Some Notes on Teaching Architecture

Signature Pedagogies Constructive Alignment Learning Constructivism in Teaching and Learning Experiential and Problem-Based Learning Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Decolonisation Assessment Feedback and Compassion Quality Assurance AI

Signature Pedagogies

Shulman (2005) refers to the ways in which professionals in a field are trained to think, perform and act with integrity as signature pedagogies. Signature pedagogies involve a triadic structure: surface structures, the observable forms of instruction; deep structures, the underlying assumptions about teaching and learning; and implicit structures, the moral and ethical dimensions conveyed through pedagogical practices.

In architecture education, the design studio can be regarded as the discipline’s signature pedagogy (QAA, 2020). It functions as a surface structure through its project-based format, where students engage in iterative cycles of design development and critique, in ways that closely simulate professional practice. At a deeper level, the studio nurtures forms of reasoning fundamental to architectural thinking: critical analysis, synthesis, and iterative exploration. The learning process is experiential and constructivist in nature; students build understanding through doing, reflecting, and responding to feedback. They are expected to articulate their design intent and justify their decisions as part of this dialogic process. The studio’s implicit structure communicates how to think and act as architects, guiding students to internalise the values, conventions, and ethical responsibilities of the discipline.

Shulman, L. S. (2005) 'Signature Pedagogies in the Professions' In: Daedalus 134 (3) pp.52–59.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2020) Subject Benchmark Statement: Architecture.

Constructive Alignment

According to Biggs and Tang (2011) the components of a course — learning outcomes, teaching methods, and forms of assessment — must be aligned to provide a coherent learning environment. The term ‘constructive alignment’ used to define this is rooted in constructivist learning theory, which views learning as an active process in which students construct meanings rather than a passive process in which teachers transmit information to students.

The constructive alignment process starts with the definition of intended learning outcomes. Biggs (2003) argues that these should cover both ‘declarative’ knowledge and tacit skills. Then, we should incorporate a range of teaching and learning activities to allow students to construct knowledge. The forms of assessment should be directly derived not only from the learning outcomes, but also from the teaching content to ensure this alignment. A good assessment is the one that teaches students the curriculum and gives the students possibility to demonstrate their tacit skills.

Learning outcomes are concise statements that describe what students are expected to achieve as a result of engaging in a particular lesson, course, or programme. They are at the centre of the constructive alignment model. Good learning outcomes should meet four criteria:
1. The subject of every LO should be the student, not the teacher or the content. LOs describe what students will be able to do, not what teachers will teach.
2. LOs should be expressed using action verbs that allow for clear assessment. Vague verbs like “know” can obscure the desired level of achievement and create confusion. Instead, verbs such as describe, analyse, design, or evaluate help clarify what constitutes evidence of learning.
3. Good LOs draw on the three domains of learning, cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, each of which has multiple hierarchical levels. Cognitive outcomes relate to intellectual skills, from basic recall to critical evaluation. Affective outcomes concern values, attitudes, and emotional engagement. Psychomotor outcomes involve physical skills and coordination.
4. Effective LOs at the lesson level should align with the learning outcomes described at course and programme level. This vertical alignment ensures that students’ learning experiences build logically and coherently across educational tiers.

In architecture schools, the learning outcomes are generally derived or directly linked to the RIBA and ARB criteria. However, ensuring alignment requires more than mapping content to standards; it involves embedding learning activities that actively support the development of both explicit and tacit competencies, including spatial reasoning, critical reflection, and creative synthesis. Moreover, constructive alignment in architecture must reconcile the measurable requirements of standards-based frameworks with the discipline’s inherently process-driven and often subjective nature. Assessments must this complexity by valuing not only final outputs but the developmental process, offering opportunities for students to demonstrate understanding through portfolios and reflective works.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Learning

Biggs (2011) outlines three principal approaches to learning. These approaches are not fixed traits but are shaped by the learning context, including teaching methods, assessment design, and the perceived purpose of study. Deep learning is characterised by an intrinsic motivation. Students who adopt this approach seek meaning, relate new knowledge to prior understanding, and engage critically with concepts. They are more likely to explore beyond the immediate requirements of the task, synthesise ideas, and develop personal interpretations. In contrast, surface learning arises when students focus primarily on rote memorisation of the information deemed important (enough to complete or pass the assignment). The surface approach is associated with fragmented knowledge, limited conceptual grasp, and an emphasis on meeting minimal assessment criteria. Strategic learning, sometimes referred to as achieving learning, is driven by the intention to maximise performance. Strategic learners are typically organised, aware of assessment demands, and motivated by competition or results. They tailor their effort according to marking schemes and tend to perform well in structured, clearly signposted environments. While strategic learning can lead to high achievement, it may not always foster deep understanding unless aligned with well-designed assessments that reward critical thinking and innovation.

