Critical Dialogue in Architecture Studio: Peer Interaction and Feedback

Abstract

Most tutors in architecture education regard studio-based learning to be rich in feedback due to its dialogic nature. Yet, student perceptions communicated via audits such as the UK National Student Survey appear to contradict this assumption and challenge the efficacy of the design studio as a truly discursive learning setting. This paper presents findings from a collaborative study that was undertaken by the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, and Queen’s University Belfast that develop a deeper understanding of the role that peer interaction and dialogue plays within feedback processes, and the value that students attribute to these within the overall learning experience.

The paper adopts a broad definition of feedback, with emphasis on formative processes, and includes the various kinds of dialogue that typify studio-based learning, and which constitute forms of guidance, direction, and reflection. The study adopted an ethnographic approach, gathering data on student and staff perceptions over the course of an academic year, and utilising methods embracing both quantitative and qualitative data.

The study found that the informal, socially-based peer interaction that characterises the studio is complementary to, and quite distinct from, the learning derived through tutor interaction. The findings also articulate the respective properties of informal and formally derived feedback and the contribution each makes to the quality of studio-based learning. It also identifies limitations in the use or value of peer learning, understanding of which is valuable to enhancing studio learning in architecture.

Keywords:

• design studio
• peer learning
• interaction
• dialogue
• feedback

Introduction

To most tutors in architecture education, the nature of studio-based learning is inherently feedback rich due to is dialogic nature (Schön 1985, Anthony 1991). Indeed, Schön (1985) ascribed particular pedagogic value to the very nature of the conversational exchange between tutor and student. Yet, with respect to feedback, the subject of architecture has not performed well in the UK National Student Survey (NSS) (Vaughan & Yorke 2009, Roberts 2010), this sharply contradicting conventional assumptions and challenging the efficacy of the design studio as a truly discursive learning setting. However, the literature identifies factors that can significantly influence the effectiveness of studio-based learning, and which have implications for feedback and guidance and how they are viewed by students. These tend to place emphasis on the relationship between the tutor and student. Nevertheless, the NSS results pose broader questions about how students regard feedback, what they value, and, within the social setting of the design studio, the role that peer interaction plays in the students’ qualitative judgments of feedback.

This paper results from a collaborative study that was undertaken by the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen (RGU), and Queen’s University Belfast (QUB). The purpose of the original work, funded by the Centre for Education in the Built Environment, was to develop a deeper understanding of student and tutor perceptions of feedback in the study of architecture. The study adopted a broad definition of feedback as ‘information communicated to the learner that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behaviour for the purpose of improving learning’ (Shute 2008, p154). This was explored through the setting of the design studio via a range of dialogic vehicles (e.g. studio dialogue with tutors, formative tutorials, formal reviews, summative tutorials (portfolio reviews), and peer dialogue). While the wealth of data generated resulted in a broad ranging summary report, it became apparent that particular areas warranted specific, detailed commentary. Accordingly, and in response to the NSS statistics, this paper presents findings that develop a deeper understanding of the role that peer dialogue plays within feedback processes, and the value that students attribute to these within the overall learning experience.

Theoretical context

The cultivation of a learning setting with a rich social dynamic, through which peer interaction and socialised learning may be developed, forms a central plank of the studio-based pedagogy for architectural design (inter alia Cuff 1991, Nicol & Pilling 2000). The social dimensions of the studio, and the opportunity for collaboration and sharing, act as stimulants to learning (Parnell 2001), and it is the culture of the studio that acquires lasting significance for students (Koch et al. 2002). Fisher (1991) refers to this as a ‘fraternity’ culture, one that also recalls Wenger’s (1998) observations of the relationship between identity and practice through a community of participants. Indeed, Wenger (1998) observed that communities of practice typically form in groups united by discipline interest as a means of disseminating and exchanging knowledge, and by the sharing of learning resources.

The value of peer interaction in the learning community is closely allied to the notion of the ‘critical friend’ (Costa & Kallick 1993, p50), a familiar term in higher education although arguably more in the context of the quality assurance processes that underpin academic integrity. In these contexts the existence of the critical friend enables a form of peer dialogue that directly parallels the kinds of conversation that occur between students in the learning process. Indeed in each case it is the players involved, and their professional status and relationship that facilitates the level and nature of dialogue that is sought. Whether between student or academics, such relationships are relatively free from the symptoms of power asymmetries (Dutton 1991, p107), and are characterised by the trust central to Costa & Kallick’s (1993) definition of critical friendship. Learning becomes a shared experience where common interest is used to develop skills and knowledge (Robinson 2007).

The importance of peer interaction is also reinforced by Shaffer (2003) who observed how learning takes place through the internalisation of social processes of evaluation, and contended that ‘the norms of the community become a framework for individual thinking and individual identity’ (p6). Moreover, as noted by Boud (2001), peer learning promotes other facets of learning, such as team working, the management of personal learning, and, through practice in articulating subject-specific ideas and knowledge, judgment and the ability to critique both self and others. It is therefore also beneficial to motivation, and to the individual’s ability to benchmark their progress relative to peers.

The studio’s combination of informal dialogue and formalised learning events offers a means by which students obtain multiple perspectives and, unlike many other learning settings, opportunity for continuous discourse. However, the nature of studio and its interpersonal relationships means that students are exposed to numerous, frequently conflicting perspectives which can present challenges, especially during the early stages of study (Anthony 1991). Equally, whilst the informal, social nature of the design studio offers multiple inputs, it correspondingly demands that students apply order to these and, in turn, ascribe relative value to each.

