined above. We wanted this experimental
ficial for some aspects of students’ self-development. He studio to give us information about the success or otherwise
contends that peer learning is well suited to providing of the iterative strategies adopted and to provide credible
evidence of the effect of these strategies on learning out- with a measure of students’ progress during the course
comes and student satisfaction. The mixed method research while there was still time to address issues. The post-course
evaluation of the course combined observation with questionnaire was designed to provide a reflection opportun-
student questionnaires and focus group interviews ity for students on the course and their learning.
(Bergman, 2008). Mixed method research across many dis- At the conclusion of the course, the evaluator was provided
ciplines is typified in that with a list of students in rank order of assessment. The evalu-
ator invited students’ participation in two voluntary focus
either the purpose of the [mixed method research] design groups selected from students from the highest and lowest
is to merge (or bring together) the qualitative and quanti- cohort of achievement in the course. Students were not
tative data in a parallel or concurrent way, or to have one informed of the criteria for selection of the focus groups. As
type of data build on or extend the other type of data the focus groups were conducted after the conclusion of the
(qualitative and quantitative) in a sequential way. course, students in the course were not negatively impacted
(Cresswell et al., 2008, p66) in any way by the conduct of the focus groups in relation to
their assessment outcomes for the course. Recruitment was
The evaluation was carried out by a participant staff member voluntary and students were able to withdraw at any stage
who was not a coordinator or teacher in the course. As a without giving any reason. Academic staff involved in the
member of the Australasian Evaluation Society, she course were unaware of who had volunteered to participate
designed the methodology and the questionnaires as well in any focus groups. Staff within the course teaching and
as fulfilled the role as participant observer. assessment team were not involved in the focus group
events or in analysis of the outcomes.
The concept of the aloof researcher has been abandoned. Sixteen months after the course, students still enrolled in
(Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, p22) the school and who had participated in the course were again
anonymously surveyed as a longitudinal measure of stu-
Notwithstanding this participant observer role, she main- dents’ beliefs about the impact of the course on their sub-
tained a vigilant independence from aspects of assessment sequent learning.
and feedback. Human Research Ethics Committee approval
was received to undertake the evaluation.
The mixed method research methodology allowed the
researchers to gauge the impact of the cycles of the design
THE CASE STUDY
studio (iterations) on students’ learning outcomes. In particular, In this section, we shall describe the studio in some detail, to
the student evaluation of learning and teaching (SELT) ques- enable readers to compare its aims and strategies with their
tionnaires, which re-asked the same questions (developed own practices and experiences with similar studios. As
specifically for this particular studio) about students’ under- noted already, the course was located in the final (third)
standing of, and competence and confidence with, architectural year of an undergraduate degree. It took place in 2007
technologies three times during the studio, and then, 16 months with an enrolment of 85 students. The course outline in the
later, the open-ended SELT questions and the post-course focus university calendar states that it ‘focuses on the exploration
groups enabled students’ reflections on the capacity of the of contemporary architecture theories and their application
‘planned iteration learning strategy’ for their learning to be to the design and development of medium scale building pro-
gathered. The evaluations comprised the following: ject(s). Emphasis will be placed on development of brief and
program; developing design to respond to the local environ-
† the design, administration and evaluation of pre-, mid- ments with the application “passive” design principles,
point and two post-course student evaluation of learning natural and artificial lighting, and building ergonomics;
and teaching questionnaires through the university SELT selecting building materials suitable for the construction;
system developing construction details; sizing of the structural
† the participant observation of learning studios elements; performing life cycle cost analysis; and presenting
† the design and conduct of post-course focus groups with design work with manual/hand and digital drawing and
selected students. physical modelling using the conventions in architectural
representation as well as using innovative digital tech-
The pre-course questionnaires were designed in consultation niques.’ This is an extensive and demanding agenda.
with the course coordinator to establish students’ learning The project for the studio was a small café, and the two
and expectations (as a baseline) as they entered the course. parts of the programme as outlined in the introduction to
Generally, the students had already spent five semesters this article were as follows:
studying in the school. Their participation in this course con-
cluded their three-year undergraduate degree, the first part of † Weeks 1– 8: Part 1: design a café on a student-selected site
a five-year architecture programme. The mid-point course beside a lake within a specified park, presented by a sche-
questionnaire was designed to provide staff and students matic model and construction drawings.