In studio teaching, project-based learning prompts deep learning as they are required to synthesise their knowledge from a variety of sources and modules and come up with their personal interpretations. However, it is possible for students to get away without deeply engaging with the studio. This can be avoided by careful scaffolding (REF) and gradually removing support throughout the course for students to come up with their own solutions to design problems. In other courses, achieving deep learning requires effective teaching methods that construct knowledge and skills.

In other courses, such as those on the history and theory of architecture, a final written piece (academic essay, reflection) is generally the practice. However, for these assessments to be effective in fostering deep learning, they must be framed around inquiry, critical engagement with texts, and the application of theoretical concepts to case studies or design contexts, prompting students to move beyond surface-level memorisation and develop a more analytical and reflective approach. We must use open-ended questions, and provide opportunities for dialogue and formative feedback, and put an emphasis on interpretation.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Constructivism in Teaching and Learning

Constructivist pedagogy is grounded in the view that learners actively construct knowledge through experience, reflection, and social interaction, rather than passively receiving information. Rooted in the work of theorists such as Piaget (1975) and Vygotsky (1978), this approach emphasises that meaning is shaped by the learner’s prior knowledge, context, and engagement with tasks that promote inquiry, problem-solving, and critical thinking.

In higher education, constructivist teaching encourages students to take ownership of their learning and positions the teacher as a facilitator rather than a transmitter of knowledge. This pedagogy values active, authentic, and collaborative learning experiences. In architecture education, the design studio naturally embodies many of these characteristics—students learn through doing, iterative making, testing ideas, and responding to feedback in a socially and intellectually rich environment.

In other courses, such as those on the history and theory of architecture, applying constructivist principles requires more deliberate instructional design. Discussion-based seminars, case study analysis, and inquiry-led written assessments can provide effective engagement and invite them to construct meaning rather than simply understand the facts. Group work and peer review can further enhance the social dimension of learning, while reflective writing tasks prompt students to connect new knowledge with their own experiences and disciplinary perspectives.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Piaget, J. (1975) Equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Experiential and Problem-Based Learning

Experiential learning refers to an approach in which students learn through direct engagement with practice and critical reflection. Rooted in the work of scholars such as Kolb (1984), it is based on the understanding that knowledge is constructed through cycles of action, reflection, and adaptation. Learning is understood as a process that involves doing, observing, analysing, and applying insights to new situations.

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a learner-centred approach grounded in the principles of social constructivism. It positions students as active agents in their own learning and engages them in solving complex, real-world problems that require knowledge acquisition and application across disciplines (Savin-Baden, 2000). Students are expected to identify what they need to learn to address a given problem, conduct self-directed research, and apply their findings to develop viable solutions. Learning in this model is process-oriented and focuses on constructing flexible, transferable knowledge that supports long-term understanding and application in varied contexts.

Architecture studio teaching incorporates elements of both experiential and problem-based learning. Students are immersed in iterative design processes that involve making, testing, and revising, while receiving feedback from tutors and peers. These are not abstract exercises, but situated practices that draw on real-world conditions, cultural contexts, and spatial imaginaries. Studio projects are typically open-ended and require students to define both the problem and the response. In this way, the studio becomes a site of embodied, reflective, and relational learning.

In the history and theory of architecture, assignments often take the form of essays or case study analyses. Students may be asked to examine how architecture has been used to construct identity, impose power, or resist domination; to critique dominant historiographies; or to propose alternative frameworks for understanding the built environment. Addressing such questions demands research, dialogue, and synthesis. In this way, these forms of learning can be aligned with the principles of problem-based learning.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI)

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) are essential principles in higher education, aiming to create learning environments where all students—regardless of background, identity, or ability—can thrive. EDI enhances educational quality by recognising and valuing diverse perspectives, experiences, and contributions.

The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework offers a structured approach to embedding inclusivity in higher education (CAST, 2024). It addresses teaching in three key dimensions: access, support, and executive function. Access involves removing physical, cognitive, and systemic barriers that may inhibit a student’s ability to engage in learning. Support refers to the scaffolding, resources, and encouragement that enable students to persist and succeed when faced with challenges. Executive function focuses on developing students’ ability to set goals, organise their learning, and monitor their progress—skills that underpin autonomy and long-term success.

Across these dimensions, UDL promotes the design of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. First, in designing multiple means of engagement, educators are encouraged to offer varied options that foster relevance and authenticity such as linking tasks to real-world issues, allowing students to set personal goals, or offering choices in topics and formats, recognising learners’ diverse identities, interests, and cultural contexts. Second, designing multiple means of representation acknowledges that learners interpret content through different sensory, linguistic, and cultural lenses. This involves using multiple formats such as text, visuals, audio, symbols, and interactive media, while critically reflecting on whose knowledge is centred in the curriculum to ensure inclusion of multiple cultural perspectives. Third, designing multiple means of action and expression supports learners in expressing and organising their thinking in varied ways. Providing flexible options such as writing, speaking, drawing, video, or assistive technologies, alongside scaffolding executive function through goal setting, planning tools, and formative feedback, enables students to build independence and confidence.

Creating an inclusive classroom environment, however, extends beyond curriculum design and teaching methods to encompass the broader social and cultural dynamics that influence students’ sense of belonging. This involves cultivating a culture where diverse voices are heard and valued. Strategies such as establishing clear community agreements, promoting collaborative learning, and providing safe spaces for dialogue are crucial for this. Inclusive environments also require ongoing reflection and responsiveness from educators to the lived experiences of students, recognising that inclusion is a continuous process rather than a fixed outcome.

CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Decolonisation

Colonialism is an ongoing system of power that shapes the organisation of knowledge, identities, and social relations. At its core are Eurocentric epistemologies and ontologies—ways of knowing and being rooted in Western philosophical traditions that claim universality and superiority. This epistemic dominance creates a hierarchy that positions Western knowledge as ‘universal’ while marginalising other ways of knowing as ‘primitive,’ thereby perpetuating systemic exclusion and epistemic violence. Decolonisation seeks to recognise, validate, and centre these diverse, historically suppressed ways of knowing and being.

Current efforts of decolonisation in higher education reflect varying degrees of recognition and action. Some approaches focus primarily on increasing access and inclusion by providing resources and support to marginalised groups, but without challenging the dominant epistemic or structural frameworks. Others acknowledge the epistemological dominance of Western knowledge and actively strive for greater representation, voice, and redistribution of resources, centring the perspectives and experiences of marginalised communities (Andreotti et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2021).

In the teaching of architectural history and theory, the dominant narrative reflects Eurocentric epistemologies that position Western architectural traditions and philosophies as the pinnacle of development and innovation. Such presentations tend to marginalise or erase the contributions, knowledge systems, and aesthetics of non-Western, Indigenous, and other historically oppressed peoples. This framing not only reinforces a narrow understanding of architecture but also perpetuates colonial logic.

Decolonising the teaching of architectural history and theory involves critically interrogating the ‘shine’ of architectural history by exposing its ‘shadow’ (Mignolo, 2000). It requires expanding the canon to include diverse architectural histories and theories from across the globe, especially those suppressed or marginalised by coloniality. This process calls for recognising multiple temporalities, ontologies, and spatialities of architecture that challenge Western-centric notions of time, space, and design.

Ultimately, the decolonial project is a process of critical reflection, disruption, and transformation rather than a finite goal.

Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C. & Hunt, D. (2015) Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education'. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), pp.21-40.

Hall, R., Ansley, L., Connolly, P., Loonat, S., Patel, K. & Whitham, B. (2021) 'Struggling for the anti-racist university: learning from an institution-wide response to curriculum decolonisation'. Race Ethnicity and Education.

Mignolo, W., 2000. Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Assessment

Assessment in higher education has two purposes: 1) to measure the performance of students and the extent to which they have achieved intended learning outcomes, and 2) to monitor students' progress during their learning process, and to provide guidance and feedback for them. But assessments significantly influence students’ learning priorities and approaches: ‘most students focus their learning on what they think will be tested on: the test becomes the curriculum.’ (Biggs, 2011).

To harness the power of assessment effectively, we must begin with the intended learning outcomes, which guide what should be assessed according to constructive alignment. Second, we should avoid relying too much on assessments that only require memorisation or content reproduction. Such tasks promote surface learning, where students quickly forget material without truly understanding or applying it. Using varied assessment methods that connect to real-world experiences can help students achieve deep learning. While doing so however, we must also consider contextual factors such as student backgrounds, class size, and institutional requirements to be able to design meaningful tasks and to manage feedback processes.

In the UK, the HAA Standards and in architecture, RIBA and ARB require a standards-based assessment. Standards-based assessment uses predefined criteria or grade descriptors that clearly outline performance expectations for each grade, allowing students to be assessed against fixed standards (HAA Standards). This potentially allows consistency across institutions and cohorts, and is better aligned with the professional standards expected from graduates. However, there are two issues with standards-based assessment.

First, the communication of standards to the students. It is a challenge for students to understand the standards. To overcome this, for example, students can analyse a range of work samples to learn how quality varies in practice and to develop their own evaluative skills. Peer feedback can also be valuable to establish a common understanding of standards.

Second, and more importantly, is the issue of objective measurement of largely tacit knowledge (Orr, 2010). It is important to recognise that not all standards can be entirely explicit. Some degree of assessor judgment is necessary and legitimate. Standards-based assessment should not remove subjectivity, but structure it. The key is to moderate it and make it accountable.

While standards-based assessment also raises some questions about the value of process in design education, this is a smaller issue in architecture. Critiques and tutorials, which form part of the formative assessment, generally consider the student’s engagement with the process. ARB criteria also values the processes and embeds process-oriented expectations into their descriptors.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Orr, S. (2010) ‘Making marks: assessment in art and design’, Networks, (10), pp. 9–13.

Feedback

Effective feedback is central to meaningful learning. When thoughtfully constructed, feedback does more than signal academic performance: it invites students into an active dialogue about their development. It supports them in taking ownership of their learning, and fosters their ability of evaluating and improving their own work. However, its potential to shape learning depends on not only what is said, but how it is said, and within what emotional and pedagogical context.

In art and design education, students often find feedback hard to interpret and even harder to act on (Advance HE, 2014). This difficulty stems partly from assessment criteria such as ‘creativity’ or ‘innovation’, which resist easy quantification. While these terms are central to the discipline, they can alienate students when not paired with clear and compassionate guidance. Feedback that fails to bridge this gap risks not only confusion but emotional disengagement.

Good feedback must be timely, specific and clearly aligned with learning outcomes (JISC, 2023). Crucially, it must be actionable. It must provide students with a clear path toward improvement rather than simply diagnosing failure. It should be approached with compassion, and reframe critique as collaboration (Juwah et al., 2004).

Compassion is about creating the emotional conditions in which high standards become achievable. Feedback interactions often occur when students are most vulnerable, when they are exposing personal work, creativity, and identity to critique. In creative disciplines, students may feel personally attached to their work, so feedback that lacks empathy can feel like a rejection of the self. Compassionate feedback recognises this emotional dimension and seeks to validate the student’s effort and intentions, even when identifying areas for growth. Moreover, it recognises that students may interpret or internalise feedback differently depending on their background or previous educational experiences. Being aware of power dynamics, implicit bias, and varying levels of confidence helps make feedback more inclusive and equitable. When delivered with care and cultural awareness, feedback can foster a sense of belonging within the learning environment.

Advance HE (2014) The perception and interpretation of formative assessment and feedback in art and design.

JISC (2023) Principles of good assessment and feedback.

Juwah, C., Macfarlane‐Dick, D., Matthew, B., Nicol, D., Ross, D. and Smith, B. (2004) Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback.

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance in UK higher education is formally shaped by a series of frameworks and regulatory bodies aimed at safeguarding standards and improving teaching and learning. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), the National Student Survey (NSS), and guidance from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Office for Students (OfS) play a central role. Together, they define expectations for student outcomes, institutional performance, and the broader student experience.

In particular, QAA benchmark statements support thoughtful, subject-specific approaches to curriculum design and assessment. In disciplines like architecture, they recognise the importance of iterative feedback, public presentation, and inclusive pedagogical strategies. Studio-based learning, with its emphasis on dialogue, process, and peer critique, aligns well with this model.

There are also criticisms for these frameworks. First of all, regulatory emphasis on compliance and student outcomes might constrain innovation, criticality, and risk-taking in learning and teaching. Second, TEF and NSS rely heavily on student satisfaction and graduate employability. These might reinforce market-oriented logics rather than centring pedagogical quality, and may obscure structural inequalities, particularly in terms of employment.

While these regulatory frameworks are part and parcel of quality assurance, it is important to recognise that we, as tutors, need to uphold meaningful, reflective practices to improve student learning as well as to improve these quality assurance frameworks.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2018) UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2023) Subject Benchmark Statements.

Office for Students (OfS) (2023) Regulatory framework for higher education in England.