Category: TPP Case Studies

It’s difficult to evaluate the overall impact of this approach, but for me this is the moment I start to get to know the students, their individual interests, claims, feelings, needs and personal experience of being in and negotiating the city. For the students, this is the starting point of their learning journey, and first time they have to connect to their gut’s instincts to respond to a pedagogical task in Studio 2.

This year, just after this initial exercise, we jumped straight into group-work and students embarked into a long site investigation and strategic design phase of around 6 weeks. For some students, the initial ‘impressions’ (ontological perspectives) were consolidated in that one session and carried through to inform their main line of the inquiry, building brief and design proposal. For some students, the group-work ended up overriding their initial approach causing a certain sense of loss.

Moving Forwards

The reduction of the teaching time this academic year, a total of 3 studio days compared to last year, has put a significant pressure into the remaining sessions. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the student’s ontological perspectives is one of the foundations of my teaching practice and despite the constraints, it is something I want to further develop and explore as a pedagogical approach.

How it happened:

In relation to the task and evaluation presented in this case study, the work produced and shared by the students during this initial task was great. Students presented their ‘first impressions’ in a studio session and, collectively, we talked about the relevance of their personal and emotional responses in relation to the studio brief and study area. This was a moment of “reflective practice in action” where we consider the situation, decided what was relevant and how, and made the connections to the brief and subject of study (action). (Third 2022, p.31).

How to improve:

Knowledge consolidation: Propose a reflective task – “reflective practice on/for action” – where students could individually reconsider the situation, think about how it could feed forward, (Third 2022, p.31) and propose ways to consolidate this ontological perspective as a forms of knowledge, translating it into a visual or written format such as: a manifesto, poem, collage, mapping, diagram, image or video. In this way they would practise reflective practice (learning consolidation) and demonstrate it (produce outcomes). This outcome could then become the first page of their portfolios and design thesis, a point to start from, re-visit, re-consider, re-invent and retain.

Design teaching in BA Architecture at CSM follows the ‘unit’ system whereby small groups of students from different year groups work on a design project, for the full length of the academic year, led by a pair of design tutors and practitioners. Tutors have, within the course structure and pre-established learning outcomes, full autonomy to define the unit’s agenda, study area, teaching approach and pedagogical tasks. Students apply for the ‘units’ of their interest and must choose 2 different units for 2^nd and 3^rd year. The idea behind this system is to create an environment of learning that mimics professional practice, promotes peer-to-peer learning, and offers a wide range of different approaches to design and architecture at BA level.

To maximise the learning opportunities within the ‘unit’ system, I have developed a teaching approach connected to research which takes the city as a laboratory and connects the learning to real-life situations. In my ‘unit’ (Studio 2), learning also takes place outside the institution, through site experience, observation, and engagement with a wider set of external partners and audiences.

So far, this approach has produced outstanding results in terms of student engagement (attendance) and achievement, and although it is not specifically designed to satisfy employability targets, it seems to prepare students to practice and professional life. This week (1^st of week of March 20205), for example, I received an email from an alumnus (2023-24) who is taking his first work placement: “I’ve had the opportunity to participate in an international competition where our team won the first prize, and I’m now involved in the rehabilitation of a traditional barn in Viscri, a UNESCO heritage site. My experience in Studio 2 has been incredibly valuable – especially during the competition, where we worked on transforming a 32-hectare former industrial site into a cultural hub with minimal intervention for the well-being of the community.”

If signature pedagogies are “particular pedagogic approaches which enable students to learn to think and act as a professional”, blurring the boundaries between academia and the reality of practice (Shulman, 2005), then I see my pedagogical approach to the unit system as a signature pedagogy in architectural education.

Shulman, L. S. (2005) Signature Pedagogies in the Professions. [online] Daedalus, Vol. 134, No. 3, On Professions & Professionals. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998?seq=1 [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Chapter 6 – Teaching practices for creative practitioners [online] Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available at: >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328810465_Orr_S_and_Shreeve_A_2017_Art_and_design_pedagogy_in_higher_education_knowledge_values_and_ambiguity_in_the_creative_curriculum_Routledge> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Anderson, J. (2019) ‘Live Projects: Collaborative Learning in and with Authentic Spaces’ in Reframing Space for Learning: Excellence and Innovation in University Teaching. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.

In architecture education (CSM BA Architecture), the learning assessment is outcome-based and done through a final portfolio submission containing a graphic narrative that communicates the design thesis. While learning outcomes and teaching activities are designed so that students can gradually build fluency in the visual language of design and architecture, the formal assessments are summative and punctual, in February and May, and the feedback is not visual but written. There are another two opportunities for formative feedback, before the summative submissions, in the format of reviews (crits).

Evaluation

These contradictions, ‘gradual x punctual’ and ‘visual x written’, make the assessment activity and feedback writing an onerous process which is disconnected from the teaching activities and ineffective in enhancing student learning. In the diagram below, which follows Russel’s (2010) assessment diagrams, I visualised my course timetable/structure (Block 1 runs from October to January, and Block 2 from February to May). The diagram shows that, on average, teachers spent of 30% of their time on marking, moderation and feedback writing –  assessment activities disconnected from the teaching or learning.

To counterbalance the ineffectiveness of the current assessment and feedback formats, I have followed and further developed a dialogic (Orr & Shreeve 2017) and visual approach to teaching which incorporates informal reviews and feedback opportunities (individual 1:1 tutorial, group tutorials and collective reviews) to every studio session. In this way, I can create a pattern of frequency of ‘low stakes’ reviews (Russell 2010) where I can exercise my reflective teaching practice and offer timely and comprehensive feedback directly related to what the students are learning and producing.

While this consistent dialogic-visual approach can enhance learning by maximising the discursive situations which “prompt critical thinking and self- evaluation and develop the language of the discipline” (Orr & Shreeve 2017) during the teaching weeks, the problem that the formal assessment points are so onerous and ineffective does not go away.

I want to present this diagram to the department and maybe promote a conversation around the current assessment practice.  I also would like to present this diagram to the students and collect their perspectives on this (subject to my line manager approval).

References

Russell, M. (2010) University of Hertfordshire Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. [online] Available
at: < https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/aflkings/files/2019/08/ESCAPE-AssessmentPatterns-ProgrammeView.pdf> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]

Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education : Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Chapter 6 – Teaching practices for creative practitioners [online] Taylor & Francis Group, Milton. Available at: >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328810465_Orr_S_and_Shreeve_A_2017_Art_and_design_pedagogy_in_higher_education_knowledge_values_and_ambiguity_in_the_creative_curriculum_Routledge> [Accessed 17 Mar 2025]