Evaluation of Distance Education and Formal Education on Architectural Design Studio Practices and Student Perception with Comparative Analysis: Antalya Bilim University

: Due to the worldwide Covid pandemic in 2020, it has undergone compulsory in universities, including distance education architectural education. Universities in Turkey were affected by Covid too, with the decrease of the pandemic effect, even though it has been back to formal education, an earthquake occurred and affected 10 cities in Turkey, causing to passed of distance education again. In the 2023 period, the process; continued as a hybrid, both remotely and face-to-face. Also, the design studio culture, which is the backbone of architectural education, evolved with the changes in the distance education process of components such as drawing, sketches, and the desk critiques tradition of architectural practice. In this sense, the study aims to create a base for a provision for the future of architectural education with student-centered assessments. The research comparatively evaluates the effects of distance education and formal education on architectural studio practices through course evaluation questionnaires applied to students and student comments. In this study, the questionnaires and comments filled by approximately a total of 120 students for each term between 2018-2022 within the Department of Architecture of ABU were analyzed. To determine the points where students get the most efficiency and feel inefficient; Both positive and negative outcomes were observed, including difficulties with the concepts of proportion and scale, the benefit of being able to view other students' projects online, and the chance to continue learning additional modeling and drawing software until graduation. This example shows how hybrid education for the architectural design studio can be evaluated when weighing the benefits and drawbacks of online learning versus face-to-face teaching.


Introduction
Online education has been forcibly applied for approximately 1,5 years in Turkey due to the decision to online education for the whole country contains universities and higher education since 2020.In that process, studio design courses which count as one practical course, students' drawings, sketches, maquet, and similar assignment activities have been held via digital programs and far from the instructor, causing some disabilities but at the same time bringing some advantages.And in the year 2023, because of the earthquake disasters that occurred and affected 10 different cities, again the decision to online education shows us online education will be applied in the future as an alternative approach to be not affected by the negative circumstances.In this frame, it is important for architectural education to note the evaluation of assignments in the studio environment.Many courses in architectural education held in the studio environment require tracking the class.For this reason, critiques via digital programs or platforms are one of the cautions that makes it harder.Without touching or being eye to eye, living through a screen has destroyed the touching surfaces in architectural education.And it may be caused to a loose definition/concept of scale/proportion in spatial or void masses for the students.According to the results of the surveys filled by the students in the 2022 term, shows that distanced education allows students can watch each other's critiques or shared ideas such as Zoom, mic.Teams; from the freshman's level; instead of working on a maquet; through 3D modeling programs students can share Project details that have affected their creativity in a good way.The same situation when observed for the sketching phase, Uçar and Sağsöz pointed out that students have recorded some level of sketching in formal education; directly starting to design by using digital programs without initial sketching in distanced education caused some missings according to formal education.According to Ahmad (2020), while interior design education tends to demand o one interactive communication between the instructor and student; he argued how difficulty in distance education transformed into an opportunity according to the desired project topic in the studio course (Ahmad et al., 2020).Saving time in the lessons, accelerating the exchange of information, and facilitating the digital connection to the instructors in various ways can also be considered positive situations in distance education.Besides communication of the students with their instructors, the sharing of knowledge and transferring the information among students themselves increase creativity and efficiency in applied courses.(Kılınç vd., 2021;Erzen, 1976).According to Eceoğlu, periodic sessional meeting for knowledge exchange in traditional systems in which computers are not used is eliminated, and a digital synchronized communication environment is provided between the people working in the design team, regardless of time and place.hus, the opportunity to use time more efficiently arises, since information exchange is provided at every stage of the design, it increases the speed of decision-making, and group/common work becomes more efficient (Eceoğlu, 2012).This shows that it is efficient among students as well.It has been observed that this change in the education system is easier and more practical for the generation born in the age of technology, and they prefer technologybased learning (Oktay et al., 2021).The fact that applied courses are not like theoretical courses shows that the student depends on concentration, environment, communication, and some other factors that trigger creativity.Within the scope of studio design courses, creative thinking and application practices are assisted by the instructor for students to reveal their creativity and develop it through lessons.Geyyas Gören and Şenyurt (2021) argue that incorporating digital tools and virtual environments into traditional design education is crucial in our current era.They also suggest the creation of new hybrid design education models and curriculum options.With the recent implementation of compulsory design courses with distance education in Turkish universities, students are now exposed to three different education systems: formal education (the traditional method), compulsory distance education, and hybrid education.The 2021-2022 academic year saw the emergence of a new situation, where students transitioned to a hybrid system and continued to participate in both online and formal systems simultaneously.However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the evaluation of this process, including a comparative analysis of the efficiency of students in project courses across formal education, distance education, and hybrid education.This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the student's performance in design studio courses between 2018-2019 (fall and spring formal education), 2019-2020 (fall formal and spring semester distance education), 2020-2021 (fall and spring distance education), and 2021-2022 (fall post distance education).
The course evaluations of the students in the design studio courses, including formal education, will be compared.Survey data from students in the architecture department will be analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the different education systems.
This study focuses on the remote management of design studios, which form the foundation of architectural discipline education, in the Department of Architecture, at Antalya Bilim University, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.The study identifies the benefits and drawbacks of the learning environment that fosters design studio culture and the process of conducting online distance communication between students and instructors through v The fundamental purpose of design studios is to establish a learning environment that enables students to understand the multidimensional nature of design practice, despite the complexity of the design problem at hand.However, learning tendencies may differ significantly among individuals due to various factors.In this study, we aim to evaluate and compare the faceto-face, hybrid, and distance education processes by analyzing questionnaires distributed to students enrolled in project design studios.These questionnaires are a mandatory requirement of the ISO Quality System and were administered at the end of each semester.Through this comparative analysis, we hope to gain insights into the effectiveness of each education process for the design studio context discussed within the scope of this study.
The study comprised all students enrolled in the Department of Architecture, ranging from the first to the fourth year of their program.Before the onset of the pandemic, satisfaction surveys were conducted among students starting from the 2018-2019 academic year.Throughout the pandemic period, including the 2019-2020 academic year (fall formal spring term distance education) and the 2020-2021 academic year (fall and spring distance education), students continued to participate in satisfaction surveys regarding their courses.Subsequently, based on the survey results obtained during the 2021-2022 academic year, which commenced after the pandemic period, the satisfaction rates of students enrolled in courses offered between 2018-2022 were evaluated, taking into consideration the data for both distance and formal systems.A total of 120 students participated in the survey for each semester, encompassing students from both education systems.The study included 10 multiple-choice questions, which prompted students to provide their opinion on various statements, with options such as "strongly agree", "agree", "neither agree nor disagree", "disagree" and "strongly disagree".The survey questions were formed according to the following assumptions for the research:

•
Studio courses are used more effectively in distance education than formal education due to class times being appropriate with planned time in the syllabus and creating a comfortable environment.

•
Studio course materials, necessary equipment, and new technology were used effectively by the instructor in distance education, thanks to online programs.

•
In distance education studio courses that are recorded and can be listened to again; Instructors' method of expression in session critiques, were impressive easy to understand, and tempting.

•
The studio course was as stimulating, thought-provoking, intriguing and encouraging for active participation in distance education as it was in formal education.

•
In formal education, researchsupporting, rote-free, analytical thinking, and problem-solving skills were developed together with the critiques given face to face that provide focus in the studio courses.Formal education has enabled the students to provide to grasp the lesson and learn permanently, and it has a positive effect on succession.

Architectural Design Studio Culture and Changing Communication Forms in the Distance Education Process
Architectural education follows a process in line with the presentation of the forms of design, construction, and representation in the process of transferring the design idea into the physical space.Starting from the first year of their education, students try to find solutions to design problem that is becoming more and more complex and to convey their design ideas.This process, in which the theoretical and applied courses of the versatile components that make up the design are added to the design practice, takes place in architectural design studios.In this sense, architectural design studios constitute the backbone of architectural education with the highest duration and high evaluation rate in architectural education.
To understand the way architectural education is handled today, it is necessary to examine its development in the historical process.As Karamaz and Ciravoğlu stated, architecture has been defined by building production activities until recently, and the knowledge of the architectural discipline has been constructed as a master-apprentice relationship focusing on the field of construction.(Karamaz and Ciravoğlu, 2017).In this sense, in the periods when architecture was applied as a practice, the apprentice learned the necessary technical knowledge through the transfer of experience and knowledge from the master-apprentice relationship.The influence of the Bauhaus began to wane in the 1960s when populist tendencies spread and new trends in art, culture, and politics advanced towards pluralism.Changes in technology, urbanization, and cultural environment have liberalized with wider target audiences and caused the schools of architecture to be affected in many areas.First of all, the competence area of the architect has expanded and this situation is also reflected in the education curriculum.
While it is stated that the multi-paradigms seen in the 1970s were reflected in education with terms such as problem-solving, decisionmaking, and environmental design, and then it turned to traditional design methods, it can be said that the established paradigms began to be questioned in the 1980s.(Balamir, 1985) The design studio, on which Beaux Arts education is based, is a learning environment that progresses on the axis of executive and student about design practices in today's architectural education.The design-oriented nature of architectural education has made project studios, the place where design is learned and done, the focal point of education.(Uluoglu, 1988) As Akyıldız stated, various research on the design studio, along with definitions from different aspects, basically referred to two definitions: a physical learning environment and the basic pedagogical unit and management of design education.(Akyıldız, 2020) Considering design studios as a physical learning environment, according to Ledewitz, the studio treats design education as a new skill such as visualization and representation, as well as a place where students learn a new language.Also, all aspects of design education refer to the realization of experiencing with indirect thinking rather than being thought through direct explanation.Accordingly, architectural design studios are environments where design language, representation, and way of thinking are handled (Ledewitz, 1985).
Considering design studios as a basic educational pedagogy in architectural education, architectural design studios, as quoted from Aslan; rather than a learning environment that directly trains staff for architectural offices, is a situation where knowledge, culture, language, and technique are combined with the energy of space, which directs and teaches candidate architects who enter the practical life course (Aslan, 2016).Design knowledge is communicated to the student through the criticisms made in the studio.The analysis of the criticism shows that design knowledge can be best understood by considering both its general and personal qualities as a whole (Uluoğlu, 2000).In this sense, the studio aims to create an awareness arising from the individuality of the relationship to be established with practice.However, the fact that the executive in the studio is the person who knows destroys the studio environment and it can only be mentioned that the paradigm of learners exists (Aslan, 2016).Many features such as students' learning styles, speeds, abilities, expectations, and experiences, motivations can contribute to the essence of the process in personalized learning environments.Rather than transferring information one-to-one, it is learned by living; accordingly, the goal of being internalized shapes contemporary learning environments (Yurtsever & Polatoğlu, 2020).As stated by Paker Kahvecioğlu, the main purpose of design education is to offer different design experiences, to take an active role in different areas of design, and to gain knowledge."The active components in the studio are "design studio as a communication medium", "design task or problem", "design knowledge" and "different communication tools" and individuals are "student-designers and studio trainers" to establish and realize strong communication in the studio (Kahvecioğlu, 2007).Aydınlı considers architectural design studios as a place where students produce their design knowledge by experimenting, discussing, and doing.In this sense, as a creative paradigm in design education for architectural design studios, it makes the studio culture rethink within the scope of "learning to learn".The studio aims to create a learning environment that will enable knowledge to be structured (Aydınlı, 2015).Uluoğlu, on the other hand, argues that learning to design can be realized not only by knowing the relationship between objects and phenomena, but also by applying it to producing Journal of Design Studio, v:5 n:1 Erturk, S.F., Ucar, S., (2023), Evaluation of Distance Education and Formal Education on Architectural Design Studio Practices and Student Perception with Comparative Analysis: Antalya Bilim University a solution in the context of a determined or selected topic and problem, and states that the transformation of the existing knowledge in the memory of the person based on all the experiences of the design studios into design knowledge takes place in the project studios.Uluoglu, 1988).
Studio practices are a process in which design practices, in which a determined subject and a certain design problem are discussed in each period and a solution is sought for this problem, are represented by considering all the components of the discipline of architecture.In this process, the student progresses in the form of drafting the project and consultations with the executive about the design.For this reason, as Uluoğlu stated, design is learned in the studio and includes mutual communication between the coordinator and the student (Uluoğlu, 1988).This form of communication is the critique taken in the studio environment.
On the learning models discussed within the framework of architectural design pedagogy, it can be said that there are different orientations and fields open to experimentation in architectural design studios.Among these, conceptual expansions such as learning to learn, flipped studios and active studio experiences are included in the literature.The current pursuits in the architectural design studio workshop also diversify the forms of communication between the studio instructor and the student.The "active learning environment" suggested by Polatoğlu in his study is an initiative that can suggest to students a free-thinking environment and provide an opportunity for them to express their thoughts (Yurtsever & Polatoğlu, 2020).As mentioned in Kahvecioğlu's works, the studio transforms from a place that uses traditional analog systems and their presentation tools (sketches, drawings, reproduction models, 2D-3D graphics…) to a place that opens itself to various media (such as photography, cinematography) in the individual transfer of the student's own design thoughts.(Kahvecioğlu,2007).
Process of Design information, from the point of view, is a process supported by active studio participation; students interiorize the studio and use the space apart from the course is subtract the studio from just being a workshop and in Cuff's terms transform it to both a home and workspace.(Akyıldız, 2020;Cuff,1992: 63-65).
The Covid 19 pandemic process has brought many restrictions in daily life practices; these restrictions have also changed and transformed the forms and spaces of communication in the triangle of student-trainer-acquisition of knowledge in the field of education.In the process where the conceptual basis of architectural education and architectural production practices is still questioned and discussed, a different expansion of education and training has been encountered.In this sense, the formation of the above-mentioned design knowledge with studio culture and the form of communication used in studio dynamics have also changed.Starting with the masterapprentice relationship of the studio culture; While talking about the existence of different approaches until today; The transfer of studio communication to the virtual environment along with the pandemic process has also raised awareness of the existence of different resource groups in the student's learning by experience.In the process of structuring design knowledge in the traditional studio culture, the executive's criticisms of the student's design practices were also realized through different virtual tools.
Analyzing how the change or diversification of communication styles and tools in transferring and acquiring architectural design knowledge is reflected in architectural design studio evaluations gains importance in terms of shedding light on the future of architectural education.

