Search results

We can define architectural design studios as environments of simulation. Within this simulation limitations of real life architectural problems are constructed, yet the constructed reality is far from the reality of existing practice.

In Architecture: Story of Practice, Dana Cuff, makes a sociological study of the architectural design practice and in the volume she discusses design studios as limited versions of the actual design practice. As compared to the actual practice in the studio the students are alone, there isn’t a multiplicity of actors involved in the process, and the design problems are clearly defined. Cuff points out to these shortcomings and provides guidelines to overcome them.

One of the shortcomings mentioned in Cuff’s study is that: design studios do not represent the variety of actors that are present in a real life situation. Cuff suggests to include representatives of different actors in the studio practice to overcome this. If the studio fails to support itself with a variety of actors, to compensate the short coming of actors, the instructors start taking the role of many possible participants of a design process. The instructors simulate: the user, the owner, the engineer, the contractor and so on so forth. This type of an approach in the design studios leads to a certain result: the ideological construct of the instructors becomes the foundation of the constructed reality of the studio.

This study explores the ideological construction of the design studio through active involvements with undergraduate students. Through the findings of two discussion sessions, students’ own ideological positions, their relationship with the external realities and limits imposed on such relations by the studio instructor’s own ideological stances are explored.

This study aims to determine, examine and rank the factors/subfactors that may influence the students’ productivity through different design phases inside the architectural design studio. In addition, it examines the relationships/interrelationships between these factors and students’ educational level.

This research used different research methods: literature review, semi-structured interview and questionnaire (n = 420), and different statistical analysis methods: descriptive, comparative and Pearson r correlation analysis.

This research found that physical and administration factors significantly influence students’ productivity, followed by social and psychological, design and operational, personal and natural environmental factors. Additionally, thermal comfort was the subfactor most affecting the students’ productivity through all design phases. This research found that there were significant strong/very strong positive linear relationships/interrelationships between the student’s education level and all the factors that may increase the students’ productivity (r > 0.647), and between all the factors that may increase the students’ productivity (r ranged between 0.521 and 0.873). The factors affecting students’ productivity in the architectural design studio must be considered as a pool when designing architectural spaces.

The research findings provide the stakeholders, researchers, architects and facilities managers in architectural education with information on improving students’ productivity and enhancing the learning experience that positively affects their confidence and well-being in the design studio. In addition, this research provides information to develop guidelines for evaluating, designing and/or improving design studio environments that facilitate students’ productivity.

This research provides valuable insights into the students’ productivity during design study and how to prepare students for future professional roles, increase their involvement in their design development process and improve the quality of design education. The productivity of the architectural design students during the design studio hours plays a significant role in improving the architectural learning process. Enhancing students’ productivity during design studio hours promotes their design skills and future abilities of a problem-solving approach, which enhances the profession, provides an effective and comfortable student work environment, reduces the students’ stress inside the design studio and meets the students’ physical and emotional needs.

Architecture as a discipline has gone through a serious change since the post-war period and became a recognized profession focusing on human needs in the physical environments. The issue of educating new practitioners for the transforming field has turned out to be the subject of a lively debate for the last 10-20 years.

The current position and approach in design studios of Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design of Bahçeşehir University, were thought to be worth putting forth and sharing with the design community to initiate a discussion for the future of the discipline in general. Consequently, this study was structured to present a paradigm in Interior Architecture Education by focusing on the case of Bahçeşehir University (BAU) Interior Architecture and Environmental Design Department design studio education. The four-year program consisting of eight academic semesters, is addressing the combination of two methods; namely, horizontally organized design studios (HODS), and vertically organized studio groups (VODS). Currently, this approach is subject to many discussions within the department due to many aspects. This approach was tested, evaluated and criticized through student and instructor comments collected via questionnaires. Results were collected and interpreted through three main issues of learning, teaching and assessment.

Study moving from general design studio education to the case of Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design of Bahçeşehir University, concludes with general comments, mentioning the lack of literature on design studio education, and the significance of sharing different approaches and applications. Lastly and specifically, the revisions following the completion of the experiment in the department was put forth. With reference to the case of BAU, initiating a discussion regarding current design studio education was intended.

A major aim of the design studio is to educate students to be well-equipped designers. To do so, a student should be able to grasp the divergent information of various courses and integrate that knowledge into their design problems. But are students aware of the emphasis placed on incorporating different curriculum courses into the design studio? Do they find it beneficial while developing a design project? To what extent do they think this integration has an impact on their success in the design studio and in their adaptation to professional practice? This paper seeks to find out whether the integration between the design studio and other curriculum courses is productive from students' perspectives and determine if there is a consensus between students and instructors on the significance of transferring knowledge from curriculum courses to design projects. In addition, the paper examines the position of the design studio as an integrative medium between education and practice in the Turkish context.

While the COVID-19 outbreak affects all aspects of life in the world, there is also a global impact in the field of education. Within the scope of the measures to control the epidemic, distance education was started shortly after the starting of the spring semester in all primary and secondary schools and universities. In this process, architectural design courses, which are one of the most fundamental courses of architectural education, started to be held in online studios. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evaluations of architecture students about the online design studio courses carried out during the COVID-19 outbreak.

