The Future of Design Studio Education: Student Experience and Perception of Blended Learning and Teaching during the Global Pandemic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Blended Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
3. Design Studio Education
4. Methods
4.1. Survey Design and Dissemination
4.2. Online Survey Limitations
5. Case Study Analysis
5.1. Learning and Teaching Activities
5.2. Assessment and Formative Feedback
5.3. Digital Platforms
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lang, J. Teaching planning to city planning students. An argument for the studio/workshop approach. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1983, 2, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masdéu, M.; Fuses, J. Reconceptualizing the design studio in architectural education: Distance learning and blended learning as transformation factors. ArchNet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2017, 11, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sagun, A.; Demirkan, H.; Goktepe, M. A framework for the design studio in web-based education. J. Art Des. Educ. 2001, 20, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iranmanesh, A.; Onur, Z. Mandatory virtual design studio for all: Exploring the transformations of architectural education amidst the global pandemic. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2021, 40, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peimani, N.; Kamalipour, H. Online education and the COVID-19 outbreak: A case study of online teaching during lockdown. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peimani, N.; Kamalipour, H. Online education in the post COVID-19 era: Students’ perception and learning experience. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hepburn, L.-A.; Borthwick, M. Synchronicity in the online design studio: A study of two cases. Des. Technol. Educ. Int. J. 2021, 26, 71–85. [Google Scholar]
- Timmons, V.; Cairns, E. Case Study Research in Education. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research; Mills, A.J., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 100–102. [Google Scholar]
- Ginns, P.; Ellis, R.A. Evaluating the quality of e-learning at the degree level in the student experience of blended learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2009, 40, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schön, D.A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987; p. xvii, 355. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, B.; Ashford-Rowe, K.; Barajas-Murphy, N.; Dobbin, G.; Knott, J.; McCormack, M.; Pomerantz, J.; Seilhamer, R.; Weber, N. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition; EDUCAUSE: Louisville, CO, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Garrison, D.R.; Vaughan, N. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines; Jossey-Bass: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Draffan, E.A.; Rainger, P. A model for the identification of challenges to blended learning. ALT-J 2016, 14, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrison, D.R.; Kanuka, H. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2004, 7, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gierdowski, D.C. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology; ECAR: Louisville, CO, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Vaughan, N. Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. Int. J. E-Learn. 2007, 6, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, C.R.; Woodfield, W.; Harrison, J.B. A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2013, 18, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adekola, J.; Dale, V.H.; Gardiner, K. Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Res. Learn. Technol. 2017, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herbert, C.; Velan, G.M.; Pryor, W.M.; Kumar, R.K. A model for the use of blended learning in large group teaching sessions. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anthony, K.H. Design studios. In Companion to Urban Design; Banerjee, T., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 223–237. [Google Scholar]
- Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Mukhija, V. Responding to informality through urban design studio pedagogy. J. Urban Des. 2016, 21, 577–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthony, K.H. Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Kamalipour, H.; Peimani, N. Towards an Informal Turn in the Built Environment Education: Informality and Urban Design Pedagogy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Macdonald, E. Designing the urban design studio. In The Urban Design Reader; Larice, M., Macdonald, E., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 595–600. [Google Scholar]
- Dutton, T.A. Design and studio pedagogy. J. Archit. Educ. 1987, 41, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research. In Qualitative Research Practice; Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., Silverman, D., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2004; pp. 420–434. [Google Scholar]
- Zeisel, J. Inquiry by Design: Environment/Behaviour/Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape and Planning, Rev. ed.; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Thorne, K. Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online & Traditional Learning; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- McClean, D.; Hourigan, N. Critical dialogue in architecture studio: Peer interaction and feedback. J. Educ. Built Environ. 2013, 8, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharpe, R.; Benfield, G.; Roberts, G.; Francis, R. The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. High. Educ. Acad. 2006, 4, 24–250. [Google Scholar]
- Kamalipour, H.; Peimani, N. Informal urbanism in the state of uncertainty: Forms of informality and urban health emergencies. Urban Des. Int. 2021, 26, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamalipour, H.; Peimani, N. Assemblage Thinking and the City: Implications for Urban Studies. Curr. Urban Stud. 2015, 3, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, C. Understanding students’ views of the crit assessment. J. Educ. Built Environ. 2015, 6, 44–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, D.R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr. Sci. 1989, 18, 119–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shute, V.J. Focus on Formative Feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2008, 78, 153–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamalipour, H. Feeding forward in urban design pedagogy: A critique strategy. In Effective Design Critique Strategies across Disciplines; Watson Zollinger, S., Nyboer, J., Eds.; University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Delivery Mode | |||
---|---|---|---|
Learning and teaching activities | Field Study Visits | Face-to-face field study visits in small groups with the studio tutors; Online field study visits with the support of alternative virtual platforms such as Google Earth and Google Street View for remote study students or students in self-isolation/quarantine | |
Small Group Studio Tutorials | Face-to-face tutorials with the studio tutors; Live online tutorials with the studio tutors for remote study students or students in self-isolation/quarantine (with the support of asynchronous online material) | ||
Small Group Reading Seminars | Face-to-face reading seminars with the studio tutors; Live online reading seminars with the studio tutors for remote study students or students in self-isolation/quarantine (with the support of asynchronous online material) | ||
Lecture/Guest Lecture | Live online lecture/guest lectures with the subject leaders/guest lecturers with the support of asynchronous online material | ||
Assessment and formative feedback | Formative Feedback | Sessional oral feedback | During face-to-face studio tutorials and reading seminars by the studio tutors; During live online studio tutorials and reading seminars by the studio tutors with the support of asynchronous online material |
Studio workshops | Live online studio workshops with the format of individual student presentations of the paired studio sections followed by feedback from the paired studio tutors | ||
Summative Assessment | 100% Individual urban design portfolio; Electronic submission online; Online marking and written feedback using a consistent structure | ||
Digital platform | Synchronous | Zoom (e.g., live online studio workshops) | |
Asynchronous | Learning Central (e.g., subject schedule, subject outline, reading lists, learning materials, lecture/guest lecture slides and recordings) |
Survey Questions | Response (%) |
---|---|
Q1. What is your gender? | 65.3% Female 34.7% Male 0% Prefer not to say 0% Other |
Q2. Do you consider yourself as an international student? | 95.9% Yes 4.1% No 0% Prefer not to say |
Q3. [If English is not your first language] My English language skills have enabled me to effectively engage with learning materials and activities in the urban design studio. | 29.8% Strongly agree 36.2% Somewhat agree 27.7% Neither agree nor disagree 6.4% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q4. Field study visits have been helpful for my learning experience. | 55.1% Strongly agree 34.7% Somewhat agree 4.1% Neither agree nor disagree 6.1% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q5. Face-to-face field study visits will be more helpful than online field study visits. | 67.3% Strongly agree 26.5% Somewhat agree 2% Neither agree nor disagree 4.1% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q6. I have been satisfied with my interactions with my studio tutor in the face-to-face tutorials. | 71.4% Strongly agree 22.4% Somewhat agree 4.1% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q7. I have been satisfied with my interactions with other students in the face-to-face tutorials. | 53.1% Strongly agree 38.8% Somewhat agree 6.1% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q8. Attending face-to-face studio tutorials will be more helpful than attending live online studio tutorials. | 67.3% Strongly agree 28.6% Somewhat agree 4.1% Neither agree nor disagree 0% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q9. Face-to-face small group studio tutorials (for example: 4–5 students and a tutor) will be more helpful for your learning experience than large group studio tutorials (for example: 8–9 students and a tutor). | 67.3% Strongly agree 22.4% Somewhat agree 6.1% Neither agree nor disagree 4.1% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q10. The live online studio workshops and formative feedback by paired tutors have been helpful for improving my learning experience and developing my urban studio portfolio. | 68.1% Strongly agree 25.5% Somewhat agree 6.4% Neither agree nor disagree 0% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q11. The live online studio workshop has enabled me to engage with other presentations and learn from others as well. | 59.2% Strongly agree 30.6% Somewhat agree 8.2% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q12. The module has been well structured with a range of appropriate learning and teaching activities. | 51% Strongly agree 34.7% Somewhat agree 12.2% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Q13. I could easily access the related learning materials on Learning Central. | 63.3% Strongly agree 30.6% Somewhat agree 4.1% Neither agree nor disagree 2% Somewhat disagree 0% Strongly disagree |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Peimani, N.; Kamalipour, H. The Future of Design Studio Education: Student Experience and Perception of Blended Learning and Teaching during the Global Pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020140
Peimani N, Kamalipour H. The Future of Design Studio Education: Student Experience and Perception of Blended Learning and Teaching during the Global Pandemic. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(2):140. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020140
Chicago/Turabian StylePeimani, Nastaran, and Hesam Kamalipour. 2022. "The Future of Design Studio Education: Student Experience and Perception of Blended Learning and Teaching during the Global Pandemic" Education Sciences 12, no. 2: 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020140
APA StylePeimani, N., & Kamalipour, H. (2022). The Future of Design Studio Education: Student Experience and Perception of Blended Learning and Teaching during the Global Pandemic. Education Sciences, 12(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020140