Handling Iso 9001-10002 Process In Educational Practices And Its Reflectıon On Studio Evaluations
The primary purpose of teaching and education is for the student to acquire certain gains and outputs for the field.Evaluation of the outputs of the process followed in the education curriculum, which includes the studios, which are the most important and predominant in architectural education, has seen accepted as a necessity today Hesapçıoğlu mentioned two approaches to ensure quality assurance in the realization of the functions of the educational institutions regarding the acquisition of knowledge and qualifications of the students: the first is the accreditation of educational institutions, and the second is the evaluation of the outputs.(Hesapçıoğlu, 2006).Although the existence of national quality assurance systems in higher education institutions does not have a very old historical background, the establishment of national agencies in England and various European countries dates back to the early 1990s.In the United States, however, there is a long history of institutional accreditation with the establishment of a state-sponsored quality assurance mechanism in the 1960s.In this sense, the quality assurance systems question/answer (Q/A) method has played an important role in institutional feedback in recent years (Yorke and Vidovic, 2016).
In Turkey, YÖK, the Higher Education Institution, has established a quality evaluation process according to the standards as a means of supervision and monitoring universities.As stated in the relevant legislation, evaluation of training, implementation, monitoring, etc. are subject to internal and external evaluation processes.According to this; "Internal evaluations consist of periodic review phases as well as continuous monitoring.The periodic review is conducted by the organization's internal supervisors or individuals with expertise in the Standards and practices within the organization, under the responsibility of the head supervisor.External evaluations, internal audit activities; Full external evaluation or periodic review by a team of qualified and independent external evaluation experts to be determined by the Internal Audit Coordination Board (Board) to determine its compliance with the definition of internal audit, the Standards and Code of Ethics, the level of use of successful practice examples, and its effectiveness and efficiency.These are studies that should be carried out at least once every five years in the form of verification.quality assurance in higher education, which is one of the principles of internal and external quality assurance systems, is one of the basic principles of quality, which is important to evaluate in the quality process (Ayvaz et al., 2016).Thanks to quality management, planning actions according to the activities and survey measurements and reporting the situations that need attention in the next period will show its difference from other institutions.According to Aydın (2013), "The implementation of the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program, which also includes the audit of the auditors, by the internal audit managers, by giving the necessary importance, will be an indication that internal audit is an audit system with international references, unlike classical auditing."(Aydin, 2013).In this context, the aim is to create a system that gets better every period with the data obtained.
Antalya Bilim University was included in the ISO Quality Assessment process within the scope of YÖKAK in 2018 and gained the ISO certificate from Türk Loydu in 2018.Another part of the Quality Management System that concerns the delivery of education and the evaluation of its outputs is the student satisfaction questionnaires, which consist of the "Course content" and "Evaluation of the instructor of the course" parts applied for each course.
The aforementioned satisfaction surveys are sent to the students on the portal where the related course is announced, and the students indicate their satisfaction with a score ranging from 0 to 5, and if they wish, they can write comments about the progress of the course.

Methodology
In the study, questionnaires applied throughout the ISO quality process were used in order to measure the efficiency of studio lessons in the distance and formal education process of students.In this context, the research includes two different methods of embedded theory.In the first step, the common question patterns covering the method and content of the studio lessons were determined by comparing the data on the questions updated between 2018-2022 with the content analysis method.Content analysis is simply summary based; It takes and analyzes, reduces, and interrogates texts using emerging themes in pre-existing categories to construct or test a theory.It uses systematic, repeatable, observable, and rule-based forms of analysis.(Cohen et. Al., 2007) Content analysis; provides measurable statements about research activities in a particular field.(Falkingham & Reeves,1998) Based the content analysis method, it is aimed to define keywords as concepts containing repeated common words with summarizing the updated survey questions.The survey questions are updated by the changes in the process and the benefit and development of the institution, within the framework of the goals of continuous improvement as the need of policy of the Quality Process each year including the distance education process along with the pandemic.Keywords were used and marked in the attached table to compare the updated question pattern and content with student satisfaction in formal and distance education and hybrid education processes.Accordingly, although the current question pattern has changed, the student responses to the items whose content and purpose of the question have not changed have been compared and the active parameters have been mainly included in the studio education.
The student satisfaction survey questions directed to the students by the Antalya Bilim University ISO Quality Coordinator for the education and training periods between 2018-2022 and in which the student evaluates the course content with the instructor of the course are compared in the table above.As a result, the results of the common question patterns and contents in the survey of each term were tabulated according to the student's answers as percentages.Evaluated questions: • Thanks to this course, my abilities to analyze, interpret and access new information have improved.

•
Thanks to the course, my ability to talk and make presentations in front of people has improved.

•
The way of lectures made me very interested in the subject.

•
There is new technological equipment (projection, etc.) to be used in the lessons.He used technological lesson equipment effectively.
• Some methods and techniques enable active participation of students in the lessons, away from memorization, and support creativity and research.

