A Comparative Evaluation Model for Design Studio Pedagogy: Linking Educational Objectives and Professional Readiness in Architectural Higher Education

Abstract

Design studios remain a core component of architectural education, yet their pedagogical structure, alignment with international standards, and contribution to professional formation are often insufficiently examined. This study evaluates master-level design studios using a three-track analytical framework that integrates pedagogical innovation, alignment with the UNESCO-UIA Charter for Architectural Education, and the development of professional capabilities specified in the UNESCO-UIA Validation System. The methodology combines qualitative profiling and quantitative benchmarking, employing a structured six-parameter innovation framework, an ordinal evidence scale, and a cross-track correlation analysis. Learning and professional capabilities were assessed and analyzed through Pearson correlation matrices in JASP (0.95.4). Findings reveal that all studios share a common grounding in heritage- and environment-responsive learning, yet demonstrate distinctive pedagogical signatures shaped by thematic focus, design scale, and temporal orientation. Strong positive alignments emerge between context-driven learning and applied professional readiness, while structural gaps indicate capability areas insufficiently supported by studio pedagogies. The study demonstrates that bridging policy frameworks with pedagogical and professional capability assessments provides a replicable method for evaluating architectural curricula, offering insights for improving design-studio models and strengthening evidence-based educational practice.

1. Introduction

1.1. Motivation for the Study: Design Studio Pedagogy

Within architectural higher education (AHE), the design studio has long represented the nucleus of the curriculum [1]—a pedagogical space where theoretical knowledge, technical skills, and creative inquiry converge into a formative learning experience. In most accredited programs, it occupies the highest credit load (ECTS credits), structuring the academic curricula and serving as the transversal axis that connects theoretical courses with elective specialization [2]. As such, the design studio operates as a laboratory of synthesis—a place where conceptual frameworks introduced through theory courses are tested, translated, and critically redefined through design practice. Scholars have widely emphasized that the design studio environment is more than a didactic setting. It is a social and cultural construct that enables students to engage in processes of negotiation, reflection, and experimentation [3,4]. Studies on critical pedagogy in AHE have underlined its empowering potential enabling self-reflexive learning through dialogic exchange, critique, and collective meaning-making [5,6]. These works position the studio as an intellectual arena that cultivates critical thinking, autonomy, and interpretive reasoning, allowing students to question inherited assumptions and develop their own design approach.

Parallel to this, experimental approaches in studio teaching have evolved as a response to limitations of conventional pedagogical models. Research by Ciravoğlu [7], and Tidafi & Iordanova [8] demonstrates how experimental design frameworks through scenario-based and technologically mediated methods foster innovation by encouraging iterative exploration. Similarly, Abdelhamid [9] and Aydemir [10] highlight that experimentation serves as both a mode of inquiry and a method of teaching, bridging conceptual exploration with empirical testing. Building upon these trajectories, the shift toward constructivist and reflective pedagogies has further positioned the design studio as a site for knowledge construction rather than knowledge transmission [11,12]. Within this framework, learning emerges from active engagement and critical reflection—what Schön [13] famously termed reflection-in-action—where design becomes both process and epistemological tool [14]. Constructivist approaches emphasize iterative development, allowing students to build understanding through situated experience, while phenomenological models [15,16,17] expand this by situating design learning within embodied, sensory, and experiential contexts.

Recent research has also reasserted the collaborative [18,19,20] and community-based [21,22,23] research settings, foregrounding peer dialogue, shared authorship, and studio culture as essential components of architectural formation. These studies reveal that learning from others, through critique, debate, and informal peer exchange, strengthens not only design competence but also collective awareness and social responsibility. In this evolving landscape, design studio pedagogy is increasingly understood as a critical platform for cultivating environmentally and socially responsive thinking, aligning with the argument that the studio must operate as a locus where socio-cultural dynamics, collective agency, and civic responsibilities are brought into the core of architectural learning [24]. Emerging models of heritage-based and environmentally sensitive learning [25] expand the ethical dimension of design education by emphasizing continuity, care, and interdependence—key values for regenerative futures [26]. The integration of such frameworks redefines the studio as a space of anticipation, where learning from the existing (from built, natural, and cultural contexts) becomes a pedagogical act of both reflection and projection.

1.2. Transformation of AHE and Its Implications on Design Studio

AHE is undergoing profound transformation under the combined influence of regulatory reform [27], global sustainability imperatives [28], digital transformation [29], and shifting pedagogical paradigms [30] having the design studio as the nucleus of architectural curricula. From its modernist origins as a protected atelier of individual creativity, the design studio is being redefined as a transdisciplinary environment [31] accountable for producing verifiable competencies, ethical awareness, and environmentally responsible mindsets. This paradigmatic change is embedded in a series of international and European frameworks that have reshaped the philosophy and standards of AHE.

The UNESCO–UIA Charter for Architectural Education [32] sets the broadest global benchmark by articulating education as a social and environmental responsibility. It calls for pedagogies that balance technical and aesthetic expertise with commitment to sustainable human settlements, insisting on continuous interaction between practice and academia through interdisciplinary juries and external evaluation. Similarly, the RIBA Education and Professional Development Framework [33], and the ARB Modernising Education and Training Initiative [27] converge around outcome-based competence models, moving accreditation from prescriptive curricular content toward measurable learning results. These standards highlight climate literacy [34], wellbeing, ethical agency, and social purpose as core competencies of the twenty-first-century architect, emphasizing flexibility in learning pathways and the integration of lifelong professional development. Together, they reposition the design studio from a format centered on representation and critique toward a framework oriented around demonstrable knowledge, skills, and behavioral capabilities.

In Europe, this educational shift aligns with broader cultural and environmental policy agendas. The New European Bauhaus (NEB) [35] embodies the integration of sustainability, beauty, and social inclusion, calling on architecture schools to cultivate multidisciplinary collaboration [36] and tangible experimentation with materials, circular systems, and participatory processes. The Architects’ Council of Europe [37] reinforces this direction by promoting continuous professional development and international mobility, noting both progress in gender balance and the rising share of low-energy design practices. Yet, research indicates a persistent implementation gap: a majority of students remain unaware of NEB principles, signaling the need for intentional curricular integration of European Green Deal [38] and NEB content [35]. This aligns with UNESCO’s Greening Curriculum Guidance [39], which advocates for climate education that is action-oriented, justice-driven, and learner-centered—embedding cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral outcomes into every level of instruction. Case studies from Australasia [34] and Central Europe [40] confirm that without such deliberate integration, students struggle to translate sustainability theory into actionable design competence, underscoring the urgency of reorienting studio projects toward experiential, process-based learning that links ecological diagnostics, post-occupancy evaluation, and circular design strategies [41,42].

Parallel to the sustainability agenda, the digitalization of architecture education has transformed both methodology and content [43]. Research identifies an expanding field encompassing BIM-enabled learning [44], simulation, digital fabrication, and immersive technologies [45]. Far from serving as mere representational tools, these technologies are recasting the epistemology of design teaching introducing parametric reasoning, data literacy, and systemic understanding of buildings and territories. At the same time, studies highlight the pedagogical challenge of maintaining humanistic and reflective dimensions within digitally augmented environments, calling for didactic frameworks that integrate technological capability with critical interpretation and design ethics. Concurrently, a strong social turn in architectural pedagogy has emerged through community-based [23] and service-learning models [46] that advocate reciprocity between academia and society. These approaches blur the boundary between the studio and the field, promoting co-creation with communities, experiential learning, and structured reflection as integral components of design education. Interdisciplinary collaboration further extends this logic, as documented in recent design-based research linking architecture with engineering, education, and environmental sciences [47,48]. Within these transdisciplinary frameworks, the studio becomes a laboratory for integrated problem-solving, where communication, negotiation, and shared authorship are cultivated as key learning outcomes.

Finally, outcome-based accreditation and accountability trends have foregrounded the question of assessment. Frameworks developed across institutions and accreditation bodies emphasize the need for transparent measurement of student competencies through both direct and indirect evaluation methods [49,50]. The studio, traditionally reliant on subjective critique, is now challenged to provide evidence of learning that aligns with explicit competency maps encompassing technical, ecological, social, and ethical dimensions. Within this complex landscape, transformative and constructivist theories provide conceptual grounding. The works of Mackintosh [51], and Deamer [52] reaffirm the studio as a site of reflective practice and experiential transformation—a space where worldviews evolve through iterative making, dialogue, and embodied experience.

Taken together, these shifts constitute a profound redefinition of AHE. The design studio now operates as a hybrid pedagogical system—simultaneously outcome-based and open-ended, local and transnational, digital and tactile, research-driven and community-engaged. Its transformation encapsulates the broader evolution of architectural pedagogy from a culture of individual creativity to a platform for collective inquiry and planetary responsibility. For the purposes of this study, such a framework sets the groundwork for exploring spa settlements as pedagogical laboratories—contexts where environmental sensitivity, heritage continuity, and experiential learning converge, offering concrete grounds on which the evolving paradigms of AHE can be tested, compared, and further advanced.

1.3. Paper Outline

Despite the long-established role of the design studio as the nucleus of AHE, the systematic integration of heritage- and environment-oriented pedagogies within outcome-based educational frameworks remains insufficiently theorized and empirically tested. While recent international policies have articulated the need for measurable competencies [32,53], few studies have demonstrated how such frameworks are operationalized through concrete studio models. Likewise, although a growing body of literature recognizes the studio as a laboratory for innovation and social engagement, there is a lack of comparative, evidence-based analyses that connect pedagogical experimentation to both policy standards and professional readiness.

This research addresses that gap by examining how design studio pedagogy can function simultaneously as: (1) a site of learning—where internationally defined academic and policy objectives are met and reinterpreted, (2) a site of innovation—where experimental pedagogies reconfigure relationships between design, heritage, and environment, and (3) a site of professional formation—where academic learning transitions into professional competence and practice. The study explores these dimensions through five master-level design studios implemented at the University of Belgrade—Faculty of Architecture (UB–FA) between 2022 and 2025, each conceived as a pedagogical experiment within the HERSUS and SPATTERN research frameworks. These studios collectively form a comparative corpus for testing and advancing environmentally sensitive and heritage-based design education.