As a means of offering structured and unstructured feedback, critique is a mode that is shared by all the creative arts (Klebesadel & Kornetsky in Guring et al. 2009), and together with didactic processes and ‘learning by doing’, or practice, is a central pedagogic strategy in architecture. Studio-based learning seeks to harness peer interaction to enhance socialisation and critical dialogue, this corresponding with Bruffee’s notion of ‘constructive conversation’ (1999, p12) through a learning community. The culture of co-operation fostered through studio also establishes the climate for what Piaget (1985) described as the cognitive conflict that relates to knowledge construction resulting from multiple perspectives. Indeed, more generically, Piaget regarded peer co-operation to be central to the development of reflection, discourse and critical abilities (1985, cited in Falchikov 2001, p87). Equally, Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the ‘zone of proximal development’ (cited in Falchikov 2001, p88), which proposed that the development attained by a learner with guidance either from a tutor or peer, will be greater than that achieved individually, emanated from ideas of co-operative learning. More fundamentally still, Vygotsky (1986) argued that social interaction constitutes a necessary component for full cognitive development to be achieved.

Study of cognitive and metacognitive processes of knowledge construction contradict the common assumption that knowledge is effectively conveyed from tutor to student in feedback processes (Flavell 1985, Stahl 1992). Rather, student learning was found to be conditioned by the individual’s existing knowledge and understanding, against which new information is aligned creating either a deepening of knowledge, or leading to previous knowledge being revised. The reflective functions within metacognitive strategies enable students to review their individual understanding of a situation or problem, and define actions that allow knowledge to be appropriately constructed or reconstructed. It can therefore be seen how peer groups perform a vital role as agents in the construction of individual knowledge through the breadth of the collective contextual perspective.

Although studio-based learning has historically utilised the cohort (Nicol & Pilling 2000), peer interaction has further potential to alleviate the detrimental effects of power that can manifest themselves in tutor-student relationships. Despite studio-based learning being founded on notions of discourse and effective dialogue, its true efficacy has been called into question with respect to the tutor-student relationship (Dutton 1991). Power asymmetries and hierarchies can create dependencies that influence the openness of dialogue, potentially eroding the student role and subordinating their ‘apprentice’ views to the dogma of the tutor or ‘master’. Within this context the effects of power are central to the student’s understanding and acceptance of critique as a pedagogy, and a tool of learning rather than judgment. Thus power has a profound relationship to feedback, whether formative or summative, not least as it is typically the tutor who defines the agenda for feedback (Askew 2000). However, peer groups can have a function in mitigating any associated negative consequences. For example, just as peer interaction occurs where student progress generates dialogue and criticism (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006), peer conversation is essential to reflecting on and rationalising tutor positions and behaviours. Nevertheless, power cannot be removed from the tutor-student relationship, indeed there are instances where students actively seek the authority of the tutor, and points where power can be constructively channelled to challenge and stretch students through shifting their frames of reference (Mezirow 1997) in ways that peer dialogue is unlikely to achieve. Hence the management of power through the pedagogic process is essential to optimising the efficacy of critical discourse.

In work that has a strong resonance with that of Flavell (1985) and Stahl (1992), Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) noted that feedback, often assumed by the academic to be clear, frequently requires to be interpreted or ‘decoded’ by the student in order for meaning to be understood at a level where it may be acted upon. However, the literature suggests that processes of ‘decoding’ and interpretation are frequently flawed, with students requiring to construct their own understanding of tutor guidance. For example, written feedback prepared during studio reviews is typically concise, succinctly capturing salient issues with an economy driven by constraints of time and resource. A single sentence, intended to capture the essence of an extended conversation, can become hard to decipher or comprehend as intended as the context around it, which gives meaning, has been stripped away. Cumulatively, feedback may comprise a number of such statements, creating complexity that becomes hard to confidently interpret and understand. Hence, peer dialogue is essential to constructing meaning, particularly where students may share elements of guidance.

The literature identifies a number of issues that highlight the theoretical importance of peer interaction in studio-based learning, and to student understanding of personal development in the subject. Yet the evidence base that supports the efficacy of practice with respect to dialogue and feedback is minimal. Very little is understood about how students view studio-based guidance, dialogue, and feedback. The same is true of tutor perspectives. Within the studio setting, how do the complex inter-personal dynamics contribute to dialogue, feedback, and development? This paper discusses the role that peer interaction plays within studio dialogue, and the value that students attribute to it in their learning.

Methodology

Based on the premise that feedback is fundamental to effective learning (Rowntree 1977), the project sought to analyse the perceptions of students in two universities, with the aim of drawing conclusions that are of generic relevance to architecture educators. Collaboration between Queen’s University Belfast and the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen enabled the adoption of a mutually informative approach, whilst facilitating a depth of analysis around a shared methodology and data set. (Appendix 1 gives summary information that enables broad comparison of course structure and delivery.)

Spradley’s (1979) definition of ethnography as ‘the work of describing a culture’ (p3) has a resonance with the holistic nature of architecture education and its deep connection with professional and social communities and values. Accordingly, the study adopted an ethnographic approach, gathering data on student and staff perceptions over the course of an academic year, and utilising methods embracing both quantitative and qualitative information. The latter was deemed particularly important in gaining a view of learning acquired through the lived experiences of participants, providing insights into perceptions, attitudes, and processes and their effects (Best 1970).

Aligning with the NSS census point, Year 3 students formed the primary focus in both schools. However, the participant group was broadened in the second round to include students from all academic years. Groups of academics representing the breadth of the curriculum were also included within the research, enabling the juxtaposition of student and staff perceptions of the same learning process. All participation was voluntary. Research methods comprised a series of questionnaires and group interviews, designed in relation to one another over an academic cycle to gather different kinds and levels of data. The study was conducted in accordance with the Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2004), produced by the British Educational Research Association (BERA) with respect to anonymity, etc.

Questionnaires issued each semester were designed to identify quantitative patterns in qualitative data whilst also enabling collation of material on feelings, motives, reasons and explanations (Silverman 1993). Accordingly, the majority of data was derived from open questions (see Appendix 2). The size of each cohort enabled the surveys to include all students, this reducing the effects of ‘sample mortality’, whereby withdrawal of sample members potentially distorts the results. (The response rates for Questionnaire 1 were 51.5% (QUB) and 75.8% (RGU); and for Questionnaire 2 were 43.9% (QUB) and 43.5% (RGU).)

