Ten Aspects Concerning Educational Design Within Environmentally Sustainable Design Studios

Abstract

Environmentally sustainable design (ESD) is the critical response in the building sector needed to mitigate ecological impacts caused by high resource consumption and enabling us to achieve sustainability targets. Education is crucial for sustainability, and architectural education has openly welcomed and introduced ESD studios into pedagogy. These sustainable studios possess both similarities and deviations from a conventional design studio, arousing interest among scholars. Hence, a growing body of knowledge is found, covering numerous important aspects of ESD educational design. Understanding the anatomy of an ESD studio–defined by unique characteristics, challenges, sustainability concepts, learning outcomes, underpinning learning theories, embodied educational design elements, design artefacts, and design thinking–are the major concerns for educators. An extensive literature review on ESD education projects within built environments revealed themes for these concerns, presented across ten aspects. The study is concluded with a synthesized concept map that could be used for pedagogical designs within ESD studios.

1. Introduction

There is growing concern regarding the environmental destruction caused by human activities, demanding that every sector responds with sustainable initiatives. The built environment plays a major role in meeting sustainability targets, with its high resource consumption [1] posing a significant challenge when seeking to mitigate environmental impacts [2]. Environmentally sustainable design (ESD) is a key strategy in building an industry that is highly invested in sophisticated technology and material development to achieve sustainability through design interventions [3].

Education is a key to achieving sustainability [4] and educating for ESD with advanced green building technologies is a vital component in preparing built environment professionals [5]. Educators have fully acknowledged the need to introduce ESD into mainstream curricula [6] and all forms of knowledge transfer, grappling to prepare students to meet the ever-changing demands of ecological challenges [7]. Initiatives are apparent in architectural studies attempting to integrate sustainability into existing courses and raise awareness [8], but more work is required within built environment education to support the transition [9,10].

A comprehensive project that closely examined the integration of sustainability in architecture was EDUCATE [11], where three factors were identified that triggered the necessity for change in architectural education. They included:

(1)

Current practice being slow to respond within creative design disclosure;

(2)

Sustainability criteria yet to be included in accreditation and qualification criteria; and

(3)

Universities and regulatory bodies have not scrutinized the integration of sustainability into mainstream higher education curricula.

The EDUCATE project revealed, through a survey of stakeholders, that 70.5% strongly agreed and 25.9% agreed on the inclusion of ESD into architectural education curricula [12]. To expand on the efforts towards integrating ESD into current practice within design education, studies are required to explore the underpinning factors important in developing education programs [13]. A recent study by [14] emphasized the need for architectural design studios to integrate sustainability, demonstrating three experimental studies. However, these studies were more focused on outcomes and design educational interventions rather than providing the reader with educational design processes. Boarin and Martinez-Molina [15] pointed out the studies should shift focus from what to how in educating for sustainable design studios.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify current practices in educational design within ESD studios, covering key learning and teaching aspects essential for educational design innovations. The main research question is: ‘what are the main considerations in educational design within ESD studio?’, presented across ten guiding questions. These questions were answered through a comprehensive literature review.

2. Materials and Methods

Ten research questions were developed to capture essential themes that can guide educators to design educational innovations for sustainable design studios. Sandoval [16] outlined a detailed educational design that integrates multiple factors with conjectures. This was used as the basis to generate the questions. The first question is concerned with the challenges found within a sustainable design studio. The second question is based upon the challenge presented by the large amount of complex and interrelated knowledge regarding sustainability required for integration and delivery within an ESD studio. The third question explores sustainability criteria and the concepts and approaches used within ESD studios. The fourth question relates to learning outcomes pertaining to ESD studios. The challenges and learning outcomes demand specific learning needs, generating the fifth question. The sixth question is on educational design ideas that are used within ESD studios to scaffold student learning. The seventh question expands on the use of sustainable buildings as an educational design idea. Question eight is concerned with the distinct design artefacts found within ESD studios, while question nine explores design practices in ESD studios. Finally, question ten is about identifying the specific characteristics of the sustainable design studio.

The collection of resources was conducted by searching SCOPUS and Web of Science, two databases frequently used in review studies due to their extensive coverage [17]. The keywords were ‘sustainable design’, ‘sustainable studio’, ‘sustainable design studio’, ‘design studio’, ‘sustainable architecture studio’, and ‘sustainable architectural design’. The search initially identified 642 documents and screening resulted in selecting 98 relevant studies. A further nine studies were selected using cross referencing. Altogether, 107 documents were reviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes in response to the ten research questions.

3. Results: Answers to Ten Research Questions

The review of the selected literature led to us generating themes that answer the ten questions. Each question and answer are outlined in the following subsections.

3.1. What Are the Key Challenges in an Environmentally Sustainable Design Studio?

Understanding challenges is crucial for educational design, and the investigation of the literature revealed the challenges of dealing with a large volume of knowledge, complexity and ambiguity of concepts, transforming the worldview, developing effective tools, incorporating sustainable designing into design thinking, and balancing aesthetics and technology.

3.1.1. Large Volume of Complex, Interrelated and Ambiguous Concepts

The challenge with ESD starts with the ‘inherent lack of conceptual clarity’ [12] p. 6 on the notion of sustainability. The ambiguity of the concept is further heightened in building designs, where many functions are integrated and sustainability should be achieved across many aspects [9]. For example, building design should address how energy demand is met, how water is supplied, how wastewater is managed, and what materials should be used in a sustainable manner. Each aspect in a building design has multiple approaches to sustainability that cannot be defined concisely [18]. They are complex and interdependent. Megri [19] argues that interdependence of one system on another is a challenge for teaching sustainability. Rynska [20] reported that when teaching a novel concept in sustainable architectural design, the interdisciplinary nature is challenging and demands more workshops for students.

With numerous aspects to consider in a building design, educators are burdened not only with the complexity, ambiguity, and interdependency, but also the magnitude of the sustainability concepts [21]. Investigation of sustainability criteria in any green building rating tool (GBRT) demonstrates the large volume of knowledge required to handle a sustainable design. Issues to resolve in ESD are complex and, with interrelationships, finding time to adequately to cover these topics is often a challenge [22].