•
The lecturer's teaching style contributed to my learning, and my personal and occupational skills have improved.The homework, exams, and projects given by the lecturer contributed to my comprehension of the lessons and helped me improve myself.
In the second step, the comparative analysis method was used by taking the percentages of the Likert scale answers between 0-5 given by the students over a total of 6 questions.
According to Collier, comparison is a fundamental tool of analysis (Collier, 1993) and It means the constant comparison of different pieces of data with each other to facilitate the derivation of abstract categories.(Ilgar & Ilgar 2013) Comparative analysis, like experimental and statistical methods, is a general method and is based on the logic of benchmarking.Also, it is aimed to reveal new conceptual categories and to prove their validity through continuous comparisons.In addition, comparative analysis is used to reach empirical generalizations.Empirical generalization does not merely set limits on the applicability of accessing an embedded theory.More importantly, it also offers assistance in terms of greater general applicability and greater explanatory and predictive power.(Bulduklu, 2019) At this point, it is aimed to compare the questions posed to the students in the formal and distance education process and to reveal which parameters vary or is continuous in the positive and negative effects of the student's learning.

Findings
Within the scope of the study, the averages of the Architectural Design Studios and the Basic design studio courses were taken based on questions during the face-to-face and online education process between 2018-2022, and the comparison was made and interpreted graphically.

• Analysis 1
The first analysis is based on research aimed at improving the student's ability to analyze, interpret, and access new information through the course.
In It is examined in terms of helping students to develop their ability to analyze, interpret, and access new information and to improve their problem/problem-solving skills thanks to the course.According to the results of the survey, they stated that these skills the freshmen of the basic design course, which is one of the practice courses, can be more efficient and develop themselves in online education compared to face-to-face education.In the results of the project courses, which are all studio courses, except for the 1st year spring semester, the results of online education and face-to-face education are close to each other, it is indicated in Chart 1.The students were mostly satisfied with the results of the first-year basic design course ARC 1000 and the architectural studio course ARC 1001, although by a small amount.
A remarkable point is that the ARC 1002 course, which is the second term project compared to the Basic Design and first project course, can be interpreted as more inefficient than the face-to-face education for the solution of the problems they encounter for the first time in architectural studying practices with online communication.

• Analysis 2
The second analysis is aimed at measuring the skills of students in public speaking and making presentations.Especially in architectural studio classes, students' posters and project presentations gain importance.The face-to-face jury environment in the face-to-face education was carried out in the same format on the virtual platform.
The highest satisfaction rate with 91.33% was obtained in the ARC 4001 course during the distance education period.In the face-to-face education period, the ARC 1002 course is seen as the most efficient with 88.68%.  of the 3rd year and that formal education could be more beneficial.Accordingly, it shows that students are better able to express their projects face-to-face, rather than through distance communication, due to the content's complexity and the design area's growth, especially in the ARC 3002 architectural design studio course compared to the projects in the previous semester.It can be thought that it provides a more comfortable environment for freshmen students who have just started school, due to factors such as setting up the jury in a virtual environment and not having to open a camera.However, it should be stated that the establishment of a jury, which is specific to design courses, does not allow for an open exhibition and open jury environment that takes place throughout the faculty.

• Analysis 3
The third analysis is aimed at investigating the positive effect of the way of teaching on the student's interest in the subject.
It has been observed that students' interest in the distance education process is intense in 5 of the architectural studio courses, except for ARC 1002, ARC 2002, and ARC 3002.Although the highest satisfaction rate was observed in the ARC 4001 course with 86.56%, the same course was found to be similarly high in distance education.This shows that it can be specific to the course.In the ARC 3001 course, the satisfaction rate, which was 70.92% in face-toface education, reached 84.71% in distance education with an increase of 14%; in the same way, the satisfaction rate in face-to-face education in the ARC 4002 graduation project course increased from 69.81% to 83.29%; the biggest difference in face-to-face and distance education processes was observed in these courses.In the ARC 4001 course previous course from the graduation project; in both faceto-face and distance education, a satisfaction rate of 86% is observed.
Since architectural design studios are given face-to-face criticism, keeping the course groups in a certain number, and each group teaching separately in the virtual environment, the communication between the groups in the studio environment causes some disconnections in the virtual environment.While it is important that the studio critics in the group are watched by other students, sharing on the screen has replaced desk critiques in online education.
Although desk critiques are generally handled based on output, the fact that drawing and modeling programs are intervened quickly and easily at different phases of the production  When the results of the survey are examined, it is understood that the interest of the students towards the courses continues even online and it is productive.
As a result of the application of the project courses with online education, it can be beneficial to show the theoretical parts or to allow other student groups to listen to each other's critiques on the screen.In response to the questions asked in the surveys that course is impressive, facilitating, and interesting, it is seen that the students can provide more efficiency in online education than in face-toface education.