Focus groups were held following each questionnaire to explore thematic areas arising, and to allow multiple views to be expressed and amplified through open questions (see Appendix 3). A framework and sequence of questions was developed in advance, structured around a number of thematic headings, and the semi-structured format of the interviews offered the discussion flexibility. Groups were limited to between six and 14 volunteers (Stewart & Shamdasani 1990, Millward 1995) and interviews were of one to two hours duration in accordance with the findings of Stewart & Shamdasani (1990) and Millward (1995). Each focus group was conducted, recorded and transcribed by academics from the other school, thus preserving anonymity, openness of dialogue, and mitigating the risk of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of the researcher influencing participants’ responses (Hitchcock & Hughes 1989). Transcripts were coded to identify the salient themes arising. In data analysis, the intimate knowledge of respective schools that the authors possessed ensured that the full context of learning was understood, enabling knowledge-based judgements to be made in interpreting the data whilst deriving the benefits of a cross-school study with respect to reliability and validity.

Discussion of Key Findings

Data collected from students and tutors clearly distinguished between the learning contexts of the design studio and course components delivered outside of the studio.

Framing the Learning Experience

Both academic teams sought to communicate explicitly to students the breadth of forms that feedback takes within the context of the design studio. Equally, the indeterminacy and pluralism innate to the subject was periodically reiterated throughout the early stages of the course to promote student understanding. Developing an understanding of and familiarisation with the subjectivity inherent in discourse on architecture was considered particularly important as the majority of students were seen to come from a learning culture in which the tutor “tells them all they need to know” (tutor). Hence, the notion of the student requiring to construct meaning from guidance given was recognised as both novel and challenging. Indeed, academics generally believed strongly that the learning culture to which most students are exposed through secondary education runs counter to the concept of individual knowledge construction and independent learning (inter alia Drew 2001, Wingate 2007). Academics sought to explain to students the differences in learning experience presented by their courses, contrasting the open-ended enquiry of the design studio with course components more designed for knowledge transmission, and which create vital space for reflection on overall learning. Evidence suggested that learning in design, as a novel experience, was initially challenging, and that the peer community played a central role in developing understanding of how others interpret projects and tutor guidance. Indeed, where guidance was unclear, peers often sought to establish clarity through collective interpretation.

The distinction in learning methods was clear to all students, a number of whom categorised non-studio modules as being individually oriented, and involving processes requiring less interaction. Indeed they portrayed non-studio learning as being a more ‘private’ activity, employing pedagogies perceived to be similar to those of secondary education. This suggested the presence of familiar ground, greater confidence and hence less need for support.

The Value of Community

Consistent with the literature on studio-based learning in design (inter alia Fisher 2000, Koch et al. 2002), students and staff greatly valued the spirit of community and personal interaction fostered by the studio environment. Tutors identified the integrated learning environment engendered by the setting, in which the studio was seen to facilitate interaction that is both social and academic in nature. Students deemed this sense of community particularly successful within discreet cohorts, with less informal interaction experienced across years. Moreover, their responses demonstrated clear recognition of the role and value of peer interaction in the learning processes of the design studio, with particular reference to dialogue, sharing ideas, and the development of personal confidence.

Visual interaction was also valued, with the ability to view the processes and outputs of others acknowledged as means of promoting learning. Although the data did not reveal much about the specific nature of peer dialogue, it suggested an ongoing discourse relating to process, the validity of ideas, and rates of progress. It also emerged that students rehearse the articulation of rationale and reasoning as these are regarded as central to the review process and one’s ability to perform well. The data also suggested that dialogue deepens over time as students build relationships with like-minded individuals. As shall be seen, the data revealed key differences in the perception of tutor and peer dialogue, and an important differentiation in the role and value that students attribute to each. The time-based dynamic of studio activity was also recognised, where tutor and peer interaction fluctuates according to the stage of the project and the needs of the individual.

Both students and tutors recognised that informal, spontaneous peer dialogue tends to occur along Darwinian principles, with academically stronger, or more motivated students seeking out those that they recognise as offering benefit to their individual work. Thus, social student groupings within the cohorts were typically united by common aptitudes and attitudes. This has implications were peer interaction to become formalised within the learning process, and were there to be a pedagogic need to manage interaction within a cohort. However, academics also identified that peer groups can be united thematically through common interest, inviting the exchange of certain ideas or concepts, and facilitating deeper learning through the sharing of materials, references, and perspectives, especially in the later stages.

The geography of the physical environment was regarded by students as central to effective interaction, through proximity of spaces, perceptions of accessibility or exclusion, etc. Reference was made to casual interaction being more effective where students of different stages share the same space, as proximity helps nurture relationships and overcome inhibitions arising when students lack the confidence to enter the territory of their seniors. Although neither school utilised vertical studios as a structural course component, there was some tutor recognition of benefits such mechanisms can offer in terms of interaction between cohorts. As an illustration, one student remarked that his perception of senior students in architecture school recalled the remoteness with which he viewed senior students at secondary school; interaction was a matter of social confidence, which careful management of space could affect.

More formally, the success of peer interaction across years was also seen to be contingent on facilitation by tutors. The proximity of other students’ work, of varying abilities, that allows students to gauge the relative merits of their own work, was seen as a significant benefit of design studio. This implicit learning process, and catalyst for discourse, was linked to both a competitive interest between students within a cohort, and the creation of opportunities whereby students could share the skills and collective resource-base of the community.

In summary, the community fostered by the studio setting was highly valued by students and tutors, especially for the social interaction it facilitates, formally and informally, and the constant exposure to the work and ideas of others. There is a tendency for like-minded students to seek each other out in a process that can develop deep relationships over time. However, in situations of formalised peer interaction, such behaviours require to be carefully managed.

The Value of Peer Dialogue

Figure 1 indicates that, despite slight differences between schools in the degree of importance attributed to peer dialogue in the studio, nearly all respondents regarded discussion with their peers as being of importance in the context of studio-based learning. Indeed, over 85% of respondents in both schools regarded it as being either ‘important’ or ‘very important’.

Figure 1 Student perceptions of the importance of peer dialogue.

