Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ISSN: 1745-2007 (Print) 1752-7589 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20

Student-centred strategies to integrate theoretical

knowledge into project development within
architectural technology lecture-based modules

Carolina M. Rodriguez Bernal

To cite this article: Carolina M. Rodriguez Bernal (2017) Student-centred strategies to

integrate theoretical knowledge into project development within architectural technology lecture-
based modules, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13:3, 223-242, DOI:
10.1080/17452007.2016.1230535

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1230535

Published online: 20 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 224

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taem20
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.
226 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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.

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 227

(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.
228 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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.
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 229

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,
230 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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,
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 231

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
232 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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.

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 233

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.
234 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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.

 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 235

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
236 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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).
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 237

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
238 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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.
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 239

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
240 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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
 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT 241

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
242 C. M. RODRIGUEZ BERNAL

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.