Building upon this framework, the study is guided by four research questions (RQ) corresponding to the analytical tracks introduced in Section 2.3:

• RQ1 (Pedagogical Innovation/Site of Innovation): How do different design studio models manifest innovation in pedagogical focus, design scale, temporal orientation, and conceptual approach to heritage and sustainability within the SPATTERN comparative framework?
• RQ2 (Policy Alignment/Site of Learning): To what extent do the analysed design studios align with the learning outcomes and capabilities defined by the UNESCO–UIA Charter for Architectural Education, and how do heritage and environmental contexts reinforce or challenge this alignment?
• RQ3 (Professional Competence/Site of Professional Formation): How do the studied design studios cultivate professional competencies in line with the UNESCO–UIA Validation System, and which pedagogical strategies most effectively translate academic experimentation into practice readiness?
• RQ4 (Cross-Track Relationships/Systemic Linkages): What systemic relationships can be identified between academic learning capabilities and professional competence domains, and how do these relationships reflect the integrative pedagogical function of the design studio?

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 (Methods and Materials) outlines the methodological framework, describing the conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation phases across the five design studios. The section includes detailed descriptions of each analytical track and the instruments used for data collection and coding. Section 3 (Results) presents the outcomes of the three-track analysis, synthesizing the comparative findings through heat maps and interpretive narratives. Section 4 (Discussion) interprets the results through cross-track analytical insights and discusses the broader implications, transferability, and limitations of the proposed evaluation model. Finally, Section 5 (Concluding Remarks) summarizes the implications of this research for curriculum development, accreditation frameworks, and future directions in design studio pedagogy.

1.4. Core Contribution of This Study

This study makes a dual contribution to research on architectural design studio pedagogy by advancing both a conceptual and a methodological framework for evaluating studio-based education within AHE. At the conceptual level, the paper positions the design studio as a multi-layered educational framework in which pedagogical innovation, policy-defined learning objectives, and professional formation intersect. By simultaneously addressing these dimensions, the study moves beyond isolated evaluations of studio content or learning outcomes and instead frames the design studio as an integrative environment. At the methodological level, the core contribution lies in the development of a three-track comparative evaluation model that operationalizes internationally recognized frameworks within real studio settings. The model combines qualitative pedagogical profiling, ordinal evidence-based scoring, and cross-track correlation analysis, enabling a systematic examination of how learning capabilities translate into professional competencies across different studio models.

By applying this integrated model to five master-level design studios grounded in heritage- and environment-responsive contexts of spa settlements, the study demonstrates how international policy frameworks can be embedded into studio pedagogy without constraining pedagogical innovation. In doing so, it offers a transferable evaluative methodology for educators, curriculum developers, and accreditation bodies seeking evidence-based tools to assess design studio education.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological approach adopted in this study is structured as a three-phase analytical framework—conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation—designed to systematically examine the pedagogical performance, methodological differentiation, and professional relevance of five master-level design studios. Each phase contributes a distinct layer of insight (Figure 1): (1) the conceptualization phase establishes the pedagogical and spatial foundations of the studio models, (2) the implementation phase contextualizes their academic and organizational realization, while (3) the evaluation phase integrates policy alignment, pedagogical innovation, and professional competence into a coherent comparative system. The subsections that follow provide a detailed explanation of each methodological phase.

2.1. Conceptualization of the Design Studio Framework

The first phase, conceptualization, involved the systematic development of five design studios conducted at the master level within the UB–FA. Each studio was conceived as an independent pedagogical experiment yet aligned with a shared analytical framework, allowing comparative insights into different educational orientations. The studios differ in their (1) academic positioning (combined studio–seminar format, or diploma design studio) and (2) program affiliation (Master Studies in Architecture—Module Architecture—MASA, and Integrated Single-Cycle 5-Year Studies in Architecture—IASA). The conceptualization process was guided by the intent to construct a transversal comparative platform that bridges multiple pedagogical dimensions: design scale (from architectural object to territorial framework), temporal perspective (from conservation to anticipation), and thematic focus (from cultural identity to environmental resilience). Each studio was designed to explore a distinct approach emerging from the broader HERSUS and SPATTERN research contexts, ensuring thematic diversity while maintaining methodological coherence.

2.1.1. HERSUS Research Context: Developing Environmentally Sensitive Pedagogies

The conceptual foundation of this study builds upon the outcomes of the HERSUS Project—Enhancing of Heritage Awareness and Sustainability of the Built Environment in Architectural and Urban Design Higher Education (Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership, 2020–2023). The project established a shared European framework for the design and development of environmentally sensitive design pedagogies, introducing three complementary strands: (1) heritage-driven curricula—emphasizing the integration of built heritage and sustainability principles into architectural design education, (2) re-strategies—promoting adaptive reuse, circularity, and care-based design approaches, and (3) methodological frameworks—encouraging reflection, peer learning, and transdisciplinary collaboration across partner institutions.

Within the HERSUS intellectual outputs, two resources directly informed the conceptualization of the UB–FA studio framework. The first, Statements for Teaching through Design for Sustainability of the Built Environment and Heritage Awareness [54], developed a shared vocabulary of notions and design strategies that articulate key relationships between heritage awareness, sustainability, and pedagogy. The second, Book of Courses [55], provided a structured pedagogical compendium of tested course models and learning outcomes, serving as a didactic framework for integrating heritage-based and sustainability-oriented content within AHE. Through these outcomes, the HERSUS project provided the methodological and thematic framework for conceptualizing the five design studios analyzed in this study. It positioned heritage not as a static category, but as a dynamic medium for advancing environmentally sensitive and socially engaged architectural education. The project’s emphasis on learning from the existing, no-demolish pedagogies, and regenerative futures directly informed the educational objectives and design briefs developed in the subsequent SPATTERN framework.

2.1.2. SPATTERN Research Context: Spatial and Observational Framework

The SPATTERN Project—Future Heritage of Spa Settlements: Digital Platform for Advancing Knowledge and Innovation in Urban Morphology Approach for Environmentally Sensitive Development in Serbia (Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, PRISMA Program, 2023–2026) provides the spatial and observational framework for the continuation and testing of the pedagogical concepts developed within HERSUS. While HERSUS established the methodological and thematic foundations, SPATTERN translates these into a context-specific application by situating design learning within the empirical and morphological study of spa settlements. SPATTERN advances the testing and comparison of environmentally sensitive design pedagogies through two key conceptual mechanisms [56]: (1) the observatory framework, which functions as a platform for collecting, visualizing, and evaluating design outputs across different studios, enabling comparative analysis and cumulative knowledge production, and (2) the spascapes framework, which conceptualizes spa settlements as pedagogical laboratories where the interrelation of natural, cultural, and urban systems can be explored through design.

Within this spatial framework, the design studio becomes an analytical and experimental environment for articulating (1) the sixfold structure of urban dimensions (historical trajectories, naturescapes of urbanization, transformation of public spaces, programming of spascapes, therapeutic dimension, and everyday life), alongside (2) six primary landscape types that define the spatial identity of spa settlements—hydrothermal, therapeutic, cultural-historical, urban, ecological, and recreational landscapes. The notion of heritage in this context extends from the material and architectural to the ecological and experiential, positioning spa settlements as living laboratories for future-oriented heritage and regenerative pedagogies. Together, the HERSUS and SPATTERN contexts establish continuity in pedagogical innovation, from the development of methodological and curricular models to their spatial and empirical testing, thus providing the conceptual backbone of the comparative studio framework presented in this research.

2.2. Implementation Context

The implementation phase operationalized the conceptual model across five master-level design studios realized at the UB-FA between 2022 and 2025. Each studio represented an autonomous pedagogical setting, yet all were developed within a coherent methodological framework defined through the HERSUS and SPATTERN research contexts. The implementation of studios followed two complementary layers: (1) a thematic and methodological layer—captured in the design approaches, methods, outcomes, and values, and (2) an academic and organizational layer—defining the institutional context, level, duration, and structure of each studio.

Table 1. Overview of thematic and methodological approaches.

Design Studio (DS) Code	Approach	Core Idea	Key Methods	Outcomes	Values
DS1	Heritage Reprogramming Design Approach	Heritage as a dynamic resource to be reprogrammed for contemporary uses without demolition	Critical mapping, adaptive reuse, scenario design	New programmatic typologies rooted in inherited structures	Circularity, care for the existing, long-term adaptability
DS2	Multisensory Design Approach	Engaging all senses to design spaces that support well-being and embodied experience	Sensory mapping, behavioural observation, narrative design	Inclusive design solutions that address more-than-visual perception	Inclusivity and empathy, human-centered design, well-being
DS3	Health-Promoting Design Approach	Architecture and urban design as active agents for health and preventive care	Environmental diagnostics, restorative design	Integration of health infrastructure into urban form	Well-being, restorative interaction, integration of health and space
DS4	Hybrid Naturalities Design Approach	Exploring the “third nature”—hybrid of natural and cultural flows in Anthropocene ecologies	Site eco-diagnostics, ecological storytelling, speculative programming	Hybrid landscapes that merge heritage, ecology, and technology	Ecology–resilience symbiosis, coexistence of human and non-human agents
DS5	Culture-Sensitive Design Approach	Embedding cultural values and local identities into spatial design processes	Storytelling, contextual analysis, research by modelling (topography research), morphogenesis	Place-specific typologies that preserve cultural identity while enabling adaptation	Diversity, rootedness, cultural sustainability

summarizes the five distinct design approaches that constitute the comparative framework. Each approach was structured around a specific core idea, applied through defined key methods, and evaluated through learning outcomes and pedagogical values. The table serves as a synthesis of conceptual differentiation among studios and illustrates how diverse pedagogical strategies can coexist within a unified methodological matrix.

Table 2. Implementation context of the design studios.

