Participatory Peer Assessment as a Tool for Enhancing Learning Opportunities in Architectural Design Studios; A Case Study of the Art University of Isfahan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor in architecture, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Ph.D Candidate in architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background and objectives: The teaching process in architectural design studios often relies on three core principles: critique, revision, and assessment (jury). Participatory critique serves as a complementary tool in this educational process, creating opportunities for learners to understand their strengths and weaknesses through collaboration. Drawing on Vygotsky’s socio-constructivist theory of social interaction, peer involvement in critique and assessment processes has demonstrated significant and positive effects on learners’ development. This method supports the enhancement of individual competencies at three levels: metacognitive, motivational, and transferable skills. Despite the proven effectiveness of peer assessment (PA) in improving learning outcomes, its impact on metacognitive outcomes remains insufficiently understood, as a knowledge gap. Given the complexity of variables in PA, research in this area should prioritize aspects of the method that potentially influence metacognitive outcomes. This study hypothesizes that fostering learner participation in critique and assessment processes within architectural design studios is pivotal for enhancing learning capacities and student satisfaction. Additionally, it highlights participation in PA as an educational opportunity to promote collaboration, engagement, and the development of a learning culture. Research Objectives: 1) To elucidate the process of participatory PA in architectural design studios as a learning opportunity. 2) To define the educational potential of participatory PA methods in such studios.
 
Materials and methods: This mixed-methods study combined quantitative and qualitative approaches. The statistical population comprised 29 architecture students from the Art University of Isfahan, including 13 undergraduate students in the second semester of the 2020-2021 academic year (Design Studio III) and 16 postgraduate students in the first semester of the 2021-2022 academic year (Design Studio I). The research process began by calculating an overall grade average for each class. Subsequently, two assessment rubrics (general and detailed) were provided to each student. Facilitators appointed by the instructors were tasked with maintaining a collective assessment table to document consensus-based scores and report deviations to peers for revision, followed by additional reviews as needed. Quantitative data were collected using a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire to capture participants’ aggregated assessments. Qualitative data were derived from interviews, observations, and transcripts of participants’ discussions during assessment sessions. These were analyzed using a social-discourse analysis method, which focuses on both discourse and shared behaviors among participants. Final analysis was performed through a two-stage coding process using MAXQDA software.
 
Results and conclusion: The study revealed that engaging in critique and group participation facilitated key learning opportunities for architecture students, including understanding assessment criteria, improving presentation skills, and enhancing metacognitive abilities. The findings particularly emphasize the following: 1) Assessment rubrics should be adapted by instructors and students to align with the specific instructional strategies of each design studio. 2) PA methods significantly contribute to the long-term development of learners’ metacognitive abilities. 3) The approach improves problem-solving skills over time. 4) Revising architectural assessment methods to foster peer collaboration and improve student performance is essential for advancing beyond conventional assessment practices. 5) Results vary based on students’ academic levels and architectural experience. This research offers actionable insights for improving the quality of instruction in design studios and other project-based, problem-solving disciplines. It contributes to enhancing learners’ mental well-being through active learning, fostering engagement with key aspects of learning, and cultivating social interactions within educational environments.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Bartholomew, Scott R., Liwei Zhang, Esteban Garcia Bravo, and Greg J Strimel. “A Tool for Formative Assessment and Learning in a Graphics Design Course: Adaptive Comparative Judgement”. The Design Journal, vol. 22, no. 1 (2019): 73-95.
Biggs, John. “What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning”. Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 18, no. 1 (1999): 57-75.
Black, Paul and Dylan Wiliam. “Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment”. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of personnel evaluation in education), 21 (2009): 5-31.
Black, Paul, Christine Harrison, Clare Lee, Bethan Marshall, and Dylan Wiliam. “Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom”. Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 86, no. 1 (2004): 8-21.
Boud, David and Nancy Falchikov. “Aligning Assessment with Long‐Term Learning”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 4 (2006): 399-413.
Boud, David. “Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society”. Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 22, no. 2 (2000): 151-167.
Chandrasekera, T. “Towards an Online Based Design Critique Framework for Design Education”. International Journal of Education and Information Technology, vol. 1, no. 3 (2015): 61-69.
Crolla, Kristof, Paula Hodgson, and Angel Wai Yuk Ho. “’Peer Critique’ in Debate: A Pedagogical Tool for Teaching Architectural Design Studio”. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 13, no. 3 (2019): Article 8.
Crowther, Philip. “Assessing Architectural Design Processes of Diverse Learners”. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of Assessment: Sustainability, Diversity and Innovation, ATN Assessment Conference, 2010.
Dannels, Deanna P. and Kelly Norris Martin. “Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback across Novice to Expert Design Studios”. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 22, no. 2 (2008): 135-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651907311923.
Demiraslan Çevik, Y. “Assessor or Assessee? Investigating the Differential Effects of Online Peer Assessment Roles in the Development of Students’ Problem-Solving Skills”. Article, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 52 (2015): 250-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.056.
Dinarvand, Abdorrahman, Hamid Nadimi, and Ali Alai. “Educating the Novice in Architecture through Collaborative Learning Approach”. Soffeh, vol. 27, no. 4 (2017): 5-18. (in Persian)
Gaillet, Lynee Lewis. A Foreshadowing of Modern Theories and Practices of Collaborative Learning: The Work of Scottish Rhetorician George Jardine, Scottish Education, 1992.
Gielen, Sarah, Filip Dochy, and Patrick Onghena. “An Inventory of Peer Assessment Diversity”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 36, no. 2 (2011): 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903221444.
Gray, Colin M. “Informal Peer Critique and the Negotiation of Habitus in a Design Studio”. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 2 (2013): 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.195_1.
Harrison, Kathy, O’hara Joe, and Gerry McNamara. “Re-Thinking Assessment: Self-and Peer-Assessment as Drivers of Self-Direction in Learning”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 15, no. 60 (2015): 75-88.
Heidari, E. and MR. Saghafi. “Perceived Fairness in the Peer Assessment Process: A Focus on Iranian Architecture Students in Design Studio Education”. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1 (2025): 454-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2024-0058
Hošpesová, Alena, Jarmila Novotná, Esther Chan, and David Clarke. “Peer-Feedback as a Part of Collaborative Problem Solving”. Scientia in Educatione, vol. 12, no. 2 (2021): 2-17.
Kollar, Ingo and Frank Fischer. “Peer Assessment as Collaborative Learning: A Cognitive Perspective”. Learning and Instruction, vol. 20, no. 4 (2010): 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005.
Lai, Chiu-Lin and Gwo-Jen Hwang. “An Interactive Peer-Assessment Criteria Development Approach to Improving Students’ Art Design Performance Using Handheld Devices”. Computers & Education, vol, 85 (2015): 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011. 
Li, Hongli, A. Jacquelyn, Yao Xiong Bialo, Charles Vincent Hunter, and Xiuyan Guo. “The Effect of Peer Assessment on Non-Cognitive Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis”. Applied Measurement in Education, (2021): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2021.1933980.
Megahed, Naglaa. “Reflections on Studio-Based Learning: Assessment and Critique”. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, vol. 16, no. 1 (2018): 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-08-2017-0079.
Merry, Stephen and Paul Orsmond. “Peer Assessment: The Role of Relational Learning through Communities of Practice”. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 7 (2020): 1312-1322. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1544236.
Mirriahi, S. “Measurement and Evaluation in Architecture Education Systems withan Emphasis on Team-Based Learning and Peer Evaluation Method”. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, vol. 7, no. 13 (2015): 107-117, (In Persian)
Musa, Majd. “Assessment, Learning and Power in the Architectural Design Studio Jury: A Case from the United Arab Emirates”. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 14, no. 3 (2020): 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-01-2020-0009.
Oh, Yeonjoo, Suguru Ishizaki, Mark D. Gross, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. “A Theoretical Framework of Design Critiquing in Architecture Studios”. Design Studies, vol. 34, no. 3 (2013): 302-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004.
Reinholz, Daniel. “The Assessment Cycle: A Model for Learning through Peer Assessment”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 41, no. 2 (2016): 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982.
Rust, Chris, Margaret Price, Karen Handley, Berry O’Donovan, and Jill Millar. “An Assessment Compact: Changing the Way an Institution Thinks About Assessment and Feedback”. in Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher Education, Routledge, 2013, 147-159.
Salama, Ashraf M. Spatial Design Education: New Directions for Pedagogy in Architecture and Beyond. Routledge, 2016.
Sanchez, Carmen E, Kayla M Atkinson, Alison C. Koenka, Hannah Moshontz, and Harris Cooper. “Self-Grading and Peer-Grading for Formative and Summative Assessments in 3rd through 12th Grade Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 109, no. 8 (2017): 1049-1066.
Scagnetti, Gaia. “A Dialogical Model for Studio Critiques in Design Education”. The Design Journal, vol. 20, no. sup1 (2017): S781-S791. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353024. 
Schuwirth, Lambert WT. and Cees PM Van der Vleuten. “Programmatic Assessment: From Assessment of Learning to Assessment for Learning”. Medical Teacher, vol. 33, no. 6 (2011): 478-485.
Shui Ng, Wing and Guoxing Yu. “’Students’ Attitude to Peer Assessment Process: A Critical Factor for Success”. Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 31, Issue 5 (2021): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1916762 
Sridharan, Bhavani, Joanna Tai, and David Boud. “Does the Use of Summative Peer Assessment in Collaborative Group Work Inhibit Good Judgement?”. Higher Education, vol. 77, no. 5 (2019): 853-870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0305-7.
Topping, Keith J. “Peer Assessment”. Theory into Practice, vol. 48, no. 1 (2009): 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569.
Topping, Keith J. “Peer Assessment: Learning by Judging and Discussing the Work of Other Learners”. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1 (2017): 1-17.
Topping, KeithJ. “Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities”. Review of educational Research, vol. 68, no. 3 (1998): 249-276.
Tsai, Chin-Chung, Eric Zhi-Feng Liu, Sunny S. J. Lin, and Shyan-Ming Yuan. “A Networked Peer Assessment System Based on a Vee Heuristic”. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 38, no. 3 (2001): 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290110051415.
Tseng, Sheng-Chau and Chin-Chung Tsai. “On-Line Peer Assessment and the Role of the Peer Feedback: A Study of High School Computer Course”. Computers & Education, vol. 49, no. 4 (2007): 1161-1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007.
Tucker, Richard. “Prejudicial Evaluation: Bias in Self-and-Peer-Assessments of Teamwork Contributions to Design”. in Collaboration and Student Engagement in Design Education, IGI Global, 2017, 76-104.
Turner, Helen. “Effective Critique through Affective Peer Engagement”. Journal of Interior Design, vol. 46, no. 3 (2021): 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12195. 
Utaberta, Nangkula, Badiossadat Hassanpour, Aisyah Nur Handryant, and Adi Irfan Che Ani. “Upgrading Education Architecture by Redefining Critique Session in Design Studio”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 102 (2013): 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.711.
Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich and Michael Cole. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard university press, 1978.
Zwaal, Wichard. “Assessment for Problem-Based Learning”. Research in Hospitality Management, vol. 9, no. 2 (2019): 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2019.1689696.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 July 2023
  • Revise Date: 27 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 14 January 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics