Rhetoric and Persuasion: The Missing link in Educational Processes of Architectural Design Studios

Background and objectives: Architectural education at the undergraduate level is centered on architectural design studios, and the prevalent method for conducting studio sessions by tutors is through critique. Essentially, the teaching approach is based on the development of the work by the student, and its subsequent refinement by the tutor, creating a reciprocal process in which the student learns architectural design. Various research studies have explored teaching methods within studios, types of critique, and even the role of rhetoric (the science of persuasion) as a foundation for human interaction. Given that the cruciality of relationship between the tutor and student, there is a need for further examinations in this regard, particularly with a focus on rhetorical knowledge. The present research, therefore, investigates critique sessions in architectural design studios and the type of communication between the teacher and student, considering rhetorical knowledge, and aims to provide solutions for strengthening this relationship.
 
Methods: The research is based on a literature review and employs a logical-reasoning approach; while providing a general overview of architectural design studios and their tutorial methods. Based on the theory of rhetorical situation and rhetorical techniques in persuasion, it suggests a mechanism for establishing a more effective critique in architectural design studio sessions.
 
Results and conclusion: The  investigations indicate that critique processes and the relationship between the tutor and the student can be conceptualised within the framework of a rhetorical situation comprising eight elements. When the tutor occupies the role of the message sender, these elements include rhetor (tutor), message (interpretation of the student’s work), context (architectural design studio/ tutor and student knowledge), audience (student), subject (critique, topics related to the student’s work), purpose (critiquing the student’s work and providing feedback, teaching architectural design), exigency (improving the teaching process, architectural design education), and genre (tutor’s discourseusing clear, comprehensible, and persuasive language, offering critiques and suggestions logically and transparently). Alternatively, considering the student as the message sender, these elements consist of rhetor (student), message (presentation of the student’s work), context (architectural design studio,tutor and student knowledge), audience (tutor), subject (critique, topics related to the student’s work), purpose (introducing the work most simply and clearly), exigency (correcting the design, improving the teaching process, and developing student skills, including communication skills), and genre (student’s expression effectively and persuasively manner, both verbally and visually).
Effective communication between the tutor and the student during these sessions is fostered through the use of a clear and understandable expression, coupled with the presentation of critiques and suggestions lucidly and logically. This approach facilitates the creation of a persuasive context in the discourse between the tutor and the student, allowing them to comprehend each other’s thoughts and arrive at a consensus. Through this intellectual consensus, architectural students learn, improve their design, and more importantly, acquire and practise interaction and verbal communication, ultimately enabling them to effectively defend their design convincingly in various scenarios. The results of this research can assist tutors and students in conducting more effective critique sessions. However, for the practical implementation of these proposed solutions, further extensive research and the generalisation of results across various situations are necessary.