The Migration of Architectural Design Education from the Studio to A Virtual Environment; A Review of an Experience in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD., Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic forced a rapid transition to virtual learning environments across many disciplines, including architecture, where traditional design studios relied heavily on hands-on learning and face-to-face interaction. The adaptation of these studios to virtual formats highlighted numerous challenges, particularly in ensuring clarity of instruction, maintaining engagement, and adapting media for online use. This research aims to explore and narrate the educational experience of an undergraduate virtual architectural design studio, with the objective of identifying obstacles and determining effective solutions for successful implementation.
Methods: An action research methodology was employed for the study, allowing for iterative reflection and modification based on the experiences of students and tutors. The research spanned five cycles within an undergraduate design studio at Shahid Beheshti University. Each cycle incorporated specific interventions to address challenges in the virtual learning environment, with the quality of student projects being the primary criterion for evaluation. Data collection included detailed session reports, student feedbacks, and analyses of technical and pedagogical challenges encountered throughout the process.
Results and conclusion: The study identified three main challenges in the virtual design studio: the lack of clarity in instructional content, the mismatch between traditional studio activities and the virtual environment, and ongoing technical difficulties. Despite these challenges, the research demonstrated that a flexible pedagogical approach, the incorporation of diverse activities, and the use of virtual-environment-friendly media significantly improved student outcomes. While certain traditional activities, such as conceptual design tasks, could be adapted to the virtual setting with minor modifications, others, such as material exploration, were less compatible and sometimes not feasible. The research concludes that while virtual design studios present substantial challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation in teaching methods. Successful implementation requires careful adaptation of tasks and media, and an ongoing commitment to flexibility and responsiveness to both technological and pedagogical constraints. This study provides insights that can guide the future development of virtual architectural design studios, ensuring their effectiveness in delivering quality education.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Chiu, Sheng Hsiao. “Students Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Sharing in the Design Studio – an Exploratory Study”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 20, no. 1 (2010): 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9061-9.
Cho, Ji Young and Moon Heum Cho. “Student Perceptions and Performance in Online and Offline Collaboration in an Interior Design Studio”. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 24, no. 4 (2014): 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9265-0.
Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Creswell, John W. and David W. Creswell. Research Design. London: Sage Publications, 2018.
Curtis, Will, Mark Murphy, and Sam Shields. Research and Education. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Daniel, Ben Kei and Tony Harland. Higher Education Research Methodology; A Step-by-step Guide to the Research Process. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Elisa Navarro Morales, Maria and Roberto Londoño. “Inverted Classroom Teaching in the First-year Design Studio, a Case Study”. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.50, no. 5 (2019): 2651-2666. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12711.
Iranmanesh, Aminreza and Zeynep Onur. “Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic”. International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 40, no. 1 (2021): 251-267.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12350.
Katz, Yaacov J. and Yaacov B. Yablon. “Who Is Afraid of University Internet Courses?”. Educational Media International, vol. 39, no. 1 (2002): 69-73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980210131132.
Kemmis, Stephen, Robin McTaggart, and Rhonda Nixon. The Action Research Planner; Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. New York: Springer, 2014.
Kocaturk, Tuba. “A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Construction through Blended Learning”. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, vol. 5, no. 1 (2017): 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v5i1.1544.
Mackenzie, Andrew, Milica Muminovic, and Karin Oerlemans. “The Intentional Use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) to Improve Outcomes in Studio”. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, vol. 5, no. 1 (2017): 47-63.
https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v0i0.1558.
McNiff, Jean and Jack Whitehead. Action Research: Principles and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Mizban, M. and A. Roberts. “A Review of Experience of Implementation of E-learning in Architectural Design Education”. CEBE Working Paper, no.13 (2008).
Newman, Galen, Benjamin George, Dongying Li, Zhihan Tao, Siyu Yu, and Ryun Jung Lee. “Online Learning in Landscape Architecture: Assessing Issues, Preferences, and Student Needs in Design-related Online Education”. Landscape Journal, vol. 37, no. 2 (2018): 41-63. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.37.2.41.
Norton, Lin S. Action Research in Teaching and Learning; a Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Oyarzun, Beth, Florence Martin, and Robert L. Moore. “Time Management Matters: Online Faculty Perceptions of Helpfulness of Time Management Strategies”. Distance Education, vol. 41, no. 1 (2020): 106-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724773.
Rodriguez, Carolina, Roland Hudson, and Chantelle Niblock. “Collaborative Learning in Architectural Education: Benefits of Combining Conventional Studio, Virtual Design Studio, and Live Projects”. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 49, no. 3 (2018): 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12535.
Sagun, Aysu and Halime Demirkan. “On-line Critiques in Collaborative Design Studio”. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 19, no. 1 (2009): 79-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9036-2.
Shariatrad, Farhad, Monire AdineDust Abadi, Ramin Dehbandi, and Fatemeh Senemari. “A Study of Influential Factors in Online Teaching in Architectural Design Studios; the Case of the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, during COVID – 19 Pandemic”. Soffeh, vol. 31, no. 2 (2021): 61-82. https://doi.org/10.52547/sofeh.31.2.61 (In Persian)
Sidawi, Behzad. “The Tutors Views on the Utilization of E-learning System in Architectural Education”. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, vol.16, no. 2 (2013): 1-12. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1017527.
Whitehead, Jack and Jean McNiff. Action Research; Living Theory. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
Wicks, Patricia Gaya, Peter Reason, and Hilary Bradbury. “Living Inquiry: Personal, Political and Philosophical Grounding for Action Research Practice”. In Peter Reason & Hilary Bradbury (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research; Participatory Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage Publications, 2008.
Wojtowicz, Jerzy. Virtual Design Studio. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1995.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 October 2022
  • Revise Date: 30 April 2023
  • Accept Date: 10 March 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics