Keywords

1 Introduction

The authors discuss a pedagogical case study originating from an ongoing Erasmus+ KA2 project known as “Socially Situated Architectural Pedagogies” (i.e., SArPe). This project involves a consortium of the Universities of Pavia, Istanbul, TU Delft, and Malaga. SArPe’s primary objective is to enhance the responsiveness of the higher education sector to societal challenges through inclusive and participatory activities. It is built upon an integrated approach to teaching, learning, and training activities, combined with deep engagement, outreach, and dissemination targeting both educators and learners.

Within the broader academic context, the project addresses three distinct target groups (see Fig. 1) and, in particular, educators and learners (within and beyond academia), but also active groups including non-institutional organizations and grassroots groups. A part of the methodology of the project involves interaction with multiple active groups, allowing the consortium to listen to multiple voices, including those of local civil society organizations and communities.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Visualization of target groups involved in SArPe, Pavia 2022 (Image by Aslihan Senel, produced for 2022 KA2 Erasmus+ Coordination Partnership proposal named SArPe).

Full size image

2 Setting the Scene

There is a growing debate surrounding current architectural pedagogy [3, 8], a sense of dissatisfaction with studio teaching [10], and criticism of architectural professional training that emphasizes star-architecture [11]. Many of these teaching methodologies follow a hierarchical approach in which the teacher possesses absolute power and knowledge, and students depend on them for all facts, ideas, and perspectives. Such one-sided traditional pedagogical models, referred to as the ‘banking model’ by Freire (1968), portray students as empty vessels who receive information without engaging their critical faculties, creativity, subjectivities, or capacity for questioning. Particularly in the context of the interconnected crises of the 21st century, there is a need to reconfigure the teaching and learning process to make informed and responsive choices in architectural pedagogical practice.

In this context, SArPe joins the ongoing debate and advocates for a socially situated pedagogy in architecture, where knowledge is collaboratively produced through dialogues between learners and educators, as well as between universities and non-academic institutions. Critical pedagogies have long called for critical positioning that recognizes the political nature of teaching and learning and argue for social transformation [3]. The prism of critical pedagogy illuminates the hidden subtleties of social, cultural, political, and even economic conditions within the complexities of teaching and learning [12]. Various formats have been conceived and advocated for, such as the transformative model [10], the dialogical model [13], tutorless studio teaching [14], and even the commoning of architectural pedagogy [8]. More relevant to the scope of this paper, transformative pedagogy challenges the democratic configuration of the studio and seeks to redistribute power [10]. The dialogical problem-posing model, seen as a key tool to challenge and transform the power imbalances and relations between educators and learners [13], allows for the sharing of equal roles, acknowledges the learners’ perspective of the world, and nurtures a relationship between the educator and learner in which they learn from each other’s perspectives. Opening the studio as a site of co-production, exchange, and dialogue generates new forms of knowledge and dialogue that are crucial for transforming educational practice and for education to be considered a valid political tool.

Specifically related to this paper, the authors have drawn inspiration from the dialogical and transformative approaches of critical pedagogy to approach the module differently and introduce the use of tools and methods that can support the aforementioned ethos and learning approach.

3 Methodology of the Paper

This paper builds on activities performed during the SArPe Project between October 2022 and July 2023. It includes the initial phases of setup and discussion, the initial literature review primarily conducted between October 2022 and January 2023, the preparation phase of a teaching module held in February 2023, and its unfolding in the following months.

Hence, this paper includes an initial section that both identifies key themes and unfolds concepts and ideas that are developed in the following sections (e.g., tools and methods).

It is also case study-based, represented by the module named “Architettura e Composizione Architettonica 1” at the University of Pavia (2022-2023). The module is structured on the basis of a general methodology (research-led teaching), which includes interviews, fieldwork, design activities, as well as a variety of other tools and methods.

