The Behavioral Patterns of the Student in the Position of Peer-Jury in Landscape Design Studio

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to address the behavioral patterns of the students in peer-jury exercise and the learning outcomes in the landscape design studio. Despite the design studios run based on the relation of the master of the studio with the students, changing this relationship to the peer-learners experiments through this research. A Likert questionnaire was applied to ask the opinion of the students at the end of the semester, the data analyzed through a factor analysis test in SPSS. The findings of the analysis identified that the students addressed effective aspects of the exercise in five clusters including communication, interaction, presentation, innovation, and interpretation. The students learn through peer-jury to communicate with classmates through comments, critics, and recommendations, which is improved presentations. The comments of the peer-jury as an idea of design result in innovation in the design conceptualization. In conclusion, the students design their own style of communication in the position of peer-jury through an interpretation of the design projects. The results of the exercise shift the learning process from the instructor toward the peer-students and the peer-learners.

The student's evaluation of the delivery of the theoretical courses due to warning mask and social distance during the pandemic condition

“…A design studio is a place where the training of the students takes place through interaction between participants in an open area through a public discussion (Schon, 1987;Garric, 2017). Despite the th eoretical classes that sometimes take place in the design studios, the design studio culture has rooted in socialization, interaction, and communication to create collective knowledge (Kim & Ketenci, 2019;Tafahomi, 2021c). However, the normal studio process was affected by the safety measures to mitigate the possible risks in the public areas.…”

“…In other words, social and cultural aspects of the design studios have played a fundamental role in the learning outcomes in arc hitecture programs (Shulman, 2005;Lane et al, 2015;Tafahomi, 2021e). However, both physical and personal interaction faced the problem of learning due to the measurement criteria that affected the learning process in both theoretical and practical courses (Tafahomi, 2021c).…”

“…Despite the different forms of the seating position (Salkind, 2008), the pandemic condition obliged both lecturers and the students to use face masks and social distancing in the studios and classroom activities. Although the studios were the same, the students and lecturers found themselves in a new position that made communication more difficult (Tafahomi, 2021c). It means interactions among the instructors and the students were constructed based on the voice of the lecturers, clarity of the sentences through face masks, the level of stress on the topics and themes, gestures and physical activities of the presenter, and the questions and answers section in the theoretical sessions.…”

Insight into Research Dilemma in Design Studios and Relationships with the Architecture Curriculum

“…It meant that problem-solving is dependent on the selfjourney of the researcher (Groat & Wang, 2002;Tafahomi, 2021a). Therefore, this approach facilitates the process of the construction the knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004) through a personal research activity (Williams & Robert, 1997;Tafahomi, 2021b). Some steps have been listed in terms of common activities in the problem-based learning such as a perception of a problem, presentation of the problem, studies on the problem, methodology and methods, and the results and the conclusion (Marshall & Rossman, 2006;Neuman, 2006;Silverman, 2004;Silverman, 2010).…”

“…This problem is not just a personal approach to doing research on the specific trend or interpretation. In fact, it has rooted in the architecture curriculum, program expectation, and learning outcomes that lead the research activities (Tafahomi, 2021b). Despite the studies on the research activity as the new generation of knowledge in the architecture's domain (Groat & Wang, 2002;Niezabitowska, 2018;Antrop, 2013;Deming & Swaffield, 2011), apparently, the research activities have been minimized in the training process of the program.…”