From the beginning, Architecture Workshop 1 brought together knowledge from all the first-year subjects in order to generate architectural projects based on coherent criteria. The critical review of the didactic activities made it possible to reflect on the teaching work in the search for improving the teaching-learning process. This article was situated in the paradigm of action research and its objective was to carry out a review and critical analysis of the practical activities of the methodology of the Architecture Workshop 1A (FAUD-UNSJ). For this purpose, focus groups were organized in the form of occasional meetings and individual testimonies of the faculty members were recorded from the exchange of opinions regarding the annual planning of practical work. Finally, a SWOT analysis matrix was prepared in which the information was organized according to strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats. It was concluded that carrying out this type of study is of great importance for the academic environment, since it allowed giving value to the opinions of each teacher and fostering a constructivist discussion that collaborated in improving the teaching-learning process of the subject.

Keywords: architecture; projectual scheme; action research.

This article is part of the research project "Generation of creative ideas during the design process from enhanced representation skills in Architecture. Comprehensive approach from a pedagogical perspective", funded by the Universidad Nacional de San Juan according to Res. 1500/23-R. One of the specific objectives of this project was to reflect on the pedagogical practices adopted as methodology of the Architecture Workshop 1A, detecting the positive aspects to be rescued and the negative ones to be improved. In this sense, it was considered that the critical review of the formative activities developed with the students within the classroom-workshop contributed to the enhancement of these and allowed detecting the shortcomings that directly affected the teaching-learning process.

The instances of reflection in the internal organization of the teaching staff can serve as a potential element from the perspective of action research, which seeks to improve the practice of educators over the generation of scientific knowledge (Muñoz Olivero et al., 2016). This can be considered very useful in view of the need to dedicate a moment to analyze one's own work, create constructive criticism collectively among peers and develop alternative strategies to optimize the teaching work. In the words of Chacón Corzo (2006), "reflection is assumed as a process of revision, reflection implies an act of thinking, it is to abstract oneself to observe, debate with oneself and try to explain one's own actions; it is to look critically at what one does, justify each of the decisions taken and go deeper from one's own questioning, in order to rectify or make decisions that aim, in any case, to improve the teaching practice" (p. 336).

Likewise, reflective practice in education is a key method to generate habits that contribute to the development of activities, articulating cognitive and affective aspects, and obtaining better results from self-evaluation (Cabrera Nieto et al., 2022). However, recording a teacher's performance in the classroom is a complex task. It is essential to consciously identify actions and their impact on students, considering the precise intention outlined in the planning of the lecture (Rodríguez Sánchez & Uc Mas, 2022).

Therefore, reflecting on one's own action allows assessing what was done in relation to the objective that was sought to be achieved and what motivated to opt for a certain way of carrying it out, evaluating the feasibility of reorientation (Castellanos & Yaya, 2013). In this way, the measures that promote the incorporation of a reflective instance in the professional work of teachers contribute positively to the improvement of the teaching and learning process (Carranza, 2007). For this, the expected learning outcomes should be taken as a reference, so that a coherent relationship is achieved between the activities designed and what is reflected in the evaluations of the teaching team (Tejada Fernández, 2022).

In the career of Architecture, the project subjects are in charge of developing a learning process based on the promotion of creativity as a fundamental tool. Therefore, certain didactic strategies are implemented that introduce creativity in their planning, where the project itself grounds the praxis from an empirical and pragmatic perspective, combining in parallel a critical-theoretical analysis of the morphological, aesthetic, technological and functional aspects of architectural design (Buendía de Viana, 2018). In this line, the Architecture Workshop is the academic space par excellence where the knowledge of the other subjects is integrated, promoting a discourse broad enough to substantiate the creation of architectural designs and reflect on their possible impact on society (Meneses, 2013).