The principal justification for these perceptions lay in the ability studio provides to develop understanding of different approaches, to share ideas, and appreciate different viewpoints, as the quote below infers:

“I think that other people, no matter what they’re like, might be able to give you a new perspective on a building. It might not be on the design, it could be on the brief or whatever…it’s just an opinion to make you think about your work in a new way.” (student)

As illustrated in Figure 2, exposure to diverse opinions was considered overwhelmingly positive as it broadens personal perspectives and approaches, and contributes to the practice of discussing architecture. The latter builds confidence which in turn enhances engagement, motivation, and reflective capacity (von Glaserfeld 1989, Goatly 1999).

Figure 2 Student perceptions of the benefits of peer discussion.

However, other benefits were cited by respondents, including discussion of shared difficulties, understanding comparative levels of progress, and fostering a spirit of mutual support. It also serves to moderate the sense of conflict (Anthony 1991) that can arise through subjectivity and the variety of perspectives this commonly introduces. Negative aspects included the view that peer discussion can lack specificity, is prone to variability in quality, and is thus deemed less reliable than tutor input. In both schools there was little interaction between years, this being principally a consequence of spatial geographies.

Peer feedback is vital to the development of an individual’s capacity for self-assessment, and the assertion of Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) that feedback from peers and tutors offers viewpoints that challenge the student to re-evaluate their knowledge and beliefs, is borne out by the findings. Although the data did not offer a detailed insight into the nature of discussion, it generally indicated that much of the dialogue, which tends to be continuous, is centred on the design process, the discussion of ideas, and rates of progress. Equally, it offered a context in which arguments could be tested and rehearsed ahead of formal reviews, which are evidently considered significant events in the studio experience.

Peer interaction was also noted as a means by which students benchmark themselves against one another, and gauge personal progress. There was considerable evidence that peer discussion is a major source of reassurance for students navigating the relatively uncertain world of the design studio. Within this setting, the tutor remains the authority against whose views the students assess their individual progress and objectives. However, as shall be discussed later, the perception of tutor ‘inconsistency’ emerged with regularity, founded on experience of the difficulty commonly encountered by architecture students in terms of the subjectivity, variety of valid perspectives, positions, and approaches, and lack of absolutes that the define the subject (inter alia Schön 1985, Anthony 1991).

In summary, peer dialogue was found to be highly valued by students for a number of reasons. These include exposure to different perspectives, opinions and approaches, discussion of process and objectives, mutual support in conditions of uncertainty, and benchmarking of progress.

Active and Passive Learning

Research suggests that confusion exists over what students recognise as constituting feedback, leading to the seemingly anomalous weak score in audits such as the National Student Survey (Williams & Kane 2008). Conversely, viewed overall the data revealed that the students clearly identified peer dialogue as a form of feedback. However, considered alongside accompanying qualitative data, Figure 3 suggests that students interpreted the reference to ‘helpfulness’ in the survey question within the context of project completion and performance, resulting in tutor-led forms of feedback being rated most highly.

Figure 3 Student perceptions of most helpful form of feedback during studio projects.

Commentary relating to ‘discussion’ include reference to tutor and peer dialogue. Nevertheless, respondents did not view peer dialogue as being directly equivalent to, and interchangeable with, tutor feedback. Rather, they considered peer dialogue as having a distinct, complementary role in the developmental process, one that was capable of acquiring an equivalent status to tutor feedback (dependent on trust and perceptions of quality). Of particular note was the differentiation that students articulated between the nature of the learning that occurs respectively in peer and tutor dialogue:

“If I sit down with one of my friends we’ll have proper discussion and I can work things through with them right there. My design might evolve quite a bit while we’re talking and I’ll make decisions while we’re talking whereas, when I’m with a tutor I won’t make any decisions while we’re talking.” (Student)

The above statement portrays tutorial discussion as a more passive process where action takes place after its contents have been assimilated. In marked contrast, peer feedback was portrayed as a more active and discursive process, in the spirit of Schön’s ‘reflection-in-action’ (1983, p49), where ideas move forward more constructively through decision-making during the discursive process. Consistent with the concept of ‘cognitive conflict’, students expressed greater ease in openly debating ideas with peers, describing this as introducing a different dynamic in which ideas are discussed, tested, and decisions made. They also expressed willingness to intervene actively in each other’s work and collaboratively push designs forward between formal tutorials. These findings correspond with the observation of Boud et al. (1985) that critical enquiry and reflection is often made easier in the absence of tutors.

“I think it [tutor discussion] gets me less far in development because a talk with the tutor seems like a talk from them… If I sit down with one of my friends we’ll have a proper discussion and I can work things through with them right there.” (Student)

“They [tutors] often say they’re not going to draw anything for you but if you’re with your friend they might sketch it out and say try this.” (Student)

Students regarded peer interaction as allowing more in-depth discussion on the relative merits of design proposals without focusing on particular outcomes. Similarly, it was suggested that interaction of this kind was better suited to discussions about working process rather than the form of final architectural outputs. As students often strive to establish a process of working that enhances individual outputs, this was regarded as a particularly strong aspect of peer review. Indeed it echoes Piaget’s (1985) assertion that peer co-operation is central in developing reflective, discursive and critical abilities (cited in Falchikov 2001, p87). On the other hand, tutors noted the risk of peer feedback suppressing ambition, emphasising the importance of its adoption alongside other pedagogical methods.

Across both schools, staff recognised a value in peer feedback processes, and expressed the desire for greater evidence of continuous dialogue. However, it was clear that students were generally reluctant to openly share ideas informally in the presence of tutors. The formation of cliques was identified by staff as being detrimental to the cohort dynamic, especially where able students group together introducing hierarchies within the cohort. For this reason, there was consensus that a degree of management is required in establishing a culture of peer interaction. Both schools had explored the use of formal peer review processes, with a range of views expressed about their success. The primary area of concern identified related to the changes in the nature of interaction that the introduction of formalised processes brings, and the resultant loss of the freedom associated with informal dialogue. This view closely corresponded with student perceptions. The contrast in perception between the role of the formal tutorial and informal peer discussion conveys these processes as complementary within learning. The fact that active learning appears to more readily occur through peer interaction may be viewed as a function of two distinct factors. The first relates to the more hierarchical relationship between tutor and student as respective knowledge holder and knowledge seeker (Dutton 1991), and the second to a more prosaic requirement for tutors to limit the time they afford individual students, thereby limiting the opportunity for deeper tutorial discussion. Of these, it was the latter that initially registered most strongly amongst students, who made comparative observations about the extent of tutorial time relative to the opportunities for peer dialogue. However, the issue of power underpinned many student responses, as well as emerging in tutor views of peer dialogue.

