Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learning outcomes in affective domain within contemporary architectural curricula

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contemporary architectural education has shifted from the traditional focus on providing students with specific knowledge and skill sets or ‘inputs’ to outcome based, student-centred educational approach. Within the outcome based model, students’ performance is assessed against measureable objectives that relate acquired knowledge and skills to performance expectations in higher level courses or real world architectural practice. Bloom’s taxonomy has been widely accepted as a useful tool for defining learning outcomes. It references three domains that impinge on the learning process including the ‘cognitive,’ ‘affective’ and ‘psychomotor.’ In practice, most of the attention is paid to the cognitive domain. Considering the interdisciplinary and multivalent character of architecture (as discipline), curriculum design cannot be founded primarily on cognitive-based outcomes. This paper argues that affective domain, especially in the field of building learners’ personalized value systems, is essential to designing outcome based architectural programs. Interactive studio-based education provides a platform to integrate cognitive and behavioural skills that are necessary for professional practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, J. (1997). Curriculum design in higher education using a learning outcome-led model: Its influence on how students perceive learning, PhD Dissertation, University of Wolverhampton.

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain, Longmans, Green, New York, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSI. (1991). Quality vocabulary part 2: Quality concepts and related definitions. London: BSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, L. (1996). Capability: Going beyond competence. Capability, 2(2), 79–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, N. (2010). The limits of professional architectural education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(2), 200–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission). (1985). Directive 85/384/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 223, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, S. J. (1998). Rethinking onstruction. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, S., Kratochwill, T., Cook, J. L. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. http://mhhe.com/socscience/education/elliott/book/define.htm. Accessed February 2012.

  • Ennis, R. H. (1985). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds—A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPC (European Parliament Council). (2008). RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, of 23 April 2008, on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. Official Journal of European Union, 6.5.2008, C111/1–C111/7.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA (European University Association). (2006). Quality Culture in European Universities—A bottom-up approach. Report on the three rounds of the Quality Culture Project, 2002–2006 (p. 20). Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA (European University Association). (2007a). Case studies: Embedding quality culture in higher education. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA (European University Association). (2007b). Creativity in higher education. Report on the EUA creativity project, 2006–2007. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. D. (2004). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. http://trc.virginia.edu/Workshops/2004/Fink_Designing_Courses_2004.pdf. Accessed May 2012.

  • Foque, R. (2010). Building knowledge in architecture. Belgium: University Press Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2004). Tuning educational structures in Europe. In C. Spiridonidis & M. Voyatzaki (Eds.), Shaping architectural curricula for the European higher education area, EAAE, pp 68–74.

  • Gosling, D., & Moon, J. (2001). How to use learning outcomes and assessment criteria. London: SEEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (1998). The management of quality assurance. A Review of International Practice, Higher Education Quarterly, 52(4), 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining ‘Quality’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEA (Higher Education Academy). (2012). The education for capability manifesto by Royal Society of Arts. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/heca/manifesto. Accessed May 2012.

  • Hoffmann, M. H. W., Hampe, M., Müller, G., Bargstädt, H.-J., Heiß, H.-U., & Schmitt, H. (2010). Knowledge, skills, and competences—descriptors for engineering education. In Proceedings, IEEE EDUCON education engineering 2010. The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education, pp. 639–645.

  • Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html. Accessed February 2012.

  • Huitt, W. (2011). Motivation to learn: An overview. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/motivation/motivate.html. Accessed February 2012.

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, S. M. (1994). Constructing the team: Final report of the government/industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Pilling, S. (1996). The cost and value of design. Architectural Research Quarterly, 1(4), 82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberloo, R. (2003). Competence on the art or appreciating what is educationaly significant. In C. Spiridonidis & M. Voyatzaki (Eds.), Shaping the European Higher Architectural Education Area, EAAE, p 81.

  • Marzano, R. L., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, K. (2010). The design process-making it relevant for students. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 76–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, U., Michalk, B., & Tauch, C. (Eds.). (2003). From Bologna to Berlin—A vision taking shape, DUZspecial. Berlin: RA ABE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliner, L. (2003). Architecture & higher education; long term opportunities & interface with the profession. RIBA council discussion paper, 11.