The Architecture Workshop is a physical and symbolic space where students perform individual and group tasks guided by teachers, characterized mainly by continuous interactivity from the exchange of experiences, discussion and reflection (Rodriguez & Fiscarelli, 2023). Palacio (2019) considers that the greatest strength of the Architecture Workshops is their ability to respond to the formative needs of the past, the present and, possibly, the future (p. 126). There, they are committed to participatory learning where the interaction between teachers and students remains constant over time, serving as guides in problem-based project exercises that require well-defined instances of research and creation. Basterrechea (2013) affirms that learning a design discipline can only take place in the design work itself, crossed by an intersubjectivity that mediates between teachers and students, who build meanings from reflective practices in the workshop environment. For their part, Sánchez Toro et al. (2024) situate the Architecture Workshop analogously as a threshold where previous and future experiences meet, judgments and comparisons are crossed, and appreciations that conceive the project as a graphic and oral account are discussed, being an essential process for the understanding and communication of the students' ideas.

In the first year of training, the architecture student should concentrate on the basic concepts and elements of spatial composition based on an uncomplicated architectural program, focusing on project exploration, critical understanding of reality and the possibilities it offers. Dialogue with the teacher, who guides their practices and provides valuable tools that allow them to deepen their own reflections, is extremely important (Bustamante-Parra & Cardona-Rodríguez, 2023). Therefore, didactics in project subjects should be oriented to the creation of learning situations that serve as a way to overcome the challenges that the career presents them, facilitating and stimulating autonomous learning (Alba Dorado, 2016). With this, a critical reading of the social environment is achieved, identifying and combining all the variables that integrate it, being able to take a definite position before the apparent reality to think, project, build and represent architecture in an autonomous way (Palacio, 2019). For such reason, it is considered that architects' trainers must constantly review the paradigms and models that underpin their practices, providing an efficient response to current learning needs (Martínez Iglesias et al., 2020).

In this sense, reviewing the practical activities taught in the Architecture Workshop from a critical attitude becomes a valuable opportunity to become aware of the results, both positive and negative, obtained over the previous years. At the same time, it requires a conscious intervention of the entire teaching staff, who, from their experience and opinion, can make a significant contribution to the planning of the subject, detecting shortcomings and proposing certain adjustments.

The research was qualitative in nature and conformed to the action-research paradigm. The sample comprised the faculty members of Architecture Workshop 1A at the Faculty of Architecture, Urbanism, and Design, National University of San Juan, over the last two years (2022-2023). The course planning underwent a critical review, evaluating each didactic activity in light of the individual and collective perceptions of the educators concerning the expected and actual outcomes.

Data collection primarily employed the focus group technique, systematically organizing occasional meetings with the participation of the entire teaching staff, and recording relevant reflections and opinions in writing. Additionally, the participant observation technique was utilized among peer educators during theoretical-practical classes and consultations, conducted with a high level of awareness to contribute to group discussions. Subsequently, the gathered information was used to create a SWOT analysis matrix (strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats) (Table 1). This tool provided a simplified general overview of the internal state of the teaching group organization, facilitating the organization of data and the formulation of strategies to address identified negative aspects (García Vargas, 2013).

The planning of practical activities for Architecture Workshop 1A at FAUD-UNSJ during the specified period was structured into five specific activities, each with distinct objectives and development methodologies. These were:

• Activity 1: Urban Tour
• Activity 2: Spatial Organizations
• Activity 3: Functional Units
• Activity 4: Architecture in an Urban Context
• Activity 5: Architecture and Nature

The methodological approach of each activity aimed to adapt to the students' progress at different stages of the academic year. Initially, most incoming students lacked proficiency in analog representation techniques, such as technical drawing and model-making. They were also unfamiliar with the discipline's specific language and the necessary knowledge to design habitable spaces. However, as they progressed in their studies, they received support from the theoretical classes of the Workshop and the specific content of other first-year subjects like Architectural Drawing, Morphology 1, Introduction to Technology, etc. This allowed the activities to be planned with increasing complexity, starting from simple initial exercises and culminating in more demanding projects.

Activity 1 Urban Tour

The Urban Tour was a relatively simple activity whose main objective was for students to learn how to conduct a guided urban-architectural survey. A specific city sector was selected in advance, considering a neighborhood scale that could be covered in a single day. A guide with a finite number of elements and situations to be recorded was provided to the students.