3.1.2. Transforming the Sustainability Worldview

Teaching students sustainable design is not merely skill development but a transformational process that needs to be addressed from a social and philosophical perspective [23]. The need to strengthen ethical and sociocultural values of a sustainability worldview is expressed by many educators [13,22] in addition to the developing technical capabilities. Embracing the values of sustainability is crucial for successful ESD [24] that challenges the teaching and learning in the ESD studio [25]. Berg et al. [26] showcased how students have transformed their worldview through a design project to re-use timber, where philosophical ideas around deep ecology were introduced to induce a view on sustainability. Drapella-Hermansdorfer [27] provided students with the opportunity to empathize with the design users as a way to encourage students to view sustainability in a social context. Tang [28] explored a pedagogical approach to support students to develop concepts including Sustainable Development Goals.

3.1.3. Balancing Aesthetics and Technology

Conventionally, architectural creativity is appreciated in the context of aesthetics achieved by designing elegant, composed buildings [29]. The process of architectural education has a similar focus, with the emphasis on designing creative forms and spaces [30]. However, in grappling with the complexity and science of sustainability, educators find the need to balance creativity with adapted technologies while providing verifications of sustainable design proposals [22]. This is a fundamental challenge in facilitating students’ learning in ESD studios. To overcome this, education programs that integrate a solid link between the science of sustainability and the design dimension are required [31]. Building a counter argument, Mavromatidis [32] pointed out that the constraints with the building science aspects of sustainability could become a prospect for aesthetics, driving the creativity of design if brought in during early design stages.

3.1.4. Developing Tools and Design Guides

Students require effective tools to tackle the interdisciplinary, complex, complicated, and wicked problems found within sustainable design [13]. Developing such tools is challenging for an educator focusing on studio projects. Tools are essential for visualization and calculation of energy consumption prediction to quantify building performance while verifying the intuitive design decisions regarding sustainable design strategies [12].

de-Gaulmyn and Dupre [33] denoted that developing a tool that maintains student engagement and encourages students to use it in the design process is difficult. In most cases where students are required to assess their own designs with a design framework, GBRTs are introduced into the ESD studio [34]. Gomes et al. [35] reported on a pedagogical intervention that developed a tool to calculate life cycle assessment, highlighting the challenges. Technology-based tools such as simulation software [36] and BIM [37] have already been developed by large developing teams, and it is almost impossible for an educator to develop such effective tools for teaching. Therefore, pedagogies rely heavily on industry tools and software to educate students while teaching students to develop or adapt design frameworks to guide them.

3.1.5. Design Thinking for Environmentally Sustainable Design

Design pedagogy is highly grounded in design thinking (DT), with numerous DT models adapted within conventional studios. With the complexity of a sustainable design with additional verification requirements, DT should be adjusted accordingly [38,39]. Attempts have been made by those practicing sustainable design to develop DT, with remarkable progress. Martins et al. [40] expands the current DT models using four phases of immersion, analysis/synthesis, ideation, and prototyping. More specifically in design, Berg et al. [26] identified a pattern in student DT by investigating student reflections. The structuring of the studio also plays a crucial role in facilitating specific DT by shifting the focus of the conventional aesthetically driven synthesis-oriented approach to establish a strong link between design thinking and building performance [41].

It is apparent that integrating sustainability requires transferring a large volume of knowledge in multiple modes. The complexity, interdependency, and broad knowledge base along with the need to facilitate transformation in sustainability perception and design thinking presented a unique series of challenges.

3.2. How Is Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Integrated and Delivered in Architectural Education?

The design studio is the fundamental constituent in architectural education [42], where theoretical, philosophical, and technical knowledge is taught outside the studio [8]. The integration of the studio and other core theoretical subjects generates differing pedagogical models for organizing curricula. In the case of teaching a large volume of ESD concepts, the requirement for transferring technical knowledge is much higher, necessitating better planning. Exploring current practice within architectural education, Altomonte et al. [22] presented five models depicting how technical skills and knowledge are required to tackle ESD and can be integrated into design studios (see Figure 1).

They are:

• parallel,
• partially integrated,
• fully integrated,
• iterative, and
• elective.

In the parallel model, studio and technical scientific sustainability knowledge subjects run in parallel. Students must totally grasp the knowledge from separately delivered disciplinary domains and transfer it to the studio project run in parallel. This model provides an opportunity to deliver a wider variety of principles and theories. Usually, specialized technical knowledge is delivered by experts in the subject fields, leading to successful outcomes [21]. However, separate teaching delivered by an expert from a different discipline led to a lack in providing applicable knowledge to real design situations.

The partially integrated model is where different design activities are linked with technical know-how in delivery or, more frequently, in assessment. Students may be allowed to submit work completed on the specialized technical course to support the design. Students can learn scientific principles or sophisticated technical details that are applicable to their design project. The delivery model may limit the students’ ability to generalize the sustainability knowledge to apply in other situations. Since this model is inclusive of technical courses delivered separately from the studio, it can be used to provide theoretical knowledge that is more generalized.

The fully integrated model refers to a structural arrangement where all the sustainability knowledge is delivered inside the studio. Design studio projects are the core in these programs, where disciplinary knowledge is arranged around the studio. This delivery mode supports the student to understand the application of sustainability principles and science [24]. The shortfalls are that teaching may be too specific to the design project [21] and inconsistency of delivery from year to year, depending on the project. Delivering sustainable studios generally fall into this type.

When sustainability knowledge is delivered progressively in loops across the span of a design studio, the model becomes iterative. This model can be developed in a way to match the design process, bringing in required knowledge when necessary. The delivery of sustainability knowledge can be either integrated with design projects or delivered in parallel. Delivering a combination of design-specific and theoretical knowledge, the model can overcome shortfalls in all above models. However, it may take time to go through knowledge in iterative loops.

The elective model is a structure where sustainability knowledge is an optional course offered separately from the core education programme. Elective sustainable studios, domain-specific courses, or even a separate award all fall into this category. These are basically conventional studios; only interested students may pursue sustainability knowledge and practice.

