Abstract
In the architectural design education the design studio is considered as the corner stone. In which the students should use their creative problem solving skills to create new buildings. It's a complex activity demanding thinking skills as much as linking knowledge of different arts. In the last few years there has been a growing interest in evaluating the assessment of student's projects in the architectural design studio. From teachers point of view a great effort has been devoted to the study of how to practice the assessments objectively to evaluate and improve the student skills. On the other hand, the student's point of view of the assessment may be totally different.
Several practical questions arise when dealing with those two points of view, should they be totally identical? Is there a gap between them? If there is any, how could this gap be bridged? According to the teacher's point of view, the formative assessment is a mean to align the learning objectives of the design process to the learning curriculum, and to reach the most achievable learning outcomes. According to the Student's point of view, the formative assessment gives him massages about the important design issues, and how to achieve top rank designs. In fact there are some differences between these two points of view, which could be considered as an assessment gap. Both of them could see the types, goals, and concepts of the assessment in a deferent way.
In this paper, the focus of attention is on analyzing and minimizing this assessment gap between these points of views. It's a try to find a frame work for using both the formative and summative assessments to bridge the assessment viewing gap in the architectural education.
To achieve this goal and to answer the above mentioned questions, the research methodology goes through three steps. First, is to shed light through a literature review on the properties of the assessment types and their application in the design studio in the Architectural education. Second, is to carry out a filed study to identify the perception of the assessment goals in the design studios in the student's eye. This is implemented in architectural educational program that is 160 students strong. The study lasted for four consecutive semesters. Third, is to explore alternative procedures for assessment of the design studio searching for one that could serve as a frame work to bridge the assessment gap. The results showed that, there is a scope to improve on the sensitivity of the assessment types, goals, and concepts regarding the design studio in the architectural education.