Active Learning in Architectural Education: A Participatory Design Experience (PDE) in Colombia

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 Bogota. 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
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
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
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 Bogota 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
Andalucıa (government of the autonomous community of Andalusia in Spain). The
funding from the Junta de Andalucıa 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 Bogota’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
n Foundation) were also invited
institutions (e.g. Javeriana University and the Juligo
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 Bogota)
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
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 Andalucıa’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, Bogota, 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, Bogota, 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, Bogota, 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
Comision 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, Bogota, 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) Ciravoglu, 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’
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)

Active Learning in Architectural Education: A Participatory Design Experience (PDE) in Colombia

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

Active Learning in Architectural Education: A Participatory Design Experience (PDE) in Colombia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active Learning in

Contemporary architecture teaching in Colombia still resembles the traditional master–

DOI: 10.1111/jade.12280 iJADE (2019)

communities or other stakeholders to solve architectural design problems. How-

• to propose a student-centred participatory methodology that can be used to

Architectural education in Colombia

the world, a wide range of experimental models have emerged in an attempt to

Teaching and learning architecture through participatory

Participatory design experience methodology

The characteristics of a Participatory Design Experience

proposed PDE methodology is to pursue design actions and learning outcomes at

Results of the academic experience

• Population: identiﬁcation of demographic groups, existing social relationships,

Social structure: identiﬁcation of existing social and community organisations,

This diagnosis allowed students to understand the characteristics of the neigh-

Background: research on community exchange

Planning: structuring the participatory design encounters

WHAT? HOW? STRATEGIES MATERIALS / SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION /

© 2019 NSEAD and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Consultation 1: Reﬁnement of the brief – deﬁnition of the

• Beneﬁciaries and users

At each table, the deﬁnition of possible elements and aspects to be exchanged

Consultation 2: Outline and evaluation of design solutions for the

Reﬁnement: adjustments of the layout and technical detailing

• Budget and material selection

• Do you consider that a ‘real’ assignment is an important academic exercise?

You might also like