1 A lecture session that set the agenda for the week and
pointed to sources of information. This was conventional
illustrated lecture-style teaching, usually presented by a Figure 1 | Two hands working in group work stage 1 workshop
team of the course coordinator and an expert in the field
of the week’s teaching agenda.
2 A workshop session that was used to quickly develop version to be submitted the following week. These sub-
work in groups under the close direction of a tutor. missions were collected, and this time concise individual
3 Research and development undertaken by students during written feedback was provided. During the two-week non-
non-contact time. teaching period that followed week 8, tutorials were held
to assist a small group of students whose work still did not
As one of only two courses taken by the students in the semes- reach acceptable levels. Such students could re-submit the
ter, their expected commitment was 24 hours/week during work (a fourth iteration, after the group first attempt, individ-
the teaching weeks: three hours of lectures, three hours of ual second attempt, and draft and final individual third
workshops and 18 hours of research and development time attempt iterations) but there was a cap of minimum pass
prior to the next lecture. level for the grade that was given to such work.
The three-hour workshops were conducted with student This structure and the sequence of iterations are explained
groups of six, whose outcomes were pinned up for the in the following two tables. Table 1 shows the timetable for
tutor’s verbal feedback at the end of the session. Each work- the course and the relationships between lectures, workshops
shop focused on an aspect of the design in consecutive and work carried out during non-contact time. Table 2 shows
weeks: site, frame, skin, openings, settings for human activi- the assessment expectations and marking criteria.
ties and building services. Usually there were many errors in In the second cycle, all the students’ work was expressed
this first and hurried group attempt, but it was easy for tutors as 1:50 scale models. This is a large enough scale to require
to identify and comment on these issues. The submissions the indication of basic structural frames. The models were
were marked, but counted for only a small proportion of made each week, so that at the end of the four weeks of
the course marks. The risk was therefore low for the students this cycle each student had a set that showed their design
in making errors (Figure 1). development. All four were assembled for the final student
The workshop could use any of the workshop members’ presentation of their work. For the teacher, understanding
initial individual building proposal or a simplified ‘generic’ models is a much faster process than understanding a set
design. After the workshop, students worked on their own indi- of student drawings. For the student, making models at this
vidual proposals with the same agenda for design, construction scale requires a holistic understanding of their design and
and services development. This was submitted the following construction. An example of these model sets and the
week for marking. There was no individual feedback other design ambitions of their author are shown in Figure 3.
than the mark, but a consolidated list of issues that arose in sub-
missions was prepared. This list was discussed at the start of the
lecture the following week, when examples of some of the stu- THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE
dents’ submissions were also projected onto the lecture theatre
screen and discussed. Students therefore saw examples of some The student experience was monitored through surveying
of the more successful submissions (Figure 2). participant observation and focus groups.
This pattern continued for six weeks. In the seventh week,
the workshop session was used for individual students to Student surveying
show draft-revised versions of their weekly submissions to All students were asked to complete four anonymous and
a tutor who provided verbal feedback for a final revised voluntary questionnaires that were distributed and collected
during scheduled lectures. The university SELT questionnaire † exemplars drawn from a broader range of submissions
scheme was utilized for the surveying as their standards for † more information on relevant detailing, more architec-
administration and analysis ensure an ethical approach and tural exemplars and more examples of construction
external processing, while supporting purpose-built drawings.
questionnaires.
