A Review on Structural Literacy in Architectural Education

Abstract

The review examines the impact of structural literacy on learning the discipline of architecture at the undergraduate level, as well as its influence on design processes. To bridge the knowledge application gap between structural literacy and design application in architecture, this review synthesizes published work on learning through the application of structural literacy in design processes. It also considers learning outcome assessment, design effectiveness measurement, and new learning approaches. The review aimed to compare hands-on learning with traditional learning methods, measure teaching methods, identify new learning methods, measure the impact of structural literacy on design and learning outcomes, and observe collaborative practices across diverse disciplines. The review conducted a comprehensive survey of international research on undergraduate architecture education using mixed, qualitative, and quantitative methods. The results indicate that active, hands-on collaborative learning approaches are more effective than continuous lecture-based approaches in enhancing structural comprehension and design integration. Although financial and access constraints restrict large-scale applications, digital and physical modeling software enhances conceptual understanding and design exploration. Although institutional and curricular barriers limit its application, interdisciplinary working enhances communication skills and facilitates structural integration. Curriculum revisions that initiate structured subjects early, with design studio linkages, strengthen student motivation and design efficiency. These findings indicate the extent to which collaborative frameworks and integrated teaching impact the development of structural literacy. The review emphasizes the need for curriculum revisions and interdisciplinary instruction to equip architecture students with the skills necessary for practical, creative, and contextually aware design work.

1. Introduction

Architecture seamlessly integrates engineering principles, environmental science, social considerations, and technological advancements to deliver high-performance, sustainable, and user-centric built environments, as evidenced by the commissioning process that explicitly covers mechanical systems, electrical systems, and plumbing while requiring deep involvement from mechanical and electrical engineers in the design, installation, and testing phases. The development of innovative and livable districts necessitates a holistic approach that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries, requiring the seamless integration of technological innovation, social considerations, environmental stewardship, and sound economic and governance principles. This underscores architecture’s role as a truly multidisciplinary field in shaping the urban future [1,2,3,4,5,6].

Research on the impact of structural literacy on design processes and its role in architectural education for undergraduate students has emerged as a critical area of inquiry due to its influence on integrating technical knowledge and creative design. Architectural education has evolved from traditional engineering-based instruction toward more experiential and integrative pedagogies that align structural literacy with design studio practices [7,8]. This shift addresses the need for architects to develop aesthetic and structural competencies, reflecting the profession’s increasing complexity and collaborative demands [9,10]. Studies indicate that early and active engagement with structural concepts enhances students’ design efficiency and prepares them for interdisciplinary collaboration [11,12]. Since structural literacy directly affects architectural outcomes and professional readiness, improving educational strategies in this domain holds significant importance both practically and theoretically [13,14].

Despite acknowledging the value of structural literacy, a persistent gap persists in successfully integrating structural literacy into design education for architects. Traditional curricula often separate structural courses from design studios, making it challenging to apply structural ideas within design processes [11,13,15]. This disassociation is exacerbated by teaching methods that favor calculational rather than conceptual understanding, which can impair students’ capacity for synthesizing structural and architectural ways of thinking [16,17,18]. Opposing views argue whether structural education should focus on technical rigor or integration with design, with certain voices promoting active, project-based learning and others emphasizing basic theoretical foundations [19,20,21]. The implications of this gap include reduced design innovation, lower student motivation, and a lack of readiness for professional life [14,22].

According to the conceptual framework for this review, structural literacy is the general comprehension of how systems and structures behave and how they are incorporated into architectural form [23]. Design processes are considered iterative interactions between structural and spatial considerations, with structural literacy informing and structuring architectural creativity [24]. Architectural education encompasses teaching methods that facilitate this integration, including experiential learning, collaborative studios, and digital resources [7,25,26]. This framework interrelates structural literacy, design efficiency, and educational outcome, forming a foundation for evaluating innovative teaching techniques.

This systematic review aims to evaluate learning outcomes, design efficacy, and creative teaching strategies to investigate the impact of structural literacy in undergraduate architectural design processes and education. This systematic review aims to fill the identified gap by synthesizing various teaching methods and their efficiency, providing enhanced curricula design and readiness for students. The strength is in providing educators and educational institutions with best practices for promoting structural literacy as a fundamental part of design creativity for architects and professional competence.

Another aim of this systematic review is to suggest new methods and critically assess current practices for structural coordination within university-based architecture design studios, with an emphasis on communication and integration with structural systems to prevent errors such as incorrect column sizing. This unique contribution synthesizes multiple diverse pedagogic and technological methods to close the identified interdisciplinary integration gap within architectural learning.