These activities are reflected upon through the authors’ critical reflections, formed as a team of researchers and participants (authors’ positioning in respect to the object of study). Feedback from learners has been collected so far through means such as self-evaluation forms, informal interviews, and other opportunities for engagement that have arisen after the end of the module.

4 Case Study

The module “Architettura e Composizione Architettonica 1” is a 2nd-year module within the Course of Building Engineering and Architecture at the University of Pavia (an integrated BSc + MSc 5-year course). It consists of 9 CFU (both front lectures and studio activities) and 8 h per week over a period of 3 months (12 weeks), with the teaching hours divided between two staff members. Additionally, 4 h of tutoring are scheduled every week (tutor-led). Ten tutors (3rd to 5th-year students) were selected, with 4 of them continuing from previous years and 6 newly appointed. In the 2022/2023 academic year, the module had 42 students, including 5 Erasmus students. Therefore, the current staff-to-student ratio is 1 to 42, while the tutor-to-student ratio ranges from 1 to 8–16, depending on the session and the pool of tutors in attendance. The syllabus was slightly revised at the beginning of the academic year, but it has been regularly amended since the academic year 2018/19.

From the literature review, the possibility of innovating the studio environment has also emerged. This innovation has been conceptualized spatially and socially as non-neutral spaces and democratic environments [10] that generate new knowledge through dialogue and serve as a site for interacting with the social, political, economic, and cultural dynamics of the city [3]. Large tables and centrally organized spaces for sharing, feedback, and peer-to-peer reviews encourage shared learning and critical thinking. Additionally, the ongoing interaction of the studio with stakeholders and the community, both within and outside the studio, situates the design process within the context, needs, and local circumstances [5, 8]. Evaluation has been extended to include peer and self-evaluations to enhance self-awareness and establish a power balance between learners and educators [10, 15]. More broadly, the shift from the traditional studio model towards a commons-oriented studio [16], guided by shared principles and guidelines established as “manifestos” between educators and learners at Compo1, transforms the studio process into a collaborative and non-hierarchical format.

4.1 Semi Structured Interviews with Learners

One of the initial steps taken before drafting the course program is the analysis of the results of the mandatory university questionnaire regarding the modules taught in the previous semester and years. However, the limitation of these results is the lack of specificity in relation to the pedagogical aspect of the module.

The requested feedback primarily concerns the themes of the learning process related to urban commons and communities. As a result, a series of general questions were formulated, followed by more specific questions based on the year of enrollment in the course.

The first choice was to conduct semi-structured interviews [17] (rather than to distribute questionnaires) in order to ask questions in an “open” manner and leaving some room for conversation aimed at visualizing a broader perspective. These were conducted with eight learners, two for each academic cohort, from 2019 to 2023. Engagement was very strong, and all learners were open to sharing their ideas regarding community engagement and the importance of the design process.

“By carrying out work directly on-site and involving the citizens, I might be able to find a more suitable location or a more useful solution for the residents.” (A 2019 course attendee).

“Talking to external people is very challenging; it already raises the bar. That’s why it is difficult, but also very stimulating.” (A 2020 course attendee).

Some of the key findings include: the need for a stronger focus on practical project work, associated with increased stakeholder involvement; positive feedback on the community engagement workshops associated with the project and a push to cultivate a relationship with the city (e.g., Pavia).

4.2 Approach and Methodology of the Module

Approaching the new term, the teaching staff and tutors agreed on certain educational objectives. These objectives included bringing in innovative tools and methods to inform the module’s pedagogical approach, creating opportunities to engage with local communities and groups, especially non-institutional ones, and innovating the studio environment and its organization. At the same time, they aimed to build on the positives developed during previous academic years, specifically from 2018/19.

Engaging with the SArPe research project (and international team) provides an opportunity to shape the module as a research-led teaching activity. Consequently, a general methodology (defining what, how, and when of tasks/activities) is designed by the module leader and discussed with the team of educators.

This methodology unfolds through four main areas: secondary and primary data collection, setting a vision and research-by-design, which are not meant to be separate but intertwined. Moreover, critical positioning is integrated at various points during the term. Theory and architectural precedents are considered as a background and run parallel to studio activity.

