Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio

Ceren DOĞAN DERVİŞOĞLU, (İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Bölümü, İzmir, TÜRKİYE)
Ebru YILMAZ (İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Fakültesi, Mimarlık Bölümü, İzmir, TÜRKİYE)
Megaron
5 1
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 142 - 157 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120 İndeks Tarihi: 06-07-2023

Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio

Öz:
Covid-19 pandemic has affected the field of education, and transition to the distance learning has led to changes in the learning environment and pedagogical transformations. In this process, design studios, which are the basis of architectural education, were also maintained on online platforms. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the rapid learning environment change in the architectural design studio due to the Covid-19 pandemic on student behaviour. Examining students’ holistic perspectives and behaviours based on their experience in face- to-face design studios and online design studios, this research attempts to reveal the potential and challenges of face-to-face and online studios. In this study, students’ behavioural changes regarding face-to-face studio and online studio were measured using the survey method, and these two learning environments were interpreted over six themes (peer learning, socially mediated learning, self-efficacy, self-regulation, motivation, and communication with the instructor) by using the survey results, the course structure and the theoretical framework. The findings reveal that change in the learning environment affects student behaviour and that face-to-face design studios and online design studios have different potentials and limitations. In addition, the course structure of the face-to-face studio and online studio, the tools and methods used in learning, the way of communication and collaboration vary depending on the structure of the learning environment. This study reveals that the face-to-face design studio is a learning environment where the social structure of the studio is developed, peer learning is supported, and methods such as physical model and hand-sketching are used as well as digital tools during communication with the instructor. It shows that the most important potentials of the online studio are that it offers a flexible learning environment, does not have time and place restrictions, allows for cross-cultural and inter-institutional collaboration, and supports self-study. As a result, the research shows that online studio experiences gained during the pandemic period can offer the opportunity to create blended learning environments by adding online features to the traditional face-to-face studio.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alnusairat, S., Al Maani, D., and Al-Jokhadar, A. (2021). Architecture students’ satisfaction with and percep tions of online design studios during COVID-19 lockdown: the case of Jordan universities. Arch net-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Re search 15(1):219–236.
  • Al Lily, A. E., Ismail, A. F., Abunasser, F. M. and Hassan, R. (2020). Distance education as a response to pan demics: coronavirus and Arab culture. Technology in Society 63:101317.
  • Al Maani, D., Alnusairat, S., and Al-Jokhadar, A. (2021). Transforming learning for architecture : Online design studio as the new norm for crises adapta tion under COVID-19. Open House International 46(3):348–358.
  • Asadpour, A. (2021). Student challenges in online architec tural design courses in Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic. E-Learning and Digital Media 18(6):511– 529.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and ac tion: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive de velopment and functioning. Educational Psycholo gist 28:117–148.
  • Boud, D. (2001). Introduction: making the move to peer learning. In: Peer learning in higher education (Eds. D. Boud, R. Cohen and J. Sampson) London: Kogan, pp. 1–17.
  • Bradford, J. W., Cheng, N. Y. W., and Kvan, Th. (1994). Vir tual design studios. In: T. Maver and J. Petric (Eds.). The Virtual Studio. Paper presented at the proceed ings of the 12th European conference on education in computer aided Architectural Design, 7–10 Sep tember 1994, Glasgow, pp. 163–167.
  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., Mc Grath, M., and Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Ed ucation 23(2):329–348.
  • Broadfoot, O. and Bennett, R. (2003). Design studios: Online? Comparing traditional face-to-face de sign studio education with modern internet-based design studios. Apple University Consortium Ac ademic and Developers Conference Proceedings 2003, 9–21.
  • Burdick, A. and Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies 32(6):546–556.
  • Carlhian, J. P. (1979). The Ecole Des Beaux-Arts: Modes and Manners. Journal of Architectural Education, 33(2):7–17.
  • Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., and Mc grath, M. (2011). Managing the complexity of de sign problems through studio-based learning. In terdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 5(2):9–27.
  • Ceylan, S., Şahin, P., Seçmen, S., Somer, M. E., and Süher, K. H. (2021). An evaluation of online architectural design studios during COVID-19 outbreak. Arch net-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Re search 15(1):203–218.
  • Cho, J. Y. and Cho, M. (2014). Student perceptions and performance in online and offline collaboration in an interior design studio. International Journal Tech nology and Design Education 24:473–491.
  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies 3(4):221–227.
  • Demirbas, O. O. and Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academ ic performance and gender in design education. Learning and Instruction 17(3):345–359.
  • Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design Eeducation : Me ta-connective pedagogy. International Journal of Art and Design Education 39(3):483–497.
  • Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education 41(1):16–25.
  • Fisher, K. (Ed.). (2016). The Translational Design of Schools An Evidence-Based Approach to Aligning Pedagogy and Learning Environments. Sense Pub lishers.