The activity was structured in two stages: one in situ, corresponding to the tour itself, and another in the workshop environment, which involved processing, discussing, and presenting the information. In the first stage, students actively surveyed the area, observing the surrounding buildings, the activities people were engaged in, the use of public space, and the sensations generated by sound and light. It was a fieldwork exercise where interesting aspects were highlighted and categorized into morphology (vegetation, buildings, shape, colors, textures); functionality (vehicular and pedestrian circulation, flows, land uses, temporality); types of spaces (transitional, permanent, closed, open, semi-covered, etc.); perceptions (sensations, tensions, emotions); and historical aspects (traces and imprints in the city, building rehabilitation), among others. The teacher's guidance was crucial, as they provided insights throughout the tour.

The second stage involved group processing of the information, focusing on discussing the data and finding an analog method to communicate the conclusions: sketches, freehand drawing, collage, etc. In this case, the representation technique was adopted freely, and the work was presented (Sguario et al., 2023).

Activity 2: Spatial Organizations

Este This practical work was presented under the title "Spatial Organizations and Configuring Elements of Architectural Space," with the specific objective of introducing students to the design of open spaces through order and the use of geometric elements to impart qualities to the space. The importance of this exercise lay in the conscious manipulation of volumes, plates, and bars to explore the possibilities that three-dimensional geometry offers in the design of open spaces. For this assignment, the required exploration and presentation format was a model at a predetermined scale, where students explored their ideas in relation to the site's influence.

The work connected with the survey from Activity 1, where a small section within the surveyed area was chosen, and the design of an open space was proposed. The general guideline was to arrange a sort of pathway using bars, plates, and/or volumes, identifying a main entrance and between three and five clearly differentiated spaces. To this end, each student could use recognized physical or sensory aspects of the environment or a concept idea that they developed to motivate the creativity of their project. The spaces to be designed varied year by year but maintained the logic of being spaces that contained outdoor activities, such as a social gathering area, reading area, exhibition space, amphitheater, etc.

In this case, the challenge consisted of understanding the influence of three-dimensional geometry in the configuration of spaces based on a determined order: central, linear, grid, radial, etc. (Ching, 2002). Additionally, the focus was on generating plays of light and shadow, partial or total separation between spaces, and the use of vegetation, water, and wind for the pedestrian's perception. The work was individual and required constant guidance from the supervising teacher.

Activity 3: Functional Units

The third assignment was named "Functional Units" and aimed for students to become aware of space measurements in relation to their bodies, identifying the positive and negative aspects of spatial dimensioning by surveying their own homes and taking a critical stance on redesigning a sector of it. In this context, functional units mainly referred to enclosed spaces in a building with a specific, inflexible function that, if not properly considered from the outset, could generate problems later on. These included the bathroom, kitchen, and laundry room.

The work was divided into four consecutive and progressive stages. First, the survey of one's own home, expressed and discussed through photos, freehand sketches, diagrams, written narratives, etc., aiming for discussion and reflection on the dimensions of each habitable space and its corresponding furniture. Second, a stage of technical graphic representation at a 1:100 scale (1 cm = 100 cm) for the complete house in plans and sections, and at 1:25 (1 cm = 25 cm) for the functional units. Here, the student had their first experience of two-dimensional representation in the workshop setting, supported by theoretical classes and continuous consultations. Third, understanding anthropometric relationships, which involved considering the measurements of the human body and its movement through architectural space, expressed through exercises of measuring themselves, family members, or classmates in different postures and everyday situations. This allowed articulating the previous stage with the final one, where it was verified whether the minimum dimensions were learned or if at least a critical attitude towards them was adopted. Finally, a fourth stage of redesigning the kitchen and bathroom graphically, applying everything learned previously.

This activity demonstrated the level of technical knowledge of two-dimensional representation each student possessed and allowed them to practice with an architectural object they inhabited daily, making the teacher's guidance crucial in understanding dimensions and the various possibilities for graphing them.

Activity 4: Architecture in Urban Context

This practical exercise involved designing a low-complexity building, typically housing, offices, or shops, situated on a rectangular plot with a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio in an urban context. The objective was for students to establish design criteria according to the urban site's influence, emphasizing functional and formal resolutions within the real limits of a previously selected parcel.

The work adopted a methodology similar to that of Activity 2, but with a different analysis approach, as this time the study of the user and topic analysis were added to the research. Generally, students were asked to consider the project for their own families to facilitate interviews and enhance the value of production. The exploration format was in a model and technical graphic representation at a 1:50 scale (1 cm = 50 cm).
The challenges presented in this stage were addressed by students who could mature their knowledge and refine their design criteria, allowing them to identify without major difficulties the direct factors and constraints such as climate, the morphology of nearby buildings, traffic flows, plot dimensions, views, and orientations, among others.