Design Studio (DC) Code	Approach	Academic Level and Program	Format and Credits (ECTS)	Semester/Year	Number of Students	Observatory Case
DS1	Heritage Reprogramming Design Approach	MASA	Design Studio + Seminar	2nd Semester 2023/2024	15	Selective predefined cases: settlements with legally protected heritage areas
DS2	Multisensory Design Approach	MASA + IASA	Design Studio + Seminar	1st Semester 2023/2024, and 1st Semester 2024/2025	37 (19 in first implementation of design studio and 18 in second one)	Full corpus: All 38 spa settlements in Serbia
DS3	Health-Promoting Design Approach	MASA	Design Studio + Seminar	2nd Semester 2024/2025	34 (17 in two groups which works together)	Selective predefined cases: Students choose among three assigned settlements (Slankamen, Kanjiža, Rusanda)
DS4	Hybrid Naturalities Design Approach	MASA + IASA	Diploma Design Studio	2nd Semester 2023/2024, and 2nd Semester 2024/2025	14 (7 in first implementation of design studio, and 7 in second one)	Selective predefined cases: 12 Role Models of Serbian Spa Settlements
DS5	Culture-Sensitive Design Approach	IASA	Design Studio + Seminar	8th Semester 2022/2023, and 8th Semester 2023/2024	38 (18 in first implementation of design studio and 20 in second one)	Predefined cases: Bukovička banja and Ivanjica

contextualizes the implementation of each studio within the institutional framework of the UB–FA. It presents details regarding the academic level, program, studio format, semester of implementation, number of ECTS credits, teaching structure, and number of students involved in studio. This information demonstrates the heterogeneity of the sample and its representativeness across different study tracks and pedagogical formats.

The subsequent explanation presents the underlying logic of the selected studios and their case configurations, emphasizing how this heterogeneity supports a comprehensive and comparative evaluation.

• First, the studios reflect a broad spectrum of design-based approaches, ranging from heritage reprogramming [25] and multisensory design [57] to health-promoting design [58], hybrid naturalities [59], and culture-sensitive methodologies [60]. These approaches have been tested over multiple years within the UB–FA design studio pedagogy and have been previously disseminated through academic publications. This diversity ensures that the comparative framework captures differentiated design cultures, methodological orientations, and epistemic positions within AHE.
• Second, the studios span two academic programs at the master level (MASA and IASA). This ensures that the sample covers both conventional two-year master-level studios (MASA, years 1–2), as well as final-year studios of the five-year integrated program (IASA, years 4–5). The resulting dataset is therefore structurally representative of master-level AHE at UB–FA.
• Third, the formats and credit structures also contribute to sample heterogeneity. Two principal formats are present: (1) Design Studio + Seminar (15 ECTS studio + 2 ECTS seminar) implemented on the first year of MASA, and (2) Diploma Design Studio (30 ECTS) implemented as the final, thesis-oriented studio on the second year of MASA. This ensures that both exploratory, research-oriented studios and comprehensive, project and thesis integrated diploma studios are included within the comparison.
• Fourth, the implementation scale and teaching configuration also vary across the studios: (1) DS1 was conducted within standard accreditation-based group size for MASA/IASA, (2) DS3 was delivered through two parallel groups working on the same thematic brief, allowing observation of variation within a shared pedagogical structure, (3) DS4 was taught as small diploma-level units focused on intensive mentorship, and (4) DS2 and DS5, although dimensioned as a standard master studio cohort, was implemented across two consecutive semesters, providing additional temporal depth to its outputs.
• Finally, the Observatory Case structure, a key analytical component of the SPATTERN research framework, differs across the studios and further enriches the comparative potential of the sample. Studios employ three types of observatory configurations: (1) predefined cases assigned uniformly to all students (DS5), (2) selective predefined cases from which students choose (DS1, DS3, DS4), and (3) full selective corpus involving all 38 spa settlements (DS2). This variation ensures that the studios engage with the spascape context at different scales and levels of specificity, from deeply focused case studies to wide-scope territorial analyses.

2.3. Evaluation and Comparative Analytical Framework

This study evaluates five master-level design studios through a triangulated framework that connects (1) internal pedagogical innovation, (2) alignment with international educational policy, and (3) professional competence/readiness. The framework is operationalized as three evaluation tracks that are applied to the same studio corpus and evidence base, allowing both cross-case (horizontal) and within-case (vertical) comparison.

While the three tracks are methodologically integrated, they differ in the nature and purpose of their analytical procedures (

Table 3. Analytical Framework of Evaluation.

Track	Reference Document	Analytical Scope	Nature of Benchmark
Track 1— Pedagogical Innovation	SPATTERN Compendium of Spascapes [56]	Pedagogical Parameters (PP)	Pedagogical differentiation/innovation benchmark (studio profiles and methods)
Track 2— Policy Alignment	UNESCO–UIA Charter for Architectural Education [32]	Learning Capabilities (LC)	Academic/institutional validation benchmark (learning outcomes and capabilities)
Track 3— Professional Competence	UNESCO–UIA Validation System [53]	Professional Capabilities (PC)	Professional/practice-readiness benchmark (validation lens)

). Track 2 (Policy Alignment) and Track 3 (Professional Competence) employ indicator-based evaluation, grounded in internationally recognized frameworks—namely the UNESCO–UIA Charter and Validation Manual [32,53]. Both tracks use indexed coding and ordinal scoring to assess the degree of alignment between the studios’ outcomes and formally defined learning capabilities (LC) or professional capabilities (PC). Their quantitative approach enables transparent benchmarking and cross-referencing against accreditation standards. By contrast, Track 1 (Pedagogical Innovation) is conceived as a qualitative and interpretative analysis that focuses on the pedagogical parameters (PP) of each design studio. Rather than measuring performance against predefined indicators, this track profiles the pedagogical identity of each studio through comparative differentiation—mapping how learning occurs, how innovation emerges, and how design thinking evolves across temporal, spatial, and conceptual dimensions.

Together, these three analytical perspectives form a complementary triad: (1) Track 1 explores the studios as laboratories of methodological innovation, (2) Track 2 situates the studios within international educational policy frameworks, and (3) Track 3 positions them within the continuum of professional competence and practice readiness. Their integration allows a comprehensive understanding of design studio pedagogy—not only in terms of its compliance with global standards, but also in its capacity to generate new knowledge, experiment with learning formats, and cultivate professional sensibilities.

2.3.1. Track 1: Pedagogical Innovation

The second analytical track focuses on identifying and evaluating pedagogical innovation through PP within the five design studios. This analytical perspective is grounded in the SPATTERN comparative framework, which conceptualizes spa settlements as pedagogical laboratories for testing new forms of learning. Within this context, each studio represents an interpretative model of architectural education that fuses heritage awareness, environmental sensitivity, and contemporary design experimentation. The track therefore aims to decode how distinct studio models reinterpret architectural education in response to pressing global and local challenges—environmental crisis, socio-spatial inequality, and the evolving meaning of heritage in a post-industrial society.

Pedagogical innovation is understood here as a transformative process that alters the relationship between context and knowledge production. It manifests in the structure of the design task, the type of learning interaction it fosters, and the methodological tools it introduces. The comparative analysis does not rank studios hierarchically but reveals patterns of differentiation and pedagogical signatures that emerge through the interplay of conceptual, temporal, and spatial dimensions.

Table 4. Pedagogical parameters for analysis.

Parameter	Definition	Analytical Focus and Interpretation
Pedagogical Focus	The central theme or driver of the educational experiment—such as health, ecology, inclusivity, cultural identity, or speculative futures	Identifies the thematic orientation of each studio and its alignment with broader societal and environmental agendas
Design Scale	The operative spatial range within which design inquiry unfolds—from the architectural object to the urban fabric or territorial system.	Explores how design thinking extends beyond conventional building design to multi-scale and systemic spatial reasoning
Temporal Perspective	The studio’s orientation toward time: whether it primarily addresses the past (conservation and memory), the present (reprogramming and adaptation), or the future (anticipation and speculation)	Examines the temporal stance embedded in the studio pedagogy and its implications for heritage and sustainability
Innovation Type	The nature of pedagogical experimentation—programmatic, experiential, systemic, or speculative	Distinguishes the methodological logic behind innovation and how it reshapes learning processes, outputs, and evaluation criteria
Heritage Notion	The conceptual understanding of heritage as articulated within the studio: heritage as resource, infrastructure, identity, or open category	Assesses how heritage is positioned in relation to design learning—whether as constraint, opportunity, or generator of knowledge
Future Potential in Pedagogy	The capacity of the studio model to be transferred, scaled, or institutionalized beyond its initial context	Evaluates the replicability and adaptability of the pedagogical model, particularly in relation to environmental and heritage-based learning

provides a structured analytical lens for interpreting pedagogical innovation across studios by distinguishing six complementary parameters that guide the qualitative profiling presented in Section 3.1.

Unlike the second and third tracks, which rely on quantitative benchmarking through established policy and professional validation frameworks, the Pedagogical Innovation track employs a qualitative and comparative profiling method. Each studio is analyzed through a structured narrative that identifies its pedagogical configuration along six defined parameters. Rather than assigning numerical values, the analysis interprets the degree, mode, and character of manifestation of each parameter—how it emerges, interacts with others, and contributes to the overall pedagogical logic.

This PP structure allows for both vertical (within-studio) and horizontal (cross-studio) comparison. Vertically, it reveals the internal coherence of each studio as a pedagogical experiment—how its focus, scale, and innovation type align with its learning outcomes. Horizontally, it uncovers broader tendencies across the corpus—such as the collective movement from object-based to landscape-based design, or from conservation to anticipation as dominant temporal orientation. The outcome of this track is thus a Pedagogical Innovation Profile for each design studio, articulated through a matrix of qualitative descriptors rather than scores. This approach foregrounds depth and differentiation instead of measurement, allowing the analysis to capture nuances that quantitative assessment cannot represent—such as tacit learning, collective reflection, or emergent pedagogical cultures. The profiles are then comparatively synthesized to reveal patterns of innovation across the corpus, identifying convergences (shared tendencies toward environmentally responsive learning) and divergences (distinctive pedagogical signatures rooted in context or thematic orientation).

2.3.2. Track 2: Policy Alignment

This subsection establishes how the five master-level studios are evaluated against the UNESCO–UIA Charter for Architectural Education [32], specifically the section related to the objectives of AHE in terms of LC. The Charter operationalizes AHE through three overarching domains: (1) Design (D), (2) Knowledge (K), and (3) Skills (S)—with Knowledge further structured into six sub-domains: Cultural and Artistic Studies (CA), Social Studies (SS), Environmental Studies (EN), Technical Studies (T), Design Studies (DS), and Professional Studies (P).

For comparability, each LC is indexed as follows: D1–D4 (Design), CA1–CA4, SS1–SS5, EN1–EN5, T1–T5, DS1–DS3, P1–P5 (Knowledge), and S1–S4 (Skills). The intention is not only to check formal coverage of LC but to document depth and quality of evidence that the studios generate for each capability. Because the studios are situated in spa settlements and are explicitly heritage- and environment-oriented, this alignment test is also a fit-for-purpose test—it reveals which Charter LC are naturally amplified by the spascape context and where curricular scaffolding may be needed. The alignment lens therefore functions both as a policy benchmark and as a diagnostic instrument to inform subsequent iterations of studio design. The unit of analysis is the studio–capability pair (e.g., DS1 × EN3). Each pair receives a score on the shared ordinal scale (0–3) as follows: 0 = Not evidenced (no explicit artefact/instance), 1 = Present/basic (mentioned or minimally attempted), 2 = Substantial/integrated (clearly embedded in process/deliverables), 3 = Exemplary/leading (methodologically explicit, multi-artefact evidence, exemplary quality). Scoring draws on following evidence: (1) studio briefs and schedules, (2) weekly critiques and milestone reviews, (3) design artefacts (drawings, models, mappings), and (4) seminar outputs (where the studio was coupled with a seminar) or master thesis.

Table 5. Indexed LC coding scheme according to [32].

Code	Domain/Sub-Domain	Capability Description
D1	Design	Ability to engage imagination, think creatively, innovate, and provide design leadership.
D2		Ability to gather information, define problems, apply analyses and critical judgment, and formulate strategies for action.
D3		Ability to think three-dimensionally in the exploration of design.
D4		Ability to reconcile divergent factors, integrate knowledge, and apply skills in the creation of a design solution.
CA1	Knowledge—Cultural and Artistic Studies	Ability to act with knowledge of historical and cultural precedents in local and world architecture.
CA2		Ability to act with knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design.
CA3		Understanding of heritage issues in the built environment.
CA4		Awareness of the links between architecture and other creative disciplines.
SS1	Knowledge—Social Studies	Ability to act with knowledge of society, and to work with clients and users representing society’s needs.
SS2		Ability to develop a project brief by defining users’ and clients’ needs, and to research contextual and functional requirements for diverse built environments.
SS3		Understanding of the social context in which built environments are procured, including ergonomics, space requirements, and issues of equity and access.
SS4		Awareness of the relevant codes, regulations, and standards for planning, design, construction, health, safety, and use of built environments.
SS5		Awareness of philosophy, politics, and ethics as related to architecture.
EN1	Knowledge—Environmental Studies	Ability to act with knowledge of natural systems and built environments.
EN2		Understanding of conservation and waste management issues.
EN3		Understanding of the life cycle of materials, ecological sustainability, environmental impact, energy reduction, and passive systems.
EN4		Awareness of the history and practice of landscape architecture, urban design, and territorial/national planning, and their demographic and resource implications.
EN5		Awareness of natural system management considering natural disaster risks.
T1	Knowledge—Technical Studies	Technical knowledge of structure, materials, and construction.
T2		Ability to act with innovative technical competence in the use of building techniques and understanding their evolution.
T3		Understanding of technical design processes and integration of structure, technologies, and service systems into a functional whole.
T4		Understanding of services systems, including transportation, communication, maintenance, and safety.
T5		Awareness of the role of technical documentation, specifications, and construction planning, cost, and control processes.
DS1	Knowledge—Design Studies	Knowledge of design theory and methods.
DS2		Understanding of design procedures and processes.
DS3		Knowledge of design precedents and architectural criticism.
P1	Knowledge—Professional Studies	Ability to understand different forms of procurement of architectural services.
P2		Understanding of the fundamental workings of the construction and development industries, such as finance, real estate investment and facilities management.
P3		Understanding of the potential roles of architects in conventional and new areas of activity and in an international context.
P4		Understanding of business principles and their application to the development of built environments, project management and the functioning of a professional consultancy.
P5		Understanding of professional ethics and codes of conduct as they apply to the practice of architecture and of the architects’ legal responsibilities where registration, practice and building contracts are concerned.
S1	Skills	Ability to work in collaboration with other architects and members of interdisciplinary teams.
S2		Ability to act and to communicate ideas through collaboration, speaking, numeracy, writing, drawing, modelling and evaluation.
S3		Ability to utilise manual, electronic, graphic and model making capabilities to explore, develop, define and communicate a design proposal.
S4		Understanding of systems of evaluation, that use manual and/or electronic means for performance assessments of built environments.

presents the indexed LC coding scheme, structured in accordance with the UNESCO–UIA Charter for Architectural Education [32]. The capabilities are organized by domains and sub-domains of knowledge, with concise descriptors aligned with the Charter’s defined learning outcomes.

2.3.3. Track 3: Professional Competence

The third analytical track examines the dimension of PC as an essential component of AHE and as a natural extension of the pedagogical frameworks examined in Tracks 1 and 2. Within this framework, the design studio is understood not only as a site of learning and experimentation but also as a transitional space between education and practice, where disciplinary knowledge, technical expertise, ethical awareness, and professional responsibility converge. The evaluation framework for this track is grounded in the UNESCO–UIA Validation System [53], which defines the knowledge, skills, and abilities that students should demonstrate upon completion of an accredited program in architecture. The framework encompasses sixteen professional capabilities (PC1–PC16), systematically organized across thematic domains. These indicators provide a comprehensive and internationally consistent structure for assessing professional formation within AHE. By focusing on the PC Index (PC1–PC16), this track evaluates how the five analyzed design studios integrate professional learning objectives into their pedagogical and methodological structures. The assessment captures how studio-based work contributes to the development of essential PC in accordance with global educational standards.

Table 6. Indexed PC coding scheme according to [53].

Code	Professional Capability	Domain
PC1	Ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements	Architectural Design
PC2	Adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture and related arts, technologies, and human sciences	Historical and Theoretical Knowledge
PC3	Knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design.	Artistic and Conceptual Context
PC4	Adequate knowledge of urban design, planning, and the skills involved in the planning process.	Urban Design and Planning
PC5	Understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and between buildings and their environment, and of the need to relate buildings and the spaces between them to human needs and scale.	Human–Environment Interaction
PC6	Understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in society, particularly in preparing briefs that take account of social factors.	Professional and Social Responsibility
PC7	Understanding of methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a design project.	Research and Analytical Methods
PC8	Understanding of structural design, construction, and engineering problems associated with building design.	Technical Integration
PC9	Adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the function of buildings to ensure internal comfort and protection against climate.	Building Performance and Environmental Comfort
PC10	Design skills necessary to meet building users’ requirements within constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations.	Regulatory and Cost Awareness
PC11	Adequate knowledge of industries, organizations, regulations, and procedures involved in translating design concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall planning.	Practice and Implementation
PC12	Understanding of professional and disciplinary responsibilities toward human, social, cultural, urban, architectural, and environmental values, including health, safety, and welfare of the public, as well as commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusivity.	Ethics, Health and Inclusivity
PC13	Knowledge of ecologically sustainable design and environmental conservation and rehabilitation, with focus on relevant aspects of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.	Ecological Sustainability
PC14	Ability to demonstrate creative competence in building techniques, founded on a comprehensive understanding of construction disciplines and methods.	Constructional Creativity
PC15	Knowledge of project financing, project management, cost control, and methods of project delivery.	Project and Business Management
PC16	Understanding of research and pedagogical methodologies, including transdisciplinary knowledge action and transferability as inherent parts of architectural learning.	Research and Pedagogical Integration

provides an overview of the PC coding scheme aligned with the UNESCO–UIA Validation System [53]. The table groups all defined professional capabilities into corresponding professional domains to support a structured understanding of validation criteria.

Each design studio is evaluated against the PC Index (PC1-PC16) using the same ordinal evidence scale (0–3) employed in Track 2, thereby ensuring methodological consistency across evaluative tracks: 0 = Not Evident: The capability is not addressed within the studio’s scope or outputs, 1 = Emerging: The capability appears occasionally or as an implicit learning outcome, 2 = Integrated: The capability is intentionally embedded in the studio’s framework and demonstrably achieved through outputs, and 3 = Exemplary: The capability defines the pedagogical and methodological character of the studio and is evidenced across multiple artefacts.

The resulting Professional Competence Matrix (Studios × PC1–PC16) enables both macro-level and micro-level analytical readings: (1) at the macro level—it provides a comparative overview of professional readiness across studios, identifying convergences and divergences in their contribution to professional learning, while (2) at the micro level—it traces specific competence clusters to reveal which pedagogical strategies most effectively foster practice-oriented skills. The Professional Competence track thus complements the pedagogical innovation analysis of Track 1 and the academic alignment of Track 2 by emphasizing practice readiness as a synthesized outcome of educational experimentation.

2.3.4. Cross-Track Comparative Analysis

The final stage of the methodological framework synthesizes the three analytical tracks (policy alignment, pedagogical innovation, and professional competence) into a unified comparative procedure. The purpose of this cross-track analysis is to examine the structural relationships between the academic LC defined in Track 2 and the PC domains operationalized in Track 3. While Tracks 2 and 3 address distinct dimensions of AHE, they are conceptually linked through the UNESCO–UIA Charter [32] and Validation System [53], which jointly articulate the knowledge, skills, values, and professional responsibilities that architectural graduates are expected to acquire. The cross-track comparative analysis therefore seeks to determine the degree to which these two capability systems converge, diverge, or exhibit latent structural alignments across the full sample of five studios.

The scoring procedure for both Track 2 and Track 3 was conducted using a standardized ordinal evidence scale ranging from 0 to 3, ensuring methodological consistency across the evaluative framework. Each design studio was assessed independently by three expert evaluators involved in the teaching and research process: the studio lead, a teaching assistant, and a research associate responsible for methodological integration. All evaluators first assigned scores independently based on the full evidence corpus. Following the independent assessment stage, a consensus-based calibration procedure was implemented in which divergent scores were discussed and resolved through collective agreement. This expert-consensus method follows established procedures in architectural pedagogy research, where evaluative judgments rely on professional interpretation rather than statistical inter-rater testing.

To perform cross-track analysis, two matrices were constructed: (1) one containing the mean LC scores for all studios (LC × Studio), and (2) one containing the mean PC scores (PC × Studio). Because correlation analysis requires within-variable variance, six indicators were excluded prior to computation due to having only a single unique value across all studios—D2, T4, and P2 from the LC set, and PC5, PC12 and PC15 from the PC set. These indicators, although relevant from a curricular standpoint, could not meaningfully contribute to the statistical procedure and were therefore omitted but are nevertheless addressed in the Results section, where their consistently uniform scoring is interpreted as an analytically meaningful pattern in itself. The resulting dataset consisted of 31 LC variables and 14 PC variables, each evaluated across the same five studios. All analyses were conducted using JASP (version 0.95.4), an open-source statistical software suitable for multivariate exploratory procedures. LC and PC indicators were imported as scale variables, while the studio label was treated as nominal. A Pearson correlation matrix was then computed to quantify the bivariate relationships between each LC and PC indicator. Pearson’s r was selected because all variables are ordinal-scaled numeric indicators with consistent scoring logic, enabling the examination of linear relationships between learning intentions and professional readiness outcomes. Given the small sample size (N = 5), significance tests were interpreted cautiously, and correlations were primarily treated descriptively, consistent with mixed-method pedagogical evaluation.

The cross-track correlation structure was visualized as a heat-map, where the vertical axis represents PC indicators and the horizontal axis represents LC indicators. Cell color encodes the magnitude and direction of each correlation coefficient, enabling a gradient-based reading of alignment patterns across the capability system, as following: (1) deep blue cells denote strong positive correlations (r ≈ +1), indicating high coherence between specific academic learning capabilities and corresponding professional competences, (2) deep red cells denote strong negative correlations (r ≈ −1), revealing areas of tension or divergence between educational objectives and practice-oriented expectations, while (3) light, desaturated tones reflect weak or absent associations. Although JASP reports significance levels (denoted by asterisks), these are not interpreted in this study due to the inherent limitations of the small sample size (N = 5). This visualization enabled a synthetic reading of the capability ecosystem, revealing clusters of strong alignment, areas of weak association, and domains where academic learning objectives and professional capability requirements diverge.

3. Results

3.1. Track 1: Pedagogical Innovation

The first set of results (Track 1) presents the analysis of pedagogical innovation across the five design studios. These findings are structured into two complementary subsections: (1) the specific pedagogical configuration of each studio individually, and (2) broader cross-studio patterns, highlighting shared tendencies and points of divergence. Together, these two components offer a comprehensive reading of how innovation manifests across the corpus.

3.1.1. Studio-Specific Profiles

This subsection provides a profiling of the five design studios, each examined through the six parameters of the pedagogical innovation framework. For every studio, a concise narrative outlines its conceptual orientation, and pedagogical contribution, highlighting how innovation is articulated within its specific thematic, spatial, and temporal configuration. To support the interpretation of the pedagogical profiles, each studio is accompanied by a standardized two-layer visual set composed of six representative artefacts derived from one representative example of student work. The upper layer (scale-based spatial evidence set—SES) illustrates how the studio operates across territorial, urban, and architectural scales, revealing the spatial logic of its design approach. The lower layer (pedagogical innovation evidence set—PIES) captures the analytical, methodological, and synthetic dimensions of each studio’s pedagogical innovation, from diagnostic tools and experimental techniques to final conceptual synthesis. This dual-layer visualization ensures comparability across the five studio models while preserving their thematic and methodological distinctiveness.

The Heritage Reprogramming studio (DS1) (Figure 2) positions heritage as an active agent in contemporary design, using spa settlements as testing grounds for adaptive, no-demolition spatial strategies. Innovation emerges through the systematic deployment of critical mapping, value-based diagnostics, and scenario development, all of which encourage students to reinterpret existing structures as programmable cultural and ecological resources. Operating primarily at architectural and urban scales, the studio balances past-oriented analysis with forward-looking speculative reconfigurations. Its pedagogical distinctiveness lies in translating heritage from a static constraint into a productive mediator capable of generating new typologies, design narratives, and modes of reuse. This approach fosters a rigorous understanding of context while training students to navigate complex socio-cultural layers embedded in inherited spaces.

The Multisensory Design studio (DS2) (Figure 3) introduces embodied perception and sensory inclusivity as central drivers of innovation. Working within the spatial identity of spa settlements, the studio foregrounds experiential methodologies such as sensory mapping, behavioural observation, and narrative simulation. Innovation emerges through the reorientation of architectural pedagogy away from visual dominance toward multisensory spatial strategies, positioning accessibility and inclusivity as essential design values. Operatively located at architectural and urban scales, the studio adopts a present-oriented temporal stance, focusing on how spatial conditions shape human well-being in real time. Its pedagogical contribution lies in cultivating empathetic, user-centered design competencies and broadening the representational and analytical skills to students.

The Health-Promoting Design studio (DS3) (Figure 4) frames spa settlements as therapeutic infrastructures, emphasizing architecture’s potential to support preventive health and ecosystem restoration. Pedagogical innovation is expressed through systemic methodological tools (environmental diagnostics, restorative typologies, and health-related spatial programming) that operate across architectural, urban, and territorial scales. By linking natural processes, public health logics, and spatial design, the studio activates a multi-temporal approach in which past ecological transformations, present conditions, and future restorative potentials are examined concurrently. DS3 stands out for its integration of environmental sciences and public health perspectives into architectural pedagogy, positioning the design studio as an interdisciplinary platform that links spatial thinking with notions of well-being and resilience.

The Hybrid Naturalities studio (DS4) (Figure 5) advances innovation by conceptualizing spa settlements as hybrid ecologies where natural, cultural, and technological systems interact. Through eco-diagnostics, ecological storytelling, and speculative programming, students explore how ecological and infrastructural flows can be recomposed into new forms of spatial agency. The studio operates primarily at architectural and urban scales but frequently expands into systemic and landscape-oriented reasoning, reinforcing the spatial interdependencies that define contemporary ecological design. Its temporal profile spans past, present, and future, enabling students to critically investigate historical ecological trajectories while imagining post-anthropocenic spatial futures. DS4 contributes a distinctive ecological–technical pedagogical model that encourages students to think beyond disciplinary boundaries and to articulate design proposals as part of larger socio-ecological networks.

The Culture-Sensitive Design studio (DS5) (Figure 6) interprets spa settlements as socio-spatial identities shaped by collective memory, local narratives, and cultural practices. Innovation arises from the studio’s hybrid methodological structure, which combines storytelling, socio-spatial analysis, research-by-modelling, and morphogenetic exploration. Unlike other studios, DS5 spans a full multi-scalar range—from landscape and neighbourhood systems to urban context and architectural form—reflecting the layered nature of cultural identity in spa environments. Temporally, the studio weaves together deep historical reading, present contextual analysis, and anticipatory future scenarios. Its pedagogical specificity lies in foregrounding cultural sustainability and site-specificity as generative design forces, enabling students to articulate design outcomes that are both locally grounded and responsive to broader socio-cultural dynamics.

3.1.2. Cross-Studio Patterns

A cross-studio reading of the Studio Profiles reveals a set of structural patterns that cut across the five design studios, demonstrating both a shared pedagogical grounding and distinct methodological trajectories. Despite the thematic diversity of the studios, all five models exhibit a strong common denominator—the spascape as a pedagogical environment consistently anchors learning in environmentally sensitive and heritage-based inquiry. This shared grounding materializes through the prominence of territorial and urban-scale analysis, multisensory or ecological diagnostics, and the re-framing of heritage as a dynamic resource rather than a static constraint. At the same time, notable variations emerge in how each studio mobilizes this shared foundation.

Table 7. Shared and divergent PP across the five design studios.

Parameter	Shared Patterns (Cross-Studio Convergence)	Divergent Patterns (Cross-Studio Differentiation)
Pedagogical Focus	All studios operate within the spascape framework, treating spa settlements as laboratories for environmentally sensitive and heritage-based learning	DS1 and DS5 emphasize cultural continuity, DS3 and DS4 emphasize ecological and therapeutic environments, DS2 foregrounds sensory and experiential design
Design Scale	Multiscale workflow present in all studios (territorial → urban → architectural)	DS3 and DS4 strongly anchored in territorial/ecological systems, DS1 and DS5 in urban/architectural typologies, DS2 balances experiential micro-scale with system-scale analysis
Temporal Perspective	All studios incorporate past–present–future relations within design reasoning	Conservation/reprogramming (DS1, DS5), present-focused experiential grounding (DS2), future-oriented anticipation and speculation (DS3, DS4)
Innovation Type	Methodological hybridity is consistent across studios (combining analysis, narrative, diagnostics, modelling, etc.)	Innovation types vary: programmatic (DS1), experiential (DS2), therapeutic (DS3), ecological-systemic (DS4), culture-sensitive (DS5)
Heritage Notion	Heritage broadly understood as active context and design driver (not static constraint)	Heritage as identity (DS1, DS5), heritage as ecological/health infrastructure (DS3, DS4), heritage as experiential atmosphere (DS2)
Future Potential in Pedagogy	All studios cultivate environmentally responsible, context-aware design thinking	Degree of emphasis differs: ecological literacy (DS3, DS4), sensory awareness (DS2), cultural literacy (DS1, DS5)

presents a comparative synthesis of shared and divergent pedagogical patterns across the five design studios, organized according to the six pedagogical parameters defined in Track 1.