In summary, responses indicate a distinction in behaviours between peer dialogue and tutor discussion. The former was regarded as a more active, dynamic process akin to reflection-in-action, while the latter was seen as more passive and akin to reflection-on-action. Debate was considered more open when between peers, although the precise nature of such discussions was not explored.

Power Dynamics

Ever since Dutton’s work in 1991, the existence and implications of ‘power asymmetries’ within the learning process has been widely acknowledged. Yet there remain many behaviours and phenomena in architecture education that result from the negative manifestations of power. As communication between tutor and student is fundamental to the issue of feedback, it is unsurprising that the findings revealed perspectives with a strong correlation to the imbalances to which Dutton refers, and to which much subsequent research alludes (inter alia Salama & Wilkinson 2007). Contrastingly, evidence indicated that the trusting nature of peer relationships permits a directness that, in the context of tutor discussions, is sometimes seen to be moderated by the tutor for fear of causing upset. This finding presents an interesting corollary to the common portrayal of tutor power as an agent of judgment rather than protection of the individual. Despite this, the overall findings strongly acknowledged the role that peer dialogue can play in mitigating the negative consequences of power. Importantly, however, students recognised the authority and credibility of tutor input at points such as formal reviews, and in doing so acknowledged that power relationships necessarily change over the duration of a project.

In an informal setting, the broad equivalency of students in a cohort in terms of academic level was considered a fundamental enabler of peer dialogue and feedback. Such notions of equality, and the absence of power, recall Habermas’ concept of the ‘ideal speech act’ (1970, p364) in which any differential in authority between parties is negated through the liberation of interaction and the mutuality of learning (Habermas in Baker et al. 2002). As individuals have also formed social bonds, conversation is capable of being direct without causing offence or hurt. This establishes a sense of ‘safety’ in which the challenges arising from multiple perspectives that Anthony (1991) referred to, can be positively re-conceptualised as Piaget’s cognitive conflict (1985). It also alludes to the removal of the power relationship that pervades the tutor-student context. As intimated below, students noted that interaction tends to be between friends rather than extending across the breadth of the cohort, and that it tends to develop organically through social relationships.

“It [informal peer dialogue] really only happens now if you’re friends with someone who likes that way of working.” (Student)

“[We] share books, reads and precedents.” (Student)

It was noted that the trust invested by peers in one another is critical to the value of exchange, and determined the extent to which students felt confident to express ideas about the work of another. However, these quotes also suggest that a degree of empathy relating to interest or approach is also significant. Although the benefits to the development of skills such as reflection were noted:

“[Peer interaction] gives another point of view, and they can crit your work better than you can do it yourself.” (Student)

limitations of a peer-led process were also identified:

“It develops our critical skills and pushes us on, but sometimes we get stuck in mutual mediocrity and it needs someone to push us on.” (Student)

“[Discussions] don’t give us the confidence to follow each other’s advice, being inexperienced yet.” (Student)

This latter point acknowledges the authority of the tutor, which in some students elicits a deferential response and hence constructs power asymmetry. Indeed, due to experience and qualifications, tutor feedback was regarded as being more trustworthy and reliable, leading to an expectation that authority will, or should, be conveyed in the tutor-student relationship at points in the project. The other most clearly identified factor that introduces asymmetry related to grades, this being consistent with Anthony’s (1991) observations. Given the importance with which grades are imbued, students identified peer interaction as a valuable means of understanding them in the context of the broader work of the cohort. As summative assessment is perceived by students to be a definitive indicator of individual performance, it invests the tutor with considerable power. Indeed, student focus group discussion revealed a preoccupation with grades underpinning the perceptions and actions of many students. Much reference was made by academics to this preoccupation. The view was strongly expressed that this typically develops through prior learning, and that it represents a significant impediment to effective dialogic learning. It was considered to promote notions of authority and power in opposition to any efforts being made to develop understanding of the role of critique, or to address negative student assumptions and behaviours.

Perceptions of tutor ‘inconsistency’ registered strongly amongst students, particularly in relation to differing opinions and guidance. This was especially true amongst the lower years. Paradoxically, within the neutral and informal context of peer dialogue, students welcomed diversity of perspective, but viewed it as more problematic within the context of desk-based tutor discussion as it challenges students to take a stance, or confronts them with the need to reconcile individual ideas with the tutor expertise. This corresponds with Piaget’s (1985) observation that conflict amongst peers can be a positive agent, but with tutors is often viewed negatively. While the informality of peer input enabled students to exercise their individual judgement about what guidance to accept or discard, this did not translate to tutor dialogue. Student perceptions of inconsistency were echoed by staff from both schools, who believed that greater understanding of, and exposure to, the diversity of opinion amongst tutors benefits understanding of this as a defining condition of architecture rather than a perceived flaw within the educational process. Additionally, inconsistency was judged to result from poor communication between members of tutor teams, and between those responsible for different course components. It was also related to inequity of tutorial time afforded to different students.

Data revealed that some students, driven by the desire to achieve high grades, attempted to undertake their work tactically by seeking to elicit tutor approval. This behaviour, akin to that of Schön’s notion of the counter-learners (1983), was found to occur more subtly than emulating a strategic approach or parti. Where individual tutors were seen to have particular inclinations or interests, such as towards structural systems, students may seek to replicate this focus in an attempt to curry favour through alignment of interest. However, some tutors had sought to reduce such consequences of power through their teaching methods. For example, in recognition of student behaviours oriented towards tutor endorsement, some indicated that they had moved away from the tradition of drawing their interpretation of a student project.

