Abstract:Good teaching requires pedagogical dynamism: a willingness to vary one's teaching approach relative to the context (and cohort) at hand, and to any new challenges that may arise from that context. This requires that teachers obtain a broad knowledge of teaching strategies and tactics. Given the demands of contemporary higher education, finding the time to obtain this knowledge can pose a challenge to full-time academics. This is exacerbated in the case of part-time and practitioner-teachers who often work in v… Show more
“…The PDS seems to be more efficient in peer learning through a hierarchical social process, whereas VDS has more potential regarding research, discussion and self‐dependency (Saghafi et al 2012). Undoubtedly, architectural education is not only about problem‐solving and design products; it is also about developing a social character, a communicable identity with the capacity to observe and make peer connections (McLaughlan & Chatterjee 2020). This is what Dutton (1987) calls the ‘hidden curriculum’, one that is centred around socio‐spatial engagement.…”
Virtual design studio (VDS) has been a part of the discourse of architectural pedagogy for the past two decades. VDS has been showcased as a potential educational tool in schools of architecture often in controlled, pre‐designed experiments. However, the global COVID‐19 pandemic has forced most schools to move their design studios into virtual space. This article aims to explore the potential advantages and shortcomings of VDS during the COVID‐19 quarantine from the perspective of students in a department of architecture. The study investigates three aspects of VDS namely, participating students’ evaluation of the virtual studio experience, the effectiveness of VDS in achieving the studio’s expected learning outcomes and the evaluation process for final design projects. Some 360 students from eight consecutive design studios participated in the study. The results indicate improvement in students’ ability to conduct independent research and in learning new computer‐aided design (CAD) software. Furthermore, the study finds VDS to be much more applicable for third‐ and fourth‐year students. The results also show a significant decline in background informal peer learning among students. Further studies are needed to address the implementation of a more immersive social experience in VDS.
“…The PDS seems to be more efficient in peer learning through a hierarchical social process, whereas VDS has more potential regarding research, discussion and self‐dependency (Saghafi et al 2012). Undoubtedly, architectural education is not only about problem‐solving and design products; it is also about developing a social character, a communicable identity with the capacity to observe and make peer connections (McLaughlan & Chatterjee 2020). This is what Dutton (1987) calls the ‘hidden curriculum’, one that is centred around socio‐spatial engagement.…”
Virtual design studio (VDS) has been a part of the discourse of architectural pedagogy for the past two decades. VDS has been showcased as a potential educational tool in schools of architecture often in controlled, pre‐designed experiments. However, the global COVID‐19 pandemic has forced most schools to move their design studios into virtual space. This article aims to explore the potential advantages and shortcomings of VDS during the COVID‐19 quarantine from the perspective of students in a department of architecture. The study investigates three aspects of VDS namely, participating students’ evaluation of the virtual studio experience, the effectiveness of VDS in achieving the studio’s expected learning outcomes and the evaluation process for final design projects. Some 360 students from eight consecutive design studios participated in the study. The results indicate improvement in students’ ability to conduct independent research and in learning new computer‐aided design (CAD) software. Furthermore, the study finds VDS to be much more applicable for third‐ and fourth‐year students. The results also show a significant decline in background informal peer learning among students. Further studies are needed to address the implementation of a more immersive social experience in VDS.
“…In the combined model stage, in addition to cultivating students’ abilities to master composition and structure, it also allows students to understand the importance of mutual assistance and teamwork. Providing students with a good mutual stimulation can make them produce better results (Attoe & Mugerauer 1991; McLaughlan & Chatterjee 2020). Student feedback: Regarding the combined model, we really encountered a lot of difficulties.…”
The basic design course mainly focuses on training students in their form development ability, including two parts: graphic figure and three‐dimensional form. However, in terms of form development, it is not just to create a certain form arbitrarily, but to convey the creator’s intention based on this form. For students who are new to the field of design, it will be very difficult to convey their own ideas through creative forms. Therefore, this research combines abstract design with three‐dimensional composition to develop a new teaching method, which connects two parts of graphic figure and three‐dimensional form together, and divides them into three stages: abstract design, unit model and combined model. In addition to allowing students to learn comprehensively, they can also understand how to design a form that can convey their own views and lay a good foundation for future design courses. After the course, the three stages have a positive impact on students. Students will have a new understanding of design, have greater interest and confidence in design, and understand the entire process of design (data collection, analysis, ideation and production) and the importance of teamwork.
“…Architecture faculty, who rarely have any formal training as educators, have often responded by using a trial-and-error method; they hypothesize and experiment in their studios with good intentions and often productive outcomes. As a result, while the body of research on design studio pedagogy has grown in recent years, much of the existing scholarship is drawn from case studies (Brody et al, 2017;Criss, 2018;Galil and Kandil, 2015;Masdéu and Fuses, 2017;McLaughlan and Chatterjee, 2020;Pruitt and Kratzer, 2018;van Diggelen et al, 2021). This paper employs an alternative approach to complement these case studies.…”
The culture of the architectural design studio continues, in large part, to be based on centuries old traditions. Research on teaching, learning and bias suggest, however, that a rethinking of these traditions is long overdue if we aim to create inclusive learning environments and diversify our profession. Drawing on recent research on the cultivation of expertise, student motivation and stereotype threat, this essay considers how we might rethink design studio instruction. Studies on the development of expertise suggest a critical re-imagining of the instructor’s role in design studios. Research on student motivation suggests that many of the traditional practices of architectural education inevitably leave students unmotivated and need to be reconsidered. Finally, research on the ways in which stereotypes impact academic performance illuminate some of the roadblocks to diversifying our classrooms and profession. This essay shares evidence-based strategies to address these roadblocks and traditions to develop a more inclusive and effective design studio culture.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