It employs a systematic literature analysis, with a sampling of empirical investigations, teaching experiments, and curriculum assessments, selected for their applicability to structural literacy and architectural education. Analytical frameworks focus on thematic integration of teaching practices, student engagement, and design integration. Inclusion criteria prefer studies addressing university-centric design studios and issues of structural coordination. Results are organized thematically to discern best practices, challenges, and innovations for encouraging structural integration in architectural education. Results are organized by observing the evolution of educational methods, learning outcome assessment, and explorations of advancing technology and collaborative platforms.

The objectives and scope of the review are outlined in Section 2, and the systematic method is described in Section 3. Section 4 presents the results, and Section 5 provides a critical synthesis of the findings for educational outcomes and innovative pedagogy. Section 8 concludes with a synthesis and recommendations. The review contributes by relating successful methods of uniting structural literacy with recommendations for pragmatic curriculum reform.

This review aims to investigate the role of structural literacy in architectural education systematically. The purpose and specific goals are outlined in Section 2, and the theoretical underpinnings—namely, constructivist and experiential learning theories—are presented in Section 3. Section 5 and Section 6 present the results and provide a critical synthesis of findings on learning modes, educational attainment, and design integration. Section 4 outlines the methodology for selecting the literature. The implications for education and practice are discussed in Section 7, and a summary, limitations, and suggestions are included in Section 8. The primary conclusions highlight the effectiveness of experiential and collaborative learning approaches in enhancing structural insight, with computer-assisted design and interdisciplinary collaboration serving as key facilitators of this process. This review contributes by synthesizing global evidence, identifying best practices, and providing implementable curriculum changes to close the gap between knowledge of structures and their application in design.

1.1. Objectives

This review synthesizes the impact of structural literacy on undergraduate design processes, evaluating outcomes through thematic analysis and quantifying pedagogic efficacy to inform curriculum reform. The main Specific objectives are:

• To assess the state of the art regarding the impact of structural literacy on educational outcomes and architectural design processes.
• Benchmarking existing pedagogical approaches integrating structural concepts within undergraduate architectural education.
• Finding and combining cutting-edge teaching strategies that improve structural comprehension and design effectiveness.
• To compare experiential and traditional learning models in fostering structural literacy among architecture students.
• To deconstruct interdisciplinary collaboration practices and their role in improving structural integration in design education.

1.2. Theoretical Framework

This critique aligns with constructivist and learning-by-experience theories, emphasizing that knowledge is constructed through active pursuit and contextual application [27,28]. Constructivism posits that students develop an understanding by integrating new knowledge with pre-existing knowledge through iterative, reflective interaction cycles, which is a prerequisite for bridging the gap between structural literacy and architectural design. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning framework, which encourages project-based learning and hands-on modeling, comprises the cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation [28]. Structural literacy is envisioned as the ability to comprehend and integrate structural behavior, systems, and principles within architectural form through iterative feedback and interdisciplinary interaction. These theories establish the measurement of active, collaborative, and technology-interwoven learning methods for translating structural literacy into innovative design solutions, emphasizing technical expertise and design innovation [23,24]. Learning outcomes, design efficacy, and teaching strategies were evaluated through thematic synthesis of empirical data (qualitative case studies, quantitative surveys, mixed-methods experiments), with MMAT quality scoring and counts.

2. Methodology of Literature Selection

2.1. Transformation of Query

According to PRISMA guidelines [29], a systematic search was conducted across the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Search terms encompassed the initial research query—“Impact of structural literacy on design processes and its contribution towards architectural education for undergraduate students, measuring educational outcomes, testing design efficiency, and investigating innovative teaching practices.”—were widened into several more specific search statements. Through a methodical widening of a large initial research query into a series of focused queries, the literature search was at once thorough and manageable (each query yielding a set of papers closely related to a specific dimension of the topic).

Below are the transformed queries formed from the original query:

• Impact of structural literacy on design processes and its function in undergraduate architectural education, design efficiency evaluation, educational outcomes assessment, and investigation of novel teaching approaches.
• Exploration of innovative pedagogical frameworks integrating structural literacy in architectural education to enhance undergraduate students’ design efficiency and learning outcomes.
• Exploration of experiential learning models and interdisciplinary collaboration in architectural education to enhance design understanding and innovation in undergraduate students.
• How can innovative teaching methodologies enhance structural literacy in architectural education, and how do they impact undergraduate students’ design outcomes?
• How do technology integration and innovative pedagogical approaches influence structural literacy development and design processes in architectural education for undergraduate students?
• Propose new methodologies and evaluate existing practices for structural coordination in university-based architecture design studios, focusing on communication and integration with structural systems.
• Explore innovative educational strategies and interdisciplinary methodologies to enhance structural coordination in university architecture design studios, focusing on integrating communication, tectonics, and experiential learning to mitigate discrepancies in structural design.

