Student Perceptions of Evaluation in Architectural Pedagogy: Insights from Lahore’s Design Studios
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17159976Keywords:
Architectural pedagogy; design critique; creativity assessment; feedback; peer assessment; constructive alignmentAbstract
This investigation broadens its focus to cover students enrolled at all 12 architecture schools in Lahore, mapping their attitudes toward the evaluation practices embedded in studio pedagogy. A structured questionnaire examined five interrelated domains: the evaluators’ skill set, the capacity of assessments to reveal problem-solving processes, the appraisal of collaborative work, the adequacy of instruments for measuring creativity, and the overall quality of feedback. The data indicate a pronounced conviction that evaluators must possess demonstrable expertise in creative disciplines, a moderate perception that assessments support the discovery of problem-solving strategies, a noticeable unease about the perceived equity of grading group projects, a distinct scepticism regarding the validity of creativity metrics, and a spectrum of opinions on the practical applicability of feedback. Based on these insights, the study advocates for the adoption of publicly accessible scoring rubrics, inter-rater calibration sessions, structured peer appraisal components, and the incorporation of conversational, ongoing feedback.
References
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press / McGraw-Hill Education.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education, Learning for the Longer Term. Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. . Design Studies,, 3(4), 221–227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. AI EDAM, 24(3), 285–302. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041000020X
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2022). A critical review of assessments of creativity in education. Review of Educational Research, 1–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221084326
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think (4th ed.). Architectural Press / Elsevier. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979
Li, G., Chu, R., & Tang, T. (n.d.). Creativity self-assessments in design education: A systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101494. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101494
O’Donovan, B. (2024). Social moderation and calibration versus codification: Rater training, norming and the challenge of valid certification. Studies in Higher Education. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2321504
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Pinedo, L., & Fernández-Castilla, B. (2023). Effects of rubrics on academic performance, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 113. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4
Rosen, Y., Wolf, S., & Stoeffler, K. (2020). Design for creative thinking, learning, and assessment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100696. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100696
Schön, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books / Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Stafford, L., Cousins, E., Bol, L., & Mize, M. (2023). Improving reliability in assessing integrative learning using rubrics: Does group norming help? Research & Practice in Assessment, 18(1), 19-32. Retrieved from https://www.rpajournal.com/improving-reliability-in-assessing-integrative-learning-using-rubrics-does-group-norming-help/
Williams, A., & Ostwald, M. J. (2010). Assessing creativity in the context of architectural design education. Design Research Society International, (p. Paper 129). doi:https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2010.129
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hafeez Sana, Sarwar Muhammad T., Kabir Najma, Fiaz Madiha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.