Post-course survey
Baseline survey The aim was to determine the impact of the course through
At the beginning of the first lecture, a questionnaire was students’ eyes as they contemplated their semester’s learning.
administered to survey students’ self-statements of their Compared with the pre-course SELT questions, the responses
competence with a range of design, communication, struc- showed an overall increase in confidence with technical
tural, technical and construction elements. This revealed aspects of researching and proposing construction and struc-
that while students felt competent reflecting on, evaluating tural systems. Students’ holistic reflections on the organization
and visualizing designs, they were not confident of their of the studio together with open-ended reflections allow us to
competence with technical skills including, but not limited propose that this organization contributed to students’ overall
to, understanding construction, structures and detailing. increase in confidence and competence with architectural tech-
The results are reported in Table 3. nologies. The results are reported in Table 5.
the studio) and a positive stance towards the experimental It is possible to speculate that, immediately at the conclusion
studio. of the experimental studio, students had learned so much in
that studio by their own self-statement that there was some-
As courses go it was one of the most effective courses of thing of a ‘halo effect’ dominating their end-of-course survey
our four years so far results. Further, it is prudent to reflect that as project-based
Continued
Table 2 | Continued
Expectations Criteria
1 1:20 part wall section, including roof/wall and drawings; ability to translate design intentions
wall/floor junctions into construction proposals;
Also pin together all sheets so far. appropriate detailing
Due in studio week 8
8 (Major
submission
due)
Alternative design(s)
Mid-semester 1:200 schematic model(s) of at least one
break alternative design and new site (alternative design
concept(s))
Due in studio week 9
9 Model 1 Revised 1:50 (or scale advised in studio) Crisp, abstracted design model showing
schematic model(s) of at least one alternative building form
design
Due in studio week 10
10 Model 2 1:50 (or scale advised in studio) model(s) of As above
interior and/or details as advised in studio.
Due in studio week 11
11 Model 3 Final integrated 1:50 model (or model(s) at this As above
and/or other scales as advised in studio)
Due in studio week 12
12 (Major
submission
due)
learning (such as in the experimental studio) is linked to a thinking skills and performance-based, authentic assess-
theory of ‘social constructivism’ (Biggs and Moore, 1993; ments), students’ evaluation of their capacities is also
Soini, 1999; Brooks and Brooks, 2001; Brophy, 2002) that slanted to an assessment of these capacities within them-
entails a shift in learning objectives (stressing higher order selves (concerned as such processes are with producing
students who are skilled participants in the processes of
creating and evaluating new knowledge, using evidence
and reasoning in ways that characterize the academic discip-
lines (Nuthall, 2002, p43). In the 16 months between the
course and the longitudinal survey, students doubtless
encountered other studios where these constructivist
educational ideals were not as celebrated.
The comparison revealed that students’ self-stated compe-
tency with design, construction and structural competencies
had improved as a result of the experimental studio. Initial
high and possibly unrealistic end-of-semester scores were
tempered by the passage of time. To understand students’
experience of the course, global questions were posed.
They matched the pre-course questions and are reported in
Table 4.
RESULTS
Figure 3 | Four phases of design models produced during the
The results in Table 4 reveal that many students found the
second cycle of the studio (Richard LeMessurier)
course less difficult than expected. A higher proportion
Table 3 | Comparison of students’ pre-, post- and longitudinal course SELT results
No. Question Broad agreement (%)
Likert 5 – 7 on a 7-point scale, where 1 ¼ strongly
disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree
thought that the course had increased their skills in construc- the course design that were critical to students’ learning
tion (through the part that focused on design for construc- (related to the core values of iteration (the spiral curriculum
tion) than had expected such an increase. The different foci and scaffolding, and peer learning)) were revealed.
