Evaluating Architectural Design: A Case of the ‘Open Jury’ (original) (raw)
Related papers
Learn X Design , 2023
The profession of architecture draws its legitimacy and command from the fundamental, yet elusive aspect of quality. However, the assessment of quality in architectural education and practice is governed by the dualistic nature of architecture as art and science, craft and business. Contradictions between artistic autonomy and heteronomous practice render the notion of quality to be one of the primary sources of disagreement and contestation among architectural academics, educators, and practitioners. Taking the case of open juries conducted at the Faculty of Architecture, CEPT University, in Ahmedabad, India, this paper highlights the diverse notions of quality that guide the discussion and perception of student design projects in architecture schools. Through qualitative research methods like semi-structured interviews with tutors and students, and non-participatory observation of online juries, the study identifies thirteen indicators of quality in student design projects. In doing so, it attempts to clarify the nature of subjective feedback, and ascertain the role of subjectivity and power in defining the notions of quality. This could pave the way towards creating a shared framework within which design quality is understood, assessed, and taught in architecture schools across the globe.
Problems of Design Juries in Schools of Architecture
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING JOURNAL - SPECIAL EDITION: THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 'RETHINKING ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION', ORGANIZED BY BEIRUT ARAB UNIVERSITY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS (RIBA), 2016
Throughout the last few decades, the architectural design education has passed many phases of critique and evaluation development. The process of critique continues in the different stages of design, starting from choosing the site, until the final submission. The jury committees are often held at the final stage in order to evaluate the architectural product. Although there are specific methods to systemize the process of evaluation, but unfortunately some academic members in jury committees do not apply these methods, which results in negative judgments on student’s project, and that could generate a feeling of dissatisfaction. This paper, therefore, aims to reach the maximum fairness in evaluation process through following a clear and discipline criteria. Two case studies will be examined in the juries of graduation project in two different schools of architecture; one in Lebanon and the other one in Egypt. Through analyzing the methods of evaluating projects in both case studies, the paper can reach the required ideal criteria that can be followed later on.
Exploring the assessment of a jury panel in architectural design education and practice
The assessment of architectural designs plays an important role in educational settings as well as in architectural practice. In architectural practice, especially in case of design competitions, architectural plans are being assessed by a jury panel in order to select the plan to be built. In education the assessment of architectural plans is a means to test the competencies of a student at different phases of the curriculum. In both cases, architectural plans are object of an assessment by a panel of experts. However, in some respects these situations could differ. What are the differences and commonalities of these situations, and what can we learn from studying the assessment process of a design jury?
In today's world which all concerning are about sustainable and all efforts are to troop all humans' need with less destructive and negative effect on next generations' portion, sustainable education as a first stage of attitude and effect on future can play an important role . Indeed if educating system be able to has a positive impact on its' inputs, then it can import its influence to the whole society by its outputs which their number is not less. Especially in art and architecture this influence would be multiple and multilateral, because students are the future designers and peoples' life will be influenced by them. Education is completely linked by spiritual and mental aspects and has direct effect on thoughts and ideas; even it can make a pattern and line behavior for humans' life. So we ought to pay more attention to education phenomenon. In today's architectural educating system, design studios as prevalent or even only way of teaching and learning are based on lectures and critique sessions. Critique sessions in contrast of usual lecture classes are new experience for students and face them to new situations that expect them to expose themselves to others critique and expect them to learn how to find creative solutions and how to create innovative outcomes in this way. And finally their success will assess in this way too. Till the domain of design is described as requiring creative thinking more than other abilities, the criteria used in assessment have been ambiguous. The expectation of forcing to routine professional critique makes the critique sessions more important. Answering to questions "How to better accept" or "how to react" on what we receive in critique sessions, beside different cultures, backgrounds and even different learning styles is the goal of this paper. To achieve this target first of all we study the different critique categories in architecture education and secondly we explore the dissatisfaction points of students and instructors in Malaysia and finally compare it with reasons of Iranians dissatisfaction from critique sessions we will find the similarities and different and will give some suggestions to upgrade the existing system.
The work of critique in architectural education
gothenburg studies in educational sciences 298 gustav lymer acta universitatis gothoburgensis the work of critique in architectural education © gustav lymer, 2010 isbn 978-91-7346-688-2 issn 0436-1121 print: geson hylte tryck, göteborg 2010 distribution: acta universitatis gothoburgensis box 222 se-405 30 göteborg, sweden the work reported here has been funded by the swedish research council.
The authors reflect on the academic bachelor and master programs of architecture. From the perspective of higher education policy in Flanders, Belgium, they examine the intrinsic challenges of the academic educational setting, and the way architectural education can fit in and benefit from it, without losing its specific design oriented qualities. Therefore, they unravel the process of architectural design research, as a discipline-authentic way of knowledge production, leading to the identification of a number of implicit features of an academic architectural learning environment. The disquisition is based on educational arguments pointed out by literature and theory. Furthermore, the authors analyze whether this learning environment can comply with general standards of external quality assurance and accreditation systems. Doing so, they reveal the Achilles' heel of architectural education: the incompatibility of the design jury with formalized assessment frameworks. Finally, the authors conclude with an advocacy for academic freedom. To assure the quality of academic architectural programs, it is necessary that universities maintain a critical attitude towards standardized policy frameworks.