Activity 5: Architecture and Nature

The final activity to pass the course involved repeating the methodology of Activity 4 but in a less familiar context: the mountains. The goal was to inspire students' creative ideas based on the nature-specific conditions. In this sense, the physical and perceptual analysis of the site had to provide an understanding of a key concept or idea that allowed the project to develop with a degree of originality, reflecting the evolution and incorporation of theoretical content learned throughout the academic year.

In this case, two consecutive stages were adopted: survey and design. In the first stage, the natural mountain area was analyzed on various scales and its connection with the city, from departure to arrival. Therefore, the initial exploration was also developed in different model scales (1:100 or 1:200, depending on the theme), before moving to the usual work at a 1:50 scale, incorporating two-dimensional tools. This was complemented by the study of the user and topic analysis, generally related to tourism, such as a tourist complex, sports club, hotel/cabins, or similar.

This activity demonstrated the different ways of inhabiting natural spaces compared to the city and required students to look beyond the ordinary to tackle the search for creative ideas linked to nature.

Table 1.
SWOT Analysis of the Activities in the Architecture Workshop

ACTIVITIES	STRENGTHS	WEAKNESSES	OPPORTUNITIES	THREATS
General Assessments (common to all activities) Activity 1: Urban Tour	-A small number of students possess a basic knowledge of representation from secondary education. -All activities are carried out through analog exploration in models and/or graphics, allowing for more realistic and tangible practice. -A very high percentage of students are already familiar with the area to be toured as they are part of the community living in the zone. -Students can perform the work supported by previous experiences in the site to be surveyed. -Freedom of techniques to survey and present information: photos, sketches, collages, etc. -Large number of participating students as it is the beginning of the academic year.	-The majority of students lack prior knowledge of graphic and model-making representation techniques. -A large part of the students does not trust their own bi-dimensional and tri-dimensional representation skills, which slows down the learning process. -Large number of students compared to the number of teachers. -Students do not have mastery of specific disciplinary codes or language, as this is their first approach to urban studies. -Lack of knowledge about the area's history and dynamics, especially among students from other localities. -Limited knowledge of on-site recording techniques such as sketching or photography. -The exercise requires visiting the area at different times to broaden the record of activities. -Lack of previous experience to approach the topic without tutors or guides.	-There is a course that develops theories on graphic and technical representation: Architectural Drawing, which can support the workshop practices. -Free proposals, with flexible program requirements. -Availability of ongoing consultations within the Workshop environment.	-Organizational issues between courses to achieve synergy in integrating knowledge. -Overload of content from other courses that reduces the time students can concentrate on Workshop activities. -Overlapping deadlines between courses. -Students from other provinces are unfamiliar with urban dynamics and find it more difficult to work on them without constant teacher support. -Lack of available information due to the limited amount of research on the sector. -Each work session has a time limitation, requiring students to return to the site multiple times. -Other factors that may hinder or prevent the successful completion of the guided visit, such as bad weather or social demonstrations.
	-A small number of students possess a basic knowledge of representation from secondary education. -All activities are carried out through analog exploration in models and/or graphics, allowing for more realistic and tangible practice. -A very high percentage of students are already familiar with the area to be toured as they are part of the community living in the zone. -Students can perform the work supported by previous experiences in the site to be surveyed. -Freedom of techniques to survey and present information: photos, sketches, collages, etc. -Large number of participating students as it is the beginning of the academic year.	-The majority of students lack prior knowledge of graphic and model-making representation techniques. -A large part of the students does not trust their own bi-dimensional and tri-dimensional representation skills, which slows down the learning process. -Large number of students compared to the number of teachers. -Students do not have mastery of specific disciplinary codes or language, as this is their first approach to urban studies. -Lack of knowledge about the area's history and dynamics, especially among students from other localities. -Limited knowledge of on-site recording techniques such as sketching or photography. -The exercise requires visiting the area at different times to broaden the record of activities. -Lack of previous experience to approach the topic without tutors or guides.	-The urban areas considered for the activity offer a multitude of situations, elements, and interesting constraints to investigate from the perspective of an architecture student. -Input from other courses working with the same urban area can be obtained. -Students can broaden their perspective as passersby with the analysis guidance provided by the instructors. -The large number of attending students allows for a more comprehensive discussion of the collected data.	-Organizational issues between courses to achieve synergy in integrating knowledge. -Overload of content from other courses that reduces the time students can concentrate on Workshop activities. -Overlapping deadlines between courses. -Students from other provinces are unfamiliar with urban dynamics and find it more difficult to work on them without constant teacher support. -Lack of available information due to the limited amount of research on the sector. -Each work session has a time limitation, requiring students to return to the site multiple times. -Other factors that may hinder or prevent the successful completion of the guided visit, such as bad weather or social demonstrations.
Activity 2: Spatial Organizations	-The theoretical contribution regarding spatial organizations (Ching, 2002) serves as a starting point for a project as it organizes and distributes spaces. -Geometric elements configure boundaries and define spaces. -It allows students a first approach to ordering abstract elements that compose it. -Understanding the concept opens up many proposals. -Direct association of the work with the student's daily life by analyzing their own home. -The work is real and tangible. -Easy access to measurable handling of the human body and the space it inhabits. -Surrounded by elements designed for human use and activities. -The adopted themes (housing, offices, etc.) are familiar and experienced in the students' daily lives. -The addressed themes are easily recognizable in the local urban fabric. -Access to a variety of local, national, and international examples. -Access to housing in the immediate environment that allows for its study.	-Misuse of techniques or materials for three-dimensional representation with models. -Delay in understanding the importance of using configuring elements for space generation. -Students struggle to relate theory to build architectural works. -The use of bars, plates, and volumes requires an understanding of the formal internal relationships of each element. -Heterogeneity in the social reality of each student. -Each student represents their own idiosyncrasies, making leveling and requirements challenging. -The space they inhabit with their family can differ significantly from others. -Limited instrumental knowledge on the use of measurement and recording elements. -Difficulties in graphically presenting the collected data. -Students feel challenged by urban constraints such as terrain and street directions, etc. -Some aspects of daily life have been normalized, making it difficult to broaden the perspective to new possibilities for greater comfort. -Lack of knowledge of other ways of experiencing spaces.	-The city offers interesting examples of different types of spatial organizations. -The theoretical content taught in this activity applies to all future work. -There are many international examples in architecture regarding spatial organizations and the use of configuring elements, which facilitate learning and understanding the concepts. -Students can adapt their time to carry out the activity since it involves their own home. -Different homes and lifestyles can be compared to enable peer reflection. -Each student possesses anthropometric and ergonomic study and learning within their immediate and extended circle. -Their house, classroom, and living space are measurable. -By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their functional units, they can engage in critical review for reproduction in their projects. -Opportunity to reflect based on their own way of inhabiting these spaces. -Opportunity to transfer the theoretical content developed in the previous activity on functional units. -Easy access to the area allows for multiple site visits. -Possibility to learn about different ways of inhabiting and composing spaces through the study of the topic and precedents. -Enhance learning through the incorporation of images and examples related to the topic.	-Lack of understanding of human scale as an architectural reference. -Difficulty associating the idea of open space with plaza design. -Difficulty understanding that space does not necessarily have to be an enclosed cloister. -Lack of interest in seeking examples on the given topic. -No other first-year course covers these theories. -Great disparity between the dimensions and complexities of each personal home. -Functional units are below or do not meet standards of habitability and health. -There is a possibility of not knowing better spatial quality or health conditions than those the student experiences daily. -Comments from teachers or other students can negatively affect the sensitivity of the student who shows the reality of their home. -Urban plots with limited dimensions for creative exploration. -Lack of knowledge of local building codes and ethics in the type of construction according to the addressed topic. -Constant attitude of justifying negative aspects in their proposals based on comparing their own life experiences. -Difficulty handling coherent minimum dimensions. -Difficulty accessing the area, making multiple site visits impossible. -Concern for functionality due to complexity can divert attention from the aesthetic focus of the project. -Lack of spatial understanding due to vertical circulation and terraces. -Other factors may hinder or prevent the successful completion of the guided visit, such as bad weather or lack of necessary permits.