Differences appear most clearly in the relationship between scale, temporality, and the conceptual framing of heritage: (1) DS1 and DS5 anchor their pedagogical logic in ‘heritage as identity’ approaching spa settlements through cultural continuity, narrative mapping, and the reinterpretation of inherited structures, (2) in contrast, DS3 and DS4 position heritage within ecological and health-related paradigms, extending the notion of heritage to include natural systems, therapeutic landscapes, and the metabolic relations between environment and well-being, while (3) DS2 stands apart by foregrounding sensory and experiential phenomena, positioning heritage as an embodied and perceptual condition that informs spatial atmosphere. These distinctions reveal how a common contextual laboratory of spa settlement supports divergent pathways while maintaining conceptual coherence across the studios.

A second pattern concerns the studios’ temporal orientations. Two dominant trajectories are visible: conservation and reprogramming (DS1, DS5) and anticipation and speculation (DS3, DS4), with DS2 functioning as a hybrid model that oscillates between present-based sensory grounding and future-oriented experiential transformation. This temporal differentiation influences the types of knowledge students produce—from typological redefinitions and culturally grounded morphogenesis to ecological forecasting and health-promoting spatial strategies. A third cross-studio tendency is the consistent presence of a multiscale design approach. All studios engage students in territorial, urban, and architectural scales, but the relative weight and purpose of each scale vary. DS4 and DS3 emphasize territorial and ecological systems as the primary scale for design reasoning, while DS1 and DS5 pivot between urban patterns and architectural reprogramming. DS2, although grounded in sensory experience, also employs a robust three-scalar structure, demonstrating that experiential design can be methodologically rigorous rather than purely phenomenological. Finally, the studios collectively demonstrate a tendency toward methodological hybridity. Each model integrates analytical, narrative, diagnostic, and speculative techniques in different proportions, producing distinctive blends of tools and pedagogical operations. This hybridity reflects an underlying shift in architectural education—from prescriptive studio formats to adaptive, research-driven pedagogies relevant for responding to context-specific challenges. The differences in innovation type (programmatic in DS1, experiential in DS2, therapeutic in DS3, ecological-systemic in DS4, and culture-embedded in DS5) collectively map the breadth of methodological experimentation enabled by the spascape framework.

Taken together, these cross-studio patterns illustrate a pedagogical system that is both coherent and differentiated. Coherent in its grounding in spa settlements as laboratories for environmentally and culturally rooted design learning, while differentiated in the ways each studio operationalizes that context through distinct thematic orientations, temporal framings, scales of inquiry, and modes of methodological innovation. This combination of shared foundations and divergent pedagogical signatures forms a robust basis for the comparative evaluation presented in the following analytical tracks, where policy alignment and professional competence provide complementary perspectives on the educational performance of the studio models.

3.2. Track 2: Policy Alignment

The second results subsection reports the outcomes of the policy-alignment analysis based on the UNESCO–UIA Charter LC. The comparative heat-map and scoring matrix reveal a differentiated but structurally coherent pattern of alignment across the five design studios. While all studios operate within the shared observatory framework of spa settlements, their pedagogical structures selectively privilege certain capability domains. Below, results are interpreted domain by domain, highlighting extremes, cross-studio contrasts, and emergent tendencies.

Figure 7 visualizes the averaged policy alignment scores for LCs across five design studios, based on consolidated evaluations and aggregated at LC and domain levels. In addition, Supplementary Materials S1 provide the full LC scoring sheets, including individual evaluator assessments for each analyzed design studio and their consolidation into consensus scores.

The Design domain (D1–D4) emerges as the most consistently high-performing area across all studios. Capabilities related to creative imagination, problem definition, strategic reasoning, and three-dimensional thinking demonstrate uniformly strong alignment. Minor variations appear in integrated design resolution (D4), particularly in DS1 and DS5, where contextual, cultural, and methodological explorations take precedence over technically convergent design synthesis. Nevertheless, the domain as a whole constitutes a stable pedagogical backbone: all five studios foster a robust design culture, affirming the centrality of conceptual, generative, and integrative reasoning within the spascape framework.

Cultural and Artistic Knowledge (CA1–CA4) presents a more heterogeneous picture, shaped by the thematic orientation of each studio. Studios grounded explicitly in heritage or cultural identity—particularly DS4 and DS5—achieve strong alignment in historical and cultural knowledge (CA1, CA3), reflecting their close engagement with cultural landscapes and identity-based spatial narratives. By contrast, DS1–DS3 demonstrate only moderate integration of cultural-artistic frameworks, prioritizing environmental, sensory, or health-based objectives. Across the corpus, CA2 (fine arts influence) remains uniformly low, indicating limited emphasis on artistic theory within studios whose pedagogical focus is predominantly environmental, social, or technical. This domain is therefore neither marginal nor universally strong—rather, it selectively reflects the thematic profile of individual studio models.

Social Knowledge (SS1–SS5) shows the most pronounced internal divergence among domains. Strong alignment is evident in SS2 and SS3, particularly user-needs analysis, brief development, spatial ergonomics, and socio-contextual understanding—all of which respond directly to the situational complexity of spa settlements as public health and collective wellbeing environments. However, SS4 (regulations, codes, safety standards) displays consistently low alignment across all studios except DS5, which incorporates regulatory and governance perspectives more explicitly. Ethical and socio-political considerations (SS5) occupy a middle range, suggesting that most studios incorporate them implicitly rather than as structured pedagogical components. Thus, while social engagement is a clear strength of the corpus, regulatory literacy remains significantly underdeveloped.

Environmental Knowledge (EN1–EN5) reveals a marked collective strength and forms one of the defining pillars of the entire corpus. Capabilities linked to natural systems, ecological sustainability, material cycles, and environmental impact (EN1–EN4) receive uniformly high scores, especially in DS2, DS3, and DS4, where environmental diagnostics and territorial scales of inquiry form core methodological components. The only systematic weakness appears in EN5 (risk mitigation and disaster awareness), which remains only minimally addressed across studios. Overall, the environmental domain strongly validates the decision to situate the studios within the spa settlement context, demonstrating that spascapes act as naturally amplifying environments for ecological literacy and environmental design reasoning.

Technical Knowledge (T1–T5) constitutes the weakest alignment area of the entire framework. While some studios—particularly DS2 and DS3—exhibit partial integration of structural, material and systems-related knowledge (T1–T3), these capabilities rarely exceed mid-range scores. Service systems (T4) are addressed uniformly but minimally, and construction documentation and specification literacy (T5) remain almost entirely absent from the corpus. These findings reflect the conceptual, exploratory and research-oriented character of the studios, which emphasize socio-environmental innovation over technical execution. Although predictable, the technical domain represents an area where supplementary curricular scaffolding could significantly strengthen alignment with UNESCO–UIA expectations.

Design Studies (DS1–DS3) demonstrate a moderately strong and relatively stable alignment. All studios incorporate design theory, iterative procedures and methodological reasoning, though with varying emphases. DS2, DS3, and DS4 show particularly coherent integration of design methodologies aligned with their thematic orientations. DS4’s comparatively lower scoring in DS3 (design precedents) does not signal a pedagogical gap but rather reflects its focus on ecological storytelling and systemic thinking over precedent-based criticism. Overall, the domain confirms that design reasoning and methods are structurally embedded across all studios.

Professional Knowledge (P1–P5) reveals consistent weakness and represents the clearest structural gap within the corpus. Procurement models, regulatory environments, industry structures, business principles, and ethics appear only marginally across the studios. P2 (industry and development processes) is absent entirely across all five studios, while P1, P3, P4, and P5 appear intermittently, often only implicitly. DS5 again stands out as the studio with the strongest, though still limited, performance in this domain due to its integration of community governance and cultural-institutional awareness. The data therefore confirm that professional literacy is not organically embedded within environmentally sensitive and heritage-based design formats and requires deliberate pedagogical strengthening.

Skills (S1–S4) show a mixed but generally high alignment, especially in communicative and representational capabilities (S2, S3), which score strongly across all studios. These reflect the multimodal communication culture characteristic of design-based learning. Team-based competencies (S1) vary widely according to studio organization, highest in studios employing collaborative or group formats. Conversely, evaluative and performance assessment competencies (S4) remain uneven and relatively weak, consistent with the exploratory and research-driven orientation of the corpus. Overall, the Skills domain reinforces the notion that design communication is a shared strength, while technical evaluation remains selectively developed.

3.3. Track 3: Professional Competence

The evaluation of PC across the five design studios reveals a differentiated yet structurally coherent pattern, reflecting how thematic orientations, methodological configurations, and contextual frameworks shape students’ preparedness for professional practice. Instead of reading each PC in isolation, the results are interpreted through three emergent clusters: (1) strongly expressed domains, (2) moderately expressed domains, and (3) weak or structurally absent domains. This approach enables a clearer understanding of the pedagogical system and its implications for the integration of professional learning within environmentally sensitive and heritage-based design education. Figure 8 visualizes the averaged PC alignment scores across five design studios, based on consolidated evaluator assessments and aggregated at domain level. Furthermore, Supplementary Materials S2 present the complete PC scoring sheets, documenting individual evaluator scores and aggregated domain-level results underlying the professional alignment analysis.

