Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
   YU Faculty Websites>>  Dr. A'yah I. Alhusban Sign In
Most theoretical courses are evaluated by formal exams. However, in architecture, most
of the courses are practical ones and are evaluated according to the personal attainment of
skills and knowledge. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the efficiency of the current
evaluation process in addition to the open jury evaluation approach, which is commonly used
in most designing studios in Jordanian public universities. Specifically, this thesis tends to
investigate whether these universities achieve their desired objective of the educational
process through the open jury or not.
 In order to achieve the aim, this thesis reveals both instructors and students' perception
about the evaluation of the projects in design studios. This thesis followed the mixed method
approach: data was collected via direct observation, interviews, and a questionnaire that was
distributed to 231 students and 34 jury members. The data was analyzed using the SPSS
version 19 and content analysis methods.
 This research found that the perceptions of juries about the current evaluation system
followed in Jordanian universities were more positive than students' perceptions. Students
and jurors expressed a lack of clarity regarding the importance of the evaluation elements,
which caused an absence of a unified vision. Both students and jurors agree that there is no
particular tool or criteria used in the current evaluation system in Jordanian universities.
Therefore, most evaluations are based on a subjective system and it needs to be developed
to play a stronger role in architectural education. The researcher created an application that
can be used as an evaluation tool to evaluate the students' projects. Recommendations show
the jury's successful qualities, behaviors they should abide to and the goals that they should
achieve. In addition, this research recommends using the proposed application by jury
members in order to overcome the problems caused by the current evaluation system. This
research calls for more studies and close follow-ups on the topic.