Scaling Pedagogy: Spiral Curriculum and Collaborative Learning in Response to Sector Pressures

Activity: External talk or presentationOral presentation

Description

As part of a financial strategy within the University of Brighton, which resulted in reduced staffing, the school has reconsidered its approach to teaching in relation to increasing student-staff ratios. To safeguard the quality and integrity of design studio, Architectural Technologies and Humanities have been reformatted at Levels 4 & 5, to support larger cohorts from multiple courses. This resourcing shift has been compounded by a trend among incoming students of decreased general HE academic readiness. Consequently, the technologies curriculum has been restructured at Levels 4 & 5 to separate it from design studio, allowing for more focused delivery through a lecture–workshop hybrid format. Approximately 150 students are now taught at each level, with an average student–staff ratio of 25:1.
At the core of this restructuring is the adoption of a spiral curriculum; students first engage with foundational Technological Principles in Level 4, Level 5 introduces more advanced applications and strategic thinking, whilst Level 6 requires students to integrate technical knowledge into their design studio work. This staged learning continues into Level 7, where students critically test and refine design interventions using computational tools and simulation methods, focusing on the reciprocal environmental impacts of buildings and their contexts. The lecture–workshop format has been central to this approach, allowing for both theoretical understanding in lectures and practical application in collaborative workshops. One of the ongoing challenges in delivering successful group teaching in workshops to actively embed the learning. This has been anchored in the use of global case studies but required substantial investment in the development of the teaching material to ensure that the increasing number of students struggling with engagement (due to work/caring/personal constraints) can still be successful at a baseline level by remotely accessing course materials and working independently.
After implementing this structure over two academic cycles, several core strengths have emerged, alongside areas needing continued development. The sequence of lectures followed by supervised workshops has proven effective. Students are demonstrating solid understanding of technological principles and are increasingly capable of developing technology-literate design strategies that inform design work. This cumulative and scaffolded model strengthens their preparedness for practice and the independent, research-led, and performance-focused investigations typical at Level 7.
However, while Levels 4 and 5 offer structured & collaborative support, the transition to independent learning in Level 6 can leave some students without the necessary confidence or fluency. Although Levels 4 and 5 emphasise collaborative engagement in technological learning, Level 6 shifts towards individual exploration and the development of a personal design position. Whilst full analysis of the outcomes is still underway, preliminary data suggests that the implemented strategies are having a positive impact. Early indicators point to improved progression rates, with an increasing proportion of students attaining A/B grades, an encouraging sign of enhanced academic performance. Moreover, module evaluations indicate a rise in student satisfaction, suggesting that these pedagogical adjustments are successfully addressing some of the challenges posed by larger cohorts and reduced contact time.
Period9 May 2025
Degree of RecognitionNational

Keywords

  • Spiral curriculum
  • Collaborative learning
  • Teaching efficiencies
  • Architectural Technologies