2.2. Screening Papers

Stroup et al.’s [30] The Preferred Reporting Items for Scientific Reviews and Meta-Analyses standard formed the foundation of the review analysis employed in this work. Several runs were conducted for each transformed query concerning the main research question to retrieve a specific set of candidate papers. Three hundred four documents pertinent to the subject were discovered during this process. It was examined against its reference list for each core paper to identify additional relevant works and find earlier studies it draws upon. Using references to trace back ensures that foundational work is not missed. Additionally, they were used to determine which more recent works have referenced each foundational work and to monitor how the field has expanded on those findings. This process also reveals new methodological advancements, replication studies, and developing discussions in 75 additional papers.

2.3. Relevance Scoring and Sorting

The combined set of 379 candidate papers (304 from search queries + 75 from citation chaining) is then superimposed with a relevance ranking such that highly relevant studies become salient at the top of the table of end papers. Three hundred seventy papers were appropriate for the search query. Fifty highly relevant documents out of 370 were considered and studied for this paper.

Eligibility and exclusion criteria: This work considered duly chosen published articles that tackled “Impact of structural literacy on design processes and its role in undergraduate students’ architectural education.” A systematic search was conducted using academic databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science). Out of 379 articles screened for relevance, 50 high-ranking studies were identified from the search. For this, articles published between 2001 and 2023 were reviewed. Nineteen years is a fair time to evaluate the growth of previously published articles on structural literacy in architectural education. This is in agreement with [31], which found a 19-year duration to be fitting for a review paper. Peer-reviewed, published documents were considered the foundation for the choice strategy applied to the articles. Only published articles pertinent to the topic of “Impact of structural literacy on design processes and its role in architectural education for undergraduate students” were selected. The systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Figure 1 presents the complete study selection process, showing the identification of 379 records from databases (n = 304) and citation chaining (n = 75), with 50 studies ultimately included after screening and eligibility assessment.

Table 1. PRISMA 2020 checklist summary for the systematic review on structural literacy in architectural education.

Section/Topic	Item #	PRISMA Item Description	Details
IDENTIFICATION	1	Number of records from databases	304 records identified from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar (January 2024)
IDENTIFICATION	2	Number of records from other sources	75 records identified through citation chaining, reference lists, and forward citations
SCREENING	3	Total records for screening	379 records combined for initial screening after database searches and citation chaining
SCREENING	4	Records excluded	9 records excluded during initial screening (duplicates and clearly irrelevant)
ELIGIBILITY	5	Records assessed for eligibility	370 records underwent full eligibility assessment using inclusion/exclusion criteria
ELIGIBILITY	6	Records excluded with reasons	320 records excluded: Not focused on undergraduate education (n = 120), Insufficient structural literacy focus (n = 95), Not empirical/systematic (n = 75), Language/access issues (n = 30)
INCLUDED	7	Studies included in review	50 studies included in final qualitative synthesis, published between 2001–2023

provides a summary of key PRISMA 2020 checklist items, documenting the systematic search and selection process [32,33]. Two supplementary documents are attached to explain the whole process and workflow followed, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The first shows the entire PRISMA 2020 Documentation, which includes:

• PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram (Figure 1);
• PRISMA 2020 Checklist (Table 1);
• Search Strategies Detail;
• Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.

and the second shows the PRISMA workflow Documentation.

Data sources and search tactics: In January 2024 and 2023.

The analysis of the major databases is now complete. Sources that met the following criteria were taken into consideration:

• Educational Level: Does the study focus on undergraduate architectural education programs?
• Integration of Structure: Does the study examine how architectural design courses incorporate structural literacy?
• Teaching Methods: Does the study evaluate specific teaching methods for structural literacy in architectural education?
• Empirical Evidence: Does the study include empirical data or measurable educational outcomes related to structural literacy?
• Design Process: Does the study examine how structural literacy impacts the architectural design process or efficiency?
• Design Integration: Rather than just concentrating on structural engineering, does the research incorporate both architectural design principles and structural engineering concepts?
• Evidence Type: Instead of merely offering opinions or theoretical frameworks, does the study provide original research or a methodical analysis?
• Educational Focus: Does the study address structural literacy development as a primary educational outcome (rather than focusing solely on digital tools)?

Web of Science and Scopus, the primary databases, were supported by several published articles from Google Scholar. The Web of Science database comprises more than 33,000 journals across 256 distinct fields, according to [31]. Meanwhile, the Scopus database includes over 22,800 articles and 5000 publishers. The reliability of the Web of Science and Scopus databases could be attributed to this [34]. Systematic review process: The process consists of four main steps. The first step is to identify the search terms that were used. Keywords associated with “Impact of structural literacy on design processes and its role in architectural education for undergraduate students” were chosen based on previously published terminology and literature, as previously reported. Secondly, thorough screening is inevitable; 379 individuals were deemed suitable for review. The transformed queries mentioned above were satisfied by the screened papers. The complete PRISMA 2020 checklist and PRISMA-S extension (including search strings per database and dates) are provided in the Supplementary Files.

3. Quality Assessment and Relevance Scoring

Quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [35]. MMAT criteria (e.g., appropriate rationale for mixed methods) yielded overall scores of 60–100% (mean: 85%), with biases noted in 8% of qualitative studies (e.g., selection bias). A summary for MMAT is shown in

Table 2. MMAT Quality Assessment Summary.

MMAT Quality Assessment Summary
Metric	Value
Total Studies Assessed	50
MMAT Score Range	60–100%
Mean MMAT Score	85.0%
Median MMAT Score	85.5%
Quality Distribution
High Quality (≥80%)	35 studies (70%)
Moderate-High (70–79%)	11 studies (22%)
Moderate (60–69%)	4 studies
Summary Statement
MMAT scores ranged 60–100%, with 70% rated ‘high’ for methodological rigor.

. Studies were evaluated for potential biases, including selection bias with small sample sizes or the absence of control groups. They were included only if they contained distinct empirical evidence or systematic analysis. The distribution of the number of studies per category is seen in Figure 2.

Scoring for relevance employed a weighted rubric, with substantial weighting given to congruence with the research query, empirical strength, and utility for undergraduate architectural education. A 10-point scale with specified criteria for relevance to structural literacy (40%), educational outcomes (30%), and innovation in pedagogy (30%) was used to score each study. These scores were summed to produce a ranked ordering of the 370 candidate papers, from which the top 50 were selected for analysis based on high relevance and quality.

A thematic analysis of 50 studies was conducted, with full details of the MMAT for these studies provided in the Supplementary Materials, available in two Excel files. The first Excel file contains the MMAT Quality Assessment Summary, and the second Excel file includes the thirteen tabs for each category summary. This analysis synthesized the findings to identify the following results, as seen in Figure 3 MMAT Quality Distribution by Thematic Category. A per-study MMAT table, including individual item scores and reviewer agreement (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.87), is included in the Supplementary Files (‘Studies_With_MMAT_Assessment.xlsx’).

4. Results

Descriptive Summary of the Studies

This section plots the research landscape of the literature on the Influence of structural literacy on design processes and their applications for undergraduate students in architectural education, focusing on measuring educational outputs, verifying design effectiveness, and exploring innovative teaching practices. These research studies encompass various teaching methods, blending experiential learning, active and collaborative learning, computer and physical modeling, and transdisciplinary teamwork. In addition to action research, qualitative case studies are conducted, utilizing quantitative surveys and experimental comparison studies, which are geographically distributed throughout North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. This comparative study addresses the principal research questions through an examination of the integration of structural literacy within the curricula of architectural education, its impact on design processes, and the value of innovative teaching practices in fostering richer learning experiences for students, as reflected in their design outputs.

Table 3. Chronological evolution of key themes in structural literacy pedagogy.

Milestones for Key Themes in Structural Literacy Pedagogy
2000–2010	Early integration [36]
2011–2015	Experiential shift [11,18]
2016–2020	Digital tools [25]
2021–2024	VR/Interdisciplinary [26,37]

shows a timeline of the evolution of Structural Literacy Research (2000–2024). A summary of the 50 studies is provided in the Supplementary Materials, titled “Summary Tables”. Together with a table that summarizes the 50 included studies by key attributes, highlighting methodological diversity and outcomes. As shown in

Table 4. Thematic Distribution of Studies with Proportions and Confidence Intervals” and contain the following content (as specified in the reply, using Wilson score intervals for 95% CI).

Theme	n (Number of Studies)	N (Total Studies)	Proportion (n/N)	95% Confidence Interval
Category 1: Experiential & Project-Based Learning	9	50	0.18	0.09–0.31
Category 2: Digital Tools & Technology Integration	10	50	0.20	0.10–0.33
Category 3: Collaborative & Interdisciplinary Learning	6	50	0.12	0.05–0.24
Category 4: Physical Modeling & Material Exploration	3	50	0.06	0.01–0.17
Category 5: Curriculum Integration & Early Introduction	5	50	0.10	0.03–0.22
Category 6: Assessment & Evaluation Frameworks	4	50	0.08	0.02–0.19
Category 7: Innovative Pedagogical Methods	4	50	0.08	0.02–0.19
Category 8: Comprehensive Integration Approaches	3	50	0.06	0.01–0.17
Category 9: Cultural & Regional Context Studies	3	50	0.06	0.01–0.17
Category 10: Challenges & Barriers Identification	3	50	0.06	0.01–0.17
Category 11: Specialized Applications	2	50	0.04	0.00–0.14

, experiential learning (n = 9/50, 18%, 95% CI: 0.09–0.31) and digital tools (n = 10/50, 20%, 95% CI: 0.10–0.33) were the most prevalent themes, highlighting their prevalence in the literature.

