A new way of social interaction for educational purposes in architecture design studios during the pandemic

Abstract

COVID-19 has challenged educational systems in whole parts of the world, including convenient courses and programs such as architecture. The architecture program is designed based on the design studios that deliver major parts of the activities in the program, such as design productions, project presentations, and receiving comments on the design activities from both instructors and juries. To test the students' satisfaction level with social interactions in design studio activities, a five-scale questionnaire was designed, and through Google Forms, the results were analyzed in SPSS. The findings reveal that communication, social interaction, and design activities are significant for the students. The students demonstrate overall satisfaction with the quality of the course delivery. However, the detailed design illustrates that students and instructors adopted an adapted way to the condition to reduce the risk by minimizing the group work and increasing the individual desk crits. This result shows that teamwork and peer learning were reduced during the pandemic.

Keywords

• Wearing face masks
• Social distance
• Architecture
• Design studio
• Individual learning style
• Students

References

1. Abu Alatta, R. T., Momani, H. M., & Bataineh, A. M. (2023). The effect of online teaching on basic design studio in the time of COVID-19: an application of the technology acceptance model. Architectural Science Review, 66(6), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038
2. Almquist, Y. B., Ashir, S., & Brännström, L. (2014). A guide to quantitative methods. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Sweden. Retrieved from www.chess.su.se/methods
3. Ando, S. (2021). University teaching and learning in a time of social distancing: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 31(1-4), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2020.1814928
4. Apriyanti, C. (2020). The parents’ role in guiding distance learning and the obstacle during covid-19 outbreak. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 7(2), 68-83. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/pendas.7.2.68-83
5. Avcı, U., & Oruc, O. (2020). Computer literacy course with distance education: students' views on the procedure, content and benefits. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 1(2), 138-156. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/itall
6. Bold, C., & Hutton, P. (2007). Supporting students’ critical reflection-on-practice. In A. Campbell, & L. Norton, Learning, teaching and assessing in higher education: Developing reflective practice (pp. 21-30). Exeter, UK: Learning Matters Ltd.
7. Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental Psychology: From Spatial-Physical Environment to Sustainable Development. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environment psychology (pp. 28-54). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8. Borden, I., & Ray, K. R. (2006). The dissertation: An architecture student’s handbook. (Second, Ed.) New York: Architectural Press, Elsevier.

9. Buldan, E. (2021). Situated learning in online architectural studio education. Journal of Design Studio, 3(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.930642
10. Charlotte, H., Geraint , E., & Michail , D. (2023). Impact of COVID-19 on neighbourhood physical activity in older adults. Cities & Health, 7(4), 666-676. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2022.2095881
11. Ching, F. D. (2015). Architectural graphic (6 ed.). New York: Willy.
12. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson.
14. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
15. De Campos, C. I., Pitombo, C. S., Delhomme, P., & Quintanilha, J. A. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Data Reduction Techniques for Questionnaire Validation Using Self-reported Driver Behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 73, 133-142.
16. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Students’ perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 133-146.
17. Demir, M., Demir, Ş. Ş., & Aktürk, O. (2023). The Effects of Distance Education Capabilities and Competencies on Learning Outcomes During COVID-19 in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2023.2191966
18. Demir, M., Demir, Ş. Ş., Ergen, F. D., & Dalgiç, A. (2021). The factors affecting hotel choice of consumers during the Covid-19 process. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 7(1), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.857679
19. Dizdar, S. D. (2015). Architectural education, project design course and education process using examples. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, IETC 2014, 176, pp. 276 – 283.
20. DoA. (2012). Architecture program specification. Kigali : Department of Architecture, The University of Rwanda.
21. Doha, S. M., Walid, E. F., & Ahmed , S. M. (2022). Architecturally safe and healthy classrooms: eco-medical concept to achieve sustainability in light of COVID-19 global pandemic. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 21(6), 2172-2187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2021.1972811
22. Draper, J. (1977). The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural profession in the United States: The case of John Galen Howard. In S. Kostof, The architect (pp. 209–238). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Drexler, A. (1975). The architecture of the Ecole des Beaux Arts. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
24. Ersin, P., Atay, D., & Mede, E. (2020). Boasting preservice teachers’ competence and online teaching readiness through e-practicum during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(2), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2020.09.09
25. FAED, F. (2009). Program specification of architecture. Kigali: the University of Rwanda.
26. Filiz, B., & Konukman, F. (2020). Teaching Strategies for Physical Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91(9), 48-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2020.1816099
27. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Nachmias, D., & DeWaard, J. (2014). Research methods in the social sciences (8 ed.). New York: SAGE Publisher Ink.
28. Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research in architecture. Design Studies, 15(4), 433-447.
29. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Paper, 1(1), 1-5.
30. Garric, J.‐P. (2017). The French Beaux‐Arts. In M. Bressani, & C. Contandriopoulos, The companions to the history of architecture, volume III, nineteenth century architecture, part I: Historicism, the Beaux‐Arts, and the Gothic (pp. 1-15). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
31. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
32. Gillies, R. M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 137-147.
33. Griffin, A. (2022). The rise of academic architectural education: The origins and enduring influence of the Acadâemie d’architecture. New York: Routledge.
34. Gulbahar, Y., & Madran, R. O. (2009). Communication and collaboration, satisfaction, equity, and autonomy in blended learning environments: A case from Turkey. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2).
35. Hartley, J. (2014). Some Thoughts on Likert-type Scales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology , 14(1), 83-86.
36. Huertas-Delgado, F. J., Garcia, M. J., Van Dyck, D., & Chillon, P. (2019). A Questionnaire to Assess Parental perception of Barriers towards Active Commuting to School (PABACS): Reliability and validity. Journal of Transport and Health, 12, 97-104.
37. Johnson, B. R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
38. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396-403.
39. Laseau, P. (2000). Graphic thinking for architects and designers (3 ed.). New York: Wiley.
40. Lee, S. W. (2005). Encyclopedia of school psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
41. Li, Q. (2013). A Novel Likert Scale Based on Fuzzy sets Theory. Expert System with Application , 40(5), 1906-1618.
42. Marinoni, G., Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the world. Published by the International Association of Universities.
43. McClean, D., & Hourigan, N. (2013). Critical dialogue in architecture studio: Peer interaction and feedback. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2013.00004
44. Mckeever, A. (2022, Faberary 17). Do masks really harm kids? Here's what the science says. Retrieved from National Geography : https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/do-masks-really-harm-kids-heres-what-the-science-says
45. Morgan, S. L., & Shackelford, D. T. (2018). School and teacher effects. In B. Schneider, Handbook of the Sociology of Education in the 21st Century (pp. 513-534). Springer.
46. Mugerauer, R. (1995). Interpreting environments: Tradition, deconstruction, hermeneutics. Texas: University of Texas.
47. Naylor, D., & Nyanjom, J. (2020). Educators’ emotions involved in the transition to online teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1236-1250,. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1811645
48. Neuman, L. W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Pearson Education.
49. O’Hagan , F., Capell , D., & Metaxas, C. (2022, April 26). Teaching with a mask. Retrieved from Trenttu : https://www.trentu.ca/teaching/teaching-mask
50. Peers, I. (1996). Statistical analysis for education and psychology researchers. London: The Falmer Press.
51. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of educational psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
52. Santrock, J. (2011). Educational psychology. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
53. Schon, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architecture Education, 38, 2-9.
54. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
55. Seifert , K., & Sutton, R. (2009). Educational psychology. Zurich, Switzerland: The Global Text Project.
56. Simmons, K., Carpenter, L., Crenshaw, S., & Hinton, V. M. (2015). Exploration of classroom seating arrangement and student behavior in a second grade classroom. Georgia Educational Researcher, 12(1), 51-68.
57. Tafahomi, R. (2021a). Insight into a personalized procedure of design in concept generation by the students in architecture thesis projects. Journal of Design Studio, 3(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.910234
58. Tafahomi, R. (2021b). The preferences of the students to select the seating position in the architecture design studios. Erciyes Journal of Education, 5(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.32433/eje.940783
59. Tafahomi, R. (2021c). Application of Blended Learning through Practical Project-based Instruction: Opportunities and Constraints. Pedagogi: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 21(2), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.24036/pedagogi.v21i2.1093
60. Tafahomi, R. (2021d). The Behavioral Patterns of the Student in the Position of Peer-Jury in Landscape Design Studio. EDUCATUM – Journal of Social Science, 7(2), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol7.2.6.2021
61. Tafahomi, R. (2021e). Learning activities of the students in peer-jury practices in the architecture design studio. AKSARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal, 7(3), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.37905/aksara.7.3.795-814
62. Tafahomi, R. (2022a). Educational behavior of the students in the design studios during the pandemic time. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 8(4), 352-362. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.1164545
63. Tafahomi, R. (2022b). The Evaluation of the Students about the Quality of Courses during the Pandemic Time Due To Wearing Face Masks and Social Distance. The Universal Academic Research Journal, 5(2), 105-116.
64. Tafahomi, R. (2022c). Insight into Research Dilemma in Design Studios and Relationships with the Architecture Curriculum. Journal of Design Studio, 4(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1102633
65. Tafahomi, R. (2023). Tracing Hegelian’s Philosophy and Thoughts in Educational Styles of Architecture Design Studios. Journal of Design Studio, 5(1), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1292904
66. Tafahomi, R., & Chance, S. (2023). Comparing the meaning of ‘thesis’ and ‘final year project’ in architecture and engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2244441
67. Will, M. (2020, June 24). Can Teachers Really Do Their Jobs in Masks? Retrieved from Education Week: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/can-teachers-really-do-their-jobs-in-masks/2020/06
68. Woolfolk, A. (2016). Educational psychology. Boston: Pearson.
69. Xi, L., Yuan, Z., YunQui, B., & Chiang, F.-K. (2017). An investigation of university students’ classroom seating choices. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 13-22.
70. Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building & Environment, 70(15), 171-188.