  • Moon, J. (2006). Linking levels, learning outcomes and assessment criteria—EHEA version. WUS, Budva: Curriculum Development and ECTS Seminar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliot, J., Higgins, S., Miller, J., Newton, D. P., & Gregson, M. (2005). Frameworks for thinking—A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • NCHEMS (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems). (2000). The competency standards project: Another approach to accreditation review. CHEA.

  • Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (Eds.). (2000). Changing architectural education—Towards a new professionalism. London, New York: E&FN Spoon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nillsen, R. (2005). The concept of integrity in teaching and learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(3b). Centre for Educational Development and Interactive Resources (CEDIR), University of Wollongong.

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005). The definition and selection of key competences—Executive summary. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf. Accessed on May 2012.

  • Parnell, R. (2003). Knowledge skills and arrogance: Educating for collaborative practice. In E. Harder (Ed.), EAAE prize 2001–2002—Writings in architectural education (pp. 65–69). Leuven: EAAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2005). Trends IV: European Universities implementing bologna. Brussels: EUA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2004). Problem based learning and the design studio. CEBE Transactions, 1(2), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salama, A. (2005). Skill based/knowledge based architectural pedagogies: An argument for creating humane environments. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on humane habitat ICHH-05. Mumbai, India, http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=9501. Accessed February 2012.

  • Salama, A., & Wilkinson, N. (2007). Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salikils, E., Arens, R., Hanus, J. (2009). Teaching architects and engineers: Up and down the taxonomy. In Proceedings, 2009 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Austin. http://www.arch.calpoly.edu/research/documents/research-0809/arens_1_0809.pdf. Accessed on May 2012.

  • Scalabre, J.-P. (2005). Emerging challenges for the profiles of an architect. In C. Spiridonidis & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.), Present positions (in)forming future challenges—synthesis and directions towards the European higher architectural education area, EAAE, pp. 77–79.

  • Simonson, M., & Maushak, N. (2001). Instructional technology and attitude change. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 984–1016). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spady, G. W. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. London: The American Association of School Administrators.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanbroek, N. (2010), Strategic teaching: Student learning through working the process. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(2), 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiridonidis, C. (2006). Profiles of the graduates from European schools of architecture—Expectations of educators. Presentations on the 9th meeting of EAAE/ENHSAThematic Network, Chania, Crete.

  • Stephenson, J. (1992). Capability and quality in higher education. In J. Stephenson & S. Weil (Eds.), Quality in learning. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, J. (1994). Capability and competence: Are they the same and does it matter? Capability, 1.1, 3–5.

  • Tao, S. (2010). Applying the capability approach to school improvement interventions in Tanzania. EdQual working paper no. 22, Institute of Education, University of London.

  • UCE Birmingham. (2012). Guide to learning outcomes. http://www.ssdd.bcu.ac.uk/outcomes/. Accessed February 2012.

  • UIA-UNESCO. (1996/2005). Charter for architectural education, revised version. www.uia-architectes.org/image/PDF/CHARTES/CHART_ANG.pdf. Accessed February 2012.

  • Unterhalter, E., Vaughan, R., & Walker, M. (2007). The capability approach and education. Prospero, 13(3), 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, R. (2002). Educational structures, learning outcomes, workload and the calculation of ECTS credits, tuning management committee, tuning project working paper. http://www.barentsedu.net/images/20060210120230.pdf. Accessed February 2012.

  • Weiner, B. (2000). Interpersonal and intrapersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2000), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: a confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterton, J., Delamare-Le Deist, F., & Stringfellow, E. (2005). Typology of knowledge, skills and competences: Clarification of the concept and prototype. Center for European Research on Employment and Human Resources, Groupe ECS Toulouse, CEDEFOP Project report.

  • Younes, C. (2005). Paradoxes of the challenges of education in architecture. In C. Spiridonidis & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Present positions (in)forming future challenges—Synthesis and directions towards the European higher architectural education area. EAAE, p 162.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ALHOSN University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Marko Savic & Mohamad Kashef

Authors
  1. Marko Savic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamad Kashef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marko Savic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Savic, M., Kashef, M. Learning outcomes in affective domain within contemporary architectural curricula. Int J Technol Des Educ 23, 987–1004 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9238-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9238-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation