C. Stevenson (Sample - Indexed Articles On Architectural Education)

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 49 No 3 2018 337–353
doi:10.1111/bjet.12535
Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of

combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live
projects
Carolina Rodriguez, Roland Hudson and Chantelle Niblock

Dr. Carolina M. Rodriguez is an architect from Universidad Nacional de Colombia with a PhD from Nottingham
University, UK and more than 16 years of experience in teaching, research and academic administration at
university level. She has worked as a lecturer at The University of Los Andes in Colombia, The University of
Nottingham and The University of Liverpool in England. In these positions, Carolina has established a track record of
high quality publications and research grants. She has specialised in designing pedagogical methods and active
teaching and learning strategies. Dr. Roland Hudson is a part-time Professor in the Department of Architecture at the
University of Los Andes and an independent researcher and consultant applying computational design in architecture.
Dr. Chantelle Niblock is a Lecturer in Architecture and Course Director of MArch Digital Architecture and Tectonics
at the University of Nottingham. Address for Correspondence: Dr. Carolina M. Rodriguez, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Colombia. Email: cm.rodriguez@uniandes.edu.co
Abstract
Combinations of Conventional Studio and Virtual Design Studio (VDS) have created
valuable learning environments that take advantage of different instruments of
communication and interaction. However, past experiences have reported limitations in
regards to student engagement and motivation, especially when the studio projects
encourage abstraction or are detached from context or reality. This study proposes a
hybrid approach that overcomes these limitations by blending conventional studio, VDS
and live projects. This blend aims to foster opportunities from within a real design
situation, while promoting different levels of motivation and engagement. Two case
studies comprising academic projects between the University of Los Andes, Colombia
and the University of Nottingham, UK were used to validate the approach. In these,
students interacted with peers, teachers, people from industry and the community to
build 1:1 scale projects, with budgets and timeframe constraints. The study proved that
students could successfully work collaboratively and build confidence in their own
abilities when placed in a real setting, which enabled interactions face-to-face and at a
distance to solve a challenge and achieve a common goal. The article reports on lessons
learnt from these collaborative learning experiences, which reflect on contemporary
cross-cultural design practiced today.
Introduction
The motivation for this study initially stemmed from awareness of the speed of change in infor-
mation communication technology (ICT). Depending on the way it is used, this may either help
or hinder collaboration between teams of designers in architectural education and in practice. In
a review of recent academic research on collaborative architectural design opportunities pre-
sented by ICT in practice, two distinct types of applications can be identified. The first relates to
the improved performance of existing tools in commercial applications where collaboration
focuses on sharing building information models placed in cloud-based storage (Singh & Wang,
2011). The second centres on developing new communication platforms that allow instant model
C 2016 British Educational Research Association
V
338 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 49 No 3 2018
Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
• Conventional studio teaching has numerous advantages due to face-to-face inter-
actions between students and teachers. However, acquisition of knowledge is cen-
tred on personal experiences, which may benefit only certain individuals. There
are also concerns regarding excessive abstraction and disconnection from real
design problems.
• Live projects are effective pedagogical strategies to connect the world of academia
with the world outside. However, they require great administrative effort and
resources, as well as strategies in place to manage uncertainty and changes dur-
ing their implementation.
• Singular learning activities and tools may favour only one particular type of
motivational or behavioural engagement.
What this paper adds
• A hybrid approach that combines conventional studio, VDS and live projects,
which results in a novel and effective collaborative learning method in architec-
tural education.
• Innovative learning activities designed to instigate and maintain student engage-
ment and motivation at different levels.
• A strategy to transform and enrich a common studio setting by enhancing the
sense of belonging and ownership, promoting self-motivated actions and encour-
aging lifelong learning.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• The case studies presented here provide new insights into established ways of
teaching, which could result in adjustments and improvements to existing
curricula.
• The article highlights the benefits as well as potential obstacles of the proposed
approach and includes recommendations for its application.
updates or use virtual reality (Ong et al., 2013). For both applications, there is a common belief
that new ICT tools should be the focus to inform better collaboration through the design process,
from the initial conceptualisation (Joklov! a & Henrich, 2015) to the construction and project
management stages (Onyegiri, Nwachukwu, & Jamike, 2011). However, other research indicates
that developing better personal relationships may be more important for quality collaborations
than acquiring specific ICT tools. For example, Kvan (2000) suggested that in many cases design-
ers are actually co-operating instead of collaborating. He argued that working together is not
necessarily collaboration; it might be better defined as an act of co-operation or co-ordination in
order to achieve success. In many cases, this can be achieved simply by sharing information via
ICT tools. Collaboration, on the other hand, is a deeper, more personal synergistic process, which
is time-consuming and requires relationship-building. It is normally suited to very particular
problems that require a strong connection between participants during the design process. Co-
operation could be reached if all participants have assigned parts separately and bring their
results together; collaboration, in contrast, implies direct interaction among individuals and
involves negotiations, discussions and accommodating others’ perspectives (Kozar, 2010). Kvan
(2000) proposes that better collaboration may be achieved when existing ICT tools are more
loosely coupled. From this perspective, employing readily available and well-developed tools
V
Collaborative Learning in Architectural Education 339
allows user-generated content to play a central role. In particular, if these tools are WEB 2.0
focus, where users can interact and collaborate with each other, generate content, share informa-
tion and create virtual networks and communities (social media).
The dynamics generated within architectural practice directly impact the way students are
encouraged to work collaboratively within an academic environment (Wang, 2012). University
students are some of the earliest adopters of social media and other WEB 2.0 focus tools. Hence,
pedagogies such as VDS have taken advantage of this to facilitate design collaboration between
geographically dislocated teams. The use of these tools has been a theme for discussion over the
last two decades in the context of architectural education (Maher, Simoff, & Cicognani, 2000;
Mitchell, 1995; Schnabel & Ham, 2012). Previous studies have shown that collaborative learning
experiences with VDS not only promote the development of professional skills in a multicultural
society, but also encourage critical thought and enhance the understanding of diversity (Hou,
Kinoshita, & Ono, 2005). However, a number of limitations are linked to VDS related to a potential
decrease in student motivation and engagement, as well as technical and cultural barriers. There
are also important concerns raised in regards to the web-based generation of skills that are, in
some cases, more consumer-oriented and less educational (Achten, Koszewski, & Martens, 2011).
Search engines and social media websites can induce people to become “decoders” of information,
rather than readers with the opportunity to place information within context (Mallgrave, 2010).
It has been argued that “the danger of being detached from physical surroundings is present and
should be taken into consideration while design studio is going virtual” (Achten et al., 2011, p.
25). Hence, it is suggested that contemporary VDS should offer something different, such as the
introduction of a critical approach to contemporary socio-cultural reality (Achten et al., 2011).
VDS have been normally coupled with certain elements of conventional studio, as both pedagogies
have been found to be complementary (Achten, Roelen, Boekholt, Turksma, & Jessurun, 1999;
Livia, 2011; Salama, 2014). In the same vein, conventional studio and pedagogies such as live
projects have been used together in other teaching experiences as a way to establish links between
the academic environment and the outside community (Harris & Widder, 2014). This article pro-
poses a novel modification which combines VDS, conventional studio and live projects, in order to
promote effective collaborative learning at different levels and via diverse means. This combination
aims to complement the qualities and overcome the boundaries that each pedagogy has independ-
ently. The article starts by highlighting current opportunities and limitations present in VDS,
conventional studio and live projects as isolated teaching methods. Then, it examines the benefits
of a proposed hybrid approach via two case studies. These involved interactions between Univer-
sity of Los Andes in Colombia, Nottingham University in the UK and members of other
communities in both countries. Participants had the opportunity of working face-to-face in each
country and collaborating at a distance between each other. The article concludes with a sum-
mary of the benefits, lessons learnt, suggested improvements and potential curricular adjustments.
Pedagogical background
The principal limitations and opportunities in each of the three pedagogic formats studied are
summarised in Figure 1 and further examined in this section.
Virtual design studio

Virtual design studio (VDS) refers to a format of teaching and learning where participants’ com-
munication and collaboration is mediated mainly through asynchronous digital tools, thus,
overcoming geographical or spatial barriers. These types of tools have been widely used in
student-centred approaches based on constructivist theories (G€ ul, Williams, & Gu, 2012). They
allow students to start the class at any time, to study in isolation and to communicate with
instructors and classmates using interactive technologies such as video conferencing and social
V
Figure 1: Opportunities and limitations from the use of virtual design studio, conventional studio and life
projects in architectural education [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
networks like Skype and Facebook. In order to enhance and complement the traditional face-to-
face and master-apprentice relationships in the conventional studio, since the 1990s numerous
schools of architecture worldwide have experimented with variations of this format (Achten et al.,
1999). Initial explorations often used digital tools mainly for the purposes of e-mail communica-
tions and file sharing, and as means of presenting work. As digital technology and global
communication systems have advanced, more sophisticated versions of VDS using computer-
aided architectural design, digital prototyping, automated construction methods and WEB 2.0
tools have emerged (Schnabel & Ham, 2012). The present study mainly focuses on VDS that use
WEB 2.0 tools to allow collaboration at a distance, due to their popularity amongst students and
their suggested advantages in regards to collaborative work in architecture (Meshur, Alkan, &
Bala, 2014).
It has been suggested that VDS in general can stimulate creativity and empower students to
express, explore and convey their imagination more easily (Schnabel, 2011). The implementation
of VDS may generate highly interactive and collaborative studio environments, increasing sense
of community and interest in social problems (Livia, 2011). It can enrich architectural education
by moving away from conventional, linear and unidirectional ways of teaching. It can also pro-
vide an opportunity to create meaningful knowledge, encouraging independence, efficient time
management, spatial flexibility and other types of social interactions that are not feasible in tradi-
tional classroom settings (Kr€
amer, Neugebauer, Magenheim, & Huppertz, 2015). However, it is
argued that research in this area remains in its infancy, and due to the preconception of the
“unique” nature of traditional, face-to-face studio-based learning, many educators are reluctant
to use the VDS format or other asynchronous tools (Meshur et al., 2014). Additionally, very few
studies have specifically addressed the role of WEB 2.0 tools in architectural pedagogy (Bala &
Arat, 2012; Schnabel & Ham, 2012). Technical and practical constraints can emerge during the
implementation of these types of methods, including a lack of resources for working with large
V
student groups, software incompatibilities, language or cultural barriers between participants or

time differences between regions, amongst others (Lavia, 2011). Although this form of distance
communication is appropriate in many cases, there are concerns that students may lack opportu-
nities to interact directly, to actually collaborate and to receive feedback and support, all of which
could lead to less engagement in learning activities (Tuckman, 2007). There are also concerns
related to unresolved issues with students’ engagement in the learning process and their ability
to regulate their own learning if they are allowed too much freedom in how and when they inter-
act (Sun & Rueda, 2012).
Conventional studio
Conventional studio became increasingly popular in architectural education since the Bauhaus
teaching experimentation of the 1930s in Germany (G€ ul et al., 2012). It has been the centre of
architectural education in various countries for many decades, proving to offer numerous advan-
tages, such as the promotion of critical, creative and pragmatic thinking (Lukman, Ibrahima, &
Utaberta, 2012). In a common studio-based exercise, students are given a design problem that
allows them to direct their own learning through the search for potential solutions. During this
process, teachers or experienced practitioners guide the students by questioning their design pro-
posals during face-to-face tutorials and reviews in order to encourage the search for a variety of
solutions. This method has been broadly formalised as “problem-based” or “project-based” learn-
ing and it is used in many other disciplines (Bridges, 2007). There are numerous variations in
studio teaching; however, it has being generally criticised because experienced designers are not
always the best educators, as their operative model for teaching tends to rely on an implicit
understanding of how they themselves design (Dooren, Boshuizen, & Merri€enboer, 2013). In
Dooren et al. (2013), it is argued that some teachers resist using specific pedagogies or strategies;
hence, the acquisition of knowledge in studio settings is primarily centred on personal experien-
ces. As there are different types of learners, this approach may privilege only certain individuals.
In addition, Jarrett (2000) argues that design studios are too often insulated from ordinary, every-
day life and tend to promote theory without practice. This excludes a world rich in colour,
behaviour and circumstances, which may lead to social seclusion and narrow-minded thinking,
as well as breed abstraction and detachment from reality. This criticism coincides with concerns
regarding VDS pedagogies, highlighted in Achten et al. (2011).
Live projects
Live projects are practical learning experiences that are well-established in other fields of educa-
tion such as business, management, law, health-related disciplines and interactive media (Harris
& Widder, 2014). They can be viewed as a way to achieve authentic learning, an instructional
method which centres on relevant and real world tasks that are of interest to the learners and
where other stakeholders take part in real time (Utaberta, Hassanpour, Surat, Che Ani, & Tawil,
2012). In architectural education, live projects have been used as alternative means to provide
students with real and tangible design problems. They “comprise the negotiation of a brief, time-
scale, budget and product between a client and an educational institution” (Harris & Widder,
2014, p. xix). Live projects are thought to be effective pedagogical strategies to connect the world
of academia with the world outside, even though they require larger administrative efforts and
more careful time management compared to conventional studio (Anderson & Priest, 2012).
There are diverse opinions in terms of their relation with the studio environment. Some educators
believe that they are a great complement to other methods as they reduce the dominance of the
studio whilst capitalising on the notion of “pedagogical events” (Salama, 2014). Others suggest
that design studio projects and live projects are settings that facilitate the development of valuable
but different abilities and competencies (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Design studios can
provide an abstracted and risk-free environment for examining concepts in detail and in isolation
V
by stripping away content, conditions and uncontrollable complexities. Life projects, on the other
hand, exist in complex, unpredictable circumstances where students need to apply other sets of
skills to deliver results under changing conditions.
It is argued that in “live projects’ higher levels of motivation are strongly linked to the involve-
ment of real clients and users and the perception that the clients have truly valued their work.
Students talked about ‘making a difference’ or a ‘lasting effect’ and feeling ‘proud’, knowing that
their work was ‘going to be used’” (Sara, 2011, p. 13). In contrast, lower levels of motivation
and engagement in VDS and conventional studio pedagogies may be linked to the lack of involve-
ment with real clients or problems (Jarrett, 2000; Tuckman, 2007). Previous research suggests
that there is a direct link between motivational variables and student engagement in a distance
learning setting (Sun & Rueda, 2012). Motivational variables refer to three main aspects: situa-
tional interest, self-efficacy and self-regulation. These motivational variables are thought to be
linked to three types of engagement: behavioural, emotional and cognitive (see Figure 2 for defini-
tions). These types of engagement have been regarded by Fredricks (2005) as three aspects that,
when combined, represent the student’s capacity to take ownership of their past, present and
future educational experiences and investment in learning. It has been argued that certain learn-
ing activities and tools may favour one particular type of engagement. For example, online
multimedia, discussion boards and distance learning may increase emotional engagement. Like-
wise, face-to-face tutorials may favour cognitive engagement, and project-based activities may
encourage behavioural engagement (Fredricks, 2005). Fredricks’s theory was taken as frame-
work for this study in order to design a strategic combination of elements from the VDS,
conventional studio and live project formats, which could potentiate collaborative learning.
Figure 2: Learning activities designed to foster motivational variables and encourage student engagement
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
V
Approach
For the purpose of this work, a deductive methodology was chosen, where a hypothesis was pro-
posed based on literature review and then validated via two case studies (project 1 and project 2).
The case studies were specifically designed to link learning activities from conventional studio, VDS
and live projects that together would encourage all levels of engagement (Figure 2). These included
activities where students had to assume individual responsibility (conventional studio), work with
students from other backgrounds (VDS), tackle a challenge collectively (conventional studio, live
projects, VDS), resolve a real problem (live projects) and/or work in conjunction with the commu-
nity (live projects). The central hypothesis of the two case studies was that students could build
confidence in their own abilities through a project that would place them in a real design situation,
one where they had the opportunity to work collectively with peers and teachers—face-to-face and
at a distance—in order to solve a challenge and achieve a common goal.
A mixed evaluation method was used to assess students’ perceptions of their learning, which
combined triangulation between anonymous online surveys, focus groups with students in each
country and peer review by other teachers.
Case studies
Project 1: pavilion in a suitcase
This 10-week project was centred on a challenge to develop a design proposal for a pavilion, based
on the requirements of a brief for the international 2015 IASS Pavilion Contest. One of the
requirements of the project was that the components of the pavilion could fit into a regular suit-
case (within airline luggage restrictions), hence the name “pavilion in a suitcase.” The project was
carried out in three stages with a group of 25 postgraduate students: six from the University of
Nottingham and 19 from the University of Los Andes. The first stage entailed a 2-week period of
conceptual development (VDS format), followed by a 2-week proposal development stage (conven-
tional studio format), with a final 6-week materialisation stage (live projects format; Figure 3).
During the first stage, students from both institutions collaborated to devise a proposal, working
in mixed teams of four–five students. At the end of this stage each group submitted and shared
their proposal via a five-minute video. A panel of judges, formed by lecturers from each univer-
sity, chose two proposals to develop further. The projects were judged against the same criteria
used for the IASS Pavilion Contest. The aim was to emulate a process of selection characteristic of
architecture competitions, where only one or a few projects are chosen from a range of proposals.
It was important to communicate to the students that in professional practice initial singular
ideas are very often dropped and the team has to work collaboratively in favour of a selected pro-
posal that is considered to be the best for the project. This highlights the fact that the success of a
project is not only based on the selection of an idea, but on the collective performance and rela-
tionships built between participants during the design and materialisation process.
Communication between students and teaching staff was possible through an Eliademy webpage
used for the online course administration. Additionally, students collaborated through Skype
meetings and designated Facebook and YouTube accounts, all of which were used for forums,
messaging and for uploading information (Figure 4). During the second stage, students and
teachers worked separately in each country via regular face-to-face tutorials and workshops (con-
ventional studio format). Students were encouraged to engage with empirical exploration and
research throughout the design process using analogue and digital tools. For the third stage,
guest lecturers and experts from both universities and from the industry were consulted in order
to enrich and refine the schemes. This period included a prototyping, testing and construction
phase, followed by a final evaluation exercise (Figure 5).
V
Figure 3: Learning formats used: virtual design studio, conventional studio and life projects [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 4: Example of the digital tools used for communication [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
V
Figure 5: Development process of project 1 with collaborative learning at a distance [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 6: Development process of Project 2 with collaborative learning at a distance (University of Los
Andes) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
V
Figure 7: Development process of Project 2 with collaborative learning at a distance (University of Notting-
ham) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Project 2: exhibition stand

This 12-week project was based on the challenge of designing and building small-scale exhibition
stands to be used for the end of the year shows at the University of Nottingham and the Univer-
sity of Los Andes. The project was carried out with a group of 56 undergraduate students (28
from each institution). The methodology included the same three pedagogies employed in Project
1, with the difference that the formats were not used in a strictly defined order but overlapped
between each other. For example, there was an active involvement of the “client” and the indus-
try from the beginning of the process. Hence, the live project format was central during a major
part of the process. The other two formats were introduced at different stages and for particular
purposes. For example, VDS was used to develop and evaluate conceptual ideas between both
institutions, and conventional studio was periodically employed to assess progress and to guide
the refinement of the proposals (Figures 6 and 7).
Results
Anonymous online surveys, focus groups and teacher peer reviews were the main three tools
used to gather data from the experiences. Photographs, videos and notes taken by the teachers
and information submitted by the students were also used for analysis. The online surveys
comprised multiple choice and ordinal scale questions (e.g., very much, enough to be satisfied,
more or less or not at all) designed to measure students’ levels of motivation and engagement.
The interviews for the focus groups included open ended questions formulated to evaluate stu-
dents’ perceptions of the overall experience compared to past studio projects and to assess
collaborative work. For example, students were asked: What did you learn from the process of
making the 1:1 scale prototype as a team, with budget constraints, compared to your individual studio
project? Guest teachers were invited at different stages during the projects and their reviews
and comments were noted or recorded. For Project 1 (with 25 postgraduate students), 22
V
online surveys were received, three focus groups (three students each) were interviewed and
three teachers were invited. For Project 2 (with 56 undergraduate students), 48 online surveys
were received, four focus groups (three students each) were interviewed and four teachers
were invited (two in each country).
Figure 8: Results from the anonymous online survey for Project 1 and Project 2 in regards to motivational
variables [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
V
Figure 9: Results from the anonymous online survey for Project 1 and Project 2 in regards to student
engagement [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
The online surveys (Figures 8 and 9) showed that higher levels of motivation and engagement
were accomplished in Project 2 than in Project 1. Students from Project 2 appeared more confi-
dent in regards to their own capabilities (self-efficacy) and personal achievements (self-
regulation), they invested more effort (behavioural engagement) and went beyond the require-
ments (emotional engagement). In both projects, working with students from another institution
appears to be the factor that inspired more situational interest and cognitive engagement, fol-
lowed by working with the community and solving a real problem. This coincides with
V
Figure 10: Comment by a student from University of Los Andes, Project 1 during a focus group interview
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
comments received by students during the focus groups (Figure 10). Students from Project 1
appeared to have higher levels of situational interest when working with students from another
country, and lose self-motivation (self-efficacy) when this interaction stopped.
For Project 2, ATLAS.ti was used as an additional tool to code all the collected information. Six
codes were used to classify text and visual information, according to the types of engagement
described by Fredricks (2005): self-efficacy, self-regulation, situational interest, behavioural
engagement, emotional engagement and cognitive engagement. During this analysis it was veri-
fied that Project 2 students were more convinced than Project 1 students of the positive impact of
Figure 11: Lessons learnt and improvements made from Project 1 to Project 2 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
V
Figure 12: Evaluation of focus groups’ comments using ATLAS.ti [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
the experience on their learning. Again, they appeared to be more engaged and willing to work
harder to achieve better results. This could be due to different reasons; for example, students from
Project 2 were younger than students from Project 1, and hence had less experience working in
design projects, but demonstrated better skills working with ICT and WEB 2.0 tools. The groups
in Project 2 were more balanced, with the same amount of students from each country. In addi-
tion, the live projects in the second case study were more challenging as the industry and the
community were more actively involved and the final project prototype was donated for later use.
Various adjustments to the teaching approach were made to Project 2, based on lessons learnt
from Project 1 (Figure 11). These are thought to have helped improve collaboration between stu-
dents, hence their consideration is suggested for future experiences applying a similar
pedagogical approach. For each lesson learnt, described in the left column, a suggested improve-
ment is explained in the right column.
In the focus groups’ comments (Figure 12), it was observed that as Project 2 progressed, stu-
dents were more independent and learnt to interact and collaborate better at a distance, as
well as to manage time and budgets more efficiently. Students’ confidence in their own abilities
and motivation to tackle the projects increased with time. They reported that the experience
was helpful for their personal learning and an improvement over the conventional studio for-
mat that they were used to. It was observed that WEB 2.0 tools were highly used to share
digital files at the initial conceptual stage and before the final submission; during these periods
students appeared to be mainly co-operating to build information. Collaborations and personal
interactions progressively increased during the central part of the project (decision making and
materialisation stages) through web forums, Skype conversations and face-to-face meetings.
These encounters involved negotiation, discussion and accommodating the view of others,
V
which coincides with Kvan’s (2000) suggestion that better collaboration may be achieved
when using these tools.
Conclusion
The synergy between VDS, conventional studio and live projects proved to have considerable
advantages and benefits over each pedagogy working separately, especially in Project 2 were the
live project was central. The results validate the hypothesis posed by the study, as introducing
aspects of a live project helped to overcome abstraction and detachment from reality, which have
been found to be a problem in past experiences with VDS and conventional studio. In addition,
collaborative work at a distance between students from different cultural backgrounds demon-
strated to be a great motivation and to promote engagement. This evidenced that VDS can also
add educational value to the conventional live project format. Compared to each format in isola-
tion, the main benefits of the proposed combination have been identified as:
1. More opportunities to promote student motivation and engagement are provided, as the
project simultaneously involves working with students from another institution, solving a
real problem and working with members of the community outside the institution (e.g.,
clients or the industry).
2. Collaborative work is enhanced by offering a selection of means and tools (e.g., virtual
and face-to-face, asynchronous and synchronous) that can be used within diverse set-
tings (e.g., at a distance, in the classroom and on site).
3. The risk of favouring only certain types of learners is reduced, as students are exposed to
the views of a variety of participants and not only their studio teacher.
4. Technical and practical constraints can be overcome with the implementation of rela-
tively small adjustments.
The teaching and learning experience presented in this article illustrates a way to greatly trans-
form and enrich a common studio setting. It provides new insights into the limitations of
traditional pedagogical models and also shows the hurdles, complexity and ambiguity confronted
during the implementation of the proposed approach. It was tested within existing studio modules
(normally 4–6 credits each) and was proven to be viable in the context of two different institu-
tions. By using student-centred methods as a catalyst, it was possible to maximise and nurture
deeper and more meaningful interaction, collaboration, discussion, exploration, reasoning and
reflection. This was feasible as students engaged in activities that they cared about and could pur-
sue individual tasks, within their team, that were unique to their interests. Connecting to the real
world helped to stimulate self-motivated actions, to promote a sense of belonging and ownership
and to facilitate lifelong learning. It also moved students out of their comfort zone and placed
them within a more complex environment, where they could embrace risk and uncertainty with
appropriate support and guidance. This is of vital importance in architectural programmes where
education and practice do not necessarily overlap. Curricula mainly based on conventional studio
modules limit students’ opportunities to develop interaction with the world outside of academia
and reduce scenarios to promote different levels of students’ motivation and engagement. Further
research is needed exploring similar or additional strategies to allow authentic learning across
the overall curriculum. This could incite, as a result, a better alignment between architectural
education and the challenges currently faced by the profession.
Statements on open data, ethics and conflict of interest
Data collected during this study can be accessed by contacting the authors. Participant of the
online surveys and focus groups took part voluntarily and with informed consent. Their
responses were used preserving confidentiality and anonymity, ensuring that they were not dis-
advantaged in any way. Author’s views are independent and impartial. The study had financial
V
support from the University of Los Andes for publishing purposes. Contact between the University
of Los Andes and the University of Nottingham was possible thanks to a Researchers Links Travel
Grant given to the main author by the British Council. There are no conflicts of interest to
disclose.
References
Achten, H., Koszewski, K., & Martens, B. (2011). What happened after the “hype” on virtual design stu-
dios?: some considerations for a roundtable discussion. In T. Tadeja Zupancic (Ed.), Proceedings of the
29th eCAADe Conference: Respecting Fragile Places (pp. 23–32). Ljubljana, Slovenia: University of Ljubl-
jana, Faculty of Architecture.
Achten, H., Roelen, W., Boekholt, J.-T., Turksma, A., & Jessurun, J. (1999). Virtual reality in the design
studio: the Eindhoven perspective. In A. Brown & M. B. P. Knight (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th eCAADe
Conference: Architectural Computing from Turing to 2000 (pp.169–177). Liverpool, UK: University of
Liverpool.
Anderson, J., & Priest, C. (2012). Developing a live projects network and flexible methodology for live projects.
Paper presented at Architecture ‘Live Projects’ Pedagogy, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Bala, H. A., & Arat, Y. (2012). Digital pedagogy using social network tools in architectural education. In
Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-2012) (pp. 160–166). Barcelona,
Spain: University of Barcelona.
Bridges, A. (2007). Problem-based learning in architectural education. In Proceedings of CIB (International
Council for Building) 24th W78 Conference (pp. 755–762). Maribo, Slovenia: Alborg University.
Dooren, E., Boshuizen, E., & Merri€enboer, J. (2013). Making explicit in design education: generic elements
in the design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24, 53–71.
Fredricks, J. (2005). School engagement. In K. Anderson Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children
need to flourish? (pp. 305–321). New York: Springer.
G€ul, L. F., Williams, A., & Gu, N. (2012). Constructivist learning theory in virtual design studios. In compu-
tational design methods and technologies (pp. 139–162). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Harris, H., & Widder, L. (2014). Architecture live projects: pedagogy into practice. Oxon: Routledge.
Hou, J., Kinoshita, I., & Ono, S. (2005). Design collaborations in the space of cross-cultural flows.
Landscape Journal, 24, 125–139.
Jarrett, C. (2000). Social practice: design education and everyday life. In D. Nicol, & S. Pilling (Eds.),
Changing architectural education: towards a new professionals (pp. 49–59). London: Spoon Press.
Joklov!a, V., & Henrich, P. (2015). Innovation in architectural education - OIKONET experience. Global
Journal of Engineering Education, 17, 124–131.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-
based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: seeing the difference between cooperation and collabora-
tion. English Teaching Forum, 2, 16–23.
Kr€amer, B., Neugebauer, J., Magenheim, J., & Huppertz, H. (2015). New ways of learning: comparing the
effectiveness of interactive online media in distance education with the european textbook tradition.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 965–971.
Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: what is it?. Automation in Construction, 9, 409–415.
Livia, R. N. (2011). The virtual architectural studio — an experiment of online cooperation. Review of
Applied Socio-Economic Research, 1, 38–46.
Lukman, N., Ibrahima, N., & Utaberta, N. (2012). Learning in architecture design studio. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 30–35.
Maher, M. L., Simoff, S. J., & Cicognani, A. (2000). Understanding virtual design studios. London: Springer-
Verlag.
Mallgrave, H. F. (2010). Architect’s brain: neuroscience, creativity and architecture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Meshur, H., Alkan, F., & Bala, H. A. (2014). Distance learning in architecture/planning education: a case
study in the Faculty of Architecture at Selcuk University. In P. Ord! ~ ez, R. Tennyson, & M. Lytras
on

V
(Eds.), Assessing the role of mobile technologies and distance learning in higher education (pp. 1–28). Hershey:
IGI Global.
Mitchell, W. J. (1995). The future of the virtual design studio. In J. Wojtowicz (Ed.), Virtual design studio
(pp. 51–60). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Ong Eu Ho, F., Janssen, P., & Tian Ti, L. (2013). Group forming: negotiating design via Web-based interac-
tion and collaborationm. In R. Stouffs, P. Janssen, S. Roudavski & B. Tunçer (Eds), Proceedings of the
18th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia CAADRIA (pp. 271–
280). Singapore: Open Systems.
Onyegiri, I., Nwachukwu, C. C., & Jamike, O. (2011). Information and communication technology in the
construction industry. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 2, 461–468.
Salama, A. (2014). ‘Liveness’ beyond design studio pedagogy: Layers of ‘live’ within and across the boun-
daries of classroom settings. In R. Parnell, L.P. Rajendran, & S. Mahdizadeh, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd
Annual AAE Conference 2014 Living and Learning (pp. 88–93). Sheffield: The University of Sheffield.
Sara, R. (2011). Learning from life – exploring the potential of live projects in higher education. Journal for
Education in the Built Environment, 6, 8–25.
Schnabel, M. A. (2011). The immersive virtual environment design studio. In X. Wang, & J. H. Tsai (Eds.),
Collaborative design in virtual environments. Series intelligent systems, control and automation: science and
engineering Vol. 48 (pp. 177–191). London: Springer.
Schnabel, M. A., & Ham, J. (2012). Virtual design studio within a social network. Journal of Information
Technology in Construction (ITcon), 17, 397–415.
Singh, V., & Wang, N. (2011). A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-diciplinary collaboration
platform. Automation in Construction, 20, 134–144.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their
impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 191–
204.
Tuckman, B. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning out-
comes. Computers & Education, 49, 414–422.
Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Surat, M., Che Ani, A. I., & Tawil, N. M. (2012). Architecture from teaching
to learning to practice: authentic learning tasks in developing professional competencies. International
Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 6, 1809–1812.
Wang, J. (2012). Challenging ICT applications in architecture, engineering, and industrial design education. Her-
shey: IGI Global.

V
Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
Article
Arts & Humanities in Higher Education
2018, Vol. 17(3) 279–304
A method for ! The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
experiential learning and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1474022217711878
significant learning in journals.sagepub.com/home/ahh
architectural education
via live projects
Carolina M Rodriguez
Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia
Abstract
In many schools of architecture worldwide, design studios are frequently isolated from
everyday life and tend to focus on theory without experience. In countries with
complex social problems, such as Colombia, experiential learning can offer valuable
opportunities for architectural education to become an agency for social reconstruction
and peace building. This works proposes a teaching method which centres on the
promotion of significant learning, through live projects as a complement to studio-
based projects. Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy for levels of knowledge
were used as references. In order to develop and test this method, 15 different live
projects were designed, built and analysed over the course of four years. These involved
the participation of 170 undergraduate learners, various national and international
teachers, six sponsors from the construction industry and 12 children’s foundations.
The findings reveal valuable insights into the development of intellectual, physical and
emotional dimensions through these experiences.
Keywords
Architectural education, significant learning, live projects, experiential learning, learner
centred
The problem and context

Studio-based projects became increasingly popular in architectural education
around the world since the Bauhaus teaching experimentation of the 1930s in
Corresponding author:
Carolina M Rodriguez, Departamento de Arquitectura, Facultad de Arquitectura y Diseño, Universidad de Los
Andes, Carrera 1 No. 18a-10 Bloque K Piso 2, Bogotá, Colombia.
Email: cm.rodriguez@uniandes.edu.co
280 Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 17(3)
Germany (Gül et al., 2012). The traditional format of these projects focuses on the
resolution of hypothetical design problems (which may or may not be inspired in
reality). The activities carried out to solve these problems are primarily academic
and mainly take place within the classroom (studio), involving lectures, face-to-face
tutorials, ‘pin-ups’, ‘crits’, presentations, reviews and discussions. Studio-based
projects have been broadly formalised as problem-based learning activities and
are still the core of many curricular programmes (Bridges, 2007). It has been
argued that for novice architecture learners, strongly guided studio-based projects
can offer an abstracted and risk-free environment to examine concepts in detail and
isolation by stripping away certain content, conditions and uncontrollable com-
plexities (Kirschner et al., 2006). However, there are serious concerns that as lear-
ners advance their abilities to apply and integrate new information with their prior
knowledge, traditional studio-based projects fall short in providing enough tools
for higher learning (Bridges, 2007; Mewburn, 2010). Design studio pedagogies that
focus on ‘master–apprentice’ relationships have been found to restrict individuality
and lead to student subordination in favour of acceptance from the tutors
(Webster, 2005). In addition, not all the studio-based projects may be suited for
the different cognitive process and styles used by learners to think, organise and
represent information (Kvan and Yunyan, 2005; Tezel and Casakin, 2010). The
academic and theoretical problems used in many studio-based projects can restrict
learning gained through emotional behaviours (Birer, 2012; Nazidizaji et al., 2014).
It has been suggested that emotional intelligence developed through personal rela-
tions, where cognitive and social processes are constantly interacting, greatly
impacts on the way designers structure their design ideas (Cross and Clayburn,
1995). Hamdi (2004) argued that disciplinary teaching encourages the education of
the brain’s intellect and the development of technical skills. However, it fails to
prepare architects for the challenges of practice where process skills are needed.
According to Hamdi, competent practitioners need to develop parallel thinking
(the brain’s heart), which relates to learning by trial and error, dialoguing with
experience and finding association between different concepts. Practitioners also
need quantum thinking (the brain’s spirit), which involves the ability to question,
apply holistic approaches, adapt objectives, change assumptions and break rules.
Interpersonal skills or ‘people skills’ have been found to be essential in a pro-
fessional environment (Till, 2005). Many of these skills are very difficult to teach
via lectures or studio projects. For example, learning to cope with frustration;
adapting to changing conditions; managing complex relationships with clients;
practicing diplomacy, negotiation and leadership; and developing assertiveness,
tolerance and self-control. Some of these skills could be attained, to a certain
extent, through group work within a studio setting. However, working in a
group does not necessarily mean working collectively or mimicking the dynamics
found in practice. Till (2005) states that the theoretical notions of participation in
architecture tend to idealise conditions of mutual cooperation, uncontested know-
ledge bases, open communication and eventual consensus; ideals that in reality do
not exist. It is argued that cooperation is much better accomplished via other types
Rodriguez 281
of learning, where learners are encouraged to solve problems that are directly in
touch with the realities being discussed (McCleskey and Allison, 2000).
Unfortunately, as pointed out by Jarrett (2000), studio-based projects at all levels
are too often insulated from ordinary, everyday life and tend to promote theory
without experience. In his words, this ‘excludes students from a world rich in colour,
behaviour and circumstances, and establishes a number of blind spots in the design
studio environment’ (Jarrett, 2000: 50). This may lead to social seclusion and
narrow-minded thinking, as well as breed abstraction and detachment from real
life. On the positive side, architectural education has progressively become more
outward facing, with pioneer experimental ventures such as the Women’s School
of Planning and Architecture (WSPA) between 1975 and 1981 and the Rural Studio.
The WSPA proposed a non-conventional and non-hierarchical academic environ-
ment, where students and teachers could participate democratically and be equally
responsible and capable of making a contribution (Weisman, 1989). The rural studio,
founded in 1993 by architects Samuel Mockbee and D. K. Ruth at Auburn
University, run a series of live projects aimed to teach students about the social
responsibilities of the profession, while providing a safe environment for architec-
tural exploration (Oppenheimer and Hursley, 2002). In recent years, various archi-
tecture schools worldwide have promoted similar live student projects as a way to
introduce more genuine participatory learning experiences within the curriculum.
According to the Live Project Network (2016) a live project is a teaching activity that
comprises the negotiation of a brief, timescale, budget and product between an edu-
cational organisation and an external collaborator for their mutual benefit. The pro-
ject must be structured to ensure that students gain learning that is relevant to their
educational development.
Live projects are well established in other fields of education such as business,
management, law, health-related disciplines and interactive media (Harriss and
Widder, 2014). In architectural education they are not as common, although
they have been underlined as a great complement for any architectural curriculum,
since they reduce the dominance of the traditional studio setting while capitalising
on the notion of ‘pedagogical events’ (Anderson and Priest, 2012; Salama, 2014).
Live projects can offer great opportunities to adapt, contextualise and appropriate
architectural education, in order to consider specific and socially relevant issues of
a particular region or culture. In countries such as Colombia, where there are
complex social and political problems, architecture and other disciplines related
to the built environment face great challenges, not only in the physical reconstruc-
tion of buildings and cities but also in the reconstruction of the social fabric.
Figures from the United Nations (2016) show that after more than 50 years of
conflict, Colombia has the world’s second largest number of internally displaced
people, many of which move to the cities and live in poverty. More than six out
of 10 households lack proper access to housing, water and sanitation
(United Nations, 2016). Therefore, amongst the current and most pressing
challenges in the country are achieving peace and improving social conditions.
Given this background, architecture programmes should not alienate students
from reality. Instead, universities should be more deeply involved by creating
opportunities where students could help to improve living conditions in cities
and promote dignity by delivering ethical and democratic designs. Most import-
antly, students and young practitioners could have a greater positive impact in
communities using participatory design processes, such as live projects, to empower
people through active and inclusive engagement. With this in mind, it is crucial to
guide learners and help them to prepare for the challenge of using architecture as
an agency for peace building and social reconstruction.
Unfortunately, architecture programmes in the country are not yet fostering the
appropriate environment for the above to take place. A 2012 study carried out by
ACFA (Spanish acronyms for the Colombian Association of Architecture
Schools), analysed 33 of the main architecture undergraduate programmes in
Colombian (Saldarriaga, 2012). It found that the curriculum is very similar in all
architecture schools, usually structured around 170–180 credits and divided into
five main areas: project design (25–40% of the credits), technology (10–20% of the
credits), urban design (5–13% of the credits), theory (9–15% of the credits) and
other related subjects (4–12% of the credits). Project design, mainly formed by
traditional studio-based modules, has a substantial weight compared to other
areas. In addition, theoretical subjects are often taught in isolation from design
projects, using lecture-based modules for teaching theory and studio-based mod-
ules for mimicking practice. Schools offer very few real practice opportunities for
students before they graduate. Normally these are optional and only allowed in the
last semesters of the architecture course.
The motivation for the present work stems from the existing constrains and
limitations of the Colombian architecture programmes and the potential to
enhance practices through ideas belonging to learner-centred teaching and theories
on experiential learning, significant learning and levels of knowledge. This work
proposes an experiential learning method to involve learners in social reconstruc-
tion via live projects. The central hypothesis explored in this article states that for a
live project to have the required effect it needs to simultaneously promote the
development of all learning dimensions, which together create a significant learning
experience. These learning dimensions are difficult to be simultaneously attained
with other teaching strategies such as studio-based projects. Past studies that have
identified similar limitations of studio-based projects in other countries advocate
for a complete curricula reform (Wang, 2009). The suggestion in this article is to
replace some studio-based projects for live projects, inciting in this way a small
scale but catalytic intervention to the current curricula.
Theoretical framework
In general, the framework used here has its roots in constructivism ideas regarding
cognitive, affective and psychomotor development, by authors such as David Kolb,
Rodriguez 283
Jean Piaget, John Dewey and Maria Montessori, among others. This article is
specifically contextualised within Chapman’s et al. (1995) work on experiential
learning, Weimer’s (2002) view of learner-centred teaching, Bloom’s revised tax-
onomy for levels of knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001) and Fink’s (2013) taxonomy
for significant learning.
Experiential learning is thought to immerse learners in an experience and then
encourage reflection about the experience to develop new skills, attitudes or ways
of thinking (Lewis and Williams, 1994). Chapman et al. (1995) suggested nine
characteristics that experiential learning methods should include: (1) Mixture of
content and process (theory and practice). (2) A protected environment to allow a
process of self-discovery. (3) Engagement in meaningful experiences for the learner.
(4) Activities that allow the students to make connections between the learning they
are doing and the world. (5) Opportunities for reflection. (6) Opportunities for
emotional investment, where students are fully immersed in the experience, not
merely doing what they feel is required of them. (7) Re-examination of values.
(8) The presence of meaningful relationships between learner, teacher and envir-
onment, and finally (9) Learning outside perceived comfort zones. The concept of
learner-centred teaching strongly relates to experiential learning, because it centres
on skills and practices that enable lifelong learning and independence. It shifts the
focus from the learning itself (what the student is learning and how the student is
learning), on to the student’s needs instead (Weimer, 2002). According to Weimer
(2012), there are five characteristics of learner-centred teaching: (1) It engages stu-
dents in the hard, messy work of learning. (2) It includes explicit skill instruction.
(3) It encourages students to reflect on what they are learning and how they are
learning it. (4) It motivates students by giving them some control over learning
processes. (5) It encourages collaboration. Experiential learning and learner-
centred teaching advocate for powerful interconnected experiences, which can
lead to the learner’s personal growth, reflection and empowerment to accomplish
a more meaningful life. According to Carl Rogers, these types of experiences need
to be self-discovered and acquired through ‘doing’ in order to truly and signifi-
cantly influence behaviour (Rogers et al., 2014).
The ways in which the learner attains knowledge through experience has been
the core of many studies. Benjamin Bloom’s 1956 taxonomy for levels of know-
ledge is an example, which centred primarily on hierarchically arranged levels of
thinking comprising the cognitive domain. Bloom’s revised taxonomy, later pro-
posed by Anderson et al. (2001), provided a more comprehensive learner-centred
spectrum that not only studied the cognitive dimension, but also the intellectual,
physical and emotional operations that are performed when acquiring knowledge.
It highlighted the importance of the metacognitive level, which complements the
factual, conceptual and procedural levels suggested in the initial taxonomy. A simi-
lar integrated taxonomy, which links experiential learning and learner-centred
teaching with significant learning experiences has been proposed by L. Dee Fink
(2013). Fink argued in his book Creating Significant Learning Experiences that
significant experiences unite six kinds of learning: foundational knowledge,
application learning, integration, the human dimension of learning, caring and learn-
ing how to learn. According to Fink, for a truly significant learning experience to
occur, all types of learning should be present, and the event should incite some kind
of lasting change in the learner. For the purpose of this article, a combination of
Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy was developed, in order to estab-
lish a theoretical point of reference from which live projects can be designed and
evaluated as experimental teaching methods for significant learning (Figure 1).
Significant learning through live projects

There is little research on the impact that live projects have on significant learning.
Fink (2013) argued that significant learning can only be gaged in terms of change.
If there is no lasting change in the learner’s life due to the experience, then there
was no significant learning. From this perspective, live projects need to incite
lasting change in order to become a significant experience. A study on emotional
intelligence shows that lasting changes can occur in learners according to their level
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Intrinsic motiv-
ation relates to the learner’s own willingness to initiate, direct and maintain a
behaviour, while extrinsic motivation involves external sources that impact this
behaviour. It is argued that ‘portraying activities as serving the attainment of an
intrinsic rather than an extrinsic goal promotes deeper processing of the learning
Knowledge Dimensions cognitive processes Knowledge Dimensions

BLOOM´S REVISED TAXONOMY
list summarise respond select check for generate understanding

Basic
FACTUAL
information to
memorise exemplify demonstrate decide test and remembering FOUNDATION
KNOWLEDGE information and
solve problems repeat translate measure KNOWLEDGE
ideas
recognise classify provide differen!ate determine assemble

Interrelations compare contrast dis!nguish connect integrate Connecting
CONCEPTUAL define
between parts and categorise ideas, people, INTEGRATION
KNOWLEDGE
whole realms of life FINK´S TAXONOMY
recall clarify carry out integrate judge design Thinking

PROCEDURAL Applying methods explain illustrate experiment debate rearrange critically,
KNOWLEDGE reproduce APPLICATION
and skills represent prac!ce materialise creatively and
manage execute build practically
iden!fy predict use construct reflect propose

Awareness of interpret interpret argue develop Self-directing own LEARNING HOW
META-COGNITIVE
KNOWLEDGE self-learning infer assess devise learning TO LEARN
ques!on review improve

cri!c innovate Learning about
HUMAN
oneself and DIMENSION
others
value resolve
ins!gate Developing
appeal
new feelings,
CARING
interest and
? values
REMEMBER UNDERSTAND APPLY ANALYSE EVALUATE CREATE
Figure 1. Combination of Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy.