As mentioned, the module builds on activities that have already been tested in previous years (e.g., psychogeographical dérive), but it aims to examine them in relation to each other and also in relation to the general pedagogical aim, which aligns with the syllabus (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

The collage, featuring a variety of sample images created by learners, effectively illustrates the step-by-step development process of the project. It encompasses the initial fieldwork, the evolution of critical mapping, and the site-specific design process, serving as a representation of the outcomes achieved within the design studio, Pavia 2024 (Image by Linda Migliavacca, produced for 2022 KA2 Erasmus+ Coordination Partnership proposal named SArPe).

Full size image

The general pedagogical approach to the module has been explained to the students on the first day of studio. It has also been reiterated and expanded on during the term. In particular, when some activities were unfolded these were also explained in relation to the general plan.

4.3 Towards a Pedagogical Manifesto

At the beginning of the module, a “Manifesto” is drafted with the purpose of critically positioning in respect to the existing literature and the local context/content of the module. It establishes the key principles, values, and ideas that will be used throughout the term. It is conceived as a dynamic and open document, initially drafted by a small group of educators, but inherently flexible, modifiable, and expandable by the learners themselves.

The learners are introduced to the Manifesto (Fig. 3) during the initial lessons through a presentation outlining the educational objectives of the module, related to the tools and methods that the authors intend to adopt, with reference to the relevant literature review. This emphasizes the aspiration to create a horizontal and non-hierarchical environment within the studio, involving the adoption of the terminology of “educators” and “learners,” creating uniformity in the “teacher-student” and “student-teacher” relationships. The teaching staff takes on the role of conveying critical knowledge [13]: recognizing the learning dimension of everyone involved in the module does not mean roles and responsibilities are denied. The statement of wanting to use a peer-to-peer dialogue [18] presupposes the idea that interactions between educators and learners, as well as between learners themselves, hold the same value; learners become critical investigators in dialogue with their teachers. The Manifesto also contemplates the “architect’s role” and the goal of developing projects embedded in social contexts within communities. The central idea is not the final project but the process through which participants can develop a critical position [19].

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Towards a Manifesto, shared with the learners at the beginning of the module, Pavia 2023 (Image by Linda Migliavacca, produced for 2022 KA2 Erasmus+ Coordination Partnership proposal named SArPe).

Full size image

Drafting the manifesto is an exercise that enhances awareness of the educational process for the educators. It allows them to develop an understanding of the topics to be addressed during the module and the tools to be used.

4.4 Tools and Methods

Among the methodologies proposed for the general organization of the module, tools derived from the literature review are being applied. They are conceived as a set of exercises to subject learners to, with the aim of creating a learning process.

The authors begin by questioning the course’s structure at both the hierarchical level, dismantling traditional models. They are also modifying the study environment, changing the affordances [20, 21] of the classical studio, aiming for a structure that fosters more open work and discussion. The case study knowledge process is designed as a collection of situated knowledge for the learners. The exercises proposed to achieve this goal include interviews with previously mapped stakeholders, fieldwork, guided tours of the study neighborhood, and a psychogeographic dérive [22] within the same area. Another educational objective is to facilitate dialogue among learners and between learners and educators. The selected tools include role play, allowing for continuous work on the initial analysis of the case study. Other peer-to-peer comparison exercises are used with the concept of reflection-in-action [23]. Finally, efforts are made to reduce aspects of critical design within the learning process and fully engage the learners. Therefore, self-evaluation [15] modules are provided during the final exams.

The application of various tools within the course allows for an understanding of the positive aspects, difficulties, and outcomes. The most innovative approach in this pedagogical process is the option to combine various tools.

5 Conclusive Remarks

The objective of the paper is to convey the process of shaping a module brief with innovative pedagogical intentions while also sharing the authors’ critical analysis of what is being done.

