經過了1980年代以降歷史學、社會學與地理學等的論述衝擊，自19世紀末以來即確立以「空間」做為研究及實踐對象的建築學門，日益改造了自身的空間意涵，而以充滿了人文豐富性的空間性/地域性概念取代了原來的純粹空間範型。相應之下，建築圖繪表徵方式也日益多元，出現了不少的嘗試與反省，期待能突破既往以透視等實證科學圖繪為主的表現模式，以便能回應複雜的空間話語，畢竟，適當的圖繪不只具有工具性功效，還將擁有協助掌握現實的深刻潛能。筆者等於1990年代迄今運用華梵建築大一及碩專班設計教學平台所進行的圖繪空間結構教學實踐，即是其中之一，具有著如何以適當表徵回應空間性現實、以建構歷史地理建築學知識架構的思考意涵，值得對其做一探討。本文即是對此知識積累過程的行動研究，期待結合批判歷史及論述分析之角度對其過程及內涵進行研究，理解其知識論及方法論之貢獻與限制，以便做為後續建築實踐及教育討論的可能參考，而為台灣建築教育的持續精進，貢獻一己之力。

Under the impact of discourses from history, sociology, geography, etc., the Architecture, which had been established as a spatial research and practice discipline since late 19th century, has gradually renewed the content of space, and replaced “pure space” with humanistic paradigm of “spatiality/locality”. Hence, it also needs a new representational tool, which is different from that conventional one consisted of perspective etc. with the positive-science premise, so as to grasp the complex connotation of space.Because the due drawing method shall not only has the instrumental function, but also help to hold the deep spatial reality. According to this, the author and colleagues have engaged in teaching experiments to search for a new drawing of spatial representation, and gained some results that could be the base for creating the “architecture of historical geography”. This paper is just an action research of this educational practice, and aims, from the viewpoint of critical history and discursive analysis, to display its gains and to release its limitations, so as to be the plentiful base for further discussing of architectural education and spatial drawing method.