Each model brings its advantages and constraints; hence the pedagogy must be supported by adequate methods and techniques to facilitate knowledge transfer. Boarin et al. [31] highlight that sustainability should be more integrated into design studios, not merely as a separate topic or seminar and to also allow for its interdisciplinary nature. Donovan [8] reported on a successful programme where most of the teaching actually takes place within design studios, depicting an integrated model. Ismail et al. [9] also explore the amalgamation of sustainability in architectural education and place emphasis on direct inclusion into design studios. Support for integration into design studios needs to be much higher, but whether to partially, fully, or iteratively integrate sustainability concepts is up to the educator, depending on the complexity of the project brief.

Design activities are not merely creative endeavors but need to address many technical aspects [43], necessitating pedagogical design to support this. In ESD studios, lectures, online resources, research, and workshops are used to transfer knowledge.

3.2.1. Lectures

Lectures are frequently used to deliver technical knowledge on sustainability concepts in conjunction with an ESD studio [21,22]. Donovan and Holder [44] identified this as a teacher-centred approach in a sustainable design project, which can effectively transfer a basic understanding of the sustainability concept under study. They have used face-to-face lectures as well as video-recorded materials accompanied by written texts for later reference. Dabaieh et al. [45] conducted a three-phased studio project, with the first phase comprising theoretical lectures and research supporting intensive research development required for sustainable design.

3.2.2. Online Resources

The EDUCATE [12] project identified the significance of information and communication technology to support student learning. Facilitating e-learning could potentially assist in bridging the gap between creative design focus and technical scientific knowledge transfer [12]. Utilizing online resources is an effective way to provide access to a large volume of knowledge, as evident in a project by Faludi [46], which developed an extensive knowledge base to support ESD projects in built environments. Dib and Adamo-Villani [47] utilize a similar online knowledge base to support a sustainability serious game they developed.

3.2.3. Research

A pedagogical design by Donovan [8] adopts multiple modes of delivery of sustainability knowledge, including lectures, reading materials, and documentaries. These activities are followed by interactive participatory tasks of concept mapping and writing research-based essays. Involving students in research during early design development is frequently found in ESD studios [36]. Gürel [21] embedded research task into a sustainable design project that assisted them to find new materials and technology and apply them to the building design.

3.2.4. Workshops

Conducting workshops is another mode of knowledge transfer in ESD studios. Hengrasmee and Chansomsak [48] utilized a series of workshops, allowing students to bring their own design in its development stage to try to resolve issues during interactive workshops. Suau [49] reported on a project that included intensive workshops to transfer knowledge on construction and materials for the design. Workshops covering diverse aspects of ESD knowledge, such as energy efficiency, water efficiency, and lifecycle analysis, are used in other studies as well [50,51,52].

The large volume of knowledge in an ESD studio can be transferred by adapting either a parallel, partially integrated, fully integrated, iterative, or elective pedagogical model with varying implications for the implementation. Lectures, online resources, research, and workshops are embedded into the educational design to transfer sustainability knowledge.

3.3. What Sustainability Criteria, Concepts, and Approaches Are Focused on When Educating for ESD?

There are many sustainability criteria to achieve in ESD, as evident from any GBRT. These criteria are associated with sustainability concepts and approaches, such as energy efficient design, water efficient design, and lifecycle analysis. As a strategy, studios have focused on one or two key sustainability aspects at a time [13]. Energy, resource conservation and reuse, water, thermal comfort, and traditional technologies are more commonly found concepts focused on within ESD studios.

Energy-related sustainable concepts are the most widely explored. De-Gaumyn and Dupre [33] designed and tested a tool called Easy Approach for Sustainable and Environmental Design (EASED), which focused on improving energy performance. Oliveira, Marco, and Gething [53] studied how energy policy is incorporated into curricula. Battaglia and Lee [36] conducted a study where students are engaged in building a prototype ‘campus in a box’, which requires energy optimization of a container box. Dabaieh et al. [45] also focused on energy in an ESD studio, contributing towards incorporating energy efficiency and environmental awareness into architectural education in Egypt. Trois et al. [54] explored the zero-energy concept, where a prototype solar house was built and later operated as a living lab. Keumala et al. [55] used renewable energy as the focus concept. Studies conducted by Wyckmans and Wiberg [56] and Megri [19] are two more research papers that place an emphasis on the energy aspect of sustainable design.

Apart from energy-related concepts, resource conservation, thermal comfort, and water efficiency are common concepts focused on by design studios. Yuan and Race [57] provided examples of students’ design proposals for the university campus, demonstrating their capability to integrate active technical solutions and passive design strategies to achieve net-zero GHG, energy, water, and waste targets. Heine [58] included an analysis on climate and context, with a focus on materials used for construction. Suryantini et al. [59] focused on thermal comfort and Dabaieh et al. [45] dealt with passive solar and climate responsive design, thermal comfort, and thermal massing. Battaglia and Lee [36] also focus on thermal comfort as the key aspect. Haase et al. [60] stress a holistic approach to sustainable design that could achieve a zero-emission ESD.

Expanding on resource conservation, waste, reuse, and the circular economy are also used as focal concepts in ESD studios. Heine [58] demonstrated the careful handling of global resources through design interventions. Suau [49] conducted a studio on promoting recycling concepts. Yuan and Race [57] dealt with waste among many other aspects. Donovan and Holder [44] conducted a one-month introduction course for ‘Reuse and Materials’ while exploring their understanding of their use in sustainable architecture. Berg et al. [26] focused on the reuse of materials by using an example from the forestry industry. Circular and low-tech construction technology using natural materials was the focus of a project by Roswag-Klinge et al. [61].

Traditional technologies and vernacular architecture are also promoted in the context of sustainable architectural practice. Heal et al. [62] conducted a week-long environmental design block course, which employed the collection of vernacular buildings at St. Fagans open air museum as ‘laboratories’. This enabled students to appreciate how climate responsive design is effectively conducted in vernacular architecture. In this experience-based learning context, students developed skills in measuring, observation, recording, and analysis, leading to an embedded understanding of the physical characteristics and environmental performance of real buildings. Heal et al. [62] further argued that when vernacular architecture is discussed in education, it is usually to discuss the aesthetics or historic significance and rarely to the connection of the sustainable aspects. Dabaieh et al. [45] reported that students can experience climatic conditions and building technologies in a specific context associated with specific local vernacular architecture. Sattler et al. [63] encouraged students to respond to local characteristics while designing low-cost sustainable houses.

It is also noted that many sustainability concepts focus on energy and resources, while concepts such as biophilic design, which focus on human–nature connectedness that brings multiple benefits into sustainable design, are not given due prominence [64]. ESD studios have instead focused on energy, resource conservation, reuse of material, recycling water, thermal comfort, circular and low-tech construction, vernacular architecture, and traditional technology.

3.4. What Are Typical Learning Outcomes Found Within ESD Studios?

Bringing sustainable design into the architectural studio requires unique learning outcomes. The EDUCATE project [12] guided the educators in sustainable architecture design to embed learning outcome at three stages–sensitization, validation, and reflection–as shown in Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 2, within the first stage of sensitization, the learning outcomes are centered around awareness of sustainability concepts and challenges, fostering interest and commitment for sustainable practices and engaging students in learning. During the second stage, validation comprises objectives to analyze the knowledge, understand the principles of design application, and to propose new strategies and solutions with the ability to validate them with evidence-based research-oriented design. During the third stage, reflection, students are expected to further develop learning outcomes around linking knowledge and application through design and commitment to lifelong learning. Students should be able to critically reflect on the sustainability application and their contribution to the design process. Students should develop autonomy in engaging with cutting-edge design research with the ability to ensure the quality of their own work.

Exploring studies reporting on ESD studio projects reveals learning outcomes on par with these stages. They include sustainability principles knowledge, transformation of sustainability perception, procedural knowledge, sustainable design thinking, critical reflection, and evaluative judgement.

3.4.1. Sensitization

Learning outcomes on awareness include grasping knowledge on sustainability concepts, principles, and approaches to support designing [13]. Therefore, knowledge of sustainability principles was included as a learning outcome across the design process in many reported ESD studio projects. Donovan and Holder [44] included awareness of waste management with the intention that the ability to transfer sustainability knowledge to design processes could become a learning outcome. Vassigh et al. [65], in their project, reported that students had a positive impact on understanding building science principles. Dib and Adamo-Villani [47] indicate that students achieved the learning objective of acquiring awareness of sustainability principles.

The sensitization includes the expected learning outcomes on student ability to transform their worldview of sustainability. Donovan and Holder [44] focused on the students’ ability to change the definition of sustainable architecture. The project reported by Berg et al. [26] also relied on students’ ability to transform their sustainability worldview to provide a sustainable solution to reuse waste from the forestry industry.

3.4.2. Validation

Key learning outcomes that can be associated with the validation stage are problem solving skills and procedural knowledge. Problem solving is a fundamental learning outcome in any design studio [8]. The complexity and ambiguity of sustainability principles require advanced skills, thus challenging educators, as pointed out in response to question one.

Within this complexity in design problems, the design process demands certain procedures, necessitating educators to include procedural knowledge as a learning outcome. Dib and Adamo-Villani [47], in their project, guided students to systematically design for energy efficiency; in their findings, they revealed that procedural knowledge increased by 37%. Benner and McArthur [36] conducted a project that promoted the use of BIM and, thus, emphasized enhancing students’ skills to learn the procedures. Suryantini et al. [59] outlined a design process encouraging students to teach the notion of ‘cool pocket’, where understanding ecological knowledge and design procedures were included into learning outcomes.

3.4.3. Reflection

Higher level learning outcomes are expected at this stage, predominantly the ability to develop a sustainable design thinking process and critical reflections. Integration of the sustainability responses into the design thinking process is expected even though it was not explicitly considered as a learning outcome in many projects [38]. Students’ ability to critically reflect was found to be important to reflect on the transformation of the sustainability worldview [44] and the sustainable design thinking process [26].

Donovan and Holder [44] used students’ reflections to explore the transformation of perception regarding sustainable architecture. Berg et al. [26] were able to explore student design thinking patterns through critical reflections.

3.4.4. Evaluative Judgement

Providing evidence for sustainability criteria while enabling students to judge the quality of their own work through self-assessment [66] is a crucial learning outcome, identified in pedagogical contexts as evaluative judgement [67]. This learning outcome could be included at all stages.

From a learning science perspective, in developing evaluative judgment, understanding the quality and standard of the work is critical [68]. Within ESD studios, the design frameworks, generally supplied by an industry GBRT, provide this standard [34]. Self-assessment, along with peer review, feedback, and rubrics in education design, supported students to develop evaluative judgement as a learning outcome [69]. Hengrasmee and Chansomsak [48] included such activities into their ESD studio, expecting students to develop the ability to be aware of their own design process, with self-criticism subsequently resulting in developing evaluative judgement.

The learning outcomes found in ESD studios include sustainability principles knowledge, transformation of sustainability perception, procedural knowledge, sustainable design thinking, critical reflection, and evaluative judgement.

3.5. Which Types of Learning Are Nurtured in Sustainable Design Studios?

To align with the learning outcomes in the three stages of educating for ESD, key learning types are proposed in the EDUCATE [12] project, as shown in Figure 3.

The focus of sensitization is on learning by doing, whereas the second stage, validation, prioritizes problem-based learning. In the third stage, reflection, the proposed learning is based on performance-based design and research. Exploring the ESD studies reveals that the learning nurtured in the studios is diverse and can be associated with the three stages of educating for ESD (see Figure 3). Barth [70] outlined three principles within formal learning to develop competence while educating for sustainability. They included self-directed learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning, which were used in ESD studios as well. Self-directed learning and experiential learning are associated with sensitization. Problem-based learning, empathy-based learning, and project-based learning support are associated with the validation stage, while interdisciplinary learning is associated with the reflection stage.

3.5.1. Self-Directed Learning

Self-directed learning takes place when the learner directs the conceptualization, delivery, and evaluation of the learning program [71]. Learners plan and design the education program, believing that it suits their learning efforts [71]. Self-directed learning can play a pivotal role in educating for sustainability [72], including architectural education [73]. A large volume of sustainability knowledge can be transferred by facilitating self-directed learning. Online knowledge platforms are used to support self-directed learning, as in the case of EDUCATE [12]. Faludi [46] reported on a similar online database that facilitated students with sustainable principles knowledge and applications supporting ESD. Roswag-Klinge et al. [61] developed numerous projects within their Natural Building Lab, with an emphasis on self-determined learning as the vehicle to involve students proactively in urban change processes.