Academics regarded the issue of difference, which lies at the heart of notions of inconsistency, to be an essential component of the learning experience. Indeed, it was recognised that the tendency to make institutional documentation more explicit, as experienced by both schools, introduces the risk of it becoming overly prescriptive. The view was strongly held that a latitude that enables individuals to convey their personality through a module, activity, or brief is essential to facilitating high quality, engaging learning.

In summary, power dynamics were alluded to in both positive and negative respects. While peer dialogue was acknowledged as being more egalitarian and direct, creating a spirit of trust, it was deemed to have limitations. These were centred on the expertise of the tutor, and the recognition that there is a place for the authority being imposed in order to challenge, stretch and motivate individuals. The award of grades was considered central to the perceived power of the tutor. Staff were highly aware of the student dependencies that this function can cultivate, and thus the need to counter such tendencies.

Understanding Critique

The desire to achieve a transition in the student body from dependent to independent learners who assume responsibility for their own studies lies at the heart of much pedagogic development and research in recent years (Parnell 2001, Bailey & Brannen 2002, Webster 2004), and similarly underpinned staff focus group commentary. Tutors from both schools observed that the processes whereby students are required to articulate explicitly their next steps in the development of their own work represents an area where the quality and value of feedback conversation could be enhanced. In other words, it was felt that feedback processes typically did not require the student to state their response to the received critique. Although some students evidently conveyed an understanding of critique as a fundamental pedagogy within architecture education, most tutors felt that challenges remain with many in developing an understanding that tutor critique does not represent a judgement, but is instead a tool for discussion, evaluation, and reflection. Although student understanding develops over time, the data from both staff and students suggested that a deeper understanding of the expectation that students position themselves in relation to received critique, and in ways that are of personal value to them, requires to be forged in the early stages of study. In other words, student ownership of the process of critique as a constructive tool that promotes development, as opposed to more negative connotations, remains an area requiring further development. These findings have resonance with studies of studio-based in the field of art and design (inter alia Swann 1986, Ashton 1997).

Consequently, with some exceptions, few student contributions suggested that the objective that they adopt their own individual positions was widely understood. However, an alternative interpretation is that the principle is understood, but that student confidence levels prevent many from making the necessary leap of faith that potentially distances them from the tutor’s position. This view was supported by observations that some find it hard to counter the opinion or position of a tutor (another reference to power), this corresponding with the earlier findings about peer dialogue and its perceived value as an alternative, though not equivalent, practice. Nevertheless, students acknowledged that it became easier to enter into discourse with tutors as students progressed through the school. The following statement encapsulates the dilemma:

“I think you get more direction on where to go from tutor discussion, and I think from peers you get more ideas – it doesn’t seem as set in stone as what you would get from the tutor. You’d be more inclined to go with what the tutor said overall.” (Student)

Experientially, some students considered peer feedback to be more pragmatic in content than that received from tutors, the latter being conveyed as sometimes conceptual, ‘over-intellectualised’, or lacking pragmatic realism:

“I was asked to read a book on Utopianism – I don’t have time to do that… The next week they’ll [tutors] ask you about the book and I’ll have to say I haven’t read it. Your peers are more likely to ask you to do something practical…” (Student)

However, evidence suggested that such perceptions were dependent on the immediate context, and were ostensibly driven by what the student regarded as being achievable within the available time and means. The pragmatic moderation of tutor guidance was mirrored by the students’ general tendency to retain studio-based written feedback only for the life of the project. Contrastingly, academics related this phenomenon to the literal manner in which students often interpret guidance. This was seen to be construed as instruction rather than suggestion aimed at provoking the student into taking a personal position, and making individual decisions about their work.

“I asked the student specifically… ‘having heard X’s critique of your model, would you consider rebuilding the model?’ She completely panicked, I could see the blood draining from her face, and she went ’rebuild the model, yes, I’ll rebuild the model’. And I said ‘no, just listen to the question – would you consider rebuilding the model?’ And she went ‘no, I’m not going to rebuild the model, I’m going to do this and this and this’. And I thought ‘breakthrough!” (Tutor)

Transformative realisations, such as that illustrated in the above quote, are borne out of a developing understanding of the learning process as well as a level of self-confidence and trust invested in the tutors involved. By developing the student’s critical awareness of their actions, assumptions, and decisions, transformative learning is facilitated (Mezirow 1997). Such a scenario also recalls the important role of the tutor as provider of commentary (feedback) that challenges the student to develop in ways that peer discussion might not stimulate, and to continually strive to extend oneself. Academics agreed that scenarios such as that above illustrate the need for greater student understanding of the core pedagogic principles.

In summary, the salient finding was the shared belief of tutors and students that the purpose of critique is not sufficiently understood. Findings revealed a need to develop deeper student understanding of expectations regarding the adoption of individual positions, and the role of feedback in provoking or stimulating individual thinking.

Peer Feedback: Formal or Informal?

The great majority of student respondents (approx. 82.5%) considered studio modules to promote peer feedback and interaction (see Figure 4), this corresponding with perceptions of the importance of peer dialogue.

Figure 4 Do modules promote peer feedback and interaction?

However, with interpretation of what formalised peer interaction might entail being left to the respondent, considerably fewer considered that it should become a formal part of the learning process, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Student perceptions of whether feedback should be a formal part of learning.