• Analysis 4
The fourth analysis is based on the research on whether effective lessons are taught for the effective use of technological lesson equipment to be used in courses.
According It is possible to conclude that online education is efficient, except for Arc 1002 and 3002 courses and 4001 courses.The highest difference in the results of the evaluation of the methods supporting the research to ensure active participation in the online and face-to-face education period was observed in the answers of the freshmen students in the ARC 1000 and 1001 courses.In particular, the fact that it is difficult to access campuses like Antalya Bilim University, outside of the city can be perceived as a factor that decreases class participation for students.It is undeniable that it is simple for students to access classes from a distance without coming to the campus or the education building.However, being away from the social environments of university education that includes campus life, sharing, and intersections is a great loss in disciplines that feed from every field such as architecture.

• Analyse 6
The sixth analysis examines whether the assignments and projects given by the instructor to the students will contribute to the understanding of the course and the student's self-development.According to the students' answers to the 6th question, the highest satisfaction rate in the face-to-face education process was observed in the ARC 1002 course with 88.10%, followed by the ARC 4001 course with 87.39%.In the distance education process, it was seen in ARC 1000 with 86.33% and ARC 4001 with 84.50%.
In the face-to-face and distance education process, the difference in the highest satisfaction rate was observed in the ARC 1002 course with 11%.
It can be said that the contribution of the homework given in face-to-face education in ARC 1002,2002 3002 4001 courses is more efficient as a result of frequent consultation with the supervisor in the studio environment.However, in other courses, it is also revealed that satisfaction with the follow-up and feedback of the critiques and assignments given during online education is provided.It can be said that virtual classroom environments such as the Learning Management system used during distance education are easy to monitor students' activities and homework.However, in the evaluation of the homework and in-class applications submitted online, other than the jury, for the development of the project, it may cause miscommunication from time to time when it is sent to the student in writing as a comment during the extracurricular times.

• Total Analysis
As it can be seen from the chart.7 below; when the survey results applied in the face-to-face and distance education processes are compared, the highest satisfaction rate in the face-to-face education total is 81.38% in Q.The comments they wanted to make about the course were specifically directed at improving distance education in the distance education process or understanding the issues they experienced, aside from the questions in the student satisfaction surveys, in which the content of the course and the course instructor was evaluated.As a result, especially in design studio courses, the most common online education; There are statements that design courses are not suitable for online education, cannot continue online, online education is not efficient, and does not provide success in studio courses.On the other hand, the feedback that the project lessons were interpreted as "must be face to face" was the second highest statement among the comments made among the students.
In the beginning, the problems encountered during the online education period, while being described as "difficult" by the students; problems of focusing, lack of communication, and active participation are seen as other problems, respectively.In addition, one of the students who commented on the questionnaire stated that they understood the importance of communication on the model and criticism on paper.
On the other hand, among the survey comments, there are also statements stating that online education is as effective and efficient as face-to-face education, although it is few.Apart from this, there are demands to increase the accessibility of the instructors by planning interactive courses and recording the courses to improve distance education.