Activity 3: Functional Units	-It allows working freely on-site by exploring the topography. -Total freedom to choose a generating idea or concept. -The student already possesses knowledge to establish criteria for creating new spaces. -Greater and better manipulation of theory and representation tools.	-Climate constraints that require greater attention from the designer. -Difficulty in solving certain basic aspects of vertical and horizontal circulation. -Difficulty in evolving concept ideas. -Difficulty in model and graphic representation of mountain topography. -Difficulty in interpreting non-urban and sloped environments. -Difficulty in resolving ventilation and natural lighting.	-A new theme that invites renewed reflection and experimentation without many limits. -Flexibility in considering constraints due to greater intervention possibilities, such as heights, views, dimensions, etc. -The theme allows breaking classical urban construction patterns. -Maturation of complementary content from other courses.	-Lack of understanding of human scale as an architectural reference. -Difficulty associating the idea of open space with plaza design. -Difficulty understanding that space does not necessarily have to be an enclosed cloister. -Lack of interest in seeking examples on the given topic. -No other first-year course covers these theories. -Great disparity between the dimensions and complexities of each personal home. -Functional units are below or do not meet standards of habitability and health. -There is a possibility of not knowing better spatial quality or health conditions than those the student experiences daily. -Comments from teachers or other students can negatively affect the sensitivity of the student who shows the reality of their home. -Urban plots with limited dimensions for creative exploration. -Lack of knowledge of local building codes and ethics in the type of construction according to the addressed topic. -Constant attitude of justifying negative aspects in their proposals based on comparing their own life experiences. -Difficulty handling coherent minimum dimensions. -Difficulty accessing the area, making multiple site visits impossible. -Concern for functionality due to complexity can divert attention from the aesthetic focus of the project. -Lack of spatial understanding due to vertical circulation and terraces. -Other factors may hinder or prevent the successful completion of the guided visit, such as bad weather or lack of necessary permits.
Activity 4: Urban Architecture	-The theoretical contribution regarding spatial organizations (Ching, 2002) serves as a starting point for a project as it organizes and distributes spaces. -Geometric elements configure boundaries and define spaces. -It allows students a first approach to ordering abstract elements that compose it. -Understanding the concept opens up many proposals. -Direct association of the work with the student's daily life by analyzing their own home. -The work is real and tangible. -Easy access to measurable handling of the human body and the space it inhabits. -Surrounded by elements designed for human use and activities. -The adopted themes (housing, offices, etc.) are familiar and experienced in the students' daily lives. -The addressed themes are easily recognizable in the local urban fabric. -Access to a variety of local, national, and international examples. -Access to housing in the immediate environment that allows for its study.	-Misuse of techniques or materials for three-dimensional representation with models. -Delay in understanding the importance of using configuring elements for space generation. -Students struggle to relate theory to build architectural works. -The use of bars, plates, and volumes requires an understanding of the formal internal relationships of each element. -Heterogeneity in the social reality of each student. -Each student represents their own idiosyncrasies, making leveling and requirements challenging. -The space they inhabit with their family can differ significantly from others. -Limited instrumental knowledge on the use of measurement and recording elements. -Difficulties in graphically presenting the collected data. -Students feel challenged by urban constraints such as terrain and street directions, etc. -Some aspects of daily life have been normalized, making it difficult to broaden the perspective to new possibilities for greater comfort. -Lack of knowledge of other ways of experiencing spaces.	-The city offers interesting examples of different types of spatial organizations. -The theoretical content taught in this activity applies to all future work. -There are many international examples in architecture regarding spatial organizations and the use of configuring elements, which facilitate learning and understanding the concepts. -Students can adapt their time to carry out the activity since it involves their own home. -Different homes and lifestyles can be compared to enable peer reflection. -Each student possesses anthropometric and ergonomic study and learning within their immediate and extended circle. -Their house, classroom, and living space are measurable. -By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their functional units, they can engage in critical review for reproduction in their projects. -Opportunity to reflect based on their own way of inhabiting these spaces. -Opportunity to transfer the theoretical content developed in the previous activity on functional units. -Easy access to the area allows for multiple site visits. -Possibility to learn about different ways of inhabiting and composing spaces through the study of the topic and precedents. -Enhance learning through the incorporation of images and examples related to the topic.	-Lack of understanding of human scale as an architectural reference. -Difficulty associating the idea of open space with plaza design. -Difficulty understanding that space does not necessarily have to be an enclosed cloister. -Lack of interest in seeking examples on the given topic. -No other first-year course covers these theories. -Great disparity between the dimensions and complexities of each personal home. -Functional units are below or do not meet standards of habitability and health. -There is a possibility of not knowing better spatial quality or health conditions than those the student experiences daily. -Comments from teachers or other students can negatively affect the sensitivity of the student who shows the reality of their home. -Urban plots with limited dimensions for creative exploration. -Lack of knowledge of local building codes and ethics in the type of construction according to the addressed topic. -Constant attitude of justifying negative aspects in their proposals based on comparing their own life experiences. -Difficulty handling coherent minimum dimensions. -Difficulty accessing the area, making multiple site visits impossible. -Concern for functionality due to complexity can divert attention from the aesthetic focus of the project. -Lack of spatial understanding due to vertical circulation and terraces. -Other factors may hinder or prevent the successful completion of the guided visit, such as bad weather or lack of necessary permits.
Activity 5: Architecture and Nature	-It allows working freely on-site by exploring the topography. -Total freedom to choose a generating idea or concept. -The student already possesses knowledge to establish criteria for creating new spaces. -Greater and better manipulation of theory and representation tools.	-Climate constraints that require greater attention from the designer. -Difficulty in solving certain basic aspects of vertical and horizontal circulation. -Difficulty in evolving concept ideas. -Difficulty in model and graphic representation of mountain topography. -Difficulty in interpreting non-urban and sloped environments. -Difficulty in resolving ventilation and natural lighting.	-A new theme that invites renewed reflection and experimentation without many limits. -Flexibility in considering constraints due to greater intervention possibilities, such as heights, views, dimensions, etc. -The theme allows breaking classical urban construction patterns. -Maturation of complementary content from other courses.	-Lack of understanding of human scale as an architectural reference. -Difficulty associating the idea of open space with plaza design. -Difficulty understanding that space does not necessarily have to be an enclosed cloister. -Lack of interest in seeking examples on the given topic. -No other first-year course covers these theories. -Great disparity between the dimensions and complexities of each personal home. -Functional units are below or do not meet standards of habitability and health. -There is a possibility of not knowing better spatial quality or health conditions than those the student experiences daily. -Comments from teachers or other students can negatively affect the sensitivity of the student who shows the reality of their home. -Urban plots with limited dimensions for creative exploration. -Lack of knowledge of local building codes and ethics in the type of construction according to the addressed topic. -Constant attitude of justifying negative aspects in their proposals based on comparing their own life experiences. -Difficulty handling coherent minimum dimensions. -Difficulty accessing the area, making multiple site visits impossible. -Concern for functionality due to complexity can divert attention from the aesthetic focus of the project. -Lack of spatial understanding due to vertical circulation and terraces. -Other factors may hinder or prevent the successful completion of the guided visit, such as bad weather or lack of necessary permits.

The findings of this study highlight the importance of activities developed in Architecture Workshops, aligning with the observations of Sguario et al. (2023) on the need for a practical approach in architectural education. In particular, Activity 1 acknowledges that new students have little knowledge of project practice and are unaware of all the preliminary survey tasks it requires. This finding is consistent with the work of Bustamante-Parra & Cardona-Rodríguez (2023), who emphasize the importance of dialogue between students and teachers to deepen their own reflections. The initial activity of urban-architectural surveying is crucial for laying the foundation of spatial and perceptual analysis, which will later be repeated in more advanced activities. Compared to other studies, it is evident that Activity 1 is fundamental for understanding the built environment and developing observation and critical analysis skills in urban contexts. This approach is aligned with the recommendations of Alba Dorado (2016), who emphasizes creating learning situations that stimulate autonomous learning. As students’ progress through the course, their ability to conduct surveys and detailed analyses improves, reflected in the quality of their projects and their confidence in facing complex challenges.

Activity 2 aims for students to understand how to establish and apply design criteria based on the influence of three-dimensional geometry for generating habitable spaces, using analog models. This practical approach is supported by Ching's research (2002), which highlights the importance of three-dimensional geometry in the configuration of architectural spaces. The use of models allows students to tangibly and concretely explore the possibilities of three-dimensional design, facilitating a deeper understanding of spatial and formal concepts. The comparison with previous studies, such as Palacio (2019), underscores the effectiveness of this approach, where architecture workshops respond to contemporary educational needs. Activity 2 not only improves students' technical skills but also fosters a greater understanding and adaptation to different design contexts, essential for comprehensive architecture training.

Activity 3 introduces techniques to understand the ergonomics of enclosed spaces and the anthropometric relationships of the human body, complemented by two-dimensional graphical explorations and three-dimensional works. This approach is consistent with the observations of Rodríguez and Fiscarelli (2023), who emphasize the importance of continuous interactivity between teachers and students. Understanding human dimensions and proportions is crucial for designing habitable spaces, and this activity allows students to apply this knowledge practically and reflectively. Comparing our findings with those of Martínez Iglesias et al. (2020) reveals the need to constantly review educational paradigms to adapt to current learning needs. Activity 3 also reveals disparities in students' personal contexts, complicating evaluation leveling. This challenge is reflected in the literature, where the diversity of academic backgrounds and personal experiences requires flexible and adaptive pedagogical strategies.

Activities 4 and 5 synergistically integrate all the learned concepts, considering that most students have already matured the theoretical concepts. In particular, Activity 5 presents additional complexity by requiring students to survey and design in a mountainous area, which is unusual in their daily routine. This challenge enhances the ability to solve discipline-specific problems and fosters specific reasoning regarding graphical and model representation of topography and slopes. Our findings align with the studies of Sánchez Toro et al. (2024), which place the Architecture Workshop as a threshold where past and future experiences intersect, promoting comprehensive and contextualized learning. Activity 5, by requiring an integration of knowledge and skills in a natural environment, demonstrates how students can creatively apply principles learned in urban contexts to more complex and challenging scenarios.

Finally, the results of this research highlight the effectiveness of practical and reflective methodologies in architectural education. Integrating theoretical and practical approaches, along with constant teacher support, is essential for developing critical and creative competencies in architecture students. This research emphasizes the need for a dynamic and adaptable educational approach that prepares students for the challenges of architectural design in various contexts.

 

Contribution to Knowledge
The critical analysis of practical activities in the Architecture Workshop 1A revealed the importance of a pedagogy that combines theory and practice in architectural training. This study evidenced how developing competencies in spatial analysis, ergonomics, and contextual design can significantly improve educational strategies. Additionally, it provides a framework for implementing reflective and adaptive teaching methods that respond to student diversity and foster problem-solving creativity.

Limitations
The study presented several limitations, highlighting the diversity of students' backgrounds, affecting the homogeneity of representation skills. These limitations underscore the need for flexible and inclusive pedagogical approaches that can adapt to different levels of student preparation and external factors impacting the learning process.

The Architecture Workshop was established as an integral environment that fostered creativity and promoted essential skills for designing habitable spaces, using a didactic methodology that articulated content through practical exercises, favoring problem-solving, metacognition, and critical reflection. The review of practical activities evidenced both strengths and areas for improvement; for example, Activity 1 laid the foundation for urban surveying, while Activity 2 strengthened three-dimensional spatial understanding through models, and Activity 3 introduced ergonomics and anthropometric relationships, revealing the need for equitable pedagogical strategies. Additionally, Activities 4 and 5 integrated and applied acquired knowledge in urban and natural contexts, demonstrating students' maturity and ability to solve specific problems. These observations underscored the importance of mutual commitment between teachers and students, inviting the formulation of new pedagogical strategies to improve the teaching-learning process and establish a solid foundation for future research in the action-research paradigm, promoting a dynamic and adaptable architectural education to contemporary challenges.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions:
Sguario, C. G.: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Research, Supervision, Validation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Sánchez, M G.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Research, Validation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Vives, F. A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Research, Supervision, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
López, S. M.: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Research, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Informed Consent: The researchers communicated with the participants, who gave their informed consent for the development of the study

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the authorities of FAUD–UNSJ and IRPHA–CONICET, as well as the other teachers of the Architecture Workshop 1A: Arqs. Eduardo Manilov, Alejandro Caballero, Silvia Elena Vives, Guillermina Ré, and Fabricio Corallo.