3.5.2. Experiential Learning

Experiential learning takes place when concrete experiences and abstract conceptualization produce knowledge in a cyclic manner [74]. In design education, when students are confronted with ill-defined design issues, they use experiential learning for guidance [75]. Experiential learning is found to be effective and versatile in transforming worldviews, which is essential for addressing complex environmental problems with uncertain solutions [76].

Heinrich et al. [77] reported that students developed critical thinking in experiential learning contexts while dealing with complex environmental problems in architectural design. Donovan [8] argued that theoretical knowledge can facilitate students to change their worldview, but experiential knowledge is required to understand sustainability in application. Benner and McArthur [37] integrated BIM to promote experiential learning among many other learning strategies. Vassigh et al. [65] pointed out that immersive technologies, such as augmented reality and virtual reality, provide opportunities for experiential learning.

Place-based learning is closely related to experiential learning [77] and has an important role in educating for ESD. Certified green buildings [78] and living labs [61] are frequently used to facilitate place-based learning in sustainable design studios.

3.5.3. Problem-Based Learning

As illustrated in Figure 3, problem-based learning (PBL) is proposed during the validation stage. PBL is characterized by a challenge given to students that motivates them to solve the problem [79]. Brundiers and Wiek [80] identified PBL as one of three principals in educating for sustainability, believing that engaging in resolving realistic complex problems could develop competence. Dobson and Tomkinson [81] outlined a method to develop a PBL project for ESD that includes components for challenge, theory, authenticity, and ethics. Corvers et al. [82] indicated that both problem-based and project-based learning can facilitate educating for ESD.

In architectural education, educators express the need for PBL in designing as well as knowledge transfer while educating for sustainability [22]. Rynska [20] reported on one such study where students were asked to respond to problems regarding the circular economy. It was observed that when students are confronted with a complex problem, they attempt to solve the issue, and this can potentially increase their interest and engagement, and therefore make the experience more memorable. El-adaway et al. [83] presented a project that used PBL to solve problems within the LEED certification process.

Empathizing with the problem is identified as an activity that supports PBL. Some ESD projects have included a component to empathizing with the users. Drapella-Hermansdorfer [27] reported on a study where students were given an opportunity to design two projects, directly empathizing with the users by having active discussions with them. Berg et al. [26] ran a lamp project, which required students to design a lamp empathizing with nature and natural materials.

Project-based learning is closely related to PBL, where the problems are framed within a project. Brundiers and Wiek [80] identified the differences between PBL and project-based learning, which included that PBL could result in a deeper understanding of a problem, whereas project-based learning provides case-specific practical outcomes; PBL inquires into a problematic situation, whereas project-based learning deals with producing applicable results; and PBL find solutions within a loosely defined scope, whereas project-based leaning focuses on a predefined project scope.

Benner and McArthur [37] used a project-based learning component in a project integrating BIM. Belgasmi et al. [84] pointed out that project-based learning can engage students in active learning but requires experts to teach on the project focus. Megri [19] found that student design outcomes improved when project-based learning was used. This project highlights that project-based learning can be combined with a case study methodology, prompting students to resolve interrelated issues in ESD. Regueiro et al. [85] reported that their educational design was based on project-based learning.

3.5.4. Interdisciplinary Learning

The interrelated interdependence of one system with another is a challenge in educating for ESD [19], where interdisciplinary learning is used in ESD studios to overcome this challenge. Badurdeen et al. [86] reported on an interdisciplinary approach across engineering architecture, business, and economics in tackling sustainability issues. Yuan and Race [57] emphasized that to resolve environmental issues, the collaboration of architects and engineers is crucial and should be addressed in education. Grierson and Munro [87] also advocate for an interdisciplinarity approach for ESD. Badurdeen et al. [86] reported on an interdisciplinary approach across engineering, architecture, business, and economics in tackling sustainability issues. Vassigh et al. [65] revealed that facilitating for collaboration supports interdisciplinary learning. Roswag-Klinge et al. [61] observed how students’ trans-disciplinary collaborations improved their learning on interrelated systems in ESD. Regueiro et al. [85] included collaborative learning in their ESD education project. Becerik-Gerber et al. [88] identified BIM as a new trend that could be used in dealing with sustainability and particularly with its interdisciplinary approach. Kao et al. [89] reported on a comprehensive study that explored an interdisciplinary curriculum and resulted in a road map for a transferable pedagogical prototype.

The learnings that are nurtured in ESD studios include self-directed learning, experiential, problem-based learning, empathy-based learning, and project-based and interdisciplinary learning. It was also noted that these learnings can be used across the education stages of sensitization, validation, and reflection.

3.6. What Educational Design Ideas Are Used Within Sustainable Studios?

Unique educational needs and challenges necessitate that sustainable studios embed specific educational design ideas within studio settings. Among others, these include simulations, serious computing, role-play and peer learning, and self-assessment.

3.6.1. Simulations

Conventionally, computer simulations are introduced in laboratory sessions to model the building performance in terms of climatic behaviors, energy consumption, carbon emissions, lifecycle impacts, and so on. Within sustainable design studios, this has become an integral component. Students were expected to learn the skill of running a simulation and demonstrating the performance of the building design. Mohamed and Eliaz-Ozkan [51] found that students found this extremely difficult.

In response to a design framework, students are required to provide quantifiable evidence to demonstrate that their design outcomes achieve anticipated building performance targets. To support this process, students are introduced to simulation software, where they model and test design scenarios [52]. The ‘campus in the box’ project [35] was an example of testing the concept of a cool pocket in a scenario-based simulation when developing design strategies. The project by Suryantini et al. [59] and a data driven BIM project from Benner and McArthur [36] are other examples. Haase et al. [60] indicated that they integrated learning building simulation as a major part of the design process. Moscoso-García and Quesada-Molina [90] explored the simulations to study traditional vernacular housing, showcasing a mix of modern and traditional approaches.