Conclusion
The practical education model for the discipline of architecture includes a process that began with the master-apprentice relationship and includes a variety of studio approaches.As a result of the decisions taken in the field of education due to the unexpected and sudden changes experienced around the world and in Turkey, it was carried out in an online way.The role of online education in architectural design practices is still a topic of discussion and is expected to have a long-lasting impact on educational models at this time when working opportunities and distance learning opportunities are being pushed to their limits.
Through surveys and comments, the study examines how students' perceptions have changed as a result of the face-to-face, online, and hybrid project courses that are the basis of architectural education.Communication is the main part, particularly in the project development phases of architectural design studios that are disrupted online learning.There is barely any interaction between the students during class, little cross-pollination between the various learning environments brought by the studio culture, and limited student-to-student conversation.On the other side, a change in the location for the design idea's discussion opened up new possibilities and flexibility.Model making, which is essential for creating the perception of 3D space, had to disregard, although the instructor's ability to interfere with his line in the projects that the student reflects on and beyond the screen is a significant advantage.
Considering both the comments and the results of the survey, it was concluded that project courses, which are practice courses, are more difficult for students especially for freshmen to get used to the profession and express students' selves in online education.In the project training received after the first project experience, the expectations and load of the course increased until the last year.And the students who have come to the graduation period, and who have received the graduation project, have stated that taking online project courses is more inefficient than face-to-face education.
As a result, online education and face-to-face education may have advantages or disadvantages depending on the intended use of students in training that include practice such as project lessons.Here, face-to-face education comes to the fore to communicate that they feel lacking, to express themselves in front of the community, and to prevent possible problems in the concept of proportion/scale depending on the handmade model.It is also among the results that the ideas reflected on the screen can be more useful in online education thanks to the digitally taught programs, while it stands out in terms of listening to the recorded critiques again in online education.However, since the model made in coordination with the drawing will improve the student's perception of space in both education systems, the student is guided by intervening more quickly with the critiques in face-to-face education.
This study, it has made essential for Turkey to continue providing online courses since 2020, just like other countries.Some courses, particularly theoretical ones, have chosen to continue online learning with online education.Additionally, it has been identified that the most interactive solution, which will benefit students studying in the department that requires application, such as architecture, should be sought for a common solution in which they should use both systems together, for the years 2023 and after, when the hybrid system is also tried.The Z generation, who grew up in the age of technology, have different perceptions and focuses.They are curious about the innovations brought by technology and are more active in improving themselves than the previous generation.Because of this, it is possible to alter the curriculum in the educational system so that it can be included in the traditional educational system with hybrid education and architectural education as well as be adapted to other required online education, which will improve the effectiveness of project courses with practical+theoretical education.
Journal of Design Studio, v:5 n:1 Erturk, S.F., Ucar, S., (2023), Evaluation of Distance Education and Formal Education on Architectural Design Studio Practices and Student Perception with Comparative Analysis: Antalya Bilim University Internal and external evaluation activities contribute to the assurance and development of quality by completing each other in the quality assurance and development process.This ensures that activities to enlist quality have an impact on the entire internal audit, including audit management.For the quality assurance and development process to function fully and in the intended direction, internal and external evaluation activities should not be considered independently of each other.(Yök public internal audit quality and assurance development legislation, 2011).Increasing the awareness of students and lecturers about

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Quality assurance and development process ARC 2001 ARC 2002 ARC 3001 ARC3002 ARC4001 ARC4002 Average of survey results in face to face education Average of survey results in online education Journal of Design Studio, v:5 n:1 Erturk, S.F., Ucar, S., (2023), Evaluation of Distance Education and Formal Education on Architectural Design Studio Practices and Student Perception with Comparative Analysis: Antalya Bilim University ARC 2001 ARC 2002 ARC 3001 ARC3002 ARC4001 ARC4002 Average of survey results in face to face education Average of survey results in online education Journal of Design Studio, v:5 n:1 Erturk, S.F., Ucar, S., (2023), Evaluation of Distance Education and Formal Education on Architectural Design Studio Practices and Student Perception with Comparative Analysis: Antalya Bilim University process of projects has increased efficiency.
ARC 2001 ARC 2002 ARC 3001 ARC3002 ARC4001 ARC4002 Average of survey results in face to face education Average of survey results in online education

Table 1 :
Fall and Spring Semester course satisfaction survey questions comparison table Total average in the distanced and formal education of the students' answers Survey Comments