Rodriguez 285
material, greater conceptual understanding of it, and both short-term and long-
term persistence at relevant learning tasks’ (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006: 28). Learners
that are truly convinced of the personal benefits of achieving a task and eager to do
it are learners that perform successfully and are able to overcome difficulties. The
study suggested that high levels of intrinsic motivation are linked to aspects of
emotional intelligence like self-awareness, assertiveness, self-actualisation and
interpersonal relations. In the same way, high levels of extrinsic motivation are
associated with stimulating environments and challenges.
In this context, live projects framed within inspiring settings (where learners
can overcome challenges, feed their creativity and interact with other individuals)
could help to promote intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and achieve significant
learning. However, Billett (2014) suggests that the simple exercise of providing
experiences or instructional strategies and leaving individuals to reconcile their
experiences alone is insufficient. Practices would need to be in place to acknowledge
the relations between the personal factors and the social settings and to help
learners reflect about their personal experience on a broader context. In addition,
live projects raise important ethical dilemmas and methodological issues that need
careful examination, which highlight the need for frameworks for good practice
(Austin, 2016). For example, guidelines to protect and make allowances for all
participating parties, health and safety standards, as well as, legal ramifications
and liability.
Giving these conditions, the principal component for a successful live project
would be a well-designed project brief linked to a suitable context, which matches
the learner’s level of knowledge, offers sufficient guidance for its accomplishment
and fosters motivation and reflection. In addition, this project brief needs to be
accompanied by suitable teaching and learning methods and tools. Figure 2 shows
potential abilities and competencies to be developed via live projects, which can
enhance those acquired with studio-based projects. For example, learning through
action research, ‘learning by doing’ and participatory design. The activities com-
prising live projects can encourage the combination of different types of learning
dimensions, which would result in learning that goes beyond the cognitive realm,
leading towards highly meaningful experiences combining affective and psycho-
motor domains. The question arising at this point may be: What components
make a ‘well-designed project-brief’ suitable for significant learning? This article
aims to explore this question by proposing a teaching method, developed and
refined through action research. For this purpose, 15 live projects were used,
over a period of four years within the Department of Architecture at the
University of Andes, Colombia.
Method development
The initial hypothesis guiding this work stated that ‘live projects can simultan-
eously promote the development of all learning dimensions, which together
create a significant learning experience’. The research questions in Figure 3 were
studio-based projects live projects

theoretical research action research
FACTUAL FOUNDATION
KNOWLEDGE
predetermined academic KNOWLEDGE
variable academic environment
environment
hypothetical problems tangible problems

CONCEPTUAL
INTEGRATION
KNOWLEDGE
limited variables open-ended variables
linear design processes PROCEDURAL multidirectional design processes

APPLICATION
KNOWLEDGE
predictable outcomes unpredictable outcomes
‘earning from the experience of others’ META-

LEARNING ‘learning-by-doing
COGNITIVE
HOW TO
KNOWLEDGE promotes both rational and emotional
LEARN
promotes mainly rational intelligence
intelligence
feedback comes from clients, community,
feedback comes from tutors, experts and peers HUMAN industry, builders, tutors, experts and peers
DIMENSION
extrinsic motivation provided by the brief, context

extrinsic motivation provided by the brief and tutor and other participants (peers, community, experts,
industry and tutors)
CARING
intrinsic motivation guided by the desire to learn intrinsic motivation guided by the desire to learn and
help others
Figure 2. Learning dimensions developed via studio-based projects and live projects.
ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Which modules are suitable for the What kind of knowledge, skills and abilities
01 use of live projects? 02 need to be promoted with live projects?
SETTING THE BRIEF/ DESIGN PROBLEM AND

EXPECTED OUTCOMES
CHOOSING THE CONTEXT
03 What type of design problem would

encourage student engagement? 05 Who would be the main participants of the
live projects and what would be their role?
04 What aspects of the context could serve to

motivate students? 06 How would the participants benefit from the
experience?
METHODS ASSESSMENT
07 What stages would the live project

comprise? 09 What kind of attitudes, scholarly approach
and results would be expected?
What resources and constrains would be How would the results be evaluated?
08 needed to develop the projects? 10
Figure 3. Research questions used to develop the method.
established in order to further define this statement in regards to academic envir-

onment, aims and objectives, setting the brief or design problem, choosing the
context, expected outcomes, methods used and assessment strategies. The overall
teaching method was drafted using these questions as a guide, in addition to the
studied theoretical framework on experimental learning, learner-centred teaching,
levels of knowledge and significant learning.
Rodriguez 287
CIRCULATION SOUND
LIGHT
ENVELOPE INTANGIBLE
PROBLEM-BASE LEARNING
EVALUATION VENTILATION
MODELLING STRUCTURE
Compras
DESIGN
MATERIAL
EXERCISES
ANALYSIS
EXERCISES
systems
ANALYSIS
tools
AUTONOMOUS LEARNING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

TOOLS
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTING
MATERIAL
TIME
PROJECT
EXERCISES
FORM ephemeral COMPLEXITY EXERCISES

MANAGEMENT
permanent
EXPERIENCE LEARNING
BUDGETING
PROJECT
EXPLORATION MANAGEMENT
SITE
THEORY
COMPONENTS EXERCISES EXERCISES COMMUNITY
Case methods CONTROL

studies
VARIABLES
CREATIVE
CONTEXT LEARNINGS PROCESSES
IDEA
DEVELOPMENT
COMPETENCIES RELATED TO COMPETENCIES RELATED TO
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION
LEARNING METHODS
Figure 4. Structure of the unit used.
Academic environment
This pedagogical experience took place in the context of three interconnected trad-
itional studio-based modules (titled: Project, Theory and Analysis) organised
within a ‘unit’ and taught in parallel to the same group of learners during one
semester (17 weeks). The aim of the unit is to encourage design explorations on a
particular topic (in the Project module) that are supported on a specific theoretical
framework (in the Theory module) and structured by systematic orderly and
reflective methods (in the Analysis module). This specific unit had an emphasis
on technology, where both, the Theory and the Analysis modules served to lay the
conceptual groundwork in regards to participatory tools, design processes and
project management, which were directly put into practice within the Project
module (Figure 4). The Theory module was structured with two types of exercises:
on one hand, case studies that seek to ‘learn from the experience of others’ and on
the other hand, exercises related to the study and application of scientific methods
for experimentation in architecture. The Analysis module was comprised of short
exercises related to the development of skills and the acquisition of tools for the
analysis, design, modelling and evaluation of architectural projects. Finally, the
Project module was composed of two central exercises related to two complemen-
tary architectural concepts: the ephemeral and the permanent. The exercise on the
ephemeral aimed to explore formal and material aspects of architectural projects,
in order to develop and strengthen relevant skills that would prepare learners to
tackle the second exercise. This second exercise, which focused on the permanent,
was a complete live project for a small-scale architectural space, set within a real
context, with specific requirements, scope and constraints.
Aims and objectives

Four specific learning objectives for each live project were determined in relation to
the different levels of knowledge described by Fink’s taxonomy and Bloom’s
revised taxonomy (Figure 5):
(1) To encourage the development of design and construction skills, such as using
analogue and digital tools for form finding and fabrication of building compo-
nents, working directly with materials, managing the complexity of the con-
struction process and understanding the needs and requirements of the
community/client.
(2) To promote applied research and knowledge in the resolution of design prob-
lems and identify the potential that architecture may have in the construction of
society.
(3) To develop autonomous learning that enables learners to assume responsibility
for specific tasks and to critically reflect on their own decisions and actions,
which could have an impact on others.
Knowledge Dimensions Live Projects’ learning objectives Knowledge Dimensions

DEVELOP DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS understanding
Basic
FACTUAL and remembering
information to FOUNDATION
KNOWLEDGE information and
solve problems • Use of analogue and digital tools for KNOWLEDGE
form-finding and fabrication ideas
• Build components
• Experiment directly with materials
• Manage complexity in construction Connecting
Interrelations
CONCEPTUAL process ideas, people,
KNOWLEDGE between parts and INTEGRATION
whole • Understand community/client’s realms of life
needs and requirements
FINK´S TAXONOMY
PROMOTE APPLIED RESEARCH / KNOWLEDGE

Thinking
PROCEDURAL Applying methods critically,
KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION
and skills creatively and
• Resolve design problems
practically
• Identify potential for peace-building
DEVELOP AUTONOMOUS LEARNING

META-COGNITIVE
Awareness of Self-directing LEARNING HOW
KNOWLEDGE self learning own learning TO LEARN
• Assume individual responsibilities
• Reflect on own decisions and acts
• Be aware of the impact on others
Learning about
HUMAN
FOSTER TEAMWORKING SKILLS oneself and DIMENSION
others
• Interact with colleagues and the community
• Communicate effectively
• Negotiate and deal with conflicts Developing
• Manage time and budgets new feelings,
CARING
• Think strategically interest and
values
Figure 5. Live projects’ learning objectives aligned with Bloom’s revised taxonomy.
Rodriguez 289
(4) To foster team-working skills that would prepare learners for future interaction
with colleagues and the public realm, in their professional lives, for example,
skills such as effective communication with people outside the architectural
profession, the ability to negotiate and deal with conflicts, appropriate man-
agement of time and budgets and strategic thinking.
Setting the brief/design problem and choosing the context

One of the most difficult tasks experienced when designing a live project was to find
or frame a suitable problem. A problem that could place learners in real situations,
where they would find it necessary to question, reflect, reason and act in response to
set variables related to relevant social circumstances in their immediate context. It
was found that if the design problem is too simple or the solution too evident, then
learners can lose intrinsic motivation, but if the problem is too complex or abstract,
learners can become frustrated due to their inability to solve it. In the same way,
using the immediate context could be a great tool to encourage learner extrinsic
motivation and engagement, especially when the context provides attractive chal-
lenges. However, if the context does not reflect a real-life professional situation or
does not provide enough constrains, learners can lose focus or fail to apply critical
thinking.
The live projects concentrated on the communities that are believed to have
suffered the most during the Colombian armed conflict and that also have the
biggest potential for change in the future: children. Alliances were made with
charities and non-profit organisations in Colombia, which work to care and protect
children and young people who have been victims of the current war. Initial
participatory workshops with children and staff from some of these organisations
were developed by the students to discuss the live project’s briefs (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Examples of participatory workshops with kids from the foundations.

These workshops allowed them to understand and interpret the design problem
beyond the pure formal and functional dimensions. They also helped to build a
better connection between the community and the learners that far reached the
normal ‘client–architect’ relationship.
Expected outcomes
The main presumption was that live projects could promote significant learning by
establishing meaningful links between university learners, teachers, professionals in
practice and local communities. Past studies show that collaborative learning has
the potential to enhance creativity and strengthen socio-cultural links (Hämäläinen
and Vähäsantanen, 2011). Therefore, for this work it was expected that all parties
could have an active role throughout the live project and benefit from the experi-
ence (Figure 7). Students were expected to develop particular individual and team
D
Donation
ti Networking
Collaborative
work
Community University
LIVE
PROJECT Collaborative
learning
Sponsors
Exposure
Students Autonomous
learning
?
Management
skills Problem-based
learning
Design
skills
Figure 7. Benefits that the live projects can offer to their participants.
Rodriguez 291
skills that are hard to attain in a traditional studio environment, such as project
management, teamwork and problem-solving skills. These are related to compe-
tencies regarding effective communication, the ability to negotiate and deal with
conflicts, administration of time and budgets, thinking strategically and meeting
deadlines. It was expected that real projects could encourage learners to research
and apply knowledge directly to solve problems, to take responsibility for specific
tasks, to promote structured collaborative work and to critically reflect upon their
own experience.
The teachers involved in the live projects were expected to assist groups of
learners to develop abilities that would enable them to work together as a team.
For example: (1) to guide learners to explore particular avenues, (2) to point them
in the direction of the necessary resources, (3) to stimulate discussion and reflexion
and (4) to give constructive feedback. In return, teachers would benefit by gaining
new perspectives on their work and explore alternative teaching strategies. The
industry was expected to get involved by partly sponsoring the projects with
in-kind resources and/or technical expertise. In return, they would benefit from
exposure and an enhanced insight into their field. The community (which for the
purpose of these live projects normally represented the ‘client’) directly benefited by
fulfilling a need with a built project that would otherwise be difficult to obtain.
In turn, they were expected to actively participate during the process.
Methods
The proposed live projects encompassed six main stages: (1) preparation and design
of the idea, (2) consultation and work with the community, (3) development of the
design proposal, (4) technical consultation with professionals and the industry,
(5) construction and implementation and (6) evaluation and reflection (Figure 8).
Each project was developed over the course of 10–12 weeks by 10–15 students, two
teachers, one sponsor, one foundation and several advisors.
The first stage of the project was dedicated to draft the idea, seek initial
resources and establish the participants. During the second stage, learners had to
find out about the foundation’s history and mission and talk to members of their
staff about their work and needs. Additionally, learners lead a participatory-design
activity involving staff and children, which helped them to understand the charac-
teristics, desires and wishes of the community for which they were designing. This
served to identify all the variables affecting the project, related to time schedules,
budget, requirements of the community and design and construction aspects
(Figure 9). Learners then worked in small teams to finalise the brief and draft an
initial design proposal. One of the proposals was chosen to be developed further via
an ideas competition, in which community, teachers, advisors and sponsors were
part of the judging panel.
The development of the project took place during the third stage, where physical
and digital models were used to study the formal and technical aspects of the
project. The group was divided into different operative sub-teams, with specific
IDEA
2 CONSULTATION AND WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY
3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN PROPOSAL
4 TECHNICAL CONSULTATION WITH PROFESSIONALS / INDUSTRY
5
remember
understand CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
6
apply apply evaluate EVALUATION
understand analyse create REFLECTION
10-12 weeks
Figure 8. Stages during a live project.
COMPETENCIES
COM
CO MPETEN
PETENCI
CIEES RELATED
RELATED TO
UNFORESEEN ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION
EVENTS SCHEDULE
DIGITAL
D
TIMETABLE OF
ACTIVITIES TRADITIONAL
SPECIFICATIONS
SPONSORS
DATELINE
FABRICATION
CONTRACTS
COSTS
PROCESS PLANNING
Time
Budget WBS
CPM
TRANSPORT
Construction
ANALOGUE
CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY
CONECTIONS
CASE
STUDIES
TOOLS
live BUILD LANDSCAPE
project
DIGITAL
SYSTEMS TOPOGRAPHY
CHARACTERISTICS
ENVELOPE
Context
MATERIAL PARTICIPATORY
WORK ORIENTATION
Design STEREO-
STRUCTURE TOMIC
SCALE
TECTONIC
DONATIONS
Client /
FORM SOCIOCULTURAL
CONCEPT
Community ASPECTS
PORTABLE RECOURSES
ADAPTABLE
SUSTAINABILITY
MODULAR COMPETENCIES
COM
CO MPETEN
PETENCI
CIEES RELATED
CI RELATED TO USES
SCALABLE NEEDS HABITS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Figure 9. Variables that learners needed to consider for the live project’s brief.
responsibilities for each individual. For example, there was a leading team
(in charge of the overall management), a design team (in charge of the design
adjustments and production of information), a public relations team (in charge
of communications with the community, sponsors and experts), a project manage-
ment team (in charge of administration, budgeting and purchasing) and an oper-
ations team (in charge of fabrication). For the fourth and fifth stages, sponsors and
advisors were again invited to support the technical development and detailing
process. These stages entailed the construction of prototypes and components,
Rodriguez 293
most of which were built at the university’s laboratories and transported to be

assembled on site. When the construction was finished, learners organised an open-
ing ceremony where they formally donated the projects to the community. For the
final stage, learners produced a document and a video of the overall experience,
where they reflected on their learnings during all stages of the project. The
document also had specifications of the materials used, instructions on how the
components were built and assembled and recommendations for maintenance.
Assessment
The assessment of the live projects was designed to evaluate not only the end results
but also the intended learning objectives (Figure 5). The assessment criteria were
explained in a rubric given to learners at the beginning of the exercise. Self-
evaluations and team evaluations were encouraged at different stages, in order to
reflect upon the success of the experience, the difficulties faced and the lessons
learnt. Learners were asked to submit a collective evaluation of the performance
of each member of the team, based on the fulfilment of their assigned responsibil-
ities and their level of commitment to the project.
Results
During the period from 2012 to 2015, the proposed methods were developed,
applied and refined for the materialisation of 15 different live projects, involving
170 undergraduate students, various national and international teachers, six differ-
ent sponsors and 12 children’s foundations (Figure 10).
Figure 11 shows some examples of the end products from the live projects. The
briefs ranged from the construction of big toys, playgrounds, reading and study
areas, spaces for music and symbolic places for memory and reconciliation. All of
the foundations that took part in the projects worked to protect children and
adolescents in situations of extreme poverty and high vulnerability, many of
whom were victims of the armed conflict.
The projects were systematically documented by teachers to identify conceptual
and practical difficulties, as well as opportunities for improvement. From the edu-
cational point of view, there were various lessons learnt during the implementation
of the proposed method, which have been summarised in Figure 12. For example, it
was noticed that when using participatory design processes, it was difficult to gauge
how much the community should be involved in the decision-making process with-
out learners losing control of the direction of the project. Finding appropriate ways
to engage learners in all stages of the exercise was also challenging. Some learners
were very enthusiastic and rapidly adopted leading positions, while others had a
slow start and were indecisive when taking responsibilities for specific tasks.
Managing time and resources efficiently was testing for teachers and learners. As
a result, there were periods when all participants had to work extra hours and find
additional funds to achieve the set goals. Working in large groups was also
TOY BOX 1 MADRID PAVILION TUBE PAVILION THE CAVE
2013-1
2014-1
2015-1
TOY BOX 2 PANDORA CARDBOARD CAVE PANN
2012 2013 2014 2015

2012-2
2013-2
2014-2
AMETHYSTOS PLAY PAVILION ARMADILLO NEPTUNO
TREE OF KNOWLEDGE WORDS PAVILION TREE OF SECRETS
Figure 10. Timeline of the live projects developed during the experience.
demanding for learners. Some learners tended to work less than others, creating
friction and disagreements between them. Ensuring good manufacturing quality
for the end products was not easy. Learners built most of the components for the
projects by themselves. For the majority of the learners, this was their first experi-
ence using tools or working with construction materials. They had the support of
technicians at the university laboratories, and experienced builders were hired for
specialised processes, such as building foundations or working at heights. However,
sometimes quality was not fully achieved, and tough decisions had to be made. For
example, in some cases, only parts of the project could be donated or the donation
had to be postponed all together and the project had to be rebuilt the following
semester by another group of students. In order to improve practices, many adjust-
ments had to be made at a curricular level. For example, teachers had to introduce
more teaching content on health and safety, project management and the use of
tools such as building information modelling, critical path method, Gantt charts,
detailed schedule of works and other budget-estimating and cost-planning meth-
ods, which are not usually taught at this level in the curriculum.
Evaluation of the experience

The main objective of the evaluation was to assess the learner’s perception of their
learning derived from the projects, as well as their performance from the
Rodriguez 295
Figure 11. Examples of the live projects developed. (a) Toy Box, client: Fundación Hogar
San Mauricio, sponsor: the University of Los Andes. (b) Tree of Knowledge, client: Fundación
Cigarra, sponsor: the University of Los Andes. (c) Armadillo, client: Fundacion Cakike,
sponsor: Madecentro. (d) Tube Pavilion, client: PAN, sponsor: Madecentro. (e) The Cave,
client: FANA, sponsor: Madecentro. (f) Neptuno, client: Fundación San Antonio, sponsor:
Inmunizadora Serrano Gomez.
perspectives of experts and stakeholders. A mixed method was used to find evi-
dence of significant learning in all projects and test the hypothesis that a live project
could indeed stimulate all learning dimensions. This method focused on clustering
analysis techniques, which facilitate the classification of mainly qualitative and
some quantitative data by grouping them together into classes (Tashakkori and
Teddlie, 2010). For this purpose, data were collected and analysed from multiple
sources, for example learner’s individual and focus group feedback, peer feedback
and feedback by other participants of the live projects (community, users and
advisors). The project’s logbooks and teachers’ observations were also scanned
to have a more comprehensive picture of the learnings. Learner’s feedback was
organised and coded using a set criteria to determine the following: (1) the general
Lessons learnt Improvements made

Management tools and strategies were used to
It is difficult to gauge the appropriate degree
empower students, so they were in control of the
of community involvement in the project
project
Student engagement tends to vary along Clear milestones with set objectives were
the project established to avoid periods of disengagement
A critical path method was introduced to improve
Timescales change constantly
time management
Students are likely to undervalue the Budget-planning methods were introduced to

project´s costs improve costings
All the project participants underestimate General health and safety training and specialised
health and safety risks training for the use of machinery were instituted
A role play methodology was created in order to
Coordinating team-work activities is help students define clear group goals and
challenging for students individual responsibilities
The quality of the components manufactured
Technicians and experienced builders were hired in
by students is relatively low due to lack of
certain cases to train and support student work
experience and skills
Uncertainty can frustrate students and Frequent meetings between students, tutors and
prevent decision-making other project´s participants were needed to guide
student during the whole process
Finding sufficient resources and promoting The benefits that each project’s participant would
participation of the community and the obtain were constantly highlighted to improve
industry is demanding for tutors motivation
Figure 12. Lessons learnt and improvements made.
aspects of the reviewed feedback (negative or positive responses, descriptive or

reflexive remarks), (2) the perception that learners had in relation to motivation
(intrinsic or extrinsic), (3) the development of learning dimensions and (4) the
attainment of competencies (Figure 13).
An evaluation matrix was devised to analyse the collected information
(Figure 14). It showed that the great majority of learners’ comments (98%) were
positive. Most of them were analytic and reflexive (83%), although 17% were
mainly descriptive (explained the activities carried out, rather than the aspects
learnt). In regards to motivation, it was found that inviting experts from the indus-
try and builders to collaborate more closely with learners, during the technical
development of the project, helped to raised levels of extrinsic motivation.
Learners commented that they were motivated, since it was the first time that
this type of opportunity was presented to them during their studies. In terms of
the attainment of competencies, 73% of the surveyed comments indicated that
project management and team-working skills were perceived as the most important
competencies achieved. Many comments mentioned that the live project was the
first academic experience where learners had the chance to apply knowledge in
these areas.
After this initial analysis of learners’ comments, it was noticed that singular
remarks did not often mention all six learning dimensions that are thought to
encompass significant learning. This could be due to the fact that the learners
Rodriguez 297
students´ comments coding criteria

“The development o!his pavilion has taught us several lessons regarding GENERAL
planning, implementa"on and coordina"on. We learnt that it is vital to have
a clear and fully specified design from the beginning and know exactly how to • Nega!ve response
develop the whole project … During the project implementa"on, the most
• Posi!ve response
important lesson was to have appropriate training and supervision… We
recognised the need to generate commitment amongst the team members • Descrip!ve
since the result was going to be be#er if were all commi#ed.” Group • Analy!c/ reflexive
reflec!on. Live project Armadillo 2014.2
“The experience that we had during the whole process o!he project has MOTIVATION
fuelled our passion as architects and made us aware o!he social
commitment that we have to others. We evidence how every decision made • Evidence of intrinsic mo!va!on
had an impac"n reality. This changed our original concep"ons, since we (confidence, self-awareness, self-
never had to face before an academic exercise o!his kind." Group reflec"on control, assurance, drive, enthusiasm)
by students. Live project PANN 2015.1 • Evidence of extrinsic mo!va!on
(incen!ve, inspira!on, s!mulus)
“Pandora was a projec"n which different experiences and views were the
basis for the con"nuous development o!he idea. Now that everything comes
to an end, it leaves me, as a result, the sa"sfac"on of a great DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING DIMENSIONS
accomplishment. Immersing myself into the development of Pandora was
amazing; being able to fabricate the project was wonderful. I could find According to Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy
contrast and similari"es in the way that my group mates worked. However,
pa"ence and tolerance were the ‘weapons of ba#le’ to bring a project • Factual knowledge - Founda!onal knowledge
together, which in my view was sa"sfactory. I will remember also the • Conceptual knowledge - Integra!on
simplicity of the details… that not everything in life has a complex solu"on or
• Procedural knowledge - Applica!on
exceeds the limits or magnitude of the project. I learned tha"f you do not
have a clear idea of a possible solu"on to a problem, you should take • Metacogni!ve knowledge - Learning how to learn
measures and consult other people to see the problem from a different • Human dimension / caring
perspec"ve.” Comment by Gabriel Garcia. Live project Pandora 2014.1
COMPETENCIES´ ATTAINMENT
“I am wri"ng to thank you [the tutor] for everything. As I said in the
discussions and in the closing speech o!he pavilion, it was definitely a • Project management (manage !me and budgets,
unique opportunity to have worked on this project. I firmly believe in the think strategically, overcome problems)
importance it had for the academic, professional and even personal life of all • Teamworking skills (communicate effec!vely,
of us [students]. Your mentoring was excellent, and I am very happy and nego!ate)
proud to have been part of this unit, which as we [students] agree with all of
• Autonomous learning ( assume responsibili!es,
our group was the best unit.” Comment by David Sarmiento. Live project The
Cave 2015.1 decide, act)
• Apply and integrate knowledge (design skills,
construc!on skills, materials)
Figure 13. Coding criteria for the analysis of learners’ comments.
DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING
GENERAL MOTIVATION COMPETENCIES´ ATTAIMENT
DIMENSIONS
students´ comments According to Bloom’s revised
Autonomous learning
Evidence of extrinsic
Project management
Evidence of Intrinsic
LIFE PROJECT
Apply and integrate

Analytic / reflexive
Negative response
Positive response
taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy Team-working
knowledge
motivation
motivation
Foundational K.
Descrip!ve
Conceptual K. -
Procedural K. -
Metacognitive
K. - Learning
how to learn
dimension /
Application
Factual K. -
Integration
Human
caring
Group's comments
“One of the most rewarding things was to learn

THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE (2012.2)
how the ‘unexpected’ and the work on site

allowed us to have an insight of the project that
goes beyond what drawing and models can
provide. The ability to go back and forth during the X x x x x x x x x x x
design was crucial to develop teamwork and to
understand that the project carried out is
poten!ally a very small incubator of what our
professional life would be.
“One of the major lessons that this experience
leaves is that it is essen!al to be clear about the
specific ac!vi!es to be carried out [during the
design process], their order and prerequisites.
AMETHYSTOS (2012.2)
Considering the above, we can proceed to

construct a schedule of ac!vi!es and delegate
them so that everyone in the group is working x x x x x x x x x x
collec!vely. But also we realised that in an
architectural project, even at this small scale,
there will always be unforeseen events that need
to be resolved in the best way possible at the !me
that they occur."
Figure 14. Example of an evaluation matrix for coding.
were not initially warned that these dimensions were being studied, in order to
avoid predisposition to this subject. Hence, a more comprehensive examination
was carried out, scanning all the data produced by the learners for the live project.
This included logbooks, videos, photographs, drawings and text. All this
Figure 15. Evaluation using ATLAS.ti.
“This project brought welfare and happiness to children in FANA, allowing them to have fun in a
friendly and safe space. The support we received through the project was very important to us, as it
directly benefited children, having a positive impact on their daily lives here at the foundation. We thank
the time, dedication, effort and commitment of the students and the Universidad de Los Andes.”
Elena Martinez, Director of FANA (Foundation for the Support of Abandoned Children)
“For us it is very important to take this opportunity to thank you [the university] for the project that you made for
our foundation... Our foundation has worked for four years in the prevention of child abuse, through the
implementation of playgrounds in different localities of the city… Thanks to the donation provided, we could
begin a toy library for the Restrepo market in Bogota, where we work with children and parents correcting
aggressive behaviours that have been passed down from generation to generation. Thank you for the
important and professional work students have done with the design and development of the module,
which is being very useful…and thank you for your generosity and social commitment; in this way we are
helping to have fewer children in situations of abuse achieving a less aggressive and more tolerant society.”
Maria Eugenia Mojica Director of PANN (Foundation for the love of children)
Figure 16. Example of feedback from the children’s foundations.
qualitative data, plus the learners’ comments, were put together and analysed for
each project using the same coding criteria previously established. Instead of a
matrix of evaluation, ATLAS.ti was the chosen tool, since it allowed the simultan-
eous review of a wide range of material (Figure 15). With this method, it was
possible to reveal evidence and provide a richer insight into the perception that
learners had of all the studied learning dimensions. In addition, interesting
Rodriguez 299
ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Which modules are suitable for the use What kind of knowledge, skills and abilities
01 of live projects? 02 need to be promoted with live projects?
High-credit modules are ideal when live Design and construction skills, apply
projects are used, since they intake a greater knowledge, autonomous learning and team-
level of commitment and time. working skills.
SETTING THE BRIEF/ DESIGN PROBLEM AND

EXPECTED OUTCOMES
CHOOSING THE CONTEXT
03 What type of design problem would

encourage student engagement? 05 Who would be the main participants of the
live projects and what would be their role?
04 What aspects of the context could serve to

motivate students? 06 How would the participants benefit from the
experience?
A real design problem that encourages students Students (leaders), benefit from a significant
to think and act in response to current and learning experience. Tutors and outside
pressing challenges in their immediate context. experts (mentors), gain new perspective on
their work. Industry (supporters), receives
exposure and enhanced insights into their
field. Community (active clients), fulfil a need.
METHODS ASSESSMENT
07 What stages would the live project

comprise? 09 What kind of attitudes, scholarly approach
and results would be expected?
08 What resources and constrains would be

needed to develop the projects? 10 How would the results be evaluated?
1.Idea (project´s draft), Summative assessment of end result, through

2. Consultation with the community, a final report, videos, scale prototypes and built
3. Design proposal, 4. Technical consultation, project. Formative assessment of intended
5. Implementation, 6. Evaluation learning outcomes, through reflection activities,
(see section methods) feedback, self-evaluation and team evaluation.
Figure 17. Resolution of the initial research questions.

relationships between dimensions (bought up by increased levels of motivation)
were uncovered, especially between integration, human dimension and caring. For
example, it was found that in projects where there was more contact with the
community, especially with children, the intrinsic motivation among learners was
higher. In projects that had more initial participatory workshops or that were built
on site with children close by, learner attendance at working sessions was higher,
and the final comments were more positive and reflexive. Furthermore, learners
took the initiative to organise additional activities. For instance, they raised funds
to buy toys for the children or organised a kids’ party to inaugurate the project.
Furthermore, there was one project that had the participation, at a distance, of
learners from the University of Nottingham, UK. The results of this project
showed high levels of intrinsic motivation due to the dynamic generated amongst
learners from both institutions. However, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
normally tended to drop during the development and refinement of the design
proposal, since many learners were keen to start construction and underestimated
the time and effort needed to prepare information.
The results from the overall evaluation concluded that each of the 15 live pro-
jects provided learners with opportunities and means to develop all the learning
dimensions identified in Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy.
It is argued that the methods devised and used for the design of the live projects
greatly contributed towards this outcome. By involving different activities that
strengthen a wide range of interpersonal skills, it was possible to increase intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation and promote emotional intelligence. This is thought to
contribute to lasting change in learners, which can lead to significant learning. The
collected data provided evidence of high intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in many
learners as well as development in all learning dimensions, suggesting that the live
projects were indeed significant learning experiences. As expected, individual views
on the same experience were different, and some learners reported higher levels of
learning than others. Feedback collected from teachers, peers, experts, clients and
other participants of the live project supports and complements the above results.
In addition, it was noticed that although this work focused on the learning acquired
by students, the experience also had a great impact on the children’s foundations
that were involved. The projects not only helped them to satisfy a need but also
enhanced the perception that they had of architects, the university and students,
which was reflected in their comments (Figure 16). However, a more thorough
analysis of this alleged impact (which is out of the scope of this work) is needed
to draw final conclusions in this area.
Conclusions
It is argued that the present work gives new insights into the way architecture can
be taught in relation to the Colombian immediate context and can relate to other
similar educational settings. For decades, project-based studio has been and con-
tinues to be the primary method for teaching in many schools of architecture. This
method has been successful in promoting the development of problem-solving
skills, to a certain extent. However, project-based studio needs to be complemented
with other approaches to allow the development of a diversity of cognitive
dimensions and levels of knowledge in learners. In some countries, architectural
programmes include mandatory work-experience modules, where learners are
employed in an architectural practice for a certain period of time before they
graduate. This is not the case in Colombia; in fact, many learners graduate as
practitioners, without having the opportunity to address tangible design problems.
This is a real flaw given the current affairs in the country and the potential complex
challenges that professionals might have to face during their careers. The experi-
ential learning methods using live projects illustrated in this work expand learners’
horizons and expose them to different perspectives from diverse members of
the community. They allow learners to gain experience on the resolution of real
design problems before they graduate, while still having the support and know-how
of the institution. This kind of active involvement is not only ethical, but is also
highly beneficial for professional and personal development in the cognitive,
Rodriguez 301
affective and psychomotor dimensions. Furthermore, it opens new ways in which

architectural education could aid towards social reconstruction and act as an
agency for peace building. In the same vain, the immediate context helps the insti-
tution by serving as a ‘pool’ of knowledge, a conduit for significant learning and a
promoter of learner involvement.
At a glance, the implementation of live projects can be perceived as ‘hard work’
by teachers and institutions due to the amount of preparation time and procure-
ment of resources needed. Live projects can also be considered ‘risky’, since more
unforeseen events or condition changes can occur, compared to traditional class-
room-based activities. These are common oversights related to the unfamiliarity of
this pedagogical approach in many schools of architecture. However, these may be
overcome by considering the advantages of live projects as effective pedagogical
strategies to stimulate intellectual, physical and emotional learning dimensions and
promote significant learning. Figure 17 examines each of the initial research ques-
tions and the answers drawn during this work.
The findings from this work correlate with and extend those of previous research
on experiential and significant learning. They also open up potential new a venues
to explore alternative and improved teaching practices in architectural education.
For example, the introduction of service learning and formative practical experi-
ence as a central part of the curriculum, by replacing some traditional studio-based
projects for live projects. This intervention could be catalytic for the creation of a
new paradigm in design education. Such change could result in an increase of
motivation and bilateral empowerment for teachers and learners. It could also
stimulate a much needed update of the current teaching practices and the review
of the conventional ‘master–apprentice’ relationship. However, live projects would
very likely bring new challenges to the institution, which would need to be
addressed and researched in advance. For example, challenges such as the devel-
opment of policies to deal with project funding, legal requirements and ethical
issues. Indeed, the resolution of those challenges can in itself set an explicit example
of good practice in the current context of architectural education.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support for the research,
authorship, and publication of this article by Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia.
References
Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, et al. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
New York: Longman.
Anderson J and Priest C (2012) Developing a live projects network and flexible methodology
for live projects. Proceedings for The International Symposium, Architecture Live Projects
Pedagogy, Oxford, UK, 24–26 May 2012, p. 21 in the Abstracts Compendium. Oxford:
Oxford Brookes University.
Austin T (2016) Ethical dilemmas in managing and teaching live sponsored student projects.
Brookes Ejournal of Learning and Teaching 8(1–2). Available at: http://bejlt.brookes.ac.
uk/paper/ethical-dilemmas-in-managing-and-teaching-live-sponsored-student-projects/
(accessed 23 January 2017).
Billett S (2014) Integrating learning experiences across tertiary education and practice set-
tings: A socio-personal account. Educational Research Review 12: 1–13.
Birer E (2012) An evaluation of the effect of emotional intelligence on achievement orien-
tation in architecture design education. Gazi University Journal of Science 25(2): 541–553.
Bridges A (2007) Problem-based learning in architectural education. Proceedings for The
CIB 24th W78 conference, Maribo, Denmark, 26–29 June 2007, pp.755–762. Maribo:
International Council for Building.
Chapman S, McPhee P and Proudman B (1995) What is experiential education? In: Warren
K (ed.) The Theory of Experiential Education. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company, pp.235–248.
Cross N and Clayburn A (1995) Observations of teamwork and social processes in design.
Design Studies 16(2): 143–170.
Fink D (2013) Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to
Designing College Courses, Revised and Updated. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Wiley.
Gül LF, Williams A and Gu N (2012) Constructivist learning theory in virtual design stu-
dios. In: Gu N and Wang X (eds) Computational Design Methods and Technologies.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, pp.139–162.
Hämäläinen R and Vähäsantanen K (2011) Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on
orchestrating creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review 6(3):
169–184.
Hamdi N (2004) Small Change: About the Art of Practice and the Limits of Planning in Cities.
London: Earthscan.
Harriss H and Widder L (2014) Architecture Live Projects: Pedagogy into Practice. Oxon:
Routledge.
Jarrett C (2000) Social practice: Design education and everyday life. In: Nicoln D and Pilling
S (eds) Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism. London:
Spoon Press, pp.49–59.
Kirschner PA, Sweller J and Clark RE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75–86.
Kvan T and Yunyan J (2005) Learners’ learning styles and their correlation with perform-
ance in architectural design studio. Design Studies 26: 19–34.
Lewis LH and Williams CJ (1994) Experiential learning: Past and present. In: Jackson L and
Caffarella RS (eds) Experiential Learning: A New Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, pp.5–16.
Live Project Network (2016) Our definition of a ‘live project’. Available at: http://livepro-
jectsnetwork.org/about/ (accessed 12 March 2016).
McCleskey SE and Allison DJ (2000) Collaboration for service learning in architectural
education. Art Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America
19(1): 40–43.
Rodriguez 303
Mewburn I (2010) Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio
pedagogy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11(4): 363–379.
Nazidizaji S, Tome A and Regateiro F (2014) Search for design intelligence: A field study on
the role of emotional intelligence in architectural design studios. Frontiers of Architectural
Research 3: 413–423.
Oppenheimer A and Hursley T (2002) Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and an Architecture of
Decency. Princeton, NJ: Architectural Press.
Rogers C, Lyon H and Reinhard T (2014) On Becoming an Effective Teacher – Person-
Centered Teaching, Psychology, Philosophy, and Dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and
Harold Lyon. London: Routledge.
Salama A (2014) Liveness’ beyond design studio pedagogy: Layers of ‘live’ within and across
the boundaries of classroom settings. Proceedings for The Second Annual AAE Conference
2014 Living and Learning, Sheffield, UK, 3–5 September 2014, pp.88–93. Sheffield:
University of Sheffield.
Saldarriaga A (2012) Investigación, enseñanza de la arquitectura en Colombia: Estado
actual. Report by the Asociación Colombiana de Facultades de Arquitectura/ACFA.
Available at: http://www.arquitecturaacfa.org/documentos/Ensenanza_de_la_arquitec-
tura_en_Colombia_Marzo_2012.pdf (accessed 20 January 2017).
Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (2010) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tezel E and Casakin H (2010) Learning styles and learners’ performance in design problem-
solving. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research 4(2–3): 262–277.
Till J (2005) The negotiation of hope. In: Jones P, Petrescu D and Till J (eds) Architecture
and Participation, 1st edn. London: Spon Press, pp.19–41.
United Nations (2016) Colombia, UNHCR. Available at: http://www.acnur.org/donde-tra
baja/america/colombia/ (accessed 21 September 2016).
Vansteenkiste M, Lens W and Deci EL (2006) Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-
determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist 41(1): 19–31.
Wang T (2009) Toward a productive and creative curriculum in architecture. Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education 8(3): 277–293.
Webster H (2005) The architectural review: A study of ritual, acculturation and reproduc-
tion in architectural education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(3): 265–282.
Weimer M (2002) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weimer M (2012). Five characteristics of learner-centered teaching. Available at: http://
www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/five-characteristicsof-lear-
ner-centered-teaching/ (accessed 18 September 2016).
Weisman L (1989) A feminist experiment: Learning from WSPA, then and now. In: Peery E
and McQuaid M (eds) Architecture: A Place for Women. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press, pp.125–133.
Author biography
Carolina M Rodriguez is an architect from Universidad Nacional de Colombia with
a PhD from Nottingham University, UK and more than 17 years of experience in
teaching, research and academic administration at university level. She has worked
as a lecturer at Universidad de Los Andes and Universidad Piloto in Colombia,

and at The University of Nottingham and The University of Liverpool in England.
In these positions, Carolina has established a track record of high quality publica-
tions, research grants and academic awards. She has specialised in designing ped-
agogical methods and active teaching and learning strategies. Recent publications
in this area include: Student-centred strategies to integrate theoretical knowledge
into project development within architectural technology lecture-based modules in
Architectural Engineering and Design Management (2016) and Collaborative learn-
ing in architectural education: benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual
design studio (VDS) and live projects in British Journal of Educational Technology
(2016).
Active Learning in
Architectural Education:
A Participatory Design
Experience (PDE) in Colombia
Camilo Salazar Ferro , Isabel Artega
Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and
Daniel H. Nadal
Abstract
Contemporary architecture teaching in Colombia still resembles the traditional master–

apprentice model, which is also common in many parts of the world. The model of regular
curricular focus on classroom-based modules where theory and practice are predominantly
disengaged, leaving the students to make their connections. Students that learnt with these
models face greater difficulties to apply knowledge, compared with students taught with
active learning formats. It is argued that participatory design processes could be catalytic
for change in this area, by empowering participants in the co-creation of their socio-spatial
context. This article aims to contribute by suggesting a methodology for a Participatory
Design Experience (PDE), which could be applied to transform a conventional teaching
module into a student-centred learning environment. The methodology was tested and
refined through a case study, demonstrating its effectiveness in architectural education. The
article describes it in detail in order to be replicated by educators in comparable scenarios.
Keywords
participatory design, architectural education, design studio, active learning, student-centred
learning, co-creation
Introduction
The discussion of the importance of active teaching and learning in architectural
education has led to experimenting with alternative pedagogies to improve the
traditional design studio, including different strategies for participatory design.
Generally, these alternatives have demonstrated significant advantages in helping
DOI: 10.1111/jade.12280 iJADE (2019)