Educational Outcomes: Over 30 studies have found that active, experiential, and project-based learning significantly improves students’ comprehension of structural principles and their application in architecture [7,8,38]. Several studies have highlighted the challenges of traditional lecture-based methods, noting that students struggle to integrate structural literacy into design without hands-on or visual aids [13,14,39]. Innovative approaches, such as gamification, immersive VR, and web-based visualization, have demonstrated promising results in enhancing motivation and learning retention [21,39,40]. The early introduction of structural concepts in design studios has fostered a better awareness and application throughout the curriculum [11,18,41].

Pedagogical Effectiveness: Experiential and active learning methods, including flipped classrooms, collaborative labs, and iterative design exercises, were consistently more effective than traditional lecture formats [19,42,43]. The integration of digital tools, such as parametric design software, BIM, and VR, has enhanced engagement and understanding; however, it has also faced economic and accessibility challenges [7,25,44]. Collaborative and interdisciplinary teaching approaches have improved student motivation and bridged gaps between architectural and engineering perspectives [9,17,45]. Some studies emphasized the need to align teaching content with architectural design studio culture to improve relevance and student interest [18,23].

Design Integration: Structural literacy was better integrated when design studios mandated structural resolution and when students engaged in iterative design-structure processes [15,43,46]. Physical and digital modeling facilitated early and flexible exploration of structural concepts within design workflows [47,48,49]. Integration was often limited by the curricular separation of technical and design courses, with calls for more coordinated teaching [13,14,50]. Optimization and form-finding approaches linked structural behavior directly to architectural form generation [51,52].

Collaboration Engagement: Multidisciplinary collaboration between architecture and engineering students enhanced learning outcomes and prepared students for professional teamwork [9,12,36]. Collaborative learning environments, such as group projects and joint studios, foster communication skills and shared responsibility [8,20,45]. Virtual and international collaboration introduced cross-cultural competencies but required careful facilitation to overcome social isolation [12]. Some studies have noted a lack of cooperation between structural and design courses, which limits integration [13,39].

Design Efficiency & Innovation: Structural literacy contributed to more creative, feasible, and optimized design solutions, primarily when supported by iterative and experimental methods [7,24,53]. The use of physical models and digital fabrication tools encouraged innovative form-finding and material exploration [25,48,54]. Collaborative and integrated teaching approaches led to sustainable and contextually responsive design outcomes [9,10,22]. Some studies identified that excessive control in teaching methods could limit design diversity and innovation [22].

5. Critical Analysis and Synthesis

This section synthesizes the findings of the 50 studies to identify significant themes and compare teaching methods, with an emphasis on their impact on structural literacy and integration with design. Five themes emerge: (1) Project-Based and Experiment-Based Learning (2022) and Experiential Learning [38], Systematically outperform conventional lecture methods in effecting structural literacy and design application. (2) Parametric modeling and virtual reality software facilitate active exploration but raise accessibility concerns [25]. (3) Working across disciplines increases communication and design efficiency, but is still insufficient owing to institutional resistance [12]. (4) Holistic application of structure at an early curriculum stage enhances design quality but often gets deferred [11]. (5) Assessment structures for structural literacy have varying studies, precluding comparison [15]. These findings necessitate a new curriculum that emphasizes active, integrative, and collaborative learning methods, as well as user-friendly computer applications, to enhance student performance and achievement. All these findings are concluded from the table labeled “Emergent Themes and teaching methods impacting structural literacy and integration with design”, which is provided in the Supplementary Materials, titled “Summary Tables”. Table 4 illustrates that these themes, particularly experiential and digital approaches, account for the majority of studies, with proportions indicating robust evidence in these areas.

5.1. Thematic Review of Literature

The existing literature on structural literacy in architectural education identifies several convergent themes, including innovative teaching methods, the embedding of structural literacy within design practices, and interdisciplinary working. A strong focus is given to experiential and active learning approaches that link structural ideas with active design studio practice, aiming to increase student engagement and design quality. Information technology and emerging technologies, such as virtual reality and parametric modeling, also greatly facilitate design efficiency and structural literacy. Curriculum design and assessment regimes are also outlined as significant determiners of educational outcomes and successful embedding of structural literacy within architecture curricula. The thematic review is concluded from the table labeled “Thematic review of Literature”, which is provided in the Supplementary Materials, titled “Summary Tables”.

5.2. Chronological Review of Literature

The scholarship on the effect of structural literacy upon architectural design processes and education shows a gradual development from initial integration of structural ideas towards experimental, technology-facilitated education methods. Early scholarship emphasized the importance of incorporating structural literacy into architectural curricula and integrating it with design studios to achieve high levels of student understanding and design quality. Experiential education, project-based models, and collaborative interdisciplinary methods have become increasingly dominant over the years, with an equal emphasis on the essential contribution of active learning in bridging the gap between theory and practice. The most recent scholarship focuses on digital tools, immersive technologies, gamification, and systems thinking to further optimize learning outcomes and design efficiency among undergraduate architecture students. The Chronological order is declared in the table labeled “Chronological Review of Literature” and is provided in the Supplementary Materials, titled “Summary Tables”.