The principal reason cited for this related to the organic nature of informal conversation, the quality of which, many felt would be lost through formalisation. The students from one school noted that peer discussion is always informal, which they regarded as important, whilst in the other, informality was the norm. Students believed that where more formalised processes are introduced, the nature and effectiveness of discourse can significantly alter. Accordingly, their views clearly indicated that the openness of informal peer dialogue was what they valued most as it facilitates decision-making about how students wish to present and discuss their work. Some likened it to an ‘informal review’, commenting that it is only effective when staff are absent, once again echoing Boud et al. (1985). However, students also saw interaction as input that they can heed or discard at will, whereas integration into a formal process that, in the mind of students, is often strongly associated with grading and performance, elevates the importance of peer input beyond its perceived value. The following comments reveal the limitation:

“I don’t want to hear the opinion of the guy I’ve been sitting beside all year, I want to hear what the qualified architect has to say.” (Student)

“I only want someone who’s doing well in the year to be reviewing my work because if it’s someone who is doing worse than me, what’s the point?” (Student)

Clearly, efficacy relates to the perceived credibility of the person giving feedback, and indeed to the stage of the work, as this will determine the nature of the information that the student is seeking. Data demonstrated that as design work progresses, so too does the thirst for more specific, individualised discussion. Equally, as development progresses from the strategic to the detailed, the desire for solutions, as opposed to options, grows. Moreover, the tendency exists for students to discuss peer feedback in terms of the immediate design problem and their individual solutions, whereas the tutor can refer to a wider body of knowledge, including precedent and theory that defines development in broader, and perhaps more challenging terms.

In seeking to address power asymmetries, both schools had introduced student-led processes which, although formal, were purely formative. However, students were found to commonly confuse the studio review process with summative assessment, whilst in both schools these processes were separate. The fact that both processes independently focus on student outputs lay at the root of such confusion. Despite both schools having experimented with peer assessment in an effort to reduce perceptions of the totality of tutor power, there was a strong argument from tutors in both schools that whereas peer interaction is fundamental to the promotion of a studio culture, peer-assessment has drawbacks. These included the effective incorporation of weaker students into the assessment process without impacting detrimentally on the experience for more able peers. Although both tutor groups had utilised formalised formative peer review processes, reservations were expressed about their formalisation, largely due to perceptions that it tends to be more beneficial to ‘stronger’, more vocal students.

“The strong students discuss a lot between themselves and I think groups of friends. But probably stronger students get the most out of their peers because they’re the ones most interested…” (Tutor)

It was considered that more confident and forthcoming students were more likely to participate in an informal or formalised process, and form groupings with those more able. Less able students were seen as reticent in contributing to formal peer review events, particularly when those events related to individual design proposals, and the exposure that these bring, rather than group work.

Whilst staff and students acknowledged that formal peer assessment can contribute to summative processes and, in doing so, help moderate the influence or prejudice of the tutor, the students similarly identified limitations. In particular they observed that where reviews are held close to the point of summative assessment, the nature of the dialogue changes. Elaborating further, it was suggested that some students seek to expose flaws in the work of others so as to shine a brighter light on their own efforts as assessment approaches, such behaviour being borne out of a desire to defend their own work. Equally, formalised peer review occurring close to a summative point was seen by some students as an opportunity for individuals to ‘perform’ in front of tutors, shifting the balance from the equity of informal dialogue towards a form of asymmetry. Thereby, power is introduced in the behaviour of students as it begins to mirror that of tutors.

However, when considering opportunity for greater vertical interaction within the schools, there appeared to be a greater student appetite for a degree of formalisation. Indeed, the desire for the involvement of senior students was expressed widely, although it was recognised that arrangements would need to be carefully managed in order to avoid the work of senior students being compromised. Equally, and contrary to the issues above, some students viewed structured peer interaction as being of value as it broadens the base of opinion from which to draw through widening the network beyond that of the individual’s immediate circle. The existence of student cliques within larger cohorts, as revealed by earlier student comments about the importance of selecting collaborators in peer dialogue, was considered by some staff as a limitation to overall learning. A number of tutors viewed formalisation of peer review processes as a means of subverting such patterns of behaviour.

Strategically, however, academics felt that there are limits to the value of peer interaction, as it was seen as potentially constraining ambition, and not necessarily a process that encourages students to extend themselves. This emphasises the fact that formalised peer interaction, if adopted, forms only one component of studio-based pedagogy, one that has both benefits and limitations. It is evident from perceptions recorded that the principal property of peer interaction is its potential to moderate issues of power. It therefore follows that it must be carefully balanced with tutor input in order to maintain an appropriate level of challenge. This in turn suggests the importance of careful design of learning and assessment methods so as to capitalise on both the more liberated discourse that peer-led discussion can generate, and the authority of the tutor at appropriate points in the process that challenges the student to realise their full potential. Such design will be determined by the specific learning objectives involved, the nature of the project (e.g. individual or group based), and the level of study of the students. However, effective implementation is also dependent on the tutor’s ability to recognise and spontaneously respond to the learning behaviours exhibited by individuals or groups at a point in time.

In summary, students particularly valued the organic nature of informal peer dialogue and feedback, and expressed concern that these qualities can be lost through formalisation. It was acknowledged that formalisation alters the nature of conversations, and has the potential to introduce power dynamics between students, especially if associated with a summative context. Although formal peer review had been explored in both schools, tutors and students recognised the potential for more limited discussion and the constraining of ambition. Such possibilities call for care in the design of learning, and skill and responsiveness on the part of the tutor.

Conclusions

The study reinforces two fundamental points; the first that the studio environment remains a critically important community setting for learning in architectural design, and the second that feedback constitutes a complex and often subtle area whose efficacy is contingent on personality and ability as well as carefully defined procedures. The findings suggest that a deeper understanding of the relationships between tutor and peer dialogue, or feedback, and between informal and formal elements of the learning process is beneficial to the design of studio-based learning in architectural design. Such an understanding can also contribute to enhancing feedback practices and to improving related student perceptions.

The view of students that the informal, socially-based peer interaction that characterises the studio is complementary to, and quite distinct from, the learning derived through tutor interaction, is valuable in structuring the studio both as a physical place and as an activity or event. Equally, the findings articulate the respective properties of informal and informally derived feedback that make a central contribution to the overall quality of studio-based learning. While peer interaction is central to formative learning processes, its role relative to summative processes is more contested. Despite the potential to reduce any negative consequences of tutor power, the capability to do so effectively was found to be compromised when students appropriate power through their behaviours, whether intentionally or sub-consciously. Limitations in the use of peer learning were also identified with respect to its potential to constrain academic ambition, and because of the perceived importance of authoritative tutor guidance in developing student confidence in their work.

The study suggested a number of areas in which further research would be of value.