Starting from a literature review, the authors were able to ask themselves the ‘right questions’ so as to try to answer them through such a pedagogical journey. This journey leads them to formulate a process that involves the use of specific tools. These resources should then guide educators and learners through a more effective and engaging learning process.

The most innovative outcome of semi-structured interviews is the importance of listening to the learners, as the feedback received directly from them pertains to important pedagogical themes. In fact, the analysis of the interviews provides valuable insights into the learners’ perspectives on pedagogy. The starting point for planning the methodology underpinning the new academic year’s brief is a summary of such feedback. Efforts are made to design a schedule that emphasizes learners’ interactions with the communities they will collaborate with. This involved introducing innovative tools to initiate the learning process and, most importantly, organizing various events beyond the university setting to engage non-academic partners in the entire project. The authors also attempt to suggest exercises aimed at fostering a deeper connection between the university space and the city, and encouraging learners to become more involved in the environment in which they operate.

The methodological pathway, structured as a research project, enables the creation of a sequence of tasks while remaining open to amendments and integrations, e.g., based on direct feedback from learners. The authors think this has been clearly communicated and well received by them.

Throughout the module, certain activities were implemented more successfully than others, prompting consideration of alternatives for the upcoming pedagogical process. The manifesto makes educators more aware of the pedagogical matters in relation to specific cohorts of learners and identifies priorities among the set of tools to use.

In the specific case, the learners have perceived a change in the educational model; however, a fuller adoption of the principles outlined in the manifesto, diverging from the conventional pedagogical model already in use across the faculty, has not been viable. This could be attributed to various factors among which: current institutional frameworks and their limitations; cultural barriers (of various nature); and also, the reluctance by learners to implement them. The latter might stem from the lack of a collaborative process in designing the Manifesto (co-design), which might have left learners disconnected from the logic behind the course ethos. However, it should also be considered that this module represents (to learners) such a radical innovation, in relation to a system based on conventional approaches in studio teaching such as ‘master’ led tutorials and top-down project crits.

Regarding the use of different tools and methods, the authors actively aim to promote learners’ critical thinking. The main experimental aspect includes the use and combination of various tools, and it is quite evident that the combination of these tools, along with a departure from conventional classroom teaching (e.g., critical discussions), is significant and worked well towards the final outcomes.

In conclusion, the methodology applied for the module has proven effective. A positive judgment has emerged from various perspectives. Objectively, it can be stated that approximately 75% of the participants were able to pass the course in the first three examination dates. Among these learners, over 50% passed the exam with distinction, (grade band A, or ≥ 27/30). Furthermore, the quality of the outcomes was considered very high both by educators and stakeholders, who had the opportunity to observe the results during the exam sessions and via a public exhibition organized in October. From the subjective perspective of the authors, the pedagogical process developed and then implemented was carried out with great positivity. The module, in general, is positively received by the learners. The critical thinking skills of the learners were cultivated and excellently expressed in their self-assessment forms (filled on the day of the exam, before educators’ marks are shared with them) because they are highly beneficial in raising awareness among the learners about their learning and design process. Most of the time, their personal reflection aligns with their outcomes.

However, as the authors delve deeper into the analysis of results, it is important to recognize that the shortcomings and challenges that lie ahead will also come from learner feedback. These reflections will be fundamental in refining the authors’ pedagogical approach and enhancing the overall module effectiveness. For now, the reflections are still provisional, and more time is needed to process and evaluate the results. Therefore, the definition of final ideas, methodologies, and tools for structuring the learning process aims to be further validated.

By constantly improving the module brief and the module's pedagogical approach, one further step (as planned by SArPe) will be to amend next year's module syllabus. This will have, potentially, an even stronger impact on students’ learning objectives and skills. This is precisely why the process described in the article is part of a three-year long process within the SArPe project, which sees the collaboration of various international partners from academia as well as from the not-for-profit sector.

“Socially Situated Architectural Pedagogies” or SArPe: it is a project that has been funded with the support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.