Abstract—Architecture education was based on apprenticeship models and its nature has not changed much during long period but the Source of changes was its evaluation process and system. It is undeniable that art and architecture education is completely based on transmitting knowledge from instructor to students. In contrast to other majors this transmitting is by iteration and practice and studio masters try to control the design process and improving skills in the form of supervision and criticizing. Also the evaluation will end by giving marks to students’ achievements. Therefore the importance of the evaluation and assessment role is obvious and it is not irrelevant to say that if we want to know about the architecture education system, we must first study its assessment procedures. The evolution of these changes in western countries has literate and documented well. However it seems that this procedure has unregarded in Malaysia and there is a severe lack of research and documentation in this area. Malaysia as an under developing and multicultural country which is involved different races and cultures is a proper origin for scrutinizing and understanding the evaluation systems and acceptability amount of current implemented models to keep the evaluation and assessment procedure abreast with needs of different generations, cultures and even genders. This paper attempts to answer the questions of how evaluation and assessments are performed and how students perceive this evaluation system in the context Malaysia. The main advantage of this work is that it contributes in international debate on evaluation model. Keywords—Architecture, assessment, design studio, learning I. INTRODUCTION EARNING by doing, a process where the design problem took preference over the lecture and became the vehicle by which architecture was taught, was introduced into art and architectural education at the Ecole Nationale et Speciale B. Hassanpour is PhD Student at Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia (e-mail: badieh.hassanpour@gmail.com) N. Utaberta is Senior Lecturer in the department of architecture, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi,Selangor, Malaysia(e-mail: nangkula_arch@yahoo.com) A. Zaharim is Professor and the Director of Centre of Engineering Education, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi,Selangor, Malaysia (e-mail: azami.zaharim@gmail.com) NAG Abdullah is Senior Fellow in the department of architecture, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi,Selangor, Malaysia(e-mail: akmal.goh@gmail.com) des Beaux-Arts in Paris in the 1890s. Most design studios were run independently by design professors. Base of the Beaux Arts system was design problem, assigned to the student early in the term and carefully developed under close supervision. It began as a sketch problem, and ended with final critique. Submissions at the Ecole were initially reviewed by design tutors alone, behind closed doors. Evaluation criteria were based on the quality of presentation and drawings, ignoring many of the variables that influence architectural design [1].Students were excluded, and would retrieve their work after the jury had finished. In 1919 Walter Gropius designed and built the Bauhaus School. The teaching methods and jury system employed by Gropius and his associates did not change dramatically from those of the Ecole. Bauhaus was closed down by the Nazis in 1933 but many of its teachers immigrated to North America where they either established new schools, or reformed existing ones according to Bauhaus principles. European tradition has greatly influenced North American architectural education and on their colonists [2].Today’s design studio model which focuses on learning by doing, is based on traditional form of schools of architecture, in which students after taking liberal arts subjects, basic architectural graphics and communication is given an associate degree in architectural technology. After another two years of architectural building subjects he may be given a diploma for bachelor’s degree in architectural technology. Another or two years of graduate work an advanced architectural, structural design and professional subjects he may be given a master degree.Most of trained architects have gone through similar types of training programs. The intentions and aspirations of the architects may be the same but the training procedure, criteria and curriculum may differ marginally depending on the schools [2]. However, the gist of the academic and practical training program is similar and the critique is the backbone of different experiences of studio masters. In fact learning process takes place in crit sessions either in those which lead to grading or those that just confined to comments. According to John Dewey, a 20th century American philosopher, criticism is judgment and also Criticism is a very useful tool in the communication of ideas and evaluation of designs. Critique, review and jury are three terms used interchangeably in schools of architecture [3]. In Architecture and Critical Imagination, [4] Wayne Attoe implies that the word criticism derives from a Greek verb Krinein, meaning to make distinctions, or to separate but unlike to this meaning, it seen that the meaning of judgment and cavil elicited too. Also The Badiossadat Hassanpour, Nangkula Utaberta, Azami Zaharim & Nurakmal Goh Abdullah Students’ Perception of the Evaluation System in Architecture Studios L World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences Vol:5, No:5, 2011 494 International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 5(5) 2011 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/10331 International Science Index, Educational and Pedagogical Sciences Vol:5, No:5, 2011 waset.org/Publication/10331