Teaching and learning in collaborative group design projects

Tucker, R and Rollo, J (2006) Teaching and learning in collaborative group design projects. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2(1-2), pp. 19-30. ISSN 1745-2007

Abstract

The 200 years of apprentice/master tradition that underpins the atelier studio system is still at the core of much present-day architectural design education. Yet this tradition poses uncertainties for a large number of lecturers faced with changes in the funding of tertiary education. With reductions in one-to-one staff/student contact time, many educators are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain an atelier teaching model. If these deficiencies remain unchecked and design-based schools are unable to implement strategies to reduce the resource intensity of one-to-one studio teaching programmes, then, for many higher-education providers, current architectural education may be based on an untenable course structure. Rather than spreading their time thinly over a large number of individual projects, an increasing number of lecturers are setting group projects. This allows them to coordinate longer and more in-depth review sessions on a smaller number of assignment submissions. However, while the group model may reflect the realities of the design process in professional practice, the approach is not without shortcomings as a teaching and learning archetype for the assessment of individual student skill competencies. Hence, what is clear is the need for a readily adoptable andragogy for the teaching and assessment of group design projects. The following is a position paper that describes—with a focus on effective group structures and assemblage and fair assessment models—the background, methodology and early results of a Strategic Teaching and Learning Grant currently running at the School of Architecture and Building at Deakin University in Australia.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: collaborative learning; design andragogy; group assessment
Index terms: studio, archetype, collaborative learning, methodology, funding, professional practice, architectural design, design process, tertiary, programme, Australia, strategy, architectural education
Subjects: construction type, design methods, learning methods, curriculum design, modelling and simulation, curriculum development, economic analysis, management, design practice, research methods, Geography, professional development, project controls
Topics: Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Education, Time Control, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here