© 2019 NSEAD and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2
students to reflect on the reality of their context and interact directly with users,
Camilo Salazar Ferro, Isabel Artega Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and Daniel H. Nadal communities or other stakeholders to solve architectural design problems. How-
ever, their implementation is still not widespread, and little information can be
found on methodologies to introduce actual participatory processes into teaching
environments.
This article discusses this subject in the context of Colombia, where participatory
experiences are relatively recent in higher education. It argues that there is an
urgent need for this type of learning, considering that this country is undergoing a
peace process which requires the reconstruction of the social fabric. A novel method-
ology titled Participatory Design Experience (PDE) is proposed here to address this
need. It is tailored to the typical teaching dynamics in architectural education, which
makes it more suitable than other participatory design processes developed for pro-
fessional practice. It is illustrated through a case study focusing on the design of a
neighbourhood community centre in Bogot!a. It was also intended to be replicable in
other contexts with similar teaching formats and social settings.
The following research question motivated this work: how can participatory
experiences with selected communities, in a context of social reconstruction, bene-
fit active learning in a traditional design studio module? The general aim was to
explore the above question by developing means and tools to address it. For that
purpose, the following objectives were established:
• to propose a student-centred participatory methodology that can be used to

transform a conventional design studio module into a meaningful and active
learning environment;
• to identify essential aspects of a participatory process with communities that
benefit active learning in students and which could to be implemented in aca-
demic architecture projects.
Background
General limitations of conventional design studio modules
Two primary schools of thought have traditionally shaped architectural curricula
worldwide: the Beaux-Arts founded in France in the seventeenth century, and the
Bauhaus established in Germany in the early twentieth century (Salama 2009).
Both teaching styles centre on master–apprentice instruction developed within
design studio modules, as the core of the curriculum, supported by additional the-
ory modules. According to a comprehensive literature review (Bashier 2014; Sal-
ama 2009), contemporary architectural education, in general, is still reminiscent of
these two traditional approaches, which primarily emphasise the formal aspects of
architecture and fundamentals of form, showing limited concern for socio-cultural
issues. Although the longevity of this pedagogy has proven to have several bene-
fits, it has also received sharp criticism from professionals and educators since the
1960s (Cuff 1991; Gutman 1987; Holtz 1975). It has been frequently suggested
that the conventional design studio model needs to change in order better to pre-
pare students for the professional and emotional challenges faced in practice (Kvan
& Yunyan 2005; Nicol & Pilling,2000; Salama 2009; Smith & Boyer 2015).
Current architectural teaching and learning methodologies are still not aligned
with the complex and unprecedented challenges faced by practice, such as climate
change, sustainable development, globalisation, rapid urbanisation and social
iJADE (2019)
3
transformation (Hasanin 2013). There are concerns regarding a long-standing view
Camilo Salazar Ferro, Isabel Artega Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and Daniel H. Nadal
within the educational system which argues that knowledge and application should
be learnt separately (theory in lectures and practice in the studio), so students can
make their connections. Recent research on cognitive development and learning
styles demonstrate that students taught with this model are 1.5 times more likely
to fail than students learning through active learning methods (Freeman et al.
2014). Besides, it has been argued that conventional design studio focuses only on
two aspects of the design process, the initial sketch design and the final presenta-
tion, allocating little time to investigate the problem and the client’s needs (Salama
2009). This pedagogy reinforces superficial analysis and no in-depth research or
testing; it also emphasises only the end product with little attention paid to the
method. It has been found that this teaching format encourages students’ aspira-
tions of becoming ‘star architects’, who treat architecture as an art detached from
social, cultural, ethical and political context (Mayo 1988). The master–apprentice
relationship is thought to promote individualistic work and provide little chance to
learn from each other or work as a team, even when the architecture projects are
the result of a collective effort. Literature suggests that, as a consequence, stu-
dents lack self-confidence and are continually waiting for affirmation. They show lit-
tle possession, initiative and responsibility about their projects and tend to copy
the architectural approach of others (Ciravo"glu 2014).
Architectural education in Colombia

Contemporary architectural teaching in this country still uses the traditional
models, where design studios are considered ‘more important’ compared to
other areas and are often dissociated from theoretical modules. According to a
study by ACFA (Spanish acronym for the Colombia Association of Architecture
Schools), the curricular programmes in all schools are very similar (Saldarriaga
2012). They are generally five-year programmes structured around 170–180
credits and divided into five main areas: project design or design studio (25–
40% credits), technology (10–20% credits) urban design (5–13% credits), theory
(9–15% credits) and other related topics (4–12% credits). Since 2003 students
are evaluated with a primarily theoretical test known as SABER PRO, which
became a mandatory graduation requirement in 2009. This test consists of two
parts: an academic design exercise that is worth 35% of the total evaluation and
a written test that is worth 65% which evaluates the other disciplinary compo-
nents. Although some schools offer optional work placements opportunities in
design offices or experimental live projects, on the whole, graduates can legally
practice the profession having had very little or no experience in a non-academic
world. This reality is a concern considering the complex sociocultural landscape
of Colombia.
A study from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR 2017) indicates
that after more than fifty years of conflict and despite peace agreements, Colom-
bia has the second world’s most significant number of internally displaced people,
many of which move to the cities and live in poverty. Statistics from 2015 show
that 27.8% of the population live below the poverty line, 76% live in urban envi-
ronments, 1.68 million people lack proper access to water and 7.5 million to sanita-
tion (WASHwatch 2015). In this context, Colombian architects face critical
challenges that could extend for decades, not only concerning the physical recon-
struction of buildings and cities but also in the reconstruction of the social fabric
and the consolidation of the peace process.
iJADE (2019)
4
As a reaction to the dominance of the conventional approach, in other parts of
Camilo Salazar Ferro, Isabel Artega Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and Daniel H. Nadal the world, a wide range of experimental models have emerged in an attempt to
counteract design studio teaching pitfalls. Salama (1995) identified ten models
which he describes as revolutionary: 1. The Case Problem Model, 2. The Analogical
Model, 3. The Participatory Model. 4. The Hidden Curriculum Model, 5. The Pat-
tern Language Model, 6. The Concept-Test Model. 7. The Double-Layered Model.
8. The Energy Conscious Model, 9. The Exploratory Model, and 10. The Interac-
tional Model. The baseline of these models is the incorporation of conceptual
knowledge with its application in particular design situations. The present article
centres on and expands the participatory model, because it seeks to empower stu-
dents to understand their physical and social environment better and fosters sensi-
tivity to listen to the client´s needs filtering relevant information.
Teaching and learning architecture through participatory

experiences
The roots of participatory actions can be traced back to the origins of democracy.
However, the direct involvement of the building’s users during the design process
is relatively recent (Sanoff 2008). Actively involving communities became popular
with trade unions in various countries during the 1960s and 1970s, as a rejection
of non-inclusive practices (Sanders 2008). The work of numerous authors such as
Davidoff (1965) and Sanoff (1978) was influential in shaping participatory design
processes in architecture. However, its implementation in architectural education
had a slower pace. Prior teaching experiences have tested the hypothesis that col-
laborative design affects the standard design process within a conventional design
studio, as cultural diversity affects the students’ conceptual design output (Hasanin
2013). It is argued that the best strategy for introducing the concept of participa-
tion lies in offering students the opportunity to directly interact with real clients
and users (Salama 1995). Role-play exercises on their own are proven to be insuffi-
cient in developing students’ sensibility and awareness of social issues (Bernardi &
Kowaltowski 2010). For participation to achieve its goal, the contributions of the
participants need to be recorded at all stages, not only for use within the design
process but for the re-use of this knowledge when solving new problems in the
future (Bereiter 2002; Fowles 2000; Sanders & Stappers 2008).
The problem
In Colombia, the general architecture curriculum does not include modules focus-
ing specifically on participatory design processes. However, in recent years and
mainly due to the personal initiatives of some teaching staff, a series of academic
experiences have been carried out within traditional design studio models and
other theory modules (Rodriguez et al. 2018; Rodriguez 2017a, 2017b; Salazar
et al. 2011). These experiences include life projects, workshops and urban-action
ventures that have involved students, community participants, members of the con-
struction industry, government representatives or other stakeholders. The working
hypothesis is that curricula can progressively change by meticulous interventions
to specific modules, without the need for a comprehensive reform, which could be
costly, lengthy and unfeasible in many cases. These interventions, however, need to
focus on overcoming essential limitations of the conventional design studio, which
were described in the above sections and are summarised in Figure 1. The authors
iJADE (2019)
5
Figure 1
Definition of the problems and limitations of a conventional design studio and potential solu-
tions found in participatory experiences.
argue that specific principles of participatory design processes can address the
problems generated by these limitations.
Participatory design experience methodology

Participatory Design Experience (PDE) is an alternative methodology proposed
here, based and adapted from the widely known Participatory Action Research
(PAR). PAR is a qualitative research methodology, which purpose is to describe and
understand the intervention processes, as opposed to quantitative research pro-
posals, which usually tend to tabulate, predict and control the processes studied.
One of the main characteristics of this methodology is to systematically collect
sensitive information (e.g. visions, imaginaries, plans, projects and feelings of the
community) while limiting the control or manipulation by the research team. It aims
at improving fundamental aspects of the life of the communities involved; there-
fore, their active participation is expected. The common goal is usually to achieve a
particular change in the social construction of the habitat, by developing a specific
action or project (Greenwood & Levin 1998). PAR processes also target the shared
construction of knowledge and the creation of systems that allow communities and
research teams to learn simultaneously (Fals-Borda 2001; Freire 1970).
The PAR methodology is a very appropriate point of reference for undergradu-
ate active teaching and learning since it offers a definitive integration of knowledge
and attitudes (Carr & Kemmis 1986; Kang et al. 2015). However, as it was origi-
nally proposed for a practice environment instead of an academic setting, it needs
to be altered and adapted to suit the dynamic in higher education.
The characteristics of a Participatory Design Experience

PAR and other similar methodologies have in common the aim of involving diverse
stakeholders in the design process in order to produce something more effective
for the end user. The purpose of this style of research methodologies is to pursue
iJADE (2019)
6
action and research outcomes at the same time. In contrast, the purpose of the
Camilo Salazar Ferro, Isabel Artega Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and Daniel H. Nadal proposed PDE methodology is to pursue design actions and learning outcomes at
the same time. The central aim of a PDE is not necessarily to create a better pro-
duct or solution for the end user. Instead, the focus is on the meaningful interac-
tions created between the designers (in this case the students), the users (the
community) and other stakeholders (teaching staff, practitioners and members of
the construction industry). PDE emphasises two fundamental concepts of action
research: learning by doing and social learning. It acknowledges that all the partici-
pants of the experience can learn and benefit through the active adaptation of
their existing knowledge in response to exchanges with other people and their
environment (Figure 2).
The implementation of a PDE can induce substantial changes to transform the
traditional design studio, both in the definition of the problem and in the traceability
of the proposed solutions, since it demands a collective commitment to maintaining
the exchange over time. Prior participatory experiences suggest that when different
opinions are addressed the result is more flexible and resilient over time, as well as
more accessible and easily appropriable by the community (Robertson & Simonsen
2012). In this context, design projects are orientated towards open solutions where
conclusions define alternatives, strategies and learning. This characteristic is diver-
gent to the usual progression of a PAR project or a standard academic project in a
design studio, where the end product is usually a single finished solution.
Generally, in PAR dynamics the diversity of perspectives, values and capacities
becomes part of a consensual agenda in which the design process establishes dif-
ferent points of equilibrium that account for the successive agreements and phases
of development (McDonald 2012). The divergences and imbalances that may exist
in the different moments of construction and definition of effective actions for
community social change require the definition of consensus leadership and the
structuring of different participation proposals that must evolve to strengthen the
necessary learning strategies. In the proposed PDE methodology students are
encouraged to take up this leadership. Therefore, the learning outcomes target the
development of students’ competencies involving the understanding of deep and
complex social concerns, critical analysis capacity, and integration of professional
Figure 2
Benefits for the participants of a Participatory Design Experience.
iJADE (2019)
7
projection in ethical issues of justice and social exchange. These aspects are often
disconnected from classroom-based teaching formats such as the conventional
design studio.
The PAR methodology usually comprises three interlinked phases: Participation
(collaborating and empowering), Action (creating change and achieving outcomes)
and Research (planning, observing, documenting, evaluating and generating new
knowledge)(Chevalier & Buckles 2013). The structure of a PDE varies as it changes
these three main realms into interact, propose and reflect, which all revolve
around the actual learning experience (Figure 3). These realms interest at various
stages during the design process such as the definition of the problem, the evalua-
tion of alternatives and the finding of design solutions. These actions encourage all
participants to share knowledge, find motivation and acquire new skills. Further-
more, they aim to support and promote the development of a series of emotional
and rational student competencies.
In practice, the three realms of the PDE methodology involve seven steps
(Table 1). These are replicable and adaptable according to the theme and focus of
the design project, the actors involved and the timeline of the experience.
Case study
The development of the PDE methodology was part of a research project titled
Urban Actions at the Bogot!a Laboratory, University of Los Andes. This methodology
was initially tested in 2016 in a standard design studio module at the university’s
Department of Architecture and with the support of a grant by the Junta de
Andaluc!ıa (government of the autonomous community of Andalusia in Spain). The
funding from the Junta de Andaluc!ıa was awarded to a community project
designed to contribute to the improvement of vulnerable neighbourhoods. In this
case, it was the construction of a neighbourhood community centre comprised of a
small-scale multifunctional facility dedicated to the exchange of communal services
and the creation of community ties.
Figure 3
Interconnected realms, actions, and competencies in the Participatory Design Experience.
iJADE (2019)
8
TABLE 1 Steps, actions, and actors of a Participatory Design Experience
ACTORS
STEPS ACTIONS
S T C A
1 Diagnosis Identification and definition of the problem(s). x x x
Research of the history, precedents and past solutions of the x x x
2 Background problem(s) found. A literature review regarding participatory
design methodologies.
Preparation and drafting of the participatory experience. Trial x x x
3 Planning
runs.
4 Consultation 1 Workshop to refine the brief. x x x x
Outline and evaluation of various alternatives and design x x x
5 Consultation 2
solutions.
Filtering and refinement of the best proposals. Adjustments of the x x x
6 Refinement layout and technical detailing. Presentation and evaluation of the
final proposal.
7 Assessment Reflection on the overall experience. Prospects for future work. x x x x
KEY: S (Students), T (Teaching staff), C (Members of the community),
A (Advisors, experts, and professionals in the construction industry).
The beneficiary community that participated in this project was chosen due to
previous links that they had with the university. This community is located in Feni-
cia which is part of Las Aguas, a neighbourhood on the periphery of Bogot!a’s his-
toric centre and in the proximity of the university campus (Figure 4). Recently, this
sector has been drastically transformed both in use and in social and demographic
configuration. Service and commercial activities have increased, as well as the size
of the floating population, forcing residents out of the area. Since 2010, the uni-
versity has led the social programme Progresa Fenicia, which aims to articulate cur-
rent owners and residents with potential investors and the city government in the
search for integral development solutions (Universidad de Los Andes 2010). An
outcome of this programme was the regeneration plan El Tiangulo de Fenicia,
created through a participatory design process. This experience, however, lacked
significant student involvement at the time.
This previous experience was taken as a precedent for the implementation of
the PDE methodology in the case study presented here, carried out from July to
December 2016. A group of 15 members of this community, who were very active
during the participatory and decision-making scenarios of the Fenicia’s regenera-
tion plan, were invited to participate. This group comprised technicians, labour
workers, female heads of households, merchants and young students. Additionally,
the chosen design studio module included 15 fourth- and fifth-year students and
five teaching staff. It was titled Design–Build–Participate, with the word Build mean-
ing both building relationships and building a physical object. Furthermore, various
advisors collaborated during the experience, including experts on urban planning,
participatory methodologies and materials, and construction processes. The seven
steps and actions proposed for the PDE methodology (Table 1) were tailored for
the subject of the module (Figure 5).
The students were given an initial document with the module´s learning objec-
tives and the project’s general brief; however, it was part of the exercise to refine
this brief according to steps one and two of the methodology. The main objectives
of the multifunctional facility for the exchange of communal services were:
• to provide a flexible space regarding its internal layout and location on the site;
• to use low-cost and efficient materials and construction processes; and
• to the have potential of being replicable in different parts of the city.
iJADE (2019)
9
Figure 4
Project’s location.
Figure 5
Specific steps and actions for the Participatory Design Experience in the case study.
Results of the academic experience

Diagnosis: meeting, listening and reflecting
This was one of the most exciting steps of the project as students were inexperi-
enced in having to define the brief. In past design studio modules, they were given
completed briefs of the projects that they were asked to design. Here they were
expected to find, interpret and specify the design problem(s) through an initial
encounter (site-visit) and further dialogue with the community. Before the first visit
they were advised to structure the analysis of the problem into four aspects:
• Population: identification of demographic groups, existing social relationships,

and specific social problems.
iJADE (2019)
10
• Social structure: identification of existing social and community organisations,
leaders and representatives, social programmes, everyday events and customs.
• Territory: identification of historical development, processes of change regarding
inhabitants and their activities, relationship with the city, attributes of the exist-
ing public space, facilities, mobility, infrastructure and ecological aspects.
• Services: economic activities, socio-economic characterisations, aspects related
to unemployment and underemployment, and expectations.
This diagnosis allowed students to understand the characteristics of the neigh-

bourhood and its local and global context. It was found that the studied community
was socially fragmented, like many others in the peripheries of Latin American
cities. There was a particular need for spaces to host activities that stimulated
coexistence among the community’s inhabitants, which represented an exciting
challenge for the students to address. The diagnosis was also useful for the stu-
dents to reflect on the potential that these facilities could bring for human interac-
tion, the development of new relationships and the reconstruction of the social
fabric in the present context of conflict resolution. As a consensus, students
decided to focus on designing a place that could be a symbol of the collective and
most latent desire for peace and reconciliation, and where the inhabitants could
exchange time, knowledge, skills or products.
Background: research on community exchange

The second step consisted in defining what ‘community exchange’ was and explor-
ing different alternatives for addressing the specific problems found. Through read-
ings and literature reviews of different national and international experiences on
the subject, the students acknowledged and defined different possibilities of
exchange between the members of the selected community. Additionally, this was
complemented with presentations by experts that took part in the Progresa Fenicia
programme and in the regeneration plan El Tiangulo de Fenicia. Advisors from other
institutions (e.g. Javeriana University and the Juligo
!n Foundation) were also invited
to share their past experiences with participatory design. These encounters
allowed students to understand the dimension and complexity involved in this type
of community work. They were encouraged to reflect on their initial research by
preparing diagrams of their findings (Table 2) and discussing them with the advi-
sors to receive feedback.
Planning: structuring the participatory design encounters

This step comprised the organisation of the workshops and development of tools
and material, based on the collected information and conclusions from steps one
and two. For the preparation of this work, a local politician who specialised in
urbanism (with experience in participatory work with local communities in Bogot!a)
was invited as an advisor. This step included a discussion on theoretical and con-
ceptual ideas regarding citizenship, and participation processes at a general and
local level, which could be related to the exercise. It encouraged students to reflect
on the current dynamics of citizen participation in Colombia and a potential change
of paradigm from focusing on the views and proposals directed by outsiders to
centring on the inhabitants’ public actions.
Understanding that participation processes imply a change of management in
the relationship between professionals and citizens made it possible for students to
plan a dialogue starting from a principle of equality. It is argued that it is precisely in
iJADE (2019)
TABLE 2 Example of a diagram developed by the students
COMMUNITY EXCHANGE BUILDING FACILITIES PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES
WHAT? HOW? STRATEGIES MATERIALS / SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION /

TECHNIQUES REQUIREMENT BENEFICIARIES
REFERNCES Exchange organic Find communal Encourage equality/ ways to Find material donations Avoid permanent The community can
products currency pay debts foundations contribute to the maintenance
costs and benefit with food
Exchange services: A platform to Encourage participation in Building to showcase work Flexible layout and The community can
e.g. plumbing show work decision-making panelling construction contribute via labour and
benefit from skilled services
Homework assistance Construction Built an autonomous *Low cost and durable Modular Community involve benefits equally
for children of networks community materials (e.g. drywall,
fibreglass, polycarbonate)
Donation of time Self-organisations Multiple-use furniture
*Natural materials (e.g.
Direct exchange Non-profit organisations bamboo, timber, straw) Internal and extremal
*Recycled materials (e.g. furniture
Indirect exchange Sustainable in time and
post-construction containers, pallets)
*Construction equipment
Communication strategies (e.g. tools, scaffolding)
Analysis of potential
participants

iJADE (2019)
11
12
this process that the act of sharing knowledge, experiences and proposals can lead to
Camilo Salazar Ferro, Isabel Artega Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and Daniel H. Nadal the emergence of consensual solutions. In this way, the expertise of teachers and stu-
dents can complement the works of the community and inhabitants. This process was
viewed as a seed and starting point for the construction of social networks between
the academic and public environments, which are expected to boost the personal
development of the participants and facilitate future joint work.
Although there was already some level of consultation with the community at
this point, the following two steps concentrated on the potential for discussion in
favour of the redefinition of the brief and development of design ideas for the
building facilities. Two consultation workshops accompanied this process: the first
focusing on the design of the exchange, and a second focusing on the design of
the building.
Consultation 1: Refinement of the brief – definition of the

exchange
For the workshop on the exchange, students decided to divide the group into four
discussion tables, each one set to explore a particular topic:
• Beneficiaries and users

• Events and activities
• Space / form
• Future sustainability
At each table, the definition of possible elements and aspects to be exchanged

and the importance and relevance of the facilities in the reconstruction of social
connections, were discussed amongst participants. Students defined precise roles
for themselves (e.g. a moderator, a clerk, a drafter and a logistic supervisor), which
made it possible to get the most out of the activity (Figure 6). Every twenty min-
utes the participants from the community would rotate to another table, complet-
ing all the topics in two hours (including presentation and the general conclusions).
Several ideas and conclusions resulted from the workshop (Table 3).
Figure 6
Photographs of the first workshop regarding the exchange.
iJADE (2019)
13
TABLE 3 Ideas and conclusions from the first workshop regarding the exchange
DISCUSSION CONSENSUAL IDEAS - CONCLUSIONS
TABLE
Beneficiaries and Young students, children and senior members were identified as the target
users population for the exchange. Additionally, a list of professions and trades that
were predominant in the community was made.
Events and The selected events and activities were: Gastronomic activities, crafts workshops
activities (e.g. with recycled materials), children's film screening, physical activities (e.g.
gymnastics), performing arts (e.g. dance and theatre), integration events (e.g.
parties), horticulture, aesthetics and beauty sessions, and a flea market.
Space / form The following were identified as the primary needs and desires for the build
space: * to develop several activities simultaneously through the separation of
environments, * to have natural lighting and ventilation, * to create secure and
safe spaces, *to create a fluid indoor–outdoor relationship, * to provide facilities
for the preparation of food, * to have a deposit space, *to allow areas for the
artistic expression of the community.
Future It was concluded that to secure the sustainability of the project it was necessary
sustainability to sell products, change fees for services and have the option of renting spaces.
Consultation 2: Outline and evaluation of design solutions for the

building
During this step, students worked individually to propose a design solution follow-
ing the concerted brief. The alternatives were presented autonomously to compete
in an internal contest, where five of the most suitable proposals were democrati-
cally chosen amongst students and teaching staff. These were developed further in
groups of 2–3 students with the support from teaching staff in the technology unit
at the University’s Architecture Department.
The proposals were presented during a second workshop regarding the design
of the building, carried out five weeks after the first workshop. Following the same
methodology of the thematic discussion tables, the members of the community
were asked to rotate while students presented (through models, diagrams and
drawings) each design alternative. The participants from the community were
asked to identify the limitations, strengths and challenges in each proposal
(Table 4).
General remarks were made at the end of the workshop. For example, the
community recognised the efforts made by the students in the materialisation of
the ideas from the first workshop. Some adjustments were discussed and agreed
amongst participants, including modifications to the building size, the need to
include a bathroom, the importance of the external lighting and security of the site
enclosure. It was also suggested to design a roofing cover for part of the outdoor
space and include a soft flooring material for a child’s playground.
During both workshops, the advisers from Progresa Fenicia and the teaching
staff only acted as observers, in order to avoid influencing the design decisions
made between the community and the students (Figure 7).
Refinement: adjustments of the layout and technical detailing

Based on the agreements reached during the previous two steps, one proposal
(which combined the best aspects of all the discussed alternatives) was put
iJADE (2019)
14
TABLE 4 Feedback from the second workshop regarding the building
DESIGN PROPOSALS
ALTERNATIVES LIMITATIONS STRENGTHS CHALLENGES
1 Proposal 1 Limited layout *Included a water collection *Modularity vs construction
(3 students) system, *proposed a dry system. *The assemble
construction-system with system needed
timber panels, *the simplification.
structure and services were
well planned.
2 Proposal 2 *Roofing design, *Modularity *Indoor–outdoor *The load-bearing structure
(3 students) *Internal enclosure relationship, * Material needs revising, *The
flexibility, *Deposit, assembly of pallets need
*Included two constructive more design, *The outdoor
spatial elements that can space cover needs more
work in any space. work.
3 Proposal 3 *Structure is not self- *Modular dimensions (3.68 x *The assembly and joints are
(3 students) supporting, *The 3.68m), *Material proposed complex, *Complex bamboo
sanitary system ecolac/ polycarbonate, * Slab structure, *The proposed
needs more work, configuration, * Panels that roofing system.
*Interior space needs pivot to connect with the
defining outdoor space.
4 Proposal 4 *Security, *Enclosure's *Proposed layout, *Modular *Complex structure with ties
(2 students) material, *Proposed parts, *Double height space, and ground anchor,
air conditioning. *Interior flexibility, *Pivoting *complex roofing system,
panels, Indoor–outdoor * The water collection
relationship, * Topography system.
of the outdoor space.
5 Proposal 5 * Roofing with pallets, *Proposal of a service core, *Complex supporting
(3 students) * Weak supporting *Openings to the outside structure, *Complex spatial
structure, * Lack * Use of pallets. modularity, *Interesting
Flexibility, * Lack material, but needs more
Modularity. detail, *Complex
topography, * Indoor–
outdoor relationship.
forward (Figure 8). For this step students were divided again into six groups; each
one was in charge of a different aspect of the project:
• Budget and material selection

• Structure and forms of assembly
• Roofing, groundworks, and foundations
• Enclosure design
• Mobile interior partitions
• Service module
It was decided to use a timber structure, covered with plywood panels built
on site and modulated according to the sizes available in the market. A double
pitch roof with a central gutter was chosen to allow the collection of rainwater.
iJADE (2019)
15
Figure 7
Photographs of the second workshop regarding the building.
Figure 8
The final proposal for the neighbourhood community centre building.
Steel foundations anchored to the floor were selected to allow easy assembly and
dismantling of the construction. Light internal partitions were proposed to facilitate
manipulation and storage.
The project was later adjusted by a professional architect to reduce costs and
develop additional technical details. During this process, the internal partitions and
furniture had to be modified. The construction of the project is expected to start
in the middle of 2019 with the support of the Junta de Andaluc!ıa’s grant.
iJADE (2019)
16
Assessment: evaluation of the learning
In this final step, all participants met again to review the resulting proposal for final
adjustments. Students were also asked to produce a design manual that would
allow the project to be replicated on a different site. This meeting finished with a
general reflection on the experience, the acquired learning and prospects. Addi-
tionally, students were later asked to answer a short survey designed to evaluate
and reflect on their learning from this experience. The questions were:
• Do you consider that a ‘real’ assignment is an important academic exercise?

Please explain your answer.
• Do you consider it necessary to have direct interaction with the user / commu-
nity during the design process? Please explain your answer.
• Do you feel that you learnt something from the participatory processes in this
experience? Please explain your answer.
• If you feel that you learnt from this experience, what new tools or skills did you
acquire? Would you use these in the future?
• Do you think it is important to have this experience during your architectural
education? Please explain your answer.
• In your opinion, which part of the methodology used in this experience stands
out as relevant for the learning process of an architecture student?
Student answers were analysed and classified into two areas: (1) perceived
learning and (2) perceived limitations.
Perceived learning
The majority of the students concluded that the exercise was of great importance
to complement their training. This was the first time during their studies that they
had the opportunity to work with a real client. Therefore, they found it to be an
enriching challenge for their learning processes.
All of the surveyed students considered that a ‘real’ assignment is an impor-
tant academic exercise because it allows them to be more aware of the challenges
that they will face as practitioners. Some students commented that the responsibil-
ity they will have as future architects and the potential to benefit other people
became more evident with this experience. This was their primary source of moti-
vation to carry out the project and seek a result of the best possible quality.
For other students, getting to know and interact with a community highlighted
that usually real needs, preferences, desires and expectations were not taken into
account in their past academy projects. The imaginary clients that they invented
for other assignments lacked the complexity and wisdom that they found in a real
community.
Regarding the tools and skills learnt, they emphasised the change of attitude
that they experienced throughout the project. In particular, they mentioned the
need to be open to changes and to carry out collaborative processes whenever
possible and as a design strategy.
They pointed out that it is vital to repeat [during their studies] the processes
followed in this exercise because they will help their future performance in the
professional field as they are closer to reality. In this regard, a student wrote: ‘from
these experiences, you learn both the good and the bad, which gives a vision of
how the projects will be in your professional life. The actual assignment gives me a
iJADE (2019)
17
completely different vision and makes it clear that my learning processes are very
far from reality.’
It was perceived that the PDE methodology allowed students to be inclusive
in their project processes and behaviours which arise from interaction with the
community, which enriched learning and gave them a greater sense of belonging.
The consideration of different variables during the development of the projects
was identified as a very positive aspect of the methodology. However, the element
that stood out the most was having the experience of adjusting a project’s design,
materiality and budget with the constant input of the user and according to their
expectations. Roleplay and collaborative teamwork were also highly commended as
favourable components of the experience.
Perceived limitations
Students, in general, found that this educational experience was significant, but it
lacked continuity and articulation with other modules. Some members of the com-
munity mentioned their concern for the actual materialisation of the project, as
they had past experiences with participatory processes where the products were
not completed. This concern resonated with the students who were worried about
the project’s scope. Additionally, difficulties in communication and compromise
when working as a team were found demanding to overcome for some students.
Conclusions
Through this work, it was found that it is possible effectively to adjust a traditional
design studio module and combine it with principles of Participatory Action
Research in order to enhance learning. This article argues that the proposed Par-
ticipatory Design Experience (PDE) methodology achieved this objective success-
fully, as it allowed a more meaningful and enriched learning experience. PDE
proved to involve students in the learning process more actively and directly than
other classroom-based methods used in architectural education. Students demon-
strated that they were more engaged in analytic, propositive and evaluative tasks
when they had the opportunity to guide the project, establish a dialogue with the
user and reflect on their own experiences.
This work highlighted the vital role that academic institutions can play in shap-
ing the built environment through coproduction by taking advantage of their ability
to connect different public, private and social stakeholders. Bringing students clo-
ser to the real problems faced by communities in their context is essential for the
collective construction of the territory and the formation of social responsibility.
However, urgent changes need to be made in curricular modules to experiment
further with methodologies such as participatory design. In the case of Colombia,
these are not yet established as core elements of architectural education, but as
sporadic gestures lead by individual interests of teachers.
Various essential aspects of the participatory process used by the PDE
methodology were identified throughout this work to be implemented in academic
assignments in architecture. These are described in Figure 9, together with the
effects that they can foster regarding encouraging active learning and developing
higher-order thinking skills such as analysing, evaluating and creating.
This work showed that traditional forms of teaching could move from quanti-
tative to qualitative methods of acquiring knowledge, being more in tune with
iJADE (2019)
18
Figure 9
Aspects of the PDE methodology that promote active learning.
the current social and cultural dynamics. Since the case study, this methodology
has been applied in similar modules at this university, but further experiences in
other institutions or social and design contexts can contribute toward its
improvement.
Camilo Salazar Ferro is an architect from the National University of Colombia with a
Master’s degree in history, Art, Architecture and City and a PhD in Urban Planning from
the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. He is currently an associate professor for the
Department of Architecture at the University of Los Andes and a researcher in the group
Pedagogies of the Habitat and the Public. He is the author of the book Understand to Influence:
Analysis and Project in the City During the Second Half of the 20th Century and the director of
the architecture magazines Architectures and Dearq. Contact address: Universidad de los
Andes, Department of Architecture, Bogot!a, Colombia. Email: csalazar@uniandes.edu.co
Isabel Artega Arredondo is an architect from the National University of Colombia with
an MSc degree in Urbanism from the same university and a PhD in Urban Planning from
the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain. Isabel has been a full-time associate professor
and researcher at the Department of Architecture at the University of Los Andes since
2005. She has taught urban issues at undergraduate and graduate programmes and worked
as a researcher and consultant in urban planning and urban design. Isabel was the director
of the research group Building the public realm between 2008 and 2013 and is currently a
researcher in the group Pedagogies of Habitat and the Public, where she studies collective
spaces and urban regeneration. She is also a member of the Scientific Committee of City on
the Move Latin Ame !rica (Instituto para la Ciudad en Movimiento) and the Advisory Committee
of the Doctoral Programme in Architecture at the University of Seville, Spain. Contact
address: Universidad de los Andes, Department of Architecture, Bogot!a, Colombia. Email:
iarteaga@uniandes.edu.co
Carolina M. Rodriguez is an architect with a summa cum laude degree from the National
University of Colombia, a PhD from Nottingham University and a Certificate in Professional
Studies from the University of Liverpool, UK. She has 20 years of experience in education,
iJADE (2019)
19
research and academic administration working as a professor and researcher at the Univer-
sity of Nottingham and the University of Liverpool in England and the University of Los
Andes and the University Piloto in Colombia. Carolina has specialised in designing pedagogi-
cal methods and active teaching and learning strategies. She has been invited as a guest lec-
turer for international conferences and academic events and has supervised eight Master’s
theses and one PhD thesis. During her career, Carolina has established a track record of
high-quality publications which include one book, two book chapters, nine articles in indexed
journals (six in Q1, two in Q2 and one in Q3) five articles in other refereed publications and
twelve conference papers. She has received twelve international awards, led three research
grants, and has worked as a conference organiser, journal editor and a peer reviewer for
Q1 journals, research commissions and judging committees for research awards. Addition-
ally, she has professional practice in various architecture offices in England and Colombia.
Contact address: Universidad de Los Andes, Department of Architecture, Bogot!a, Colombia.
Email: cm.rodriguez@uniandes.edu.co
Daniel H. Nadal is an architect with a cum laude degree, a Master’s degree and a PhD
from the School of Architecture at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain. He is cur-
rently a professor at the University of Los Andes and a researcher in the group Pedagogies
!
of Habitat and the Public. Daniel has been a researcher at the Observatorio de Territorios Etni-
cos y Campesinos for emerging cartographies of Afro-descendant communities at the Colom-
bian Caribbean. Additionally, he has been an advisor for the InstitutoPensar at the Pontifical
Javeriana University for alternative projects of territorial planning in transitional justice pro-
cesses and architectural strategies linked to processes of territorial affirmation for the
Comisi!on Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz in Colombia. He has coordinated the New Territories
Project of the International Studies Programme PEI at the Pontifical Javeriana University and
worked until 2015 in the Life and Territory Project at the Jorge Tadeo Lozano University.
He has worked as professor and coordinator of the Research and Doctorate Department in
the Department of Architecture at the Higher Polytechnic School of the UFV University of
Madrid. He was the director of the research group Arquitecturas Ocacionales [AAOO *]
and coordinator of the Urban Replay research group until 2012. Contact address: Universi-
dad de los Andes, Department of Architecture, Bogot!a, Colombia. Email: d.huertas@unian-
des.edu.co
References
Bashier, F. (2014) Reflections on Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986)
architectural design education: the return Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge
of rationalism in the studio, Frontiers of and Action Research. London: Falmer
Architectural Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. Press.
424–30.
Chevalier, J. M. & Buckles, D. (2013)
Bereiter, C. (2002) Education and Mind in Participatory Action Research: Theory and
the Knowledge Age. New York: Methods for Engaged Inquiry. London:
Routledge. Routledge.
Bernardi, N. & Kowaltowski, D. (2010) Ciravog"lu, A. (2014) Notes on
When role playing is not enough: improved architectural education: an experimental
universal design education, International approach to design studio, Procedia -
Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 4, Nos. Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 152, pp.
2–3, pp. 376–91. 7–12.
iJADE (2019)
20
Cuff, D. (1991) Architecture: The Story of Kvan, T. & Yunyan, J. (2005) Students’
Camilo Salazar Ferro, Isabel Artega Arredondo, Carolina M. Rodriguez and Daniel H. Nadal Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. learning styles and their correlation with
performance in architectural design studio,
Davidoff, P. (1965) Advocacy and pluralism
Design Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 19–34.
in planning, Journal of the American Institute
of Planning, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 331–8. Mayo, J. (1988) Critical reasoning for an
enlightened architectural practice, Journal
Fals-Borda, O. (2001) Participatory action
of Architectural Education, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.
research in social theory: origins and
46–57.
challenges, in P. Reason & H. Bradbury
[Eds] Handbook of Action Research: McDonald, C. (2012) Understanding
Participatory Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Participatory Action Research: a qualitative
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 27–37. research methodology option, Canadian
Journal of Action Research, Vol. 13, No. 2,
Fowles, R. (2000) Symmetry in design
pp. 34–50.
participation in the built environment:
experiences and insights from education Nicol, D. & Pilling, S. (2000) Changing
and practice, in S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball Architectural Education: Towards a New
& A. Woodcock [Eds] Collaborative Design. Professionalism. London: Spon Press.
London: Springer, pp. 59–70.
Robertson, T. & Simonsen, J. (2012)
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Challenges and opportunities in
Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & contemporary participatory design, Design
Wenderoth, M. P. (2014) Active learning Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 3–9.
increases student performance in science,
Rodriguez, C. (2017a) A method for
engineering, and mathematics, Proceedings
experiential learning and significant learning
of the National Academy of Sciences of the
in architectural education via live projects,
United States of America, Vol. 111, No. 23,
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Vol.
pp. 8410–5.
17, No. 3, pp. 279–304.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Rodriguez, C. (2017b) Student-centred
New York: Seabury Press.
strategies to integrate theoretical
Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (1998) knowledge into project development within
Introduction to Action Research: Social architectural technology lecture-based
Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, modules, Architectural Engineering and
CA: Sage. Design Management, Vol. 13, No. 3. 3, pp.
223–42.
Gutman, R. (1987) Education and the
world of practice, Journal of Architectural Rodriguez, C., Hudson, R. & Niblock, C.
Education, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 24–5. (2018) Collaborative learning in
architectural education: benefits of
Hasanin, A. (2013) Cultural diversity and
combining conventional studio, virtual
reforming social behavior: a participatory
design studio and live projects, British
design approach to design pedagogy,
Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 49,
International Journal of Architectural
No. 3, pp. 337–53.
Research: ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.
92–101. Salama, A. (1995) New Trends in
Architectural Education: Designing the Design
Holtz, J. (1975) Architecture education:
Studio. Raleigh, NC: Tailored Text &
needs a new blueprint, Change: The Magazine
Unlimited Potential Publishing.
of Higher Learning, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 34–8.
Salama, A. (2009) Transformative Pedagogy
Kang, M., Choo, P. & Watters, C. (2015)
in Architecture & Urbanism. Solingen:
Design for experiencing: participatory
Umbau-Verlag.
design approach with multidisciplinary
perspectives, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Salazar, C., Mojica, X. & Urrea, T. (2011)
Vol. 174, No. 12, pp. 830–3. Acciones urbanas. Bajo los adoquines. . . ¡la
iJADE (2019)
21
playa! [please add English translation], De- interaction and student emotions in the
Arq, No. 16, pp. 10–29. landscape architecture studio, International
Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 34,
Saldarriaga, A. (2012) Ensen~anza de la
No. 2, pp. 260–79.
arquitectura en Colombia: Estado actual [add
English translation]. Bogota: Asociacion UNHCR (2017) Forced Displacement
Colombiana de Facultades de Arquitectura. Growing in Colombia Despite Peace
Agreement (online). Available at: www.unhc
Sanders, E. (2008) An evolving map of
r.org/en-lk/news/briefing/2017/3/58c26e
design practice and design research,
114/forced-displacement-growing-colombia-
Interactions, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 13–17.
despite-peace-agreement.html (accessed 22
Sanders, E. & Stappers, P. (2008) Co- March 2019).
creation and the new landscapes of design,
Universidad de Los Andes (2010)
CoDesign, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 5–18.
Programa Progresa Fenicia (online).
Sanoff, H. (1978) Designing with Community Available at: https://progresafenicia.
Participation. New York: McGraw Hill. uniandes.edu.co/index.php/programa-
pogresa-fenicia (accessed 30 March
Sanoff, H. (2008) Multiple views of 2019).
participatory design, International Journal of
Architectural Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. WASHwatch (2015) WASHwatch Colombia
131–43. (online). Available at:https://washwatch.org/
en/countries/colombia/summary/ (accessed
Smith, C. A. & Boyer, M. E. (2015) 22 March 2019).
Adapted verbal feedback, instructor
iJADE (2019)
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT, 2017
VOL. 13, NO. 3, 223–242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1230535
Student-centred strategies to integrate theoretical knowledge

into project development within architectural technology
lecture-based modules
Carolina M. Rodriguez Bernal
Architecture Department, University of Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article presents methods and findings resulting from a project for Received 8 June 2016
innovation in architectural engineering education. The project aimed to Accepted 26 August 2016
encourage students to successfully integrate theoretical knowledge on
KEYWORDS
architectural technology into project development within lecture-based Architectural engineering
modules. This type of integration has been possible in past experiences education; student-centred;
within design studio modules; however, little research can be found architectural technology;
about lecture-based modules. The student-centred strategies proposed collaborative learning;
here were guided by Bigg’s constructive alignment and focused on problem-based learning
promoting advanced learning levels. They comprised interconnected
activities and learning-oriented assessment methods, which proved to
strengthen students’ skills for effective autonomous and collaborative
learning. The teaching methods used included inverted class, peer
learning and role play. The evaluation of the project was supported by
SPSS and ATLAS.ti tools. This experience was set within a Colombian
university, where increasing student numbers, cross-university
competition and limited resources present several challenges. Findings
could be of significance for curricular development or the promotion of
good teaching practices.
Context
In the last few decades, there have been radical changes in the way architecture is learnt and taught,
which go alongside profound transformations in the context of higher education. Whilst these trans-
formations are not the focus of this article, they have had a significant influence on the teaching inno-
vation project that is analysed here. Therefore, the article starts by briefly introducing the current
academic context in which the project is placed in order to explain the nature of the innovation
and the lessons learnt from the experience.
Nowadays, most architectural programmes worldwide are competency based (also known as
outcome based) and/or student-centred, with the prime focus being graduates’ ability to apply
and synthesise learnt knowledge and skills in real-world practice (Savic & Kashef, 2013). Compe-
tency-based models revolve around the development of specific skills or competencies that students
will need when they complete their education. On the other hand, student-centred models seek to
encourage students to participate actively and control their own learning experience by strengthen-
ing their autonomy and independence. Some authors suggest that these two models are comp-
lementary, since competency-based education is meant to use student-centred styles of teaching
and assessment, whilst student-centred education should revolve around the development of
CONTACT Carolina M. Rodriguez Bernal cm.rodriguez@uniandes.edu.co Architecture Department, University of Los Andes,
Cra 1 No 18A-12, Zip code 111711, Bogotá, Colombia
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
224 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL
goals and competencies (Malan, 2000; Spady, 1994). However, the implementation of these models
has been different around the world according to particular institutional strategies, local policies, cur-
ricular programmes and cultural approaches (Knight, 2004). The project presented in this article is
placed within the context of Colombia, where a shift towards a new paradigm of competency-
based education emerged around the late 1990s, alongside international accreditation efforts. This
new education model became compulsory in 2003 with Resolution 2770, which defined quality stan-
dards for the undergraduate architecture programmes (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2003).
Since then, all higher education institutions have adjusted their curricula to incorporate compe-
tency-based modules. During this process, the relationship between competency-based and
student-centred models has not been well defined. As a result, there are many programmes that
are competency-based and at the same time structured around lecture-based modules. This scenario
may be confusing since the terms lecture-based and student-centred are often considered to be oppo-
sites or to promote very different results in terms of academic success (Severiens, Meeuwisse, & Born,
2015). This can be observed in a study carried out by ACFA (Colombian Association of Architecture
Schools) in 2012, which analysed the undergraduate programmes of 33 Colombian architecture
schools (Saldarriaga, 2012). The study illustrates that the curricular programmes are very similar in
all architecture schools. They are usually structured around a 170–180 credit system, which is
divided into 5 main areas: project design (25–40% of the credits), technology (10–20% of the
credits), urban design (5–13% of the credits), theory (9–15% of the credits) and other related subjects
(4–12% of the credits) (Saldarriaga, 2012). Project design, which usually comprises studio-based
modules, has a substantial weight compared to other areas. The number of credits is directly
related to the number of hours that students spend working on the module out of class. A
common studio-based module could account for 6 credits, which translates into 6 hours of class
and 12 hours of study time per week. A module in another area could be worth three credits with
three hours of class and six hours of study time per week.
In many architecture schools with competency-based programmes, theoretical subjects have tra-
ditionally been taught in isolation from design projects, using lecture-based modules for teaching
theory and studio-based modules for teaching practice (Attoe & Mugerauer, 1991). However, it has
been argued that young professionals who have been educated with this model find it difficult to
apply knowledge acquired at university when faced with real situations. In most cases, this is not
because they cannot remember the information, but because they cannot connect it easily to the
problem at hand in order to make it relevant (Banerjee & De Graaff, 1996). Student-centred
models where learners are given the opportunity to apply theoretical concepts directly to solve pro-
blems are alleged to be more effective for this purpose (Demirbilek & Demirbilek, 2007). A study that
analysed data on 225 undergraduate teaching methods found that students who are taught using
traditional lectures are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students learning through active learning
methods (Freeman et al., 2014). Most of the recorded teaching experiences integrating theory and
practice in architecture have taken place within design studio modules, which are usually central
to undergraduate curricula (Allen, 1997; Fausto & Piccardo, 2015; Shannon & Radford, 2010).
Design studio modules are linked to teaching methods that focus on the resolution of hypothetical
design problems that architectural practitioners may face. It is assumed that learning occurs through
the process of solving these problems by promoting critical, selective and strategic thinking (Bridges,
2007; Fausto & Piccardo, 2015). The activities carried out to solve problems in design studio modules
are primarily academic and mainly take place within the classroom (studio), involving short lectures,
face-to-face tutorials, ‘pin-ups’, ‘crits’, presentations and discussions. These activities can be designed
in many different ways, combining theoretical and practical content at various levels. Hence, they
provide the perfect grounds to apply and assess content in both areas (Attoe & Mugerauer, 1991).
Despite these efforts, there is evidence that in many design studio scenarios the application of theor-
etical content, especially related to technology, is repeatedly considered by students as a discrete and
subordinate task in the design process (Bridges, 2007; Lawson, 2005). Very often, the focus of the
project lies on formal experimentation, whilst the application of technical principles is secondary.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 225
Therefore, it has been suggested that these types of integration should happen across the curricula
and not just in design studio modules (Bridges, 2007). Unfortunately, this area is still under-
researched and very few examples related to lecture-based modules can be found. A reason
behind this could be that the introduction of student-centred models in lecture-based modules
may yield tougher challenges for teachers, due to limitations in the current academic context
(Sadler, 2012).
Design studio modules normally demand a high teacher/student ratio, usually 1/15–20, whilst for
a lecture-based module it could be 1/90–150 or more. These types of modules are more difficult to
implement, taking into account the effects associated with the current global phenomenon known as
the massification of higher education (Foley & Masingila, 2013). In countries such as Colombia, for
instance, architecture schools face complex circumstances due an exponential increase in higher
education enrolment during the past decades, tougher competition in the education market, the
need to incorporate advanced digital tools into teaching, limited resources, restrictions in class
times and spatial constraints in classrooms. Figures from the Colombian Ministry of Education
show that the number of graduates in the country increased by 61% from 2001 to 2012. Amongst
these graduates, 21% were from engineering, architecture, urbanism and related subjects (Ministerio
de Educación Nacional, 2013). According to ACFA, in 1990 there were 18 schools of architecture in the
country (2 public and 16 private) with 9761 students. These figures almost doubled to 33 schools by
2010 (2 public and 31 private) with more than 13,500 students, out of which approximately 2000 were
graduating every year (Saldarriaga, 2012). Last year there were 38 registered schools (2 public and 36
private) with approximately 3000 students graduating every year (SNIES, 2015).
This scenario is happening not only in Colombia, but in many parts of the world, where increasing
demands on higher education are placing unprecedented pressure on curricula to adapt and reform
(Hardy, 2010). Therefore, architecture programmes solely made up of design studio modules are not
always feasible in terms of budgets and infrastructure, but applying student-centred approaches
becomes more difficult when using lecture formats for large groups. Therefore, the teaching chal-
lenges currently arising are no longer just related to formulating competency-based modules
within the confines of the curriculum. The most prominent goals are associated with designing
and implementing appropriate student-centred teaching strategies with limited economic resources
and restrictive classroom space, whilst balancing student timetables and workload, and applying
emerging technologies. This became the driver for the innovation project presented here, in
which the goal was to explore enhanced ways of teaching within this context.
Methods
This project started in 2013 as part of a larger Innovation in Teaching Programme formulated by the
University of Los Andes, Colombia. The methodological approach chosen was to use a case study as
an exploratory tool to outline and test possible student-centred strategies within lecture-based
modules. Here, an existing module taught in a traditional manner was contrasted against a
module with an enhanced teaching scheme. The selected environment for the case study was an
architectural technology lecture-based module, titled ‘Systems for Construction and Estimation’.
This was a three-credit competency-based module taught at the School of Architecture after a curri-
cular reform in 1997. In the current architecture programme, there are nine mandatory modules with
the exact same structure, plus four other mandatory modules and seven elective modules that are
primarily lecture based with similar conditions. This scenario is also commonplace in programmes
offered by other institutions at the national level (Saldarriaga, 2012). It is comparable as well with pro-
grammes at the international level, in schools such as The Faculty of Architecture, Design and Urban
Studies at The Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, or The Faculty of Architecture at Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) in Mexico (Martínez, Rodríguez, & Tèllez, 2012). Consequently,
the methods and tasks undertaken, the module’s process of transformation, the results obtained and
the lessons learnt in this project are replicable in similar settings.
This study was carried out in six main stages (Figure 1). The first stage was to define the problem’s
context and establish research questions. The second stage was to carry out an initial diagnosis of the
problem. The third stage was to search for a conceptual framework and propose a hypothesis. The
fourth stage was to design and implement new student-centred strategies within the case study;
and the fifth and final stage was to evaluate the experience.
Research questions
The point that this specific project wanted to make was that student-centred models were still applicable
to architectural technology lecture-based modules, even with the limitations of restrictive formats and
resources. Although student-centred instruction may be considered in some cases as incompatible
with lectures, studies have shown that this type of instruction alone is no warranty of deeper student
learning (Baeten, Struyven, & Dochy, 2013). Surface approaches to learning are found to be equally
common either in the lecture-based or in student-centred teaching practices. It has been argued that
‘the combination in which lectures gradually made way for a student-centred teaching method
seemed to be the most appropriate format to encourage deep learning’ (20). Lectures allow students
to acquire basic knowledge and incrementally adjust to external instructional guidance (Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006). These presumptions prompted the following research questions for this study:
(1) How can student-centred principles be applied to lecture-based modules?

(2) Within a lecture-based module, how can students be encouraged to successfully integrate theor-
etical knowledge regarding architectural technology directly into project development?
Figure 1. Methodology used for the project.

(3) With the existing obstacles and limitations, how can enhanced learning experiences be designed
and implemented?
Initial diagnosis
An initial diagnostic analysis of the chosen module was undertaken in order to identify existing pro-
blems and limitations, as well as to set a state of affairs before the intervention. This analysis was con-
ducted by the author in conjunction with five peer reviewers from the university’s Centre for
Innovation in Technology and Education (Conecta-TE). For this purpose, some of the module’s lec-
tures were observed and 10 students who were taking the module were interviewed individually
and in focus groups (some of their comments are included in Figure 15). In addition, past student
evaluations of the module (2012–2013) were analysed, and the module’s programme, competencies,
objectives and activities were revised accordingly. Figure 2 illustrates the main characteristics and
details related to the competencies and objectives of the module, in addition to the format, learning
activities and assessment methods originally used. As can be seen, the syllabus intends to cover a
broad range of competencies and objectives linked to the development of academic, personal, col-
lective, social and cultural abilities. However, the module’s format, learning activities and assessment
methods are not totally in tune with the expected outcomes. Lecturing, optional practical sessions
and traditional exams were the default at that point. Additionally, there were limited resources in
terms of staff and teaching facilities for this large class. In the initial diagnosis, it was perceived
that what students were doing in this module’s classes and the way they were evaluated were not
appropriate for the desired competencies and objectives.
Conceptual framework
The initial diagnosis provided a general insight of the problem. In order to study this further, the con-
structive alignment model by Biggs (2003) was used as a framework, due to its emphasis on student-
Figure 2. The module’s competencies, objectives, format, resources, learning activities and assessment methods before the inno-
vation project.
centred approaches. This teaching model applies principles of constructivism, which in general argue
that students construct their own knowledge and understanding through personal experiences and
their reflection on those experiences. Constructivism in teaching and learning has had many different
interpretations, from the early theories by authors such as John Dewey and Jean Piaget, to more
recent approaches, such as those supported by Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Richard Mayer
and many others. Biggs’s interpretation is referenced here since his proposed teaching methods
reflect constructivism in the classroom through the use of learning activities that encourage students
to use higher cognitive-level processes. It also defines a simple classification that can be easily applied
to the practical task of studying the different learning activities in the case study.
Biggs’s model classifies human knowledge and levels of understanding into four main categories:
declarative, procedural, conditional and functional. Declarative knowledge refers to theoretical content
obtained from sources such as lectures, books or media, or learnt through personal research. Pro-
cedural knowledge is related to the development of practical skills acquired through sequential
activities and structured actions. Conditional knowledge combines declarative and procedural knowl-
edge and places them in a specific context. This is manifested when the individual knows when to do
things and why. Finally, functional knowledge combines all the above and is acquired through per-
sonal experience, allowing the learner not only to apply theoretical content and practical skills in a
given context, but also to act creatively and innovatively. Conditional and functional knowledge
are alleged to be the most advanced and desired types of knowledge that students should
acquire. Making use of this taxonomy, the existing module’s teaching and assessment methods
were aligned to the learning activities, as shown in Figure 3. Each of the competencies and expected
outcomes relate simultaneously to different types of knowledge. However, the learning activities and
assessment methods mainly favour declarative and procedural knowledge.
Figure 3. Analysis of the existing module, based on the constructive alignment model by John Biggs. This looks at knowledge
types, competencies and expected outcomes, as aligned with learning activities and assessment methods.
Hypothesis
The main problem found during the initial diagnostic analysis of the case study, which may echo in
many other competency-based modules, was that the learning activities were placing too much
emphasis on declarative and procedural knowledge types. The existing assessment methods (tra-
ditional exams and evaluations) were also mainly testing these two types of knowledge. However,
for a professional in architecture, what is more often required is the ability to apply conditional
and functional knowledge to solve design problems. Therefore, it was concluded that in order to
encourage the development of these types of knowledge, it was necessary to design new activities
and complement them with new methods of assessment. These new activities had to contextualise
real situations where students would find it necessary to question, reason, discuss, act and reflect on a
number of variables and complex relationships within a specific cultural and social model. Addressing
these real situations would give students opportunities to strengthen a range of skills that enable
optimal performance when working individually or as part of a team. Therefore, the new learning
activities also had to encourage both independent and collaborative learning. The above-proposed
changes did not necessarily require a complete change in format or resources available, but rather
the design of a creative learning path which could work with the existing conditions. With this
assumption, and based on the already established research questions, the hypothesis of the inno-
vation project was formulated as follows:
In order to encourage students to successfully integrate theoretical knowledge regarding architectural technol-
ogy directly into project development within a lecture-based module, it is necessary to provide interconnected
activities that strengthen different types of knowledge (i.e. declarative, procedural, conditional and functional) in
order to successfully perform as an individual and as part of a team.
Implementation: new learning activities

With the intention of testing this hypothesis, the module used as case study was redesigned with a
wide range of new learning activities and assessment methods. All the introduced strategies were
interconnected and structured using Biggs’s model for levels of knowledge (Figure 4). Learning activi-
ties and assessment methods were grouped and directly linked to each level of knowledge. In
addition, the percentage of the final mark given to each group was proportional to the time spent
in the activity and the importance of the task in relation to the development of higher levels of knowl-
edge. Activities linked to declarative and procedural levels contributed to 50% of the mark, since they
were the base for developing conditional and functional levels, which accounted for the remaining
50%. The new pedagogical strategies mainly centred on reflective practices and challenge-based
learning designed to foster advance levels of autonomous and/or collaborative learning. In this
article, the term challenge-based learning is used rather than problem-based learning (PBL), since
the word problem can imply negative obstacles, whilst challenge suggests positive competition
and encourages engagement. The new activities were chosen based on scientific literature (which
is later discussed in each section) and classified into five main types: autonomous learning activities,
collaborative learning activities, challenge-based learning activities, case studies and integration
projects.
Autonomous learning activities

Autonomy in lifelong learning is thought to be the best ability to have for effectively responding to
advancement in knowledge and skills. The current credit system in higher education in Colombia
emphasises the importance of autonomous learning by suggesting that individual study time for
each module should be equivalent to twice the amount of class time. However, the types of lectures
given in this module were limiting the development of autonomy, since the lecturer tended to play
the role of information provider and students tended to assume the role of information receivers,
Figure 4. Learning activities and assessment methods proposed for the proof of concept, linked to the levels of knowledge defined
by Biggs.
with the basic responsibilities of listening and taking notes. Therefore, to augment autonomy, the
focus of the lecture was reversed, giving priority to active student participation in an inverted class-
room format. This type of instructional strategy was used due to its alleged effectivity within student-
centred approaches. A recent scoping review, which compares numerous case studies in different
contexts, concludes that inverted classroom activities have the potential to enable teachers to
help cultivate critical and independent thought in their students, build the capacity for lifelong learn-
ing and prepare them for their workplace contexts (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015). It also suggests three
key elements that should be present in inverted classroom activities: (1) content in advance, (2)
teacher awareness of students’ understanding and (3) higher-order learning during class time.
Content in advance: pre-class asynchronous activities (pre-recorded lectures, videos, annotated
reading, etc.) were designed to allow students to individually revise and prepare material before
the inverted classroom activities. The content of the module covered basic concepts related to
two main topics: building construction and project management. The building construction part
was divided into four areas dealing with different building materials: concrete, stone-ceramics,
metals and fibres. The project management part was divided into two areas regarding cost and
time estimation: budgeting and scheduling. Different forms of inverted classes were devised with
various levels of active student engagement, including content lectures, guest-speaker lectures,
partially inverted classes and fully inverted classes. Content lectures (eight in total) were ‘slightly
inverted classes’ used to introduce essential theoretical concepts. Short questions were asked
throughout these sessions to gauge the level of understanding among students. Guest-speaker lec-
tures (four in total) were used to illustrate the theoretical subjects discussed from the experience of
professionals in practice. For the partially inverted classes (10 in total), students prepared a topic in
advance, using material available on the digital platform. This material was then discussed during the
class, led by a set of questions prepared by the teacher. For the fully inverted classes (seven in total), a
problem-solving activity based on real-life situations was developed by students working in groups,
with the teacher’s guidance.
A dedicated digital platform, which included constantly updated visual and textual material
related to the studied subjects (videos, images, graphs, tables, bibliography, etc.), was specially
designed for this purpose. This gave the students the opportunity to easily access a variety of struc-
tured resources and communicate more directly with teaching staff and peers. According to past
studies, this aids the development of skills for self-directed learning and technology management,
which play an important role in the construction of effective learning behaviours (Liu, Hodgson, &
Lord, 2010). Teacher awareness of students’ understanding: the teacher’s role during the partially
inverted and fully inverted classroom activities was to guide the students’ work. Most of these ses-
sions were followed by formative assessment exercises to evaluate the acquired knowledge or
skills. Higher order learning during class time: the classroom activities were aligned using Biggs’s
model aiming for the development of conditional and functional knowledge.
Collaborative learning activities

The experience of learning from peers is a vital component in architectural technology teaching, not
only because it promotes cooperation, but also because it is an essential preparation for professional
life (Boud, Cohen, & Cohen, 2001). Group work places students in situations where they need to learn
how to effectively distribute responsibilities, promote dialogue and deal with conflict. Collaborative
learning is closely related to challenge-based learning, as solving challenges is very often a joint effort
within professional practice. This approach is also in keeping with the theory of social constructivism,
which argues that challenge-solving is rarely an internal individual process, but one that is generated
through social interaction (Escribano & Valle, 2008). Social constructivism emphasises the role that
communities and culture play in the process of cognitive development. Various social constructivism
advocates, such as Berger and Luckmann (1966) and Vygotsky (1978), support the idea that social
interaction precedes learning. Hence, the natural way that the learner acquires knowledge is first
at a social level and then reinforcing it later on an individual level. Within the project presented
here, collaborative learning is promoted through three main elements: challenge-based learning
activities, case studies and integration projects.
Challenge-based learning activities

PBL is a student-centred pedagogy initially introduced and documented within medical education
during the late 1960s as a response to criticism that medical teaching was removing itself from real
medical practice (de Graaff & Cowdroy, 1997). In PBL, solving a problem inspired or abstracted
from practice acts as a catalyst for learning and as a way to develop thinking strategies and
domain knowledge. In architecture, it can be argued that design problems have been for a
long time tacitly placed at the centre of curricula within studio-based modules, which became
increasingly popular since the Bauhaus teaching experimentation of the 1930s in Germany (Gül,
Williams, & Gu, 2012). However, the PBL format as such started to be purposely implemented in
architecture curricula during the late 1980s and early 1990s (Bridges, 2007). PBL was first intro-
duced within the confines of studio-based modules and has been less commonly used within
lecture-based modules (Bridges, 2007; Maitland, 1997). Some new PBL approaches oppose lectures
or any conventional ways of teaching (Tezel & Casakin, 2010), whilst others advocate for hybrid
schemes. For example, past research has suggested the provision of flexibility in the way new ver-
sions of PBL are adapted to architectural engineering education, where a strict ban on the use of
lectures should be waived (Bridges, 2007). Another study proposed new ways to increase academic
collaboration between design and engineering courses via integrative problem-solving exercises
that combine theoretical and practical knowledge from both fields (Chance, Marshall, & Duffy,
2016).
For the purpose of this investigation, this recommendation was considered for the development
of two types of challenge-based learning activities: one-dimensional activities and multidimensional
activities. These activities were designed with a four-step method (Figure 5), which draws inspiration
from the ‘design-cycles’ used in some brainstorming and group problem-solving practices (Robson,
2002). In this method, a challenge is given to the students to examine, define and discuss with peers;
then they are asked to identify and find the necessary tools and information required to solve it. Sub-
sequently, they are advised to propose a variety of solutions and to choose some to test and
compare. Finally, they must evaluate and explain the results.
One-dimensional activities were mainly carried out individually during class time. They were
designed to provide straightforward challenges framed within a constrained context. Therefore, stu-
dents only needed to manage a limited number of variables. Normally, a theory or concept was intro-
duced and explained at the beginning of the class using a question. For example, the question could
be: how are compression and tension forces distributed through the members of a simple Fink truss? In
this case, after the explanation of the concept, the students were given a challenge that required
them to study a more complex truss, based on this principle, and then design it using given materials
such as rods and wires. Students were encouraged to consider different options, select one to design
and explain the reasons behind their choice. At the end of the class, the whole group analysed and
discussed the best solutions to the problem.
Figure 5. Methods used during the development of challenge-based learning activities.

