Within the general frame of the conference enquiring about the plurality of architecture as a discipline, the two sessions dedicated to the ways of teaching specifically addressed the different teaching approaches questioning two of the six dichotomies characterizing the contemporary debate on architectural education. The first tension explored is the supposed opposition between architecture considered as a discipline, with its specific field of knowledge and epistemology, and, on the other hand, architecture is regarded as a method, a mindset, a modus operandi that can be applied to other fields than the built environment. The second dichotomy concerns the origin of architectural education which can be grounded on the study and imitation of the Masters of Architecture, as it was when architecture was taught in the frame of the École des Beaux-arts, or can be grounded in training the student to face specific topics or burning issues of the architectural discipline.

In the sessions, several presentations focused on describing pedagogical experiences tackling contemporary challenges at different levels. They ranged from curriculum innovation and complete educational programs to single teaching activities.

Among those experiences some refer to methodological approaches proposing socially situated practice activities, pleading for interdisciplinary studios to mix cultural backgrounds and working methodologies, or international programs enabling collaboration between different countries and fostering cosmopolitan architecture. Other interventions are focused on urgent topics such as environmental sustainability, fragile territories and rural areas development, ethical approach to environmental and building design as well as the role and impact of artificial intelligence in the architectural pedagogy.

The type of Design teaching experiences presented through the sessions range from design studio teaching practice-based oriented and body-centered learning experiences to theoretical courses, questioning the role of the architect in contemporary society or the approach to the building demolition process. Despite these reflective activities, some interventions complain of a lack of critique, intended in the sense of a gesture that arrests, disorganizes, denaturalizes, and de-hegemonizes [1], in architectural education where new forms of critical theory should be enquired.

The discussion of the presentations seems to conclude that architectural education, both for its topics and its methods, can be considered a general education that can benefit many other fields [2]. This consideration leads to the conclusion that teaching architecture can be part of a non-architecture education, it can be considered as a minor of a different field major, contributing to developing skills such as team building, complexity management, or envisioning capabilities to other professional curricula. Architectural education also develops risk-taking skills, deals with the fragility of the environment and the territories, and, through the pedagogy of mistakes, improves students’ resiliency. Those specific skills are very valuable in tackling contemporary global challenges and crises that are characterized by a pervaded dimension of uncertainty.