of parts 1 and 2 are reflected in the results. One could specu- Students stated that they liked the organization of the studio:
late that students did not see this ‘technical’ view of design-
ing (through construction, structure and servicing, and † As a method of time management, which ‘forced’ them to
detailing choices) as ‘design’ – preferring to believe that keep working every week:
‘design’ was schematic, conceptual design. ‘constant workload – no build up and all nighters’
Students’ open-ended comments revealed that it was not ‘enough work to help us learn without being so much it
so much the quantum of work that pleased students as the felt overwhelming’
steady pace, which was welcomed: ‘if you were organized you could actually work like a job
50 or so hours a week’
constant workload. No build up and all that nonsense. † As an easy structure to follow with the two aspects of structure
That is good. and construction, and design well integrated:
consistent pace -. no climaxes ‘the best aspect was the structure of the course, particu-
larly the clear and definable division of types of
Students were asked post-course several open-ended ques- work, that is, construction and models. This enabled
tions. Through the coding and analysis of this post-course us to focus on each part well enough for it to be
and longitudinal qualitative data, organizational aspects of productive’
was good to perform assessible learning tasks weekly instead in marks and comments more highly than avoidance of risk
of in ‘big lumps’ and that they need feedback in more detail, by not making proposals.
especially on how to improve good work as ‘the individual is The tutor then discusses what is wrong and what would be
blind to his own faults’. right. Importantly, this feedback comes in time for the next
iteration – one where the student works alone and not in a
group, and one where the marks at stake are higher than in
DISCUSSION the first iteration. As noted above, this individual work is
Most educational programmes incorporate some degree of required to be further developed in detail than the original
iteration from course to course, and this is accepted as a group work, with the potential for new errors that had not
part of the curriculum design. The studio described in this arisen in that first attempt. This time the teacher/tutor notes
article recapitulated some areas of knowledge taught in the problems that arise in the work of the class as a whole,
earlier courses. The experimental difference was the and provides feedback to the whole class about those prob-
planned iteration within the course. The research outcomes lems and how they can be addressed. Some of the ‘best’
are not conclusive in that it is impossible to isolate the learn- work is shown as examples, with a discussion of their
ing effects of iteration from other features of the course and merits. The new understanding developed by students
the context in which it was delivered. Nevertheless, the out- through this process is then applied in the third iteration,
comes do suggest that planned iteration without repetition, the preparation of a draft consolidated set of drawings for
meaning that there are added expectations for competent stu- individual discussion with a tutor before the preparation of
dents who would otherwise find the processes unproductive, the final set.
is an effective strategy for encouraging learning. In this spirit All this has the side-effect that students experience a
of iteration, the following discussion recapitulates the key regular pattern of work rather than a build-up at the end of
themes in the course and the reasons for those themes. the semester. The design presented in the final set of draw-
Architecture students are most responsive to learning ings is developed over the semester in parallel with the
when they are motivated by the need to know in order to developing understanding of what can be achieved and
design. However, design is a cyclical process of reflective how it can be achieved.
practice, where the design situation and potential are only The costs of the studio were lower than those for a con-
understood through the process of postulating and reflecting ventional studio due to the lower staff:student ratio required
on design proposals. The knowledge needed is only fully by the group work focus of most of the timetabled studio ses-
apparent once the process is underway. The first cycle of sions in the first 8 weeks, and the commentator/audience
the iteration, the group work cycle, is essentially one of pattern of the last 4 weeks where the presentation of
‘coming to understand’. The fact that it is group work models without drawings is a much faster process than a con-
means that students share knowledge and articulate their ventional ‘pin-up’ of drawings. Despite the lower costs,
understandings from the lectures, readings and previous the general expression of student satisfaction with the
experiences. The more competent and confident teach the course compares favourably with more conventional studios.
others in the most positive aspect of peer learning. The While it is inadvisable to generalize from a case study, the
resulting work is typically riddled with errors, but it is evidence of this educational experiment suggests that
important that the group ‘has a go’, even when they have planned iteration is a useful strategy for promoting student
doubts about the correctness of their work. Risk is rewarded learning of technologies in architecture.
References
Banerjee, H.K. and De Graaff, E., 1996, Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J., Carpenter, W. (ed), 1997, Learning by
‘Problem-based learning in architec- 2001, Peer Learning in Higher Building: Design and Construction in
ture: problems of integration of techni- Education: Learning from & with Each Architectural Education, New York, NJ,
cal disciplines’, European Journal of Other, London, Kogan Page. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Engineering Education 21(2), 185 – 195. Brooks, J. and Brooks, M., 2001, In Search Cresswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L. and
Bergman, M.M. (ed), 2008, Advances in of Understanding: The Case for Garrett, A.L., 2008, ‘Methodological
Mixed Methods Research: Theories Constructivist Classrooms, New issues in conducting mixed method
and Applications, London, Sage. Jersey, NJ, Prentice-Hall. research designs’, in M.M. Bergman
Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J., 1993, The Brophy, J. (ed), 2002, Social Constructivist (ed), Advances in Mixed Methods
Process of Learning, London, Teaching: Affordances and Research: Theories and Applications,
Prentice-Hall. Constraints. Advances in Research on London, Sage.
Boud, D., 2009, ALTC Fellow address at Teaching, vol. 9, Oxford, Elsevier Demirbilek, N. and Demirbilek, O., 2007,
The University of Adelaide 29 April Science. ‘Architectural science and student-
2009. ‘How can Assessment Enhance Bruner, J., 1960, The Process of centred learning in towards solutions
Learning in and after Courses?’ Education, Cambridge, MA, Harvard for a liveable future: progress, practice,
Adelaide, The University of Adelaide. University Press. performance, people’, Official
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Constraints. Advances in Research on Think in Action, London,
Conference of the Architectural Teaching, vol. 9, Oxford, Elsevier Temple Smith.
Science Association ANZAScA, 14 –16 Science. Schön, D., 1987, Educating the Reflective
November 2007, 85 – 91. Radford, A.D., 2005, ‘Kingdoms, Practitioner, San Francisco, CA,
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., 1998, streams and stars: organising Jossey-Bass.
‘Introduction: entering the field of the architectural curriculum’, in Soini, T., 1999, Preconditions for Active
qualitative research’, in N.K. Denzin K. Holt-Damant and P. Sanders Transfer in Learning Processes,
and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), The Landscape (eds), Drawing Together: Helsinki, The Finnish Society of
of Qualitative Research: Theories and Convergent Practices in Architectural Sciences and Letters.
Issues, London, Sage. Education. Proceedings of the 3rd Tucker, R. and Rollo, J., 2005,
Hayles, C.S. and Holdsworth, S.E., International Conference of the ‘Sustainable design education: teach-
2008, ‘Curriculum change for Association of Architectural Schools of ing, learning and assessment in colla-
sustainability’, Journal for Australasia, Brisbane, University of borative group design projects in
Education in the Built Environment Queensland and Queensland fabricating sustainability’. Official
3(1), 25 –48. University of Technology, WWW1– Proceedings of the 39th Annual
Jann, M., 2009, Revamping Architectural WWW8. Conference of the Architectural
Education: Ethics, Social Service, and Radford, A.D., 2009, ‘Responsive cohe- Science Association ANZAScA,
Innovation. Available at: www.march- sion as the foundational value in archi- 17 – 19 November 2005, Wellington,
todarch.com/index_files/Revamping. tecture’, The Journal of Architecture School of Architecture and Design
pdf [accessed July 2009]. 14(14), 511 – 532. Paper 15.
Milliner, L., 2003, ‘Architectural Education; Radford, A.D. and Travar, L., 2003, Webster, H., 2008, ‘Architectural edu-
Studio Culture’, Keynote paper to ‘Denying division: a case study in really cation after Schön: cracks, blurs,
CEBE Concrete Centre Conference, integrated project-based learning’, in boundaries and beyond’, Journal for
December 2003, Catherine’s College, S. Hayman (ed), Proceedings of the Education in the Built Environment 3(2),
Oxford. 37th Australian and New Zealand 63 – 74.
Nuthall, G., 2002, ‘Social constructivist Architectural Science Association Wood, D., Bruner, J. and Rose, S.,
teaching and the shaping of Conference, ANZAScA, Sydney, 1975, ‘The role of tutoring in problem
students’ knowledge and thinking’, in 487 – 493. solving’, Journal of Child
J. Brophy (ed), Social Constructivist Schön, D., 1983, The Reflective Psychology and Psychiatry 17,
Teaching: Affordances and Practitioner: How Professionals 89 – 100.