5.3. Agreement and Divergence Across Studies

The considered studies concur on the beneficial effect of innovative and experiential teaching methods in enhancing structural literacy and integrating structural literacy into design education processes. Active, experiential, and cooperative learning strategies are widely recognized as effective methods for improving student involvement, comprehension, and integration of design concepts. Additionally, there are variations in the problems raised by curriculum alignment and learning environments, as well as in the degree to which traditional lecture-based methods can be integrated with practice-based methods. Contextual variations like study level, access to technology, and regional educational customs are also linked to discrepancies in outcome reporting; all of these raised issues can be found in the table labeled “Comparative Analysis for Agreements and Divergence from Literature”, which is provided in the Supplementary Materials, titled “Summary Tables”.

5.4. Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretical Implications

• By eschewing conventional engineering-centric methods in favor of a more comprehensive, design-integrated pedagogy, the synthesis of findings highlights the growing understanding of structural literacy as a crucial element of architectural design education. This challenges the conventional separation of structural theory and design practice, advocating for a cognitive paradigm that aligns with architectural studio culture and promotes structural common sense through applied learning and model-based inquiry [17,18,23].
• Experiential and active learning methodologies, including project-based, hands-on, and collaborative approaches, have been theoretically validated as effective in fostering deeper structural literacy and integration in design processes. These methods support constructivist learning theories by engaging students in iterative design-experimentation cycles that enhance conceptual and practical competencies [7,8,20].
• Incorporating interdisciplinary collaboration and systems thinking into architectural curricula reflects a theoretical shift toward acknowledging architecture as a complex socio-technical system. In line with systems theory, this viewpoint places a strong emphasis on feedback loops and causal relationships in design education, encouraging students’ cognitive engagement and problem-solving abilities [12,55].
• Incorporating digital and physical modeling tools, including parametric design, digital fabrication, and immersive technologies, extends theoretical frameworks by bridging spatial, material, and structural literacy domains. This integration supports embodied cognition theories and expands the modalities through which structural literacy can be developed [12,25,26].
• The reviewed literature challenges the adequacy of traditional lecture-based and calculation-heavy structural courses, advocating for pedagogical models that prioritize design relevance, visual-spatial reasoning, and iterative feedback. This theoretical stance aligns with contemporary educational psychology, emphasizing learner-centered and contextually meaningful instruction [18,39,56].

Practical Implications

• The early and ongoing integration of structural literacy in design studios should be a top priority for architectural education programs to improve students’ capacity to combine structural principles with creative design, increasing the caliber and effectiveness of designs. This integration supports better preparedness for professional practice, where structural considerations are critical from project inception [11,13,41].
• Students’ motivation, engagement, and comprehension of complex structural concepts can be significantly improved using active, collaborative, and experiential learning strategies like design-build projects, shake table experiments, and hands-on model building. Additionally, these methods develop the communication and teamwork skills necessary for interdisciplinary cooperation in the workplace [20,38,57].
• Students’ structural literacy and design exploration skills can be improved by integrating digital tools like web-based visualization platforms, BIM-enabled virtual reality, and parametric modeling software into architectural curricula. However, practical challenges, such as resource availability and faculty training, must be addressed to maximize the pedagogical benefits of these technologies [7,39,43,44].
• Curriculum developers and policymakers should consider revising structural courses to reduce overemphasis on mathematical rigor and engineering jargon, instead focusing on design-relevant structural concepts and their application. This adjustment can enhance student performance and the integration of structural literacy into architectural design projects [14,39,58].
• The collaborative nature of modern building design can be prepared for by encouraging interdisciplinary studio collaborations between engineering and architecture students, which will foster creative and sustainable structural solutions. Educational institutions should create such environments to bridge disciplinary divides and enhance professional readiness [9,12].
• Integrating immersive and extended reality technologies in design studios offers promising avenues for enhancing spatial experience and design communication, which can transform architectural education by making structural concepts more accessible and engaging. Institutions should explore scalable implementation strategies to overcome current technological and pedagogical barriers [26,40].

5.5. Limitations of the Literature

Limitations, as listed in

Table 5. Limitations of Literature.

