The Online Studio: Cultures, Perceptions and Questions for the Future

Murray, A; Sleight, Joshua; Oldfield, Philip

doi:10.1111/jade.12451

Cited by 2 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analysis conducted was broad, encompassing not only direct educational processes but also peripheral activities and their educational implications. [15,20,21] technical difficulties related with the digital environment 3 [11,18,19,23] pedagogical challenges and limits of the digital environment 5 [15,20,24,25] asynchronous access 5…”

Section: Ekici Et Al [28] Communication Peer Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Actors [15,21,27] low level of engagement and participation 4 [16,18,20,21,29,30] student autonomy increased 7 [19,22,25,28] low level of peer interaction and peer learning 4 [18,21,30] tutor roles need to be redefined 3…”

Section: Ekici Et Al [28] Communication Peer Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dynamics [15,16,21,26,27] low frequency and unclear feedback 5 [15,23,26] virtual review sessions allow participation and being student-oriented 5 [14,15] recordings allow for in-depth learning 2 [17,19,24,25] redefinition of delivery tools and methods 5…”

Section: Ekici Et Al [28] Communication Peer Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From an economic perspective, whether conducting virtual design studios is feasible is no longer questioned. However, its adequacy to fulfill the educational outcomes compared to the rich and complex outcomes of a physical studio is still a debate, and it ends up with divided opinions about the potential beneficial impacts of online teaching, such as asynchronous access to the learning material [14,15,20,24,25], and the detrimental impacts of online teaching, such as ineffective communication [15,21,22,27,28], technical difficulties and the learning curve of the new tools of the digital setting [15,20,21], and the pedagogical challenges and limitations of the digital setting [11,13,18,19,23]. It is important to note that, when provided with the option between a fully online or offline ADS, architecture students, despite the common use of "digital native" and their inclination toward online tools, prefer studying design in a face-to-face setting [24,28,47].…”

Section: Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

McLuhan’s Tetrad as a Tool to Interpret the Impact of Online Studio Education on Design Studio Pedagogy

Takkeci,

Erdem

2024

Trends in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in online studio education, which has presented a significant challenge to traditional design studio teaching methods that rely on face-to-face interactions between instructors and students. It is contended that online studio education enhances the accessibility of design studio pedagogy, making it possible for students to learn from anywhere in the world. However, it also challenges the development of tactile skills, which are crucial in design education. Additionally, online studio education can render certain aspects of traditional design studio pedagogy obsolete, while bringing back elements of design history and theory that may have been overlooked in traditional studio teaching. It can also be argued that online studio education has the potential to reverse the traditional power dynamics between instructors and students, resulting in more democratic and collaborative forms of learning that can empower students. As the literature on the effects of online studio education is growing, there is a need to understand how the shift from the material space and its affordances to an online environment affects the core components of an architectural design studio. To understand the effects of this new medium, this research employed Marshall McLuhan’s tetradic approach, a hermeneutic tool to perform a critical interpretation of any medium by examining four simultaneous effects: how it enhances a human sense, what it makes obsolete, what forgotten aspect it retrieves, and how it flips into its opposite at its extremes. A literature review was conducted to analyze the effects of online studios from a tetradic framework and identify the major discussions of the impact of online studio education. The methodology involves a two-part literature review. This study specifically focused on peer-reviewed, empirical research published after 2020, and the authors used search terms related to online architectural studios during the pandemic. The process identified 176 records of peer-reviewed empirical studies for further analysis and 20 papers were read and included in the review, defining repeating topics/themes and organized under four categories pertaining to the founding archetypes of an architectural design studio: (a) setting and communication, (b) actors, (c) outputs, and (d) dynamics. This process was followed by organizing the findings and interpreting them within the tetradic framework to develop a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of the online design studio. Overall, this research aims to provide a detailed and nuanced analysis of the impact of online studio education on design studio pedagogy, conceptualizing McLuhan’s tetrad as a basis for the analysis, and therefore aiming to enrich our understanding of the post-COVID-19 era of learning architecture by examining the dramatic change in the medium and its effects.

show abstract

Section: Ekici Et Al [28] Communication Peer Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ekici Et Al [28] Communication Peer Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ekici Et Al [28] Communication Peer Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

McLuhan’s Tetrad as a Tool to Interpret the Impact of Online Studio Education on Design Studio Pedagogy

Takkeci,

Erdem

2024

Trends in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Australia, implementation within the studio environment during COVID-19 was studied from the students' perspective. While students expressed concerns about limited interactions with tutors and peers, the students were open to the idea of a hybrid studio in the future (Alnusairat et al ., 2021; Murray et al ., 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of architecture and architectural engineering online education; educator experience, self-efficacy and success

Mosier

Adhikari

Langar

2023

ARCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThose who believe they excel at architecture or engineering education are more likely to succeed based on self-efficacy principles. To investigate educator self-efficacy and success in the Online Learning Environment (OLE), a set of relationships are observed which describe correlations between experience and potential.Design/methodology/approachAn online survey instrument was distributed the fall after COVID-19 university closures. Respondents were asked to reflect on their level of experience teaching and their ability to teach online. All analyzed data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics using the SPSS 22.0 statistical software package. The compatibility of the variables with normal distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk methods. Variables comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests (Kruskal Wallis test, Mann Whitney U test). The relationships between quantitative variables were examined using the Spearman Rank Correlation and comparisons formed from the qualitative variables were tested using the Pearson Chi-Square and Fisher Exact methods.FindingsEducator self-efficacy was determined throughout the COVID-19 transition. Possessing online teaching experience is related to the perceptions that architectural education can be delivered entirely online. A relationship was found for educators who previously taught using OLE and who had experience with delivering and developing OLE.Practical implicationsIt is incumbent on educators and administrators to continue to learn how to best accommodate student learning. The strong relationship for R1: Total teaching experience (IV) and perceptions of whether AEC education can be delivered completely online, points to having educators with a depth of experience and being open to change. The strong relationship shown for R2: Have you ever taught using an online method before January 2020 and Experience in developing online materials demonstrates that a variety of experience will also support educators in a time of change. These relationships illustrate how educator efficacy can provide support for educators during times of crisis.Originality/valueU.S. Architectural and Architectural Engineering educator pandemic OLE self-efficacy has not been previously been a focus of research efforts. This research adds to the body of knowledge by demonstrating how relationships between teaching experience and OLE can encourage educator self-efficacy during a crisis. Statistical analyses found a strong relationship between total teaching experience and perceptions that AEC education can be delivered completely online. A strong relationship was found between online teaching experience and positive experiences in developing online materials.

show abstract

The Online Studio: Cultures, Perceptions and Questions for the Future

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

McLuhan’s Tetrad as a Tool to Interpret the Impact of Online Studio Education on Design Studio Pedagogy

McLuhan’s Tetrad as a Tool to Interpret the Impact of Online Studio Education on Design Studio Pedagogy

Investigation of architecture and architectural engineering online education; educator experience, self-efficacy and success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About