Document Type : Original Research Paper


Department of Architecture, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran


There is increasing support for the constructive approach in learning and teaching to respond the changes and challenges facing higher education; an approach that is particularly suitable for architectural education and design studio pedagogy. While the studio environment has been promoted as an ideal educational setting for project-based disciplines, few qualitative studies have been undertaken in a comprehensive way. This study responds to this need by adopting Grounded Theory methodology in a qualitative comparative approach. The research aim is to explore the limitations and benefits of a face-to-face design studio as well as a virtual design studio to achieve a suitable platform to establish the best and maximum learning situation. The main outcome is a holistic multidimensional blended model being sufficiently flexible to adapt to various settings, in the process, facilitating constructive learning through self-determination, self-management and personalization of the learning environment.The model was tested in 2013 in the third year architecture course at Art University of Isfahan. The author’s role in the study was to teach the students and attend all the sessions as an active researcher observer. Volunteer students participated in a discussion group discussing their experiences at the end of the semester. Full access to the web-based design studio and archives of the design process was the most important benefit and technical internet problem and limited virtual partnership is the most important limitation of this experience.


Main Subjects

Riguet, J., et al., UIA and architectural education reflections and recommendations. 2008. [1] Saghafi, M.R., A Holistic Blended Design Studio Model: Exploring and Expanding Learning Opportunities. 2013: LAP [2] LAMBERT Academic Publishing. 320. [In Persian] Fisher ,K., Factors Supporting the Concept of Campus Activity Hubs. 2004: Rubida Research Pty Ltd. p. 1-15. [3] Jamieson, P., Designing more effective oncampus teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 2003. 8(1/2): p. 119-133. [4] Graham, C.R., Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions, in The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, C.J. Bonk and C.R. Graham, Editors. 2006, Pfeiffer. p .3-21. [5] Shao, Y.J., L. Daley, and L. Vaughan, Exploring Web 2.0 for virtual design studio teaching, in Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. 2007: Singapore. p. 918-922. [6] Bonk, C.J., K.J. Kim, and T.T. Zeng, Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings, in Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. 2006. p. 550-567. [7] Eilouti, B., A problem-based learning project for computer-supported architectural design pedagogy. 2006. 5: p. 197-212. [8] Hashimshony, R. and J. Haina, Designing the university of the future. Planning for higher education, 2006. 34(2): p. 5-19. [9] Bose, M., The design studio: A site for critical inquiry, in Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future, A. Salama and N. Wilkinson, Editors. 2007, The Urban International Press: Gateshead. p. 131-140. [10] Glasser, D., Reflections on architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 2000. 53(4): p. 250-252. [11] Schon, D.A., Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series. 1987. [12] Silva, N. and E. Lima, Distance Learning in Architectural Design Studio: Two Comparative Studies with One Onsite Teaching, in Innovative Techniques in Instruction Technology, E-learning, Eassessment, and Education, M. Iskander, Editor. 2008, Springer. p. 381-386. [13] یک مدل جامع مرکب برای آموزش معماری: ... نشریه علمی پژوهشی فناوری آموزش، جلد 9 ،شماره 4 ،تابستان 4994 259 Salama, A. and N. Wilkinson, Introduction: Legacies for the future of design studio pedagogy, in Design studio pedagogy: horizons for the future, A. Salama and N. Wilkinson, Editors. 2007, The Urban International Press: Gateshead. p. 3-8. [14] Senyapili, B. and A.F. Karokaya, The future setting of the design studio. Open House International ,2009 .34(1) :p. 104-112. [15] Rose, R. and J. Ray, Encapsulated Presentation: A New Paradigm of Blended Learning. The Educational Forum, 2011. 75(3): p. 228-243. [16] Elger, D. and P. Russell, The virtual campus: a new place for (lifelong) learning? Automation in Construction, 2003. 12(6): p. 671-676. [17] Cross, J., Forewards, in The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, C.J. Bonk and C.R. Graham, Editors. 2006, Pfeiffer. [18] Jochems, W., J.J.G. van Merriënboer, and R. Koper, Integrated e-learning: Implications for pedagogy, technology and organization. 2004: Routledge. [19] Dennis, A., et al., The CISCO networking academy: A model for the study of student success in a blended learning environment, in The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, C.J. Bonk and [20] C.R. Graham, Editors. 2006, Pfeiffer. p. 120- 135. Saghafi, M.R., J. Franz, and P. Crowther. Crossing the Cultural Divide: A Contemporary Holistic Framework for Conceptualising Design Studio Education. in CONNECTED 2010 – 2nd international conference on design education. 2010. Sydney, Australia. [21] Gerbic, P. and E. Stacey, Conclusion, in Effective blended learning practices. Evidence-based perspectives in ICTfacilitated education. 2009. p. 298-3.11. [22] Groat, L.N. and D. Wang, Architectural research methods. 2002, New York: J. Wiley. xvii, 389 p. [23] Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. 2006: Sage. [24] Gray, D., Doing research in the real world. 2009: Sage Publications Ltd. [25] Corbin, J.M. and A.L. Strauss, Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3nd ed. 2008, Thousand Oaks: Sage. xiii, 374 p. [26] Saghafi, M.R., J. Franz, and P. Crowther, Perceptions of physical versus virtual design studio education. IJAR International Journal of Architectural Research, 2012. 6(1)