Area of Limitation	Description of Limitation	Papers That Have Limitations
Small Sample Sizes	Several studies rely on limited or single-institution samples, which restricts the generalizability of findings and external validity. Small cohorts may not capture the diverse experiences of students or the varied institutional contexts, thereby limiting their broader applicability.	[7,15,39]
Geographic Bias	Research is often focused on specific areas or institutions, which may not accurately reflect the broader contexts for architectural education worldwide. The external validity and transferability of pedagogical insights across various cultural and educational contexts are restricted by this geographic concentration.	[14,39,58]
Methodological Constraints	Many studies employ qualitative or action research methods without rigorous control groups or longitudinal data, which constrains causal inference and weakens the robustness of conclusions regarding pedagogical effectiveness.	[7,8,19,38]
Lack of Longitudinal Data	Few studies track students over extended periods to assess the retention and application of structural literacy, limiting our understanding of long-term educational outcomes and the integration of design beyond initial interventions.	[8,59]
Overemphasis on Experiential Learning	While experiential and active learning methods are widely promoted, there is a limited comparative analysis with traditional or hybrid pedagogies, which reduces clarity on the optimal instructional balance and potentially biases conclusions in favor of newer methods.	[7,16,19]
Insufficient Interdisciplinary Focus	Although interdisciplinary collaboration is recognized as necessary, few studies have deeply investigated its impact on structural literacy and design integration, thereby limiting insights into effective cross-disciplinary pedagogical models.	[9,12]
Technological Access Limitations	Studies involving digital tools, VR, or computational design often face constraints related to hardware accessibility and economic feasibility, which may affect the scalability and equity of such pedagogical innovations.	[25,26,44]
Curriculum Integration Issues	Many papers highlight the difficulties of integrating structural literacy with design studios due to curricular separation or content overload, which undermines the coherence and practical application of structural literacy in architectural education.	[13,14,37,39]
Assessment Challenges	There is a lack of standardized, validated frameworks for assessing the integration of structural literacy in design outcomes, which affects the reliability and comparability of evaluation results across studies.	[13,15]
Limited Focus on Early Education	Structural literacy is often introduced late in curricula, with insufficient emphasis on early-stage integration, which may delay the development of foundational design-structure synthesis skills and affect cumulative learning trajectories.	[11,41]

(renumbered), include small-scale studies (70%), which limit generalizability, and qualitative dominance (55%), which hinders causality.

6. Gaps and Future Research Directions

The main gaps in the literature and future research directions are summarized, along with the priorities for each, as shown in

Table 6. Gaps and Future Research Directions.

Gap Area	Description	Future Research Directions	Justification	Research Priority
Integration of Structural Literacy in Design Studios	Persistent difficulty in effectively integrating structural literacy into architectural design studios due to traditional lecture-heavy and engineering-centric teaching methods.	Develop and test integrated curricula that embed structural concepts directly within design studios, utilizing coordinated teaching between structural and design faculty, and evaluate the impact on student design outcomes over time.	Integration is crucial for the practical application of structural literacy in design; however, the current separation limits students’ ability to synthesize knowledge creatively [13,15,39].	High
Standardization and Longitudinal Assessment of Pedagogical Impact	Lack of standardized assessment frameworks and longitudinal studies to measure the sustained impact of innovative teaching methods on structural literacy and design integration.	Develop validated, scalable assessment tools to evaluate the integration of structural literacy and track student progress over multiple years, including design quality and professional readiness.	Without standardized and longitudinal data, it is challenging to benchmark pedagogical effectiveness or understand the long-term benefits [8,15].	High
Economic and Accessibility Barriers to Digital Tools	Economic and infrastructural limitations restrict the widespread adoption of advanced digital tools (e.g., VR, BIM, parametric software) in architectural education.	Investigate cost-effective digital toolkits and scalable implementation models; explore cloud-based or shared resource platforms to enhance accessibility for diverse institutions.	Digital tools enhance engagement and understanding, but they are unevenly accessible, which limits pedagogical innovation and equity [7,25,44].	High
Collaborative and Interdisciplinary Learning Best Practices	Insufficient empirical data and consensus on effective models for facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration between architecture and engineering students, especially in virtual or international contexts.	Conduct comparative research on collaborative pedagogies that emphasize cross-cultural and virtual contexts to identify best practices and develop frameworks for facilitation that enhance structural integration and teamwork.	Collaboration enhances learning outcomes and professional readiness, but it faces challenges in coordination and social dynamics [9,12].	Medium
Early Introduction and Progressive Integration of Structural Concepts	Structural education often begins late in curricula, limiting early exposure and progressive integration of structural literacy in design thinking.	Design and evaluate curricula that introduce structural concepts from the first year, progressively increasing complexity and integration with design studios, to measure the effects on student motivation and design quality.	Early exposure fosters better awareness and application of structural principles throughout architectural education [8,11,41].	High
Balancing Control and Creativity in Digital Pedagogies	Excessive control in digital parametric and experimental learning environments can reduce design diversity and creativity.	Explore pedagogical designs that balance guided structural experimentation with open-ended design freedom, assessing impacts on creativity and structural literacy.	Maintaining creativity is essential for architectural innovation; overly prescriptive digital tools may hinder this [7].	Medium
Curriculum Content Overload and Relevance	Architecture students perceive overloaded curricula with an emphasis on engineering and mathematical content as irrelevant or difficult, which can lead to disengagement and poor performance.	Revisit structural curricula to be more architecturally relevant, less mathematically complex, and content aligned with design studio needs; assess student engagement and learning outcomes. Whether or not you are a student at the University of California, Berkeley, or San Francisco, you will find that the two are very different places.	Curriculum misalignment reduces motivation and application of structural literacy in design [14,39].	High
Pedagogical Impact of Emerging Technologies (XR, VR)	Limited empirical research on the pedagogical effectiveness and best integration strategies of immersive technologies like XR and VR in structural literacy and design education.	Conduct controlled studies assessing learning outcomes, engagement, and design integration using XR/VR tools; develop guidelines for effective technology integration in architectural curricula.	Emerging technologies show promise but require evidence-based validation and pedagogical frameworks [26,40].	Medium
Interdisciplinary Faculty Collaboration Models	Lack of structured models for collaboration between architecture and engineering faculty to co-teach integrated structural-design courses.	To enhance interdisciplinary learning, develop and evaluate faculty collaboration frameworks, including joint course design, co-teaching strategies, and shared assessment methods.	Faculty collaboration is key to bridging disciplinary silos but is underexplored and inconsistently implemented [17,36].	Medium
Scalability of Active and Experiential Learning Methods	Many active learning approaches are demonstrated in minor or elective courses; scalability to large, required courses remains underexplored.	Examine ways to scale experiential, project-based, and active learning strategies in sizable undergraduate cohorts, taking into account the impact on learning outcomes and the demands on resources.	Scaling effective pedagogies is necessary for broad curricular reform and impact [7,8].	Medium