This research used a qualitative approach to evaluate the ideas of first, second, third and fourth grade students of architectural design studios in the host university. A questionnaire was directed to students in order to see their opinions about the online design studio education.

Results shows that students think the most prominent benefit of online studios appears in the use of digital tools. Another important result is that if they are equipped with the necessary tools and given the chance to realize themselves, students can work efficiently even in the distance education process.

This study is important in terms of learning the expectations of students from the online process and to identify important issues that should be considered for the next semesters. In addition, this study will serve as a basis for comparative evaluation of architectural education during and after the epidemic. In this context, the study will shed light on future academic research.

This study aims to expose the various roles that teachers and students adopt in the architecture design studio. It highlights how these roles change over time, through three distinct phases, which relate to the stages of the design project. This understanding of how roles change over the semester will guide academics in understanding how to better relate to students.

Through a series of interviews and surveys, this study utilised a modified Delphi method to establish a consensus of opinion, both within and across the three stakeholder groups of students, tutors and coordinators/lecturers. Two rounds of data collection were conducted, with “expert” perceptions of the three stakeholder roles being established.

The roles that are adopted and perceived by students, tutors and coordinators/lecturers vary over time and respond to the stages of the design project. While there is general agreement between the perceptions of students and their teachers, there are some notable differences at key times.

This research builds upon previous studies into the roles of students and their teachers in the architecture design studio. It provides a nuanced map of how roles change and how interactions happen, over the duration and through the phases, of the architecture design project.

Design studio courses take place at the core of education disciplinary design such as architecture and interior architecture. Studios in which design studio courses are conducted can also be used for other practical courses as well. Another important feature of these studios is that they are extensively used by students for individual or group work other than during class hours. Since the students, either on their own or with the project coordinator, experience design process in these studios, their spatial characteristics are highly significant to conduct this process effectively. Within this scope, the aim of the research is to evaluate open and cell type studios commonly used in traditional architecture education through Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach, to discuss to what extent these studios meet the spatial requirements of today’s instructional methods and to develop a suggestion for design studio spatial use by taking the strengths and weaknesses of these studios. Accordingly, technical, physical and behavioral variables determining the performance of design studios within the context of spatial requirements have been identified through reviewing the related literature. In framework of a case study, a survey formed with the aforementioned variables was administered to architecture and interior architecture students studying in open and cell type design studios in order to measure their spatial performance. Followingly, in the final part of the study, referring to survey results and evaluation of spatial requirements of today’s instructional methods and tools, a combi design studio space organization has been suggested.

This cross-sectional study investigated differences in the learning styles of 127 undergraduate architectural students (first year through to final year) to examine the relationship between learning styles and learning autonomy.

For the investigation, the Felder and Solomon index of learning styles and the Macaskill and Taylor autonomous learning scale were used to identify how these variables relate to one another and how this relationship differs by gender and level of study.

The study provides evidence of a statistically significant impact of studio-based learning on both learning autonomy and style. Our findings, in conjunction with the absence of consistent findings from literature, provide suggestions for making learning in the studio more inclusive for all students. The authors also suggest that looking for learning style differences in the design studio is redundant. This is not intended to ignore the importance of learning styles, but when differences of learning preferences are apparent in one design studio, such finding would provide support for that specific learning setting, and only then conclusions can be drawn and suggestions can be introduced to help its learners, but not to be generalized to other studios.

Learning styles in the design studio literature has revealed only a few fragmentary and sometimes contradicting evidence that cannot be generalized. Although previous studies have explored learning styles in architecture in some detail, much uncertainty still exists about the relation between learning styles and other learning concepts such as autonomy, especially within studio-based subjects. In this research, the authors interrogated and critically review learning styles as applied to different design settings from different countries.

Based on the authors teaching experience, this essay presents an example of how the traditional design studio might be modified so as to foster democratic participation and egalitarian communication between the participating students and instructors. Open communication in the studio is seen as the key to incorporating important values such as collaboration, community and respect for the every day environment into the studio's hidden curriculum. The essay begins by discussing the potentials for and obstacles to meaningful communication in the studio. This discussion is followed by a description of a modified studio project that included continuous role-playing on the part of the students. The final discussion outlines and evaluates how these modifications enabled students to use previous knowledge and everyday language and permitted the discussion of topics not usually debated in the studio. The students, in their assumed roles, became critics, clients and members of a team of designers. Hence these changes influenced the distribution of power in the studio and the students gained more control over their learning experience.

This paper introduces an alternative teaching model in a virtual architectural design studio, its application, impacts and constraints. This model aims for achieving collaborative learning through facilitating students to Inhabit, Design, Construct and Evaluate (IDCE) their designs collaboratively in a multi-user real-time 3D virtual environment platform (Activeworlds). The application of this model in virtual design studio (VDS) teaching has favorably impacted students' motivation for active, creative and explorative learning, social dynamics between studio participants. It also fostered learning electronic communication, collaboration techniques and etiquette in addition to design technology. The model assisted in developing collaborative experience and shared responsibility. However, there are some drawbacks of the virtual environment platform that hindered having a responsive design environment to users' needs with especially in modeling and rate of viewing. The advantages and constraints of applying the IDCE teaching model in a multi-user real-time 3D virtual environment for first year students at the University of Sydney are addressed in this paper.