  • Fleischmann, K. (2020a). Online design education: Search ing for a middle ground. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 19:36–57.
  • Fleischmann, K. (2020b). Hands-on versus virtual: Re shaping the design classroom with blended learn ing. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 1–26.
  • Fleischmann, K. (2021). Is the design studio dead? - An international perspective on the changing shape of the physical studio across design domains. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal 26(4):112–129.
  • Gee, L. (2006). Human-centered design guidelines. In: Oblinger, D. G. (ed.). Learning Spaces. Washington, USA: EDUCAUSE.
  • George, B. H. (2017). Barriers to the adoption of online design education within collegiate landscape archi tecture programmes in North America. Landscape Review 17(1):15–29.
  • Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Cre ativity Research Journal 4(2):123–143.
  • Gross, M. D. and Do, E. Y. (1999). Integrating Digital Media in Design Studio: Six Paradigms. Proceedings of the American College Schools of Architecture Confer ence Minneapolis.
  • Grover, R. and Wright, A. (2020). National Design Studio Survey: Findings. Report. UK: University of Bath.
  • Güler, K. (2022). Structuring knowledge-building in online design education. International Journal of Technol ogy and Design Education.
  • Hart, J., Zamenopoulos, T., and Garner, S. (2011). The learningscape of a virtual design atelier. The Jour nal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich 2(3):1–15.
  • Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., and McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. The Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of New Castle. 47.
  • Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., and Bond, A. (2020). “The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning”, available at: https:// er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the- difference-be tween-emergency-remote-teaching-and-on line-learning (accessed August 2022).
  • Howland, J. L. and Moore, J. L. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in internet-based courses. Dis tance Education 23(2):183–195.
  • Ibrahim, A. F., Attia, A. S., Asma’M, B., and Ali, H. H. (2021). Evaluation of the online teaching of archi tectural design and basic design courses case study: College of Architecture at JUST, Jordan. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12(2):2345–2353.
  • Illeris, K. (2009). A comprehensive understanding of hu man learning. In: K. Illeris, (Ed.). Contemporary Theories of Learning. Routledge, pp. 7–20.
  • Iranmanesh, A. and Onur, Z. (2021). Mandatory virtual de sign studio for all: Exploring the transformations of architectural education amidst the global pandemic. International Journal of Art and Design Education 40(1):251–267.
  • Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic De velopment 8(1–2):119–133.
  • Jones, D., Lotz, N., and Holden, G. (2021). A longitu dinal study of virtual design studio (VDS) use in STEM distance design education. Internation al Journal of Technology and Design Education 31:839–865.
  • Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. L., Okely, A. D., and Parrish, A. M. (2017). Perceived interplay be tween flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Re search 21:301–320.
  • Kocevar-Weidinger, E. and Cooperstein, S. E. (2004). Be yond active learning: A constructivist approach to learning. Reference Services Review 32(2):141– 148.
  • Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., and Smith, D. (2006). The redesign of studio culture. A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. The American Institute of Architecture Students, New York.
  • Kolarevic, B., Schmitt, G., Hirschberg, U., Kurmann, D., and Johnson, B. (2000). An experiment in design collaboration. Automation in Construction 9:73–81.
  • Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (second edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Au tomation in Construction 10(3):345–353.
  • Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio Teaching. Journal of Architectural Education 38(2):2–8.
  • Li, M.-H. and Murphy, M. D. (2004). Assessing the effect of supplemental web-based learning in two landscape construction courses. Landscape Review 9(1):157– 61.
  • Maher, M. L. and Simoff, S. (1999). Variations on the Vir tual Design Studio. Proceedings of Fourth Interna tional Workshop on CSCW in Design. Compiègne, France.
  • Maher, M. L., Simoff, S. J., and Cicognani, A. (1999). Under standing Virtual Design Studios. In Springer-Verlag London Limited.
  • Marshalsey, L. and Sclater, M. (2020). Together but apart : Creating and supporting online learning commu nities in an era of distributed studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education 39(4):826–840.
  • Megahed, N. and Hassan, A. (2021). A blended learning strategy: reimagining the post-Covid-19 architec tural education. ArchnetIJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research. Ahead-of-print. https:// doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-04-2021-0081.
  • Newman, G., George, B., Li, D., Tao, Z., Yu, S., and Lee, R. J. (2018). Online learning in landscape architecture: Assessing issues, preferences, and student needs in design-related online education. Landscape Journal 37(2):41–63.
  • Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from class rooms to learning spaces. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 28(1):14–18.
  • Oblinger, D. (2006). Learning Spaces. Brockport Bookshelf.
  • Oxman, R. (2001). The mind in design: A conceptual framework for cognition in design education. In: Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Elsevier, pp. 269–295.
  • Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies 29(2):99–120.
  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., Jong, T. De, Riesen, S. A. N. van, Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., and Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inqui ry-based learning : Definitions and the inquiry cy cle. Educational Research Review 14:47–61.
  • Pektaş, Ş. T. (2015). The virtual design studio on the cloud : A blended and distributed approach for technolo gy-mediated design education. Architectural Sci ence Review 58(3):255–265.
  • Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of Learning:Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. Routledge.
  • Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., and Tibbetts, B. (2008). Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Positive Out comes by Design. Proceedings of the Next Genera tion Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium.
  • Saghafi, M. R., Franz, J., and Crowther, P. (2012). Percep tions of physical versus virtual design studio educa tion. International Journal of Architectural Research 6(1):6–22.
  • Sagun, A., Demirkan, H., and Goktepe, M. (2001). A frame work for the design studio in web-based education. International Journal of Art and Design Education 20(3):332–342.
  • Salama, A. M. (2016). Spatial design education: New di rections for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. Routledge.
  • Salama, A. M. and Crosbie, M. J. (2020). Educating ar chitects in a post-pandemic world. Common Edge 14.
  • Sawyer, R. K. and Greeno, J. G. (2008). Situativity and Learning. In: M. Aydede and P. Robbins, (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 347– 367.
  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions.
  • Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories An Educational Perspective. Boston: Pearson.
  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured prob lems. Artificial Intelligence 4:181–201.
  • Varma, A. and Jafri, M. S. (2021). COVID-19 responsive teaching of undergraduate architecture programs in India : Learnings for post-pandemic education. Archnet-IJAR 15(1):189–202.
  • Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study”. The In ternet and Higher Education 6(1):77–90.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Har vard University Press.
  • Webster, H. (2005). The architectural review: A study of rit ual, acculturation and reproduction in architectural education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Educa tion 4(3):265–282.
  • Winters, T. (2021). Emergency remote studio teaching: Notes from the field. Journal of Teaching and Learn ing with Technology 10(Special Issue):117–126.
  • Wojtowicz, J. (1995). Virtual Design Studio. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
  • Wragg, N. (2019). Online communication design educa tion: The importance of the social environment. Studies in Higher Education 45(11):2287–2297.
  • Yee, S., Mitchell, W. J., Naka, R., Morozumi, M., and Ya maguchi, S. (1998). The kumamoto-kyoto-MIT col laborative project: A case study of the design studio of the future. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 1370:80–93.
  • Yorgancıoğlu, D. (2020). Critical reflections on the surface, pedagogical and epistemological features of the de sign studio under the “New Normal” conditions. Journal of Design Studio 2(1):25–36.
  • Yu, R., Ostwald, M. J., Gu, N., Skates, H., and Feast, S. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of online teach ing in architecture courses. Architectural Science Review 65(2):89–100.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regula tion and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future pros pects. American Educational Research Journal 45(1):166–183.
  • Zimring, C., Khan, S., Craig, D., Haq, S. U., and Guzdial, M. (2001). CoOL Studio: Using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the design studio. Automa tion in Construction 10(6):675–685.
APA Doğan Dervişoğlu C, YILMAZ E (2023). Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. , 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
Chicago Doğan Dervişoğlu Ceren,YILMAZ EBRU Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. (2023): 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
MLA Doğan Dervişoğlu Ceren,YILMAZ EBRU Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. , 2023, ss.142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
AMA Doğan Dervişoğlu C,YILMAZ E Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. . 2023; 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
Vancouver Doğan Dervişoğlu C,YILMAZ E Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. . 2023; 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
IEEE Doğan Dervişoğlu C,YILMAZ E "Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio." , ss.142 - 157, 2023. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
ISNAD Doğan Dervişoğlu, Ceren - YILMAZ, EBRU. "Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio". (2023), 142-157. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
APA Doğan Dervişoğlu C, YILMAZ E (2023). Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. Megaron, 18(2), 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
Chicago Doğan Dervişoğlu Ceren,YILMAZ EBRU Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. Megaron 18, no.2 (2023): 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
MLA Doğan Dervişoğlu Ceren,YILMAZ EBRU Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. Megaron, vol.18, no.2, 2023, ss.142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
AMA Doğan Dervişoğlu C,YILMAZ E Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. Megaron. 2023; 18(2): 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
Vancouver Doğan Dervişoğlu C,YILMAZ E Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. Megaron. 2023; 18(2): 142 - 157. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
IEEE Doğan Dervişoğlu C,YILMAZ E "Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio." Megaron, 18, ss.142 - 157, 2023. 10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
ISNAD Doğan Dervişoğlu, Ceren - YILMAZ, EBRU. "Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio". Megaron 18/2 (2023), 142-157. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2023.70120
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 8:9

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları