Integrating different parts of the curriculum is one of the important challenges in architecture education. Curriculum development has an important role in linking theoretical subjects into practical design studios. This study focuses on an analytical comparison of two architecture curricula in different contexts of Australia and Iran. The purpose is to find the limitations and benefits of each curriculum through educational systems, teaching time for theoretical and practical subjects, and the map of courses and subjects. This paper contributes to the literature of architecture education through analysis of integrating different subjects. This study implements a document analysis method and a comparative case study method. The comparison indicates that although the architecture curriculum in Iran benefits from an extensive education with more subjects, wider content, and triple teaching time, it provides less opportunity for integrating theoretical and practical subjects. Furthermore, course structures at Australian universities benefit from greater flexibility and
choice for students to individualise their course through elective subjects. Architecture education is a problem-based and project-based learning, so the results of this research have a wide application in research on higher education. Also, the findings of this study can assist design schools to improve their curricula through linking theory to practice.