Multidimensional activities were usually carried out in small groups over two sessions. These
activities were designed to tackle more complex challenges involving a wider range of variables.
Therefore, students were encouraged to use lateral thinking and explore and contrast different
options. Before the activity, one or two sessions were dedicated to introducing and explaining a par-
ticular technical subject about a specific building. During the first session of the activity, a challenge
related to this subject was presented and information was provided to develop it. After analysing this
information, students had to choose and evaluate possible technical solutions. The group then had to
select one of them and explain how it would work technically and how it could be constructed.
During the second session of the activity, each group briefly explained their choice. Then, the
teacher presented the real-life solution developed for that building so it could be contrasted with
the students’ proposals. Finally, each group was asked to analyse the results, identify the strengths
and weaknesses of their solution and reflect on their learning from the activity (Figure 6).
Case studies: learning from the experience of others

Case studies have long been considered to be efficient learning tools that are vital for constant pro-
fessional growth in architecture (Francis, 2001). However, students often undermine the act of study-
ing cases and reduce it to providing an overview of interesting examples. In order to promote the
generation of conditional knowledge, the study of cases must go beyond an initial statement of inter-
est and allow for an understanding of buildings as complex systems. There are different method-
ologies for the study of cases in architecture; some are guided by the delimitation of phenomena
(Yin, 2013) by means of triangulation, exploratory and descriptive methods (Groat & Wang, 2002)
or via systemic rationalisation (Foque, 2010). Most of these methodologies concur that buildings
are complex operational units which, in order to discern any useful understandings, should be inves-
tigated in their natural context and through a variety of strategies.
Figure 6. Photographs of students working during challenge-based learning activities in inverted classes.
For this research, case studies were used to help students acquire the ability to recognise when,
why and how construction processes are carried out in building projects. For this purpose, a systemic
rationalisation methodology that combined three phases (gathering, relating and exposing) was
adopted (Figure 7). It required an orderly analysis of the different factors and components of the
building and the relationships between them. Consequently, during the first phase (gathering), stu-
dents – working in small teams – were asked to collect qualitative and quantitative data about the
building, which would help them to identify its different subsystems (i.e. support system, supply
and control system, envelope systems, etc.) and to recognise the context variables that influenced
its design (i.e. climate, available technology; functional requirements; economic, cultural and legisla-
tive factors; duration of construction; budget; etc.). In the second phase (relating), students were
asked to relay all these information and explain how the different characteristics and variables of
the project affected the decisions made during its design and construction. Finally, during the
third phase (exposing), students were asked to reflect on the learning obtained through the study
of the project.
Integration projects: reflexive learning and learning through role play

Integration projects were designed to connect declarative and procedural knowledge within a
context. In other words, these projects combined the technical and practical content studied in
the module and applied it to an architectural project. Two different integration projects were
used: a reflexive learning exercise and a role-play exercise. The reflexive learning exercise combined
Figure 7. Method used for case study.

theory, practice and context, and the role-play exercise combined theory, practice, context and a
design proposal. For the reflexive learning exercise, students, working in groups of five, had to
build a scale physical model of a given project, which included types of constructions studied in lec-
tures. Students were asked to recreate, step by step, the construction processes needed to materialise
the project and to reflect on the challenges that each step brings. This allowed them to work with
materials similar to those used in real practice. During the construction process, students were
asked to document every step in a written logbook and a video. They were encouraged to research
and reflect on how these activities are carried out and how challenges that may arise are dealt with in
professional practice.
For the role-play exercise, students were not given a project; instead they had to propose one. In
addition, they were asked to study not only the construction processes, but also the overall manage-
ment of the project using Building Information Modelling (BIM) software. Studies show that BIM-
based technologies are useful to emulate focused practice-based environments within academia
(Solnosky, Parfitt, & Holland, 2015). Hence, students were asked to develop budgets and work sche-
dules, critical path method diagrams and teamwork flowcharts applying this tool. This allowed them
to understand the topological order of the project and to graphically represent the construction and
management processes involved. Furthermore, the exercise placed students in a role-play situation,
where they had to take a stand and assume certain responsibilities within the team. This aimed to
reinforce skills relevant to both independent and collaborative learning, such as developing leader-
ship character, dividing complex tasks into simple steps, planning and managing execution times,
adopting strategies for communication and feedback, discussing information with peers, considering
different points of view, making decisions collaboratively and solving challenges through meaningful
dialogue. Students were also encouraged to use administrative and control tools, such as a written
‘contract’ that stated the terms and conditions that would apply to the team during the project.
Implementation: new assessment methods

One of the goals of the project was to design learning-oriented assessment methods, which focus on
promoting additional spaces for learning. Research has shown that learning-oriented assessment is
effective when there is integration between the assessment tasks, students’ evaluative expertise
and engagement with feedback (Carless, 2014). Hence, a range of assessment alternatives were
studied and aligned to the type of knowledge that they were aiming to measure (i.e. declarative, pro-
cedural, conditional and functional knowledge) (Figure 8). Quizzes and a theory exam were used to
evaluate declarative knowledge, weighted at 20% of the final mark for the module. The submission of
the first integration project (reflexive learning exercise) was used to evaluate procedural knowledge
and was weighted at 30% of the mark. The presentation of the case studies and challenge-based
activities (one-dimensional and multidimensional activities) was used to evaluate conditional knowl-
edge and was weighted at 10% of the mark. Finally, the submission of the second integration project
(role-play exercise) and an applied exam were used to assess functional knowledge and contributed
to 40% of the total mark. The submission requirements for each of the above evaluations comprised
items which aimed to identify evidence of competencies (i.e. technical thinking, analytical and design
thinking, oral, written and graphic communication and collaborative thinking process) and also evi-
dence of autonomous and collaborative learning. Rubrics were used to illustrate in advance what was
going to be assessed, how it was going to be done and the reasons why. Assessments were carried
out by both the students (self-assessment and peer assessment) and the teachers (informal assess-
ment and formal assessment).
Forms of assessment
Research that studies the cognitive process in architecture suggests that self-awareness is crucial for
gaining insight into the way successes and failures are individually faced, embraced and followed
Figure 8. Assessment methods aligned to the type of knowledge that they aim to measure.
(McGlashan, 2011). Since the pedagogical project analysed here places particular emphasis on auton-
omous learning, it was considered that self-assessment should play a very important role. Hence, a
strategy to encourage ongoing self-formative assessment throughout the module was implemented.
This included reflexive and self-critique exercises for each major activity carried out, which materia-
lised in the form of logbooks, blogs and videos that helped students to identify areas for improve-
ment in their learning.
It has been argued that architecture curricula generally place a greater emphasis on cognitive-
based outcomes than on affective-based outcomes, although the latter are essential for an interdis-
ciplinary professional practice (Savic & Kashef, 2013). Since this pedagogical project also emphasises
collaborative learning, it was crucial to accentuate the use of peer assessment. The digital platform
was a very useful tool to achieve this, since it allowed students to easily share their projects with
the rest of the module’s participants and comment on the projects of others through a dedicated
blog. Mash-ups using content from the module’s YouTube, Slideshare and Flickr accounts could be
displayed on the platform, giving students additional tools such as like, dislike and share buttons
and comment spaces. The aim of this peer-formative assessment was to encourage the development
of metacognitive skills, critical thinking and fair peer evaluation. Informal assessment was also used
constantly during content lectures and partially inverted classes by posing questions and guiding dis-
cussions that reported upon student learning. The case studies, integration projects and two exams (a
one-hour theory exam and an eight-hour applied exam) were the main formal assessment tools for
measuring the level of achievement of learning outcomes. The theory exam used a multiple-choice
digital format, whilst the applied exam revolved around a challenge-based activity. Formal assess-
ment was carried out at a large scale due to student numbers. However, it was specifically designed
to foster student learning and improvement, which have been found in previous studies to be ben-
eficial for the enhancement of educational quality (Volante, 2006).
Evaluation and results

For the overall evaluation of the project, a method that combined peer observation (by two edu-
cation professionals and an architecture teacher), 189 anonymous student online surveys, 10 individ-
ual interviews and 3 focus group interviews (before and after) was used. The surveys included
multiple-choice, ordinal-scale, ratio-scale and open-answer questions designed to specifically
measure autonomous and collaborative learning (Figure 9). The autonomous learning questions
measured the frequency in which students carried out actions in favour of the development of life-
long learning skills. Most answers veer towards almost always and always. Collaborative learning
questions were set to reflect on the students’ individual contribution towards group work and
team interaction. Most answers swing towards definitely yes and maybe yes, apart from questions
4 to 6 related to trust, conflict resolution and leadership. Students appear hesitant when answering
these questions, which shows that more work needs to be done in these areas.
Additional data were collected through questions designed to identify student levels of satisfac-
tion, as well as the view they had on each activity and assessment method and the perceived impact
on their learning. IBM SPSS software was used to analyse the collected quantitative data, whilst
ATLAS.ti and TagCrowd were employed for qualitative data. The methodology and teaching strat-
egies were constantly adjusted through the two-year implementation period. Four versions of the
module were evaluated at the beginning, halfway through and at the end of each version. The
goal of the evaluation was to assess the accomplishment of the three initial research questions
and to test the hypothesis.
Results showed that the strategies used in the module to design new student-centred activities
and assessment methods were successful in improving the perception students had on their auton-
omous learning skills and collaborative work. According to the comments, this was not the result of a
singular strategy, but the articulation of various types of activities and assessment methods. Students
mentioned that linking different activities (i.e. content lectures, practical sessions, inverted classes,
case studies and integration projects) helped them to balance workload and manage their time.
The activities created a sequence of events or a learning path that guided the progression of the
module and helped students visualise when an assessment was going to take place and the objec-
tives behind it (Figure 10). The path identifies central activities that increase in complexity as time
advances (learning from the experience of others, reflective learning, learning through role play
and challenge-solving activities). It also differentiates between activities that focus on collaborative
learning and those that are centred on autonomous learning. This aims to help students concentrate
on the relevant skills in each case. The findings from the evaluation enabled answering the first
research question, since it was demonstrated that within lecture-based modules, it is possible to suc-
cessfully place emphasis on the student, as an individual and as a member of a team, rather than on
the teacher.
In the surveys, content lectures were the least preferred activities amongst students; however,
attendance at these sessions increased an average of 47% compared to the version before the
project, since students sensed the need to acquire theoretical information before the other activities.
Inverted class, challenge-based activities and case studies were the most popular activities, with 72%
of votes. Role play was considered in the comments as the most effective and engaging method to
use for collaborative tasks, with 63% of votes. However, role play only worked when there was a
written contract agreed between the group’s participants, which clearly stated individual responsibil-
ities and consequences in case of their disregard. This strategy was perceived to ensure that all stu-
dents were individually participating within group activities taking accountability of their actions, as
occurs in professional practice. Various comments from the open-answer questions specifically
underlined the connection between theory and practice. This can be noted in the key works high-
lighted during the comment analysis (see example in Figure 11), which evidenced conscious aware-
ness of the application of theory within practical activities. This is perhaps because the issue was
constantly emphasised during the course, but mainly due to the evident connections that students
Figure 9. Consolidated results of student surveys for autonomous learning and collaborative learning.
needed to make to develop the activities. This confirmed that the new learning strategies were suc-
cessful for integrating theoretical knowledge directly into project development. These results helped
to answer the second research question, suggesting that it is possible to encourage this type of inte-
gration within lecture-based modules.
The qualitative data obtained from each version were used to guide adjustments for the following
versions. For example, in earlier versions, it was found that timetables could be adjusted to allow for
longer lessons during certain learning activities, more appropriate rooms could be found within the
university for group activities and ICT tools could be used more extensively. For example, multiple-
choice exams are a preferred choice for large classes compared to an open-question exam, since
they are easier and quicker to mark. However, from a pedagogical point of view, multiple-choice
tests can have two opposing effects on students’ knowledge (Roediger & Marsh, 2005). On one
hand, this method has an overall positive testing effect, which refers to an increase in long-term
memory when information is constantly reviewed and retrieved when revising or taking the test.
Figure 10. Learning path during the module in relation to pedagogical methods and collaborative and autonomous learning
activities.
On the other hand, students can get distracted or confused by the incorrect answers on the list and
leave the exam having acquired false knowledge. In order to overcome this negative outcome, an ICT
tool was introduced in this project, which helped to analyse the answers given by the students and
identified questions that were found to be difficult or unclear. With this information, it was possible to
change or amend these questions for future exams and introduce feedback sessions to clarify the
misconceptions highlighted by the tool. These results helped to answer the third research question,
since they evidenced that existing obstacles and limitations can be overcome in order to design
enhanced learning experiences.
Conclusion
The evaluation of this project highlighted important conceptual and practical challenges currently
faced by lecture-based modules in architectural technology in Colombia, since the case study pre-
sented is representative of this type of modules in most of the architecture schools’ curricula in the
country. Even though there is a tendency to limit the number of these modules in architecture
schools, the reality is that they are still present in many programmes (Saldarriaga, 2012). In their
current form, they may promote the attainment of competencies, but they can fail to encourage
advanced levels of knowledge (such as conditional and functional knowledge), which are crucial for
professional achievements. The literature review shows that student-centred approaches can foster
critical thinking, reflection, teamwork, learning to learn and creativity. These are skills related to the
development of advanced levels of knowledge and the creation of meaningful learning experiences.
The project verified the above presumptions and demonstrated that student-centred approaches of
this kind can be successfully applied to lecture-based modules, despite limitations in format and
resources. In conclusion, it is argued that the outcomes of the project presented here proved the
Figure 11. Examples of student comments in individual and focus group interviews, before and after the innovation project.
initial hypothesis, given that students were capable of integrating technical knowledge directly into
project development within a lecture-based module. This was feasible since all learning activities
and assessment methods were articulated amongst each other and specially designed to promote
autonomous and collaborative learning. The proposed methods and findings can contribute to the
existing knowledge in this area and serve as guidelines for similar ventures in other contexts of edu-
cation. In addition, they could be of significance for curricular development and the promotion of
best practices in teaching. Further research would be needed to study the lasting effects of this experi-
ence and the impact on the students’ approach to design projects after taking the module.
Acknowledgements
I received helpful input from Maria Fernanda Aldana, Roland Hudson, Carolina Lenis, Jaime Andres
Gutierrez and Monica Patiño, Daniel Ronderos and Rafael Villazon.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCiD
Carolina M. Rodriguez Bernal http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2552-042X
Funding
This project was financially supported by ConectaTE at University of Los Andes.
References
Allen, E. (1997). Second studio: A model for technical teaching. Journal of Architectural Education (1984), 51(2), 92–95.
Attoe, W., & Mugerauer, R. (1991). Excellent studio teaching in architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 16(1), 41–50.
Baeten, M., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2013). Student-centred teaching methods: Can they optimise students’ approaches
to learning in professional higher education? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 14–22.
Banerjee, H. K., & De Graaff, E. (1996). Problem-based learning in architecture: Problems of integration of technical dis-
ciplines. European Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 185–195.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Boud, D., Cohen, R. R., & Cohen, J. S. (2001). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from & with each other. London:
Kogan Page.
Bridges, A. (2007). Problem-based learning in architectural education. Proceedings of CIB (international council for build-
ing) 24th W78 Conference. Maribo, pp. 755–762.
Carless, D. (2014). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), 963–976.
Chance, S., Marshall, J., & Duffy, G. (2016). Using architecture design studio pedagogies to enhance engineering edu-
cation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1B), 364–383.
Demirbilek, N., & Demirbilek, O. 2007. Architectural science and student-centred learning. Proceedings of the 41st Annual
Conference of the Architectural Science Association: Towards solutions for a liveable future: Progress, practice, per-
formance, people. Geelong, Australia. pp. 85–91.
Escribano, A., & Valle, A. D. (2008). El aprendizaje basado en problemas (ABP): una propuesta metodológica en educación
superior. Madrid: Narcea S. A de Ediciones.
Fausto, N., & Piccardo, C. (2015). Technology as a key for design imagination, an Italian experience with beginner archi-
tecture students. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(3), 185–197.
Foley, A., & Masingila, J. O. (2013). Building capacity: Challenges and opportunities in large. Higher Education, 67(6),
797–808.
Foque, R. (2010). Building knowledge in architecture. Brussels: ASP-Academic & Scientific.
Francis, M. (2001). A case study method for landscape architecture. Landscape Journal, 20(1), 15–29.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning
increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. In B. Alberts (Ed.), Social sciences – psycho-
logical and cognitive sciences. Proceedings of the Nacional Academy of Science of United States of America, 111(23), 8410–
8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
de Graaff, E., & Cowdroy, R. (1997). Theory and practice of educational innovation; introduction of problem-based learn-
ing in architecture. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 166–174.
Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gül, L. F., Williams, A., & Gu, N. (2012). Constructivist learning theory in virtual design studios. In X. Wang & N. Gu (Eds.),
Computational design methods and technologies. pp. 139–162. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Hardy, I. (2010). Academic architectures: Academic perceptions of teaching conditions in an Australian university. Studies
in Higher Education, 35(4), 391–404.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of The
failure of constructivist, discovery, problem based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75–86.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 8(1), 5–31.
Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. The design process demystified. Oxford: Elsevier.
Liu, A., Hodgson, G., & Lord, W. (2010). Innovation in construction education: The role of culture in E-learning. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management, 6(2), 91–102.
Maitland, B. (1997). Problem-based learning for architecture and construction management. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.),
The challenge of problem-based learning (pp. 211–217). London: Kogan Page.
Malan, S. P. T. (2000). The ‘New paradigm’ of outcomes-based education in perspective. Journal of Family Ecology and
Consumer Sciences, 28, 22–28.
Martínez, M., Rodríguez, J., & Tèllez, G. (2012). Estudio internacional de programas de arquitectura, conclusiones Y recomen-
daciones. Report by the Asociación Colombiana de Facultades de Arquitectura/ACFA. Retrieved from: http://www.
arquitecturaacfa.org/documentos/Estudio_internacional.pdf
Mc Glashan, A. A. (2011). Designer stories: A commentary on the community of design practice. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 235–260.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2003). Resolución2770. República de Colombia. November 13.
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2013). Resultados de lascondicioneslaborales de los graduados de educación superior
2001–2012 y los certificados de educaciónpara el trabajo y el desarrollohumano 2010–2012. Bogota: Ministerio de
Educación Nacional, Viceministerio de Educación Superior.
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher
Education, 25, 85–95.
Robson, M. (2002). Brainstorming, problem-solving in groups (3rd ed.). Aldershot: Gower.
RoedigerIII, H. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1155–1159.
Sadler, I. (2012). The challenges for new academics in adopting student-centred approaches to teaching. Studies in Higher
Education, 37(6), 731–745.
Saldarriaga, A. (2012). Investigación, enseñanza de la arquitectura en Colombia: estado actual. Report by the Asociación
Colombiana de Facultades de Arquitectura / ACFA. Retrieved from: http://www.arquitecturaacfa.org/documentos/
Ensenanza_de_la_arquitectura_en_Colombia_Marzo_2012.pdf
Savic, M., & Kashef, M. (2013). Learning outcomes in affective domain within contemporary architectural curricula.
International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 23(4), 987–1004.
Severiens, S., Meeuwisse, M., & Born, M. (2015). Student experience and academic success: Comparing a student-centred
and a lecture-based course programme. Higher Education, 70(1), 1–17.
Shannon, S., & Radford, A. (2010). Interaction as a strategy for teaching architectural technologies in an architecture
studio. Architectural Science Review, 53(2), 238–250.
SNIES, El Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior. (2015). Data Base. Retrieved from: http://www.
mineducacion.gov.co/sistemasdeinformacion/1735/w3-article-211868.html
Solnosky, R., Parfitt, K., & Holland, R. (2015). Delivery methods for a multi-disciplinary architectural engineering capstone
design course. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(4), 305–324.
Spady, W. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American Association of School
Administrators.
Tezel, E., & Casakin, H. (2010). Learning styles and students’ performance in design problem-solving. Archnet-IJAR,
International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 262–277.
Volante, L. (2006). An alternative vision for large-scale assessment in Canada. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 14–
28.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

C. Stevenson (Sample - Indexed Articles On Architectural Education)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C. Stevenson (Sample - Indexed Articles On Architectural Education)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 49 No 3 2018 337–353

Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of

Carolina Rodriguez, Roland Hudson and Chantelle Niblock

Virtual design studio

student groups, software incompatibilities, language or cultural barriers between participants or

Project 2: exhibition stand

C 2016 British Educational Research Association

C 2016 British Educational Research Association

experiential learning and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

significant learning in journals.sagepub.com/home/ahh

The problem and context

Significant learning through live projects

Knowledge Dimensions cognitive processes Knowledge Dimensions

list summarise respond select check for generate understanding

recognise classify provide differen!ate determine assemble

recall clarify carry out integrate judge design Thinking

iden!fy predict use construct reflect propose

ques!on review improve

REMEMBER UNDERSTAND APPLY ANALYSE EVALUATE CREATE

BLOOM´S REVISED TAXONOMY

Figure 1. Combination of Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy.

studio-based projects live projects

hypothetical problems tangible problems

linear design processes PROCEDURAL multidirectional design processes

predictable outcomes unpredictable outcomes

‘earning from the experience of others’ META-

extrinsic motivation provided by the brief, context

ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

SETTING THE BRIEF/ DESIGN PROBLEM AND

03 What type of design problem would

04 What aspects of the context could serve to

07 What stages would the live project

established in order to further define this statement in regards to academic envir-

AUTONOMOUS LEARNING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

FORM ephemeral COMPLEXITY EXERCISES

Case methods CONTROL

Figure 4. Structure of the unit used.

Aims and objectives

Knowledge Dimensions Live Projects’ learning objectives Knowledge Dimensions

PROMOTE APPLIED RESEARCH / KNOWLEDGE

DEVELOP AUTONOMOUS LEARNING

Setting the brief/design problem and choosing the context

Figure 6. Examples of participatory workshops with kids from the foundations.

3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN PROPOSAL

4 TECHNICAL CONSULTATION WITH PROFESSIONALS / INDUSTRY

Figure 8. Stages during a live project.

most of which were built at the university’s laboratories and transported to be

TOY BOX 1 MADRID PAVILION TUBE PAVILION THE CAVE

2012 2013 2014 2015

TREE OF KNOWLEDGE WORDS PAVILION TREE OF SECRETS

Evaluation of the experience

Lessons learnt Improvements made

Students are likely to undervalue the Budget-planning methods were introduced to

Figure 12. Lessons learnt and improvements made.

aspects of the reviewed feedback (negative or positive responses, descriptive or

students´ comments coding criteria

Figure 13. Coding criteria for the analysis of learners’ comments.

Apply and integrate

taxonomy and Fink’s taxonomy Team-working

“One of the most rewarding things was to learn

how the ‘unexpected’ and the work on site

Considering the above, we can proceed to

Figure 14. Example of an evaluation matrix for coding.