3.6.2. Serious Computing Games

Serious computing games are used in education as effective tools to motivate and engage students with challenge, competition, and fantasy [91]. Katasaliaki and Mustafee [92] undertook a detailed survey of such games for sustainable development that supported engaging learning experiences. Juan and Chao [93] pointed out the improvements made through the use of games in green building education, while Reinhart et al. [94] combined the use of energy modelling with a class game exercise with the intent to reduce the gap between pedagogy and practice. Attia et al. [95] developed a simulation-based tool to design zero energy buildings. Further examples were found in Moloney et al. [96], who developed a serious game to engage students in a sustainable design. Dib and Adamo-Villani [47] reported on a game developed for sustainable building design that enabled the students to gain knowledge and hands-on skills simultaneously. Games also allowed for role-play, as in the case of this study where the student plays as the main protagonist and could select among other roles.

3.6.3. Role-Play and Peer Learning

Issues in sustainable design require interdisciplinary learning, and role-play is used as an interesting pedagogical idea. Korkmaz [97] reported on a study where students were exposed to a case-based multidisciplinary classroom setting, bringing students from diverse built environment backgrounds. Educational design included a role-play where students responses were positive, with higher interest and improved collaboration.

Learning from others is a critical aspect in design studios, including in sustainable studios. Role-play, peer-assessment feedback, and discussion are integrated in ESD studio projects. In these sustainable studios, peer assessment has an important role in providing diverse perceptions on sustainability and allowing students to receive different feedback [52]. Keumala et al. [55] reported that 48.6% of students learned from peers in a sustainable design project. Mohamed and Eliaz-Ozkan [51], in their proposed sustainable education studio approach, included peer assessment, discussions, and continuous feedback, and these discussions assisted students to learn new concepts around sustainability. Corvers et al. [82] also advocated for discussion and web-based forums for effectively resolving sustainability problems in education.

3.6.4. Self-Assessment

The need to develop student competency to judge their own work necessitates including self-assessment as an embodied educational element [69]. Self-assessment also supports problem-based learning [98], which is a fundamental aspect in sustainable design [12]. Educators feel the need to encourage students to evaluate their own and peers’ work with critical reflections [22]. Mohamed and Eliaz-Ozkan [51] included self-assessment as an integral component in their educational design. Hengrasmee and Chansomsak [48] included tasks that promote self-awareness, self-evaluation, and self-criticism in an ESD studio. Mohamed [14] suggested that self-assessment can enable students to apply the knowledge they gather at the studio to assess their own work to a given criterion.

Educational design ideas used in ESD studios include simulation software, serious computing games, role-play, peer assessment, feedback, discussion forums, and self-assessment.

3.7. How Does Demonstration of Green Buildings Scaffold Learning in Sustainable Design Studios?

Use of physical environments to scaffold student learning has progressed over time and has been called ‘architecture as pedagogy’ [99] and ‘pedagogy of place’ [100], with a much broader scope in sustainable design. Utilizing completed green buildings and premises supports place-based learning [78]. Green buildings are used as educational tools [101], allowing the transfer of knowledge as to how sustainable building design is developed in a cost-effective way and in a pleasing environment, while observing how users interact with the building [102].

Green buildings are potential exemplars that support students to develop evaluative judgement [69]. Demonstration of sustainable buildings as case studies is frequently combined with taking student on field visits. The use of physical environments is further expanded with the concept of the ‘living lab’, which displays sustainable initiatives in their actual use.

Janda and vonMeier [2] discussed two green buildings in university settings, both used to teach sustainable design. In trying to understand how these buildings stand out from others, they critically analyze which data are used to provide evidence of sustainability. This project highlights the strong requirements for design frameworks and provides evidence for an ESD approach. They argue that many lay visitors look for qualitative aspects of the buildings and find it hard to understand the quantitative building performance data. They look for expressions as well as generalizations of the features to adopt them in their own buildings or places. Usually, these green buildings display their data on a dashboard, as was the case in the two examples discussed by Janda and vonMeier [2]. Some strategies in this approach include providing multiple design options so students can compare them and to better understand that there is more than one solution for the same problem. Taking this approach can also be a catalyst for other buildings to become sustainable living labs. They also conclude that one building cannot teach everything, since buildings are dependent on the climate they are built in, making it difficult to interpret the readily available data for other climate scenarios.

Calvano et al. [103] highlighted how university premises have been turned into living labs with the introduction of sustainable building structures. They use premises to test new ideas and realize projects while transferring knowledge and good practices. Drapella-Hermansdorfer [27] pointed out the integral role of the green campus movement, where sustainable initiatives are applied and demonstrated in university premises that could change the sustainability perception of young students. Barnes [78] discussed using library buildings as education tools, specifically focused on LEED-certified buildings.

Massek [18] discussed a living lab in Barcelona, which was used as an education tool to teach sustainability. The building was used to teach general principles and to capture data on its performance indicators pertaining to energy, water consumption, waste production, indoor air quality, and food habits. The project revealed that wider engagement was possible with the academic community and the public through open-door days, enhanced media interest, and a social media presence. The use of new information and communication technology supported reporting and knowledge dissemination, enhancing the publicity for the project. The limitations included administrative and legal issues, time constraints for all participants’ commitment, and the need for financial resources.

Roswag-Klinge et al. [61] reported on a natural building lab with an emphasis on self-determined learning to involve students proactively in transition towards a sustainable built environment. Dabaieh et al. [45] discussed an urban living lab that facilitated students to conduct site surveys and practice building test cells while monitoring their building performance. Mohamed and Eliaz-Ozkan [51] and Gürel [21] found that field visits to explore sustainable buildings helped them to gain applied knowledge of sustainable design principles.

Green buildings support place-based learning in sustainable studios as exemplars, case studies, and living labs located in university premises or experienced through field visits.

3.8. Are There Distinct Design Artefacts Found Within ESD Studios?

Architectural design proposals represented by drawings and physical models are the key design artefacts familiar to educators in conventional design studios. In most cases, these are accompanied by a design thesis. With the complexity of sustainable building design, the design artefacts constructed by students in their learning process are also unique. With the pedagogy being oriented towards using design artefacts to scaffold student learning, transforming them to assessment artefacts [104] and identifying them would be useful for any pedagogical design.

Frameworks for guiding sustainable building design were frequently used in ESD studios, and these are a basic design artefact. In some projects, the studio brief was given with a direct GBRT from the industry to be used as the design framework. Once such example was when Drapella-Hermansdorfer [27] used STAR for universities. Educators can also develop their own guiding framework and introduce it to students, as in the case of Mohamed and Eliaz-Ozkan [51]. There are also instances of the development of sustainability criteria where the framework is part of the design process. For example, in a project by Berg et al. [26], students had the opportunity to define the scope of the project and how they would display the sustainability of their design. Whatever the situation was, students needed to provide an interpretation and a response to the initial framework, and this became an integral design artefact in the design studio.

Once the sustainability criteria framework is in place, supplying the evidence and self-assessment of the design outcome is necessary. Mohamed and Eliaz-Ozkan [51] explained that they provided students with a developed framework and included self-assessment reports to support student learning. Battaglia and Lee [36] also encouraged students to use a policy document on a net-zero school construction project to assess their designs. In the process of assessing the design and supplying evidence, a vast array of sustainability criteria, students constructed research and self-assessment reports were used. They included information on simulation models, climatic analysis, and site studies, among many other points of data gathered in support of their sustainable building designs.

Apart from developing comprehensive technical reports, students’ awareness of design thinking through self-awareness, self-evaluation, and self-criticism are also encouraged [48]. Design reflections are used to capture how students think and act through their design process in these studios. Berg et al. [26] used students’ critical reflections to map their design thinking in a sustainable design, where Grover et al. [13] pointed out how student reflections are effective in their learning process. Concept mapping was used, along with the reflections to organize thoughts [19]. This frequent use of reflections requires additional reporting methods, such as using online reflective journals [105] and reflective design journals [106].

Extending the building of physical models with the wide application of using demonstration buildings to scaffold learning, sustainability studios also encouraged students to construct prototypes. Battaglia and Lee [36] and Vassigh et al. [65] reported on students building a prototype, while Dabaieh et al. [45] tested models and prototypes on site. Distinct artefacts, apart from the basic design proposal, include design frameworks, self-assessment reports, technical and research reports, critical reflections, concept maps, and prototypes.

3.9. What Aspects of Design Practice Influence Design Thinking in Sustainable Studios?

Students engage in design activities in the studios, so understanding the underpinning design thinking is important for educational design [107]. Within ESD studios, the need for sustainable design thinking is frequently emphasized [40], where reflective design practice, evidence-based design, and participatory design are discussed in conjunction.

3.9.1. Sustainable Design Thinking for Environmentally Sustainable Design

Designing provides the ability to solve complex issues [108], including problems associated with the sustainability agenda. Design thinking defines the process of designing as characterized by an analytical and creative cyclic process [109]. Designing can be further understood as an iterative, explorative, and sometimes a chaotic process [110]. There is a growing consensus on the need to develop a design thinking approach that suits the complex demands of ESD [26].

The unique learning outcomes, learning types, and design artefacts in ESD require certain changes in the design thinking process. Gamble et al. [41] emphasized the transformation of the studio by understanding the relationship between design thinking and building performance. Adapting the design framework is unique for ESD studios that have included the design thinking process, as in the case of Dib and Adamo-Villani [47]. The need for a transformation of the sustainability worldview is emphasized and requires specific activities that could potentially influence design thinking, as evident from the project by Berg et al. [26].

Particularly focused on sustainable design thinking, Luley [23] presented a model attempting to integrate sustainability into design thinking. Hoolohan and Brown [111] proposed a similar model for intervention planning.

3.9.2. Reflective Design Practice

Reflective practice [112] is an important approach in educating for design and is also applicable in ESD studio pedagogy. The design framework guides the reflective response to the sustainability criteria, and the reflections by students perform a crucial role in understanding the design thinking process. Donovan [8] emphasized the importance of students’ personal critical reflections, while Berg et al. [26] used these reflections to understand the student thinking process. Another aspect of reflective practice is its use in educational design, where Kowaltowski et al. [50] reported a study adapting reflective action research for an ESD studio.

3.9.3. Evidence-Based Design

The validation stage (see Figure 2) in ESD education necessitates the practice of evidence-based design that could potentially alter the design thinking process. ESD is considered an evidence-based approach [1] in industry, owing immensely to the quantifiable building performance information certified through GBRTs. Similarities are found in education, where de-Gaumyn and Dupre [33] stated that they relied on the quantitative evaluation of the sustainable performance of students’ projects to assess the progress of their design. The EDUCATE [12] project highlighted the validation at the second level in the proposed learning stages, where students should gain competence to provide evidence of performance data. Use of simulation software to test the design prototypes is quite common for gathering evidence. Battaglia and Lee [36] reported on the ‘campus in a box’ project, where the initial prototypes were studied from a building performance perspective using a design simulation software, eventually meeting the predetermined criteria and achieving a net-zero status. Benner and McArthur [37] used BIM for a sustainable design project, which supported the collation of quantitative evidence for the project. Janda and vonMeier [2] also included sustainability performance evidence in their demonstration projects.

3.9.4. Participatory Design

Participatory design is used in ESD to support interdisciplinary learning while influencing the design thinking process. Many educators focused on the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability issues, necessitating designers to meet the stakeholders as part of the design process. Drapella-Hermansdorfer [27] developed two designs with students that both used participatory design principles. These projects focused on designing with an empathy for the users and making users part of the design process through stakeholder consultations and design discussions. Al Khalifa [113] reported using a participatory approach to understand user needs. Battaglia and Lee [36] used a participatory approach, where the design students conducted discussions with users within their design process.

Adapting a distinct, sustainable design-thinking process is important for ESD studios, where reflective design practice, evidence-based design, and participatory design are found to be influential.

3.10. Do Environmentally Sustainable Design Studios Have Specific Characteristics?

ESD has developed on a different trajectory from conventional architectural design, which has implications for teaching ESD. Careful investigation of sustainable design studio projects and analyzing their educational designs across the above given questions reveals unique characteristics influencing student learning.

Sustainability is a complex problem, and ESD is an attempt to find solutions in the studio. Maruna [114] identified this complexity as arising due to the multiple concepts in ESD. Donovan [8] suggests the use of ‘designerly thinking’ as a strategy to solve complex problems that shift the focus from practice to strategy. As pointed out in the challenges, sustainability concepts are complex, ambiguous, and interrelated, resulting in similar problems students are required to solve within ESD studio. To deal with the nature of the problems, ESD presented two responses: the use of a predetermined set of criteria as a design framework, and a focus on one sustainability concept at a time.