A first and most prominent cluster comprises domains that are consistently and strongly evidenced across the majority of studios. These include Architectural Design (PC1), Human–Environment Interaction (PC5), Ethics, Health and Inclusivity (PC12), Ecological Sustainability (PC13), Research and Analytical Methods (PC7), and Research and Pedagogical Integration (PC16). Together, these competencies articulate the pedagogical profile of the entire corpus. These results demonstrate that the studios excel in cultivating advanced architectural design abilities anchored in conceptual rigor, sensitivity to user experience, environmental responsiveness, and ethical responsibility. The uniformly high performance in PC5 and PC12 is particularly revealing—both domains reflect the intrinsic qualities of spa settlements as health-oriented, socially embedded, and environmentally delicate contexts which naturally position care, inclusivity, and eco-responsiveness as central pedagogical drivers. Similarly, the strong outcomes in PC13 and PC7–PC16 indicate that ecological reasoning and research-based approaches are not peripheral but structurally embedded across all studios. Together, these highly expressed domains reflect a coherent pedagogy, one that positions design as a research-driven, environmentally responsible, and socially attentive practice.

A second cluster includes domains that exhibit substantial, though more uneven, representation across the studios. Here fall Historical and Theoretical Knowledge (PC2), Artistic and Conceptual Context (PC3), Urban Design and Planning (PC4), Professional and Social Responsibility (PC6), Technical Integration (PC8), Building Performance and Environmental Comfort (PC9), Practice and Implementation (PC11), and Constructional Creativity (PC14). What ties this group together is that their expression is contingent on the thematic and methodological orientation of each studio. For instance, studios with strong heritage or cultural identity components (such as DS4, DS5) naturally elevate theoretical and contextual competencies, while those oriented toward sensory, health, or ecological experimentation emphasize artistic, experiential, or environmental frameworks. Technical Integration (PC8) and Constructional Creativity (PC14) appear most prominently in studios where materiality, infrastructure, or constructive systems are explicitly embedded in the design brief. Conversely, domains tied to environmental performance, urban system thinking, or implementation logics are present but vary in depth depending on how directly each studio engages regulatory, infrastructural, or performative dimensions of the spascape. This middle cluster therefore highlights a differentiated pedagogical landscape—studios share a common foundation but articulate distinct professional profiles shaped by their conceptual and methodological characteristics.

A third cluster consists of domains that are minimally represented or structurally underdeveloped across the corpus: Regulatory and Cost Awareness (PC10) and Project and Business Management (PC15). The consistently low values here are not anomalies but indicative of a broader pedagogical pattern typical of design-oriented curricula. While the studios excel in conceptual, environmental, and research-oriented domains, they place far less emphasis on economic feasibility, regulatory processes, procurement pathways, or managerial competencies traditionally associated with professional practice. These gaps are pedagogically informative rather than problematic—they signal areas where the curriculum may be strengthened if the intention is to reinforce the continuum between design experimentation and professional implementation. At the same time, the broader research frameworks (HERSUS and SPATTERN) prioritize environmental ethics, contextual sensitivity, and critical inquiry, which naturally elevates conceptual and investigative competencies over managerial or market-based ones. The absence of PC10 and PC15 can therefore be interpreted both as a structural characteristic of the current pedagogical model and as a clear indicator of potential for curricular refinement.

4. Discussion

4.1. Cross-Track Alignment Between Learning and Professional Capabilities

The cross-track correlation matrix (Figure 9) provides a synthetic reading of how LCs developed through studio pedagogy relate to the PCs expected at graduation. While Tracks 2 and 3 were evaluated independently, their intersection reveals relational patterns that neither analysis can fully capture on its own. The heat-map thus functions as a diagnostic lens through which the pedagogical system can be examined in terms of its internal coherence and structural synergies. It should be noted that correlation values do not represent the absolute strength of individual capabilities, but rather their patterns of co-variation across studios. Consequently, strong positive correlations may emerge even between domains with low or moderate aggregate scores, indicating latent structural coupling rather than high overall attainment.

When synthesized with earlier findings from Track 1 (Pedagogical Innovation) and Track 2 (Policy Alignment), the correlation structure reveals three systemic tendencies. First, studios that emphasize cultural, environmental, and methodological depth show the strongest LC-PC alignments, confirming the central pedagogical role of heritage-based and environmentally sensitive learning within the UB-FA design environment. Second, conceptual and research-oriented studios produce the clearest translation of LC into PC in analytical and reflective domains (PC3, PC7, PC16), reinforcing the methodological coherence of research-by-design pedagogy. Third, technical, managerial, and regulatory competences (PC8, PC9, PC10, PC15) remain weakly connected to LC domains, confirming that studio pedagogy alone cannot carry the full weight of professional preparation in these areas. In the subsections that follow, the cross-track results are discussed through four analytical components—strong positive alignments, strong negative alignments, weak or neutral associations, and structural gaps—each offering a targeted interpretation of the relationships revealed in the heat-map.

4.1.1. Zones of Strong Positive Alignment

The heat-map reveals several clearly defined clusters of strong positive alignment, indicating domains where LCs translate most coherently into PCs. Particularly notable is the convergence between design creativity and cultural-artistic literacy and professional contextual competences. The alignment between PC3 (Artistic and Conceptual Context) and both D1 (design imagination) and CA2 (knowledge of fine arts) underscores the pedagogical coherence between culturally enriched design learning and conceptual-professional proficiency. Similarly, CA1 (cultural and historical knowledge) shows strong positive alignment with PC2 (historical/theoretical knowledge), PC11 (practice and implementation), PC14 (constructional creativity) and PC16 (research/pedagogical integration), suggesting that heritage-oriented learning not only reinforces historical understanding but also strengthens students’ capacity to operate within practice-oriented and constructionally creative domains.

Another strong cluster emerges around analytical and environmental literacy. CA3 shows deep alignment with PC8 (technical integration) and PC2, reflecting that cultural-heritage diagnostic skills support students’ ability to synthesize technical and historical dimensions of professional work. In the social domain, strong positive values between SS4 (codes and regulations) and PC4 (urban planning) and PC10 (regulatory/cost awareness) indicate that regulatory literacy, when present, directly scaffolds corresponding professional expectations. Likewise, SS5 (philosophy/ethics/politics) aligns positively with PC6 (professional/social responsibility) and PC9 (environmental comfort), reinforcing how ethical awareness informs socially and environmentally grounded professional judgment. Environmental studies also display strong clusters: EN4 (landscape/urbanism awareness) correlates positively with PC4 and PC10, suggesting that territorial-scale understanding supports broader planning and regulatory competences. On the technical side, T5 (technical documentation) aligns strongly with PC11, PC14, and PC16, pointing to the value of detailed technical literacy for integrating constructional creativity and research-based design.

Pedagogically, one of the clearest clusters is the alignment of PC7 (research and analytical methods) with DS1 (design theory/methods), confirming that research-driven design pedagogy yields strong professional capacity for analytical work. Similarly, several cross-capability alignments—P3, P5, S1 correlating with PC10, PC11, PC14, and PC16—reveal that professional and collaborative learning contributes strongly to regulatory, constructive, and research-oriented professional domains. Finally, S3 (representation and modelling) shows a strong relationship with PC13 (ecological sustainability), suggesting that advanced modelling supports students’ ability to represent ecological and sustainability-oriented design strategies.

4.1.2. Zones of Strong Negative Alignment

Negative correlations identify areas where academic learning and professional competence move in divergent directions. The most prominent negative alignment appears between PC8 (technical integration) and a cluster of design- and analysis-oriented LC domains—D3 (3D thinking), SS3 (ergonomics/accessibility), T3 (technical systems integration), and DS3 (criticism/precedents). These inverse relationships may reflect a structural tendency within the studios toward conceptual, spatial, and analytical experimentation rather than detailed technical resolution. As a result, these LC domains grow stronger in studios that do not emphasize advanced technical synthesis, generating a negative correlation.

Additional negative relationships emerge between PC13 (ecological sustainability) and SS5 (ethics/politics/philosophy), suggesting that studios with strong ethical or socio-philosophical focus do not necessarily produce stronger sustainability-specific professional capabilities—an indication of thematic specialization rather than pedagogical contradiction. Two isolated negative alignments also appear: (1) PC7 (research/analytical methods) with T1 (material and structural knowledge), and (2) S3 (representational skills) with PC6 (professional/social responsibility) and PC9 (environmental performance). These patterns suggest that representational and material-technical learning progresses independently from socially and environmentally situated professional expectations in the current studio corpus.

4.1.3. Neutral Zones and Weak Associations

Most LC-PC intersections fall within neutral or weakly associated ranges, indicating diffuse, indirect, or non-systematic relationships across the capability system. These pale-toned zones characterize the middle ground where LCs contribute to professional formation without producing strongly directional patterns. Neutrality is particularly evident in cross-combinations involving knowledge domains with broad application—such as CA4 (links between architecture and other creative disciplines), EN1–EN3, T1–T3, DS2, and S2—paired with professional competences that require highly specific or operationalized expertise. These neutral zones confirm that many capabilities contribute moderately across the spectrum without forming distinct clusters. Weak associations also suggest that in the current corpus, certain forms of learning—especially those tied to representational skills, basic technical literacy, or general social understanding—function as enabling foundations rather than thematic anchors of professional alignment.

4.1.4. Interpretation of Structural Gaps

Zero-value intersections pinpoint structural absences—areas where a learning capability does not translate into any observable professional competence within the current sample. The most notable gaps include: (1) CA4 (links to creative disciplines) showing zero alignment with PC1, PC4, PC7, and PC10, suggesting that interdisciplinary artistic understanding does not significantly affect design performance, planning literacy, research methods, or regulatory skills in the analyzed studios, (2) SS5 (ethics/politics) showing no relationship with PC11 (practice/implementation), indicating that ethical reflection is not directly translated into project execution competences, (3) a broad structural gap across EN5 (risk/disaster awareness) and virtually the entire PC spectrum (PC2, PC4, PC5, PC8, PC9, PC10, PC11, PC13, PC14), likely because risk and disaster management is minimally present in studio briefs, (4) a clear set of gaps connecting technical or procedural LC domains (T1, DS1, P1, S2, S3) with PC11, reinforcing that practical implementation and organizational aspects of professional work are not directly supported by these capabilities in the current pedagogical setting, and (5) finally, DS2 (design procedures) shows no alignment with PC3, PC7, PC14, PC16, suggesting that procedural design literacy alone does not necessarily advance conceptual, research-based, or constructional aspects of professional competence.

4.2. Insights and Transferability of the Evaluation Model

4.2.1. Pedagogical Innovation as a Mediating Layer

The comparative analysis indicates that studios characterized by strong pedagogical innovation profiles (particularly those grounded in multiscalar reasoning, diagnostic and research-based methods, and an active conceptualization of heritage and environment) tend to produce more coherent and robust LC–PC alignments. In the present study, this coherence is not incidental but emerges within a shared spascapes observatory framework, where spa settlements operate as environmentally sensitive, heritage-rich laboratories for design inquiry. This common contextual ground establishes a baseline of ecological awareness, territorial reasoning, and socio-environmental responsibility across all studios, against which pedagogical innovation becomes a key differentiating mechanism.

Within this framework, pedagogical strategies act as enabling mechanisms that translate educational intentions into professional readiness, reinforcing domains such as analytical reasoning, ecological literacy, ethical responsibility, and research-based practice. Conversely, studios where pedagogical innovation is more thematically specialized or experientially oriented exhibit selective or uneven capability activation, resulting in differentiated professional profiles rather than comprehensive competence coverage. These variations suggest that the operative logic of pedagogical innovation is closely related to the nature of the observatory framework itself. While the spascapes context foregrounds environmental and heritage-related capabilities, alternative observatory settings would likely activate different constellations of learning and professional outcomes.

In this sense, Track 1 does not lose relevance within the cross-track analysis but operates at a different epistemological level—it explains why certain LC-PC relationships emerge, intensify, or remain neutral across studios within a given contextual frame. Pedagogical innovation thus functions as a context-based layer that links curricular design decisions to both policy-aligned learning outcomes and professional formation trajectories, reinforcing the integrative logic of the three-track evaluation model.

4.2.2. Transferability and Future Applications

Beyond the studio-specific findings, the proposed three-track evaluation model advances architectural pedagogy research by explicitly integrating pedagogical innovation (Track 1) as an active mediating layer between learning capabilities (Track 2) and professional competencies (Track 3). Unlike existing evaluation approaches that tend to assess pedagogical innovation, learning outcomes, or professional readiness as parallel or isolated dimensions, this framework demonstrates how innovation-oriented studio structures condition the translation of educational intentions into professional capability formation. In this sense, pedagogical innovation is not treated as an external quality marker, but as a structuring mechanism that shapes alignment, misalignment, and selective reinforcement across capability domains. The cross-track analysis reveals that professional readiness does not emerge uniformly from pedagogical experimentation alone, but from specific configurations of innovation type, design scale, and temporal perspective.

From a transferability perspective, the framework is intentionally designed to operate beyond the specific spascape and heritage–environmental focus of the present study. Its grounding in internationally recognized policy instruments allows other AHE programs to adopt the model across diverse thematic orientations. The evaluation procedure can be replicated by identifying representative courses or studios, applying the coding schemes for learning and professional capabilities, and situating pedagogical innovation parameters as interpretive lenses rather than prescriptive criteria. This makes the model adaptable to studios centered on urban design, interior architecture, housing, or other disciplinary subfields, enabling comparative testing of multiscalar pedagogical structures across different observatory frameworks.

The model also opens avenues for application beyond core design studios. Its logic may be extended to elective courses, where more specialized or narrowly defined learning environments could reveal concentrated capability development, as well as to extracurricular and research-based educational activities that increasingly contribute to professional formation. Moreover, while the present study applies a horizontal comparison across multiple studios at the same academic level, the framework is equally suited to vertical analysis across study years or program levels. Such vertical alignment could indicate how LC and PC shift across bachelor, master, and doctoral trajectories, offering a more comprehensive understanding of AHE as a longitudinal formation process.

Taken together, the generalizable insight emerging from this study is that alignment between educational objectives, pedagogical innovation, and professional competence is neither automatic nor linear. Rather, it is selectively produced through pedagogical configurations that privilege certain modes of inquiry, scales of operation, and temporal orientations. By rendering these relationships explicit and comparable, the proposed evaluation model provides a replicable and policy-relevant tool for curriculum development, pedagogical reflection, and evidence-based accreditation processes in AHE.

4.3. Limitations of the Study

While the proposed evaluation model demonstrates analytical and conceptual coherence, several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, the empirical application is based on a single-institution sample (UB-FA), which limits the immediate generalizability of the findings across different educational contexts. Second, although the scoring and coding procedures were conducted through expert consensus to enhance interpretative validity, they remain inherently qualitative and thus subject to contextual judgment. Third, the cross-track correlation analysis relies on a small dataset (five design studios), which constrains statistical inference and requires that correlation results be interpreted descriptively rather than as predictive or causal relationships. These limitations do not undermine the value of the proposed framework, but rather, they clarify its current scope as an exploratory and diagnostic tool and point toward future research directions involving (1) larger samples, (2) multi-institutional comparisons, and (3) longitudinal applications across study levels and curricula.

5. Conclusions

The comparative evaluation presented in this study demonstrates that design studio pedagogy, when situated in empirically rich environments such as spa settlements, can simultaneously act as a site of learning, innovation, and professional formation. Through the triangulated analytical framework developed across Tracks 1, 2, and 3, and consolidated through the cross-track correlation analysis, four key conclusions emerge, each corresponding to the research questions guiding the study.

(RQ1) The results confirm that the five analyzed studios collectively articulate a robust and differentiated landscape of pedagogical innovation. Despite their thematic diversity, ranging from heritage reprogramming and multisensory design to health promotion, hybrid naturalities, and culture-sensitive approaches, all studios exhibit a shared methodological foundation grounded in environmentally sensitive, context-aware, and research-driven learning. The comparative profiling reveals that innovation is not expressed as a singular or universal model but as a spectrum of pedagogical signatures shaped by spatial scale, temporal orientation, methodological hybridity, and the conceptual framing of heritage. Cross-studio patterns demonstrate convergence around multiscalarity, diagnostic methods, and contextual grounding, while divergences reflect distinctive epistemic trajectories that enrich the pedagogical system. In this sense, spa settlements function as productive laboratories that generate innovation by compelling students to integrate environmental, cultural, and experiential dimensions into design thinking.

(RQ2) The evaluation against UNESCO–UIA learning capabilities reveals a pedagogical corpus that is broadly aligned with global educational standards, though with clear structural tendencies. Strong alignment is evident in design, environmental studies, and communicative skills, confirming that the spascape context naturally reinforces ecological literacy, site-based analysis, and multimodal representation. Moderate alignment appears in cultural-artistic and social knowledge, reflecting the thematic orientation of individual studios. The weakest alignment occurs in technical and professional studies, where regulatory literacy, procurement knowledge, and construction documentation remain underdeveloped. These findings suggest that design studio pedagogy rooted in heritage and environment excels in cultivating conceptual, analytical, and ethical learning outcomes but does not, on its own, provide complete coverage of technical-professional capabilities envisioned in international frameworks. As such, the policy-alignment analysis identifies both areas of strength and curricular zones where complementary instructional scaffolds may be required.

(RQ3) The professional capability analysis demonstrates that the corpus strongly cultivates professional domains aligned with the studios’ conceptual and methodological orientations. Architectural design, human–environment interaction, ethics and inclusivity, ecological sustainability, and research-based competencies form the most consistently expressed cluster across all studios. These results affirm that environmentally sensitive and heritage-based studio models do not merely support conceptual learning, they also foster professional attitudes grounded in care, responsibility, analytical reasoning, and ecological awareness. Moderately expressed competencies, such as urban planning, contextual theory, environmental performance, constructive creativity, and professional-social responsibility, reflect the differentiated emphases of individual studio models. The weakest domains including regulatory and cost awareness and project/business management highlight the boundaries of design-centric pedagogy. While these gaps are not unexpected, they underscore the need for targeted integration of professional literacy to strengthen the continuum between academic experimentation and practice-oriented expectations.

(RQ4) The cross-track correlation analysis provides a synthetic insight into how LCs translate into PCs across the five studios. The heat-map exposes three system-level tendencies. First, strong positive alignments appear between cultural-artistic, design, environmental, and analytical learning capabilities and their corresponding professional domains indicating high structural coherence in studios where heritage, environmental reasoning, or methodological depth are central pedagogical drivers. Second, strong negative alignments emerge in domains where conceptual or analytical learning intensifies in the absence of advanced technical integration, revealing thematic specialization rather than contradiction. Third, large neutral and zero-value zones confirm that certain professional competences, particularly technical, managerial, and regulatory ones, are not inherently activated by the LCs foregrounded in the current studio models. Taken together, the findings show that the integrative pedagogical function of the design studio is most effective in conceptual, analytical, ethical, and environmental domains, while technical-procedural competences rely on complementary curricular mechanisms outside the studio format. The cross-track analysis therefore validates the internal coherence of the pedagogical model while also identifying structural gaps that point toward strategic areas for curricular enhancement.

Beyond its thematic focus on environmentally sensitive and heritage-based design studios, the study offers a methodological contribution to AHE research by demonstrating the value of an integrated, multi-track evaluative framework. By bringing policy alignment, pedagogical innovation, and professional competence into a single relational system- and by operationalizing this system through a combination of ordinal evidence scoring, structured qualitative profiling, and cross-track correlation analysis- the study shows how design studio outputs can be interpreted as measurable and comparable components of a broader educational ecosystem. The methodological approach reveals how policy frameworks (such as the UNESCO–UIA Charter and Validation System) can be mobilized as analytical instruments rather than purely regulatory references, how qualitative differentiation across studios can be systematically profiled, and how learning capabilities relate to professional readiness in empirically observable ways. As such, the study advances a replicable analytical model that can be applied to different curricular contexts, offering a structured pathway for institutions seeking to better understand, document, and strengthen the pedagogical value of design studio education.