• It is evident that the value attributed to peer and tutor feedback tends to vary over the duration of a project or course, according to factors such as stage, availability of time, and student ability. A deeper analysis of this would benefit understanding.

• The study did not gather detailed data on the precise nature of peer discussion over the course of a project, nor the patterns of discussion that are respectively generated by weak and strongly performing groups.

• The study of peer review using more formalised review criteria in which both students and tutors are expected to structure their comments through explicit criteria. This would further understanding of issues of power, efficacy and competition.

• Finally, although the findings show that peer dialogue has the potential to mitigate against the negative consequences of power, it is acknowledged that power relationships also contribute valuably, particularly with respect to setting the degree of challenge required for transformational learning. However, the capability of peer dialogue to support transformative learning receives no commentary in the literature and would be a valuable area of study.

Appendix 1. Summary Comparative Course Delivery Information

The following provides brief comparative information on course structure (Part 1), student numbers, staff student ratios and studio provision. This demonstrates strong similarities in approach to course provision by both schools.

Both schools provide dedicated studio space for each year of their course, with tutor contact scheduled for two days per week (typically), albeit with some variation at Part 2. It is expected that students inhabit the studio environment throughout the session, and actively contribute to the studio culture. Throughout each course tutor teams are composed of a combination of academic staff and visiting practitioners.

Award Structure (Part 1)

QUB	RGU
Stage	Module	Credit Weighting	Stage	Module	Credit Weighting
1	Architectural Design 1(i)	30	1	Architectural Design 1	30
	Architectural Design 1(ii)	30		Architectural Design 2	30
	Architectural Skills 1(i)	10		Building Technology 1	15
	Architectural Skills 1(ii)	10		Building Technology 2	15
	Technology & Environ. 1(i)	10		Design Philosophy 1	15
	Technology & Environ. 1(ii)	10		Design Philosophy 2	15
	History & Theory 1(i)	10
	History & Theory 1(ii)	10
2	Architectural Design 2(i)	30	2	Architectural Design 3	30
	Architectural Design 2(ii)	30		Architectural Design 4	30
	Integrative Design 2	20		Building Structure & Tech.	15
	Architectural Skills 2(i)	10		Environment & Services	15
	Technology & Environ. 2(i)	10		Design Philosophy 3	15
	History & Theory 2(i)	10		Design Philosophy 4	15
	History & Theory 2(ii)	10
3	Architectural Design 3(i)	30	3	Architectural Design 5	30
	Architectural Design 3(ii)	30		Architectural Design 6	30
	Integrative Design 3	20		Integrated Building Tech 1	15
	Adv. Technology & Environ.	10		Integrated Building Tech 2	15
	History & Theory 3(i)	10		Design Philosophy 5	15
	History & Theory 3(ii)	10		Professional Practice	15
	Architectural Conservation	10

Course Statistics

QUB	RGU
Session 2010–11	Part 1	211	Session 2010–11	Part 1	180
	Part 2	71		Part 2	92
	Total	295*		Total	272**
	Staff (FTE)	17.5		Staff (FTE)	14.8
	Student Staff Ratio	16.8		Student Staff Ratio	18.4

* This total is typical of the overall cohort at QUB, which demonstrated stable numbers in the years preceding the study. The Staff Student Ratio (SSR) also demonstrated stability over the same period (range from −1% to +3%).

** This is typical of the overall cohort size at RGU. In recent years the SSR has also been stable within a small margin of deviation.

Appendix 2. Questionnaires

The questionnaires related to a broad study of feedback practices within architecture education, and hence addressed a spectrum of areas and issues, only some of which are pertinent to this paper. Consequently, the questionnaire has been distilled to illustrate overall areas of enquiry and highlighting those questions pertaining to this paper.

Questionnaire 1

Table

Area 1	Gender
Area 2	Clarity of course documentation, guidance, and the management of expectations
Area 3	Guidance at start of projects (studio and ‘non-studio’)
Area 4	Guidance in group settings
	• Do you discuss your work with other students in your year? (ranked response) If ‘Yes’, do you find these discussions useful? Why? Why not?
	• How important is this dialogue to the development of your work (ranked response) Why?
Area 5	Individual reflective processes
Area 6	Consistency of staff feedback/area of enhancement
Area 7	Definition and purpose of feedback

Questionnaire 2

Table

Area 1	Gender
Area 2	Guidance at the beginning of a module
Area 3	Written feedback (from tutor)
Area 4	Peer feedback
	• Does the delivery of modules on your course promote peer feedback and interaction? If ‘Yes’, please state how peer feedback/interaction takes place (studio)
	• Should peer feedback be a formal part of the learning process? (Yes/No) If ‘Yes’, please state why. If ‘No’, please state why not
Area 5	Reflection

Appendix 3. Student Focus Groups

As with the questionnaires, the Student and Tutor Focus Groups related to a broad study of feedback practices within architecture education. Hence only some of the questions were pertinent to this paper. The Focus Groups were semi-structured in nature, the interviews structured by the framework of questions shown below (the questions have been distilled to illustrate overall areas of enquiry and highlighting those questions pertaining to this paper):

Table

Area 1	Course information, guidance and the management of expectations
Area 2	Feedback design and practice
	• How often should guidance be provided in studio? Why? How does this differ from your experience?
	• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the format for obtaining guidance in studio?
	• In your opinion how could guidance in studio be made more valuable to you?
Area 3	Peer Discussion and Feedback
	• What is the benefit you derive from discussion of (your) work with your peers?
	• How would you compare it to the benefit you attribute to tutor guidance? What is their relative value?
	• Do you rely on peer feedback more in studio or non-studio? Why are you more reliant on it?
	• In terms of why peer discussion is useful, initial questionnaire responses re studio appear more committed and definite. In studio they predominantly relate to the value in differing opinions and dialogue. Explain this.
	• Does student review of studio work take place through informal discussion or through a more formalised process?
	• How much impact does it have on your design process?
Area 4	Reflection
Area 5	Differing views of tutors
Area 6	Feedback structure
Area 7	Miscellaneous questions