.

7. Implications, Limitations, and Sensitivity Analysis

The findings offer actionable implications for architectural education and professional practice. First, curricula should integrate structural concepts into design studios from the first year, using hands-on activities like model-making and shake table experiments to foster early structural awareness [8,11]. Second, adopting digital tools such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and virtual reality (VR) can enhance students’ ability to visualize and analyze structural systems, provided institutions address accessibility through cloud-based platforms or shared resources [44]. Third, to foster communication and teamwork skills and prepare graduates for collaborative professional settings, interdisciplinary studios involving engineering and architecture students ought to be prioritized [9]. Practitioners should collaborate more closely with educators to align academic training with industry demands, ensuring that designs are structurally sound and sustainable. Curriculum designers should focus on structural concepts pertinent to architecture rather than on engineering-heavy content to increase student engagement and design integration [14]. To assess the robustness of our findings, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding lower-quality studies (MMAT score < 70%, n = 4 studies rated ‘Moderate’). Key patterns remained consistent: Experiential learning and the integration of digital tools continued to dominate (adjusted proportions: 18% and 20%, respectively, with overlapping 95% CIs), and positive impacts on design efficiency and learning outcomes persisted across high- and moderate-high-quality studies (n = 46). No substantial shifts in thematic emphasis or conclusions were observed, confirming the reliability of the synthesized evidence despite variations in quality.

8. Overall Synthesis and Conclusions

Among the review’s drawbacks are its dependence on small-scale studies and its geographic focus on North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, which may limit its applicability in different settings. Causal inference is further limited by the prevalence of qualitative and action research methodologies, which call for more reliable experimental designs.

According to the literature, structural literacy is crucial to improving undergraduate students’ educational outcomes and architectural design processes. Active, experiential pedagogies—such as group studios and practical model testing—foster a thorough comprehension of form, materiality, and structure, outperforming traditional methods [7]. Digital tools like BIM and VR enhance exploration, but require scalable solutions to overcome economic barriers [44]. Institutional silos hinder the widespread adoption of interdisciplinary collaboration, despite its ability to bridge the architectural and engineering domains [9]. Curriculum reforms emphasizing early structural integration and reduced mathematical complexity are critical for student engagement and design efficiency [14].

This systematic review confirms that structural literacy has a marked impact on undergraduate architectural design processes and learning outcomes, with experiential pedagogies outperforming traditional methods in 32 of 50 studies (64%). Experiential learning: Project-based methods enhance structural integration by 15–25% [7,8,20,39]. Digital tools, including BIM and VR, boost exploration in 56% of studies, but are limited by access [25,26]. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Joint studios enhance readiness in 44% of studies [9,12,56]. Early integration: First-year structural focus raises efficiency in 36% of studies [11,18,52]—assessment gaps: Only 24% use standardized metrics [15,42].

Future Research Directions:

• Longitudinal tracking: Measure post-graduation retention.
• Standardized tools: Validate cross-curriculum rubrics.
• Cost-effective platforms: Test open-source VR/BIM.
• Virtual collaboration: Scale online interdisciplinary studios.
• Equity analysis: Study demographic influences on literacy.
• Integrated, collaborative, technology-enhanced pedagogy is critical for context-responsive architectural practice.