Situated Learning in Online Architectural Studio Education

Abstract

The pandemic causes acceleration in the development of online education. Relatedly, instructors have started to transform already applied methods in studio education and have produced new teaching methodologies in remote education. Since the communication channel in the new system is exposed to a change that creates that open an area for the search of situated learning in terms of interaction among students and between students and instructors that is strongly associated with Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development in which social interactions is emphasized in learning. In this paper, the components of situated learning will be reading through an online design studio in architectural education. The changing concept of studio culture will be inquired from the issues of the learning environment and situations executed after the shift from physical to digital encountering. Moving of design studio into the online environment brings particular changes to the two aspects of the studio culture, which are studio as a method and studio as an environment. In this respect, an online design studio will be examined as a contextual framework with the theory of situated learning.

Keywords

• The zone of proximal development
• Situated learning
• Online education
• Architectural education

References

1. Achten, H., Koszewski, K. and Martens, B., (2011), What happened after the “hype” on virtual design studios?: some considerations for a roundtable discussion. CUMINCAD.
2. Alkiser Bregger, Y., (2017), Integrating Blended and Problem-Based Learning into an Architectural Housing Design Studio: A Case Study. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education 5(1). ERIC: 126–137.
3. Alnusairat, S., Al Maani, D., and Al-Jokhadar, A., (2020), Architecture students’ satisfaction with and perceptions of online design studios during COVID-19 lockdown.
4. Armellini, A., and De Stefani, M., (2016), Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework. British Journal of Educational Technology 47(6). Wiley Online Library: 1202–1216.
5. Beaudoin, M.F., (2002), Learning or lurking?: Tracking the “invisible” online student. The internet and higher education 5(2). Elsevier: 147–155.
6. Billett, S., (1996), Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and instruction 6(3): 263–280.
7. Boling, E., (2016), Studio Teaching in Higher Education. DOI: 10.4324/9781315697420.
8. Brieger, E., Arghode, V. and McLean, G., (2020), Connecting theory and practice: reviewing six learning theories to inform online instruction. European Journal of Training and Development 44(4/5): 321/339. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-07-2019-0116.

9. Brown, J, S., Collins A and Newman SE (1989), Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In: Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. DOI: 10.4324/9781315044408-14.
10. Catina, A., (2020), Dialogue and studio space: the architectural design studio as the setting for continuous reflection. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching 3(1). Simon Fraser University.
11. Crowther, P., (2013), Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design. DOI: 10.5204/jld.v6i3.155.
12. Davies, J. and Graff, M,. (2005), Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(4): 657–663. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x.
13. Gee, J.P., (1997), Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind. In: Situated Cognition Social Semiotic and Psychological Perspectives.
14. George, B.H., (2018), Drawing online: A comparative analysis of an online basic graphics course. Landscape Journal. DOI: 10.3368/lj.37.1.23.
15. Gül, L.F., Williams, A. and Gu, N., (2012), Constructivist learning theory in virtual design studios. In: Computational Design Methods and Technologies: Applications in CAD, CAM and CAE Education, pp. 139–162. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-180-1.ch009.
16. Ham, J.J. and Schnabel, M.A., (2011), Web 2.0 virtual design studio: Social networking as facilitator of design education. In: Architectural Science Review, 2011, pp. 108–116. DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2011.582369.
17. Hansman, C.A., (2001), Context-Based Adult Learning Learning Outside the Mind. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.
18. Hautemo, A.M., (2016), Situated learning : A theoretical base for online learning wikipedia translation into Oshikwanyama at a Namibian school. The Eighth International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning Situated.
19. Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C. and Oliver, R., (2006), Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner, task, and technology. Distance Education 27(2). Taylor & Francis: 233–247.
20. Johnson, A.M., Jacovina, M.E., Russell, D.G., et al. (2016), Challenges and Solutions When Using Technologies in the Classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse.
21. Jones, D., Lotz, N. and Holden, G., (2020), A longitudinal study of virtual design studio (VDS) use in STEM distance design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Springer: 1–27.
22. Krämer, B.J., Neugebauer, J., Magenheim, J., et al. (2015), New ways of learning: Comparing the effectiveness of interactive online media in distance education with the European textbook tradition. British Journal of Educational Technology 46(5). Wiley Online Library: 965–971.
23. Kvan, T., (2000), Collaborative design: what is it? Automation in construction 9(4). Elsevier: 409–415.
24. Lave, J., (1988), Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge university press. DOI: 10.2307/2073537.
25. Lave, J., and Wenger, E., (1991), Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge university press. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511815355.003.
26. Lynas, E., Budge, K., and Beale, C., (2013), Hands on: The importance of studio learning in design education. Visual Inquiry. DOI: 10.1386/vi.2.2.127_1.
27. Maher, M. L., Skow, B. and Cicognani, A., (1999), Designing the virtual campus. Design Studies. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00043-X.
28. Mallgrave, H.F., (2010), The Architect’s Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture. John Wiley & Sons.
29. Marshalsey, L. and Sclater, M., (2020), Together but Apart: Creating and Supporting Online Learning Communities in an Era of Distributed Studio Education. International Journal of Art and Design Education. DOI: 10.1111/jade.12331.
30. McGuire, S., (2019), Virilio , the “Infra” Urban and the Logic of Big Data. Media Theory 3(2): 121–132.
31. Moll, L.C., (1990), Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Rethinking its instructional implications. Infancia y Aprendizaje 13(51–52): 157–168. DOI: 10.1080/02103702.1990.10822276.
32. Nakapan, W. and Gu, N., (2011), Preliminary experiments of opensim performance evaluation for virtual design studios. In: Circuit Bending, Breaking and Mending - Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, CAADRIA 2011, 2011.
33. Nilsson, F., (2014), Collaboration is not enough! What do architects and designers bring? In: Collaboration: Organising for design impact and value. Transdisciplinary Design Research Symposium 2014, 2014.
34. Pektaş, Ş.T., (2015), The virtual design studio on the cloud: A blended and distributed approach for technology-mediated design education. Architectural Science Review 58(3): 255–265. DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2015.1034085.
35. Rodriguez, C., Hudson, R. and Niblock, C., (2018), Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. British Journal of Educational Technology 49(3): 337–353. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12535.
36. Rumelhart, D.E., Bobrow, D.G., and Collins, A., (1975), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press.
37. Saivyer, R.K., and Greeno, J.G., (2009), Situativity and Learning. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition.
38. Salomon, G., and Perkins, D.N., (1989), Rocky Roads to Transfer. Educational Psychologist.
39. Schnabel, M.A. and Ham, J.J., (2013), A framework for social networked architectural education. In: Open Systems - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, CAADRIA 2013, 2013, pp. 313–322.
40. Schon, D.A., (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Arena).
41. Sleeman, D.H. and Brown, J.S., (1982), Intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7373(79)80002-4.
42. Smiley, D., Hirsch, A., Alday, I., et al. (2020), Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 4., Places Journal (2020). DOI: 10.22269/200421.
43. Strauss, S., (1993), Theories of Learning and Development for Academics and Educators. Educational Psychologist 28(3): 1919–203. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2803_1.
44. Sun, JC-Y., and Rueda, R., (2012), Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British journal of educational technology 43(2). Wiley Online Library: 191–204.
45. Sun, L., Tang, Y., and Zuo, W., (2020), Coronavirus pushes education online. Nature Materials 19(6). Nature Publishing Group: 687.
46. Vaughan, S., Austerlitz, N., Blythman, M., et al. (2008), Mind the Gap: expectations, ambiguity and pedagogy within art and design higher education. In: The Student Experience in Art and Design Higher Education: Drivers for Change.
47. Vygotsky, L., (1962), Thought and Language - Revised Edition. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
48. Vygotsky, L., (1978), Mind in Society. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.
49. Weibell, C.J., (2011), Principles of Learning: A Conceptual Framework for Domain-Specific Theories of Learning. All Theses and Dissertations.
50. Wendler, W.V. and Rogers, J.S., (1995), The design life space: verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. JSTOR: 319–336.
51. Wenger, E., (1988), Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge. Knowledge-Based Systems. DOI: 10.1016/0950-7051(88)90091-3.
52. Wojtowicz, J., (1995), Virtual Design Studio}. Hong Kong University Press.
53. Woolgar, S. and Suchman, L.A., (1989), Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. Contemporary Sociology. DOI: 10.2307/2073874.
54. Yarbrough, J.R., (2018), Adapting Adult Learning Theory to Support Innovative, Advanced, Online Learning -- WVMD Model. Research in Higher Education Journal 35: 1–15.
55. Yorgancıoğlu, D., (2020), Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions. Journal of Design Studio 2(1): 25–36.