Guiding design frameworks for achieving sustainability, generally supplied by a GBRT, are widely used in the industry {1}. This influence is evident in the educational context. Among many similar studies, Dib and Adamo-Villani [47] used LEED as the guiding framework, while Drapella-Hermansdorfer [27] adopted STAR for their ESD studios. Dib and Adamo-Villani [47] pointed out the vast amount of published work covering some aspects of LEED certification in teaching sustainable building principles. In addition, educators also develop their own frameworks to guide student projects [26,33]. Wijesooriya et al. [115] reported on a biophilic design framework review that supports students to develop similar frameworks to scaffold their learning with a pilot development for water use [116]. An extensive guide on developing such a framework is further outlined [117]. This use of a specific, pre-determined set of criteria is a deviation from the conventional architectural studio.

When a guiding design framework is used, it requires providing evidence for achieving sustainability against each criterion. Therefore, ESD studios can be characterized as taking an evidence-based design approach. The learning outcomes given in the EDUCATE project [12] highlighted this evidence-based approach in the second stage of validation. De-Gaumyn and Dupre [33], Battaglia and Lee [36], and Benner and McArthur [37] presented projects that emphasize the evidence-based approach, providing students with innovative educational tools. Janda and vonMeier [2] discussed the frameworks and provided evidence while demonstrating the use of green buildings as educational tools.

Sustainable studios handle complex problems and provide evidence for achievements, necessitating the students to engage in a higher level of research. Promoting a research-based approach to studio learning is identified as a strategy for enhancing education in ESD studios [12]. This is a different pedagogical approach from a conventional design studio. Battaglia and Lee [36], Rynska [20], Daneshyar and Keynoush [118], and Donovan [8], among many others, encouraged students to use systematic research as part of their ESD studio projects.

With this complexity of sustainability concepts, educators suggested that learning by constructing artefacts is effective in ESD studios [22]. Al Khalifa [113] claimed that this approach is effective even for teaching theory within ESD education, while Donovan [8] used learning by constructing artefacts for teaching theory. de-Gaumyn and Dupre [33], with their pedagogical tool, Battaglia and Lee [36] in their prototype design for ‘campus in a box’, and Dabaieh et al. [45], who used a physical protype when building a living lab environment, all utilized the advantages of facilitating student education through constructing artefacts. This is not a deviation from conventional studios, since learning in design studios generally relies on constructing design artefacts. However, when developing prototypes that can test sustainability criteria, artefacts are more complex and have the additional burden of requiring sustainability evidence. Distinct artefacts include simulation modelling, research reports, self-assessment reports, critical reflections, and prototypes.

When solving problems sustainably, it is not sufficient to focus only on technical know-how; solutions need to operate at a social, ethical, and philosophical level [23]. This necessitates students to gain a deeper understanding of sustainability and transform their worldview of a sustainable built environment [26]. This is a specific characteristic of ESD studios, which has resulted in specific activities like critical reflection and self-awareness.

Since the learning process in ESD studios depends on learning through constructing artefacts at an advanced level, to understand students’ learning processes, critical reflections are frequently used. Malinin [119] used weekly reflections to explore the learning related to non-academic skills, whereas Donovan [8] emphasized the need for critical reflections to relate sustainable architecture theory to design practice. Berg et al. [26] and Rynska [20] also relied on critical reflections to understand student learning in empirical studies. The emphasis on critical review also allows educators to understand student perception on sustainability, where a transformation of worldview is considered an important outcome [87].

The need to focus on multiple sustainable criteria studio projects also tends to lead to a focus on one concept at a time, allowing students to explore that concept in-depth. Berg et al. [26] studied the reuse of materials and Dabaieh et al. [45] studied the use of vernacular strategies for sustainability, which are two among many focus areas in ESD studios.

This extensive study of ESD studios reveals that learning in ESD studios presented specific characteristics.

These include:

(1)

handling complex and interrelated design problems;

(2)

using a predetermined set of criteria;

(3)

providing evidence for sustainability achievement;

(4)

a higher need for research;

(5)

learning by constructing distinct artefacts;

(6)

a need to transform students to a sustainability worldview;

(7)

use of critical reflections; and

(8)

a focus on a sustainability concepts.

4. Conclusions

The answers to the ten questions reveal themes that are crucial for educational design in ESD studios, which can be synthesized into a framework, as shown in Figure 4.

As illustrated in Figure 4, ESD studios are characterized by adopting a predetermined set of criteria and the need to provide evidence to support sustainability claims. The nature of the issues dealt with in ESD studios are complex, ambiguous, and interrelated, requiring research-oriented, evidence-based design with the ability to critically reflect. There are diverse learning outcomes, progressing from sensitization, validation, to reflection, requiring learning theories to scaffold student learning. Sustainable design thinking processes that could enable students to handle complex sustainability issues are encouraged. Transformation to a sustainability worldview and critical reflection are unique learning outcomes.

Many embodied educational elements are identified, including knowledge transfer methods such as lectures, online information platforms, workshops, and research tasks similar to conventional studios. Simulation software, serious computing games, role-play, and self-assessment are distinct pedagogical ideas. Green buildings are frequently used as exemplars, performing as living labs. The uniqueness in the ESD studio results in design artefacts such as design frameworks, self-assessment reports, design manuals, reflections, and prototypes.

With these unique characteristics, ESD studios also pose new challenges for educators that are beyond the requirements of the conventional design studio. They include developing effective tools to solve complex sustainability issues within a design framework, facilitating a transformation of perception of the sustainable built environment, enabling a balance between the aesthetic and technical needs in a design process, and nurturing for sustainable design-thinking processes.

The developed educational design framework (see Figure 4) provides educators with necessary information to design educational innovations to suit varied objectives, contexts, and students. Systematic educational design research requires learning theories and design practices that could be connected by embodiments and design artefacts to achieve desired learning outcomes. The study contributes through the framework themes to develop such educational design intervention in varying situations. Further research could focus on developing systematic educational designs using the framework where this could become an essential resource for educators working within ESD studios.