Replicating the studio: a comparison of an online versus on-campus architectural education
Whilst working as an educational designer at Curtin University in 2015 I submitted for candidacy for a Doctorate in Education (EdD) in the field on online study - to establish if an online "studio" could replicate the student experience of the traditional studio - something all architecture students will remember well. This was several years before the COVID-19 pandemic... when we lost the choice. Architecture, along with many other professions, had to adapt to an online way of doing things to survive. At the same time, technology and adoption of technology has become widespread. These days the choice might be made for purely practical reasons - and not in a qualitative sense.
My candidacy proposal follows... perhaps only as a record of how there was a time when we actually thought to consider that there might be a difference between the online and on-campus experience.
Abstract/introduction
The trend towards the delivery of teaching and learning through an online education platform is increasing - both in the number of students enrolled and in the variety of courses offered. Typically, courses offered online are courses that have traditionally been delivered in a face-to-face setting using time-proven methods and pedagogy. However, as Alter (2014) claims, there are “disparities that arise between real world and virtual technology-led teaching” and ultimately education outcomes. The move towards online delivery has necessitated a change in way we teach and learn – particularly in a design-based discipline such as architecture where the core teaching environment for the last century has been the studio. This research aims to measure the effectiveness of online teaching in architecture at Curtin University and compare outcomes with the on-campus delivery of the same course. The research aims to test whether the student cohort that develops through face-to-face interaction, including the studio environment, can be replicated online and whether or not this leads to greater student engagement and performance and adequately prepares graduates for the work place.
Background/literature review
Historically architectural training was delivered from master to apprentice on site. It involved learning through doing. Currently architectural training in Australia involves completing an accredited five-year university degree followed by supervised practical training in key competencies and sitting formal professional examinations held by the Architect’s Board in each State. Currently (as at 2016) there are no online architecture programs in Australia with accreditation. The Curtin University architecture program is now offered on-campus and online and from 2016 students will be able to enrol in all five-years of the course – the three-year Bachelor of Applied Science (Architectural Science) and the two-year Master of Architecture program fully online. The on-campus program is accredited whereas the online course is yet-to-be accredited.
There have been a number of studies that have compared the outcomes between students enrolled in face-to-face versus online courses in several disciplines. For example, Pribesh, Dickinson and Bucher (2006) studied a graduate program training school library media specialists. Butcher, Epps and Cleaveland (2015) conducted a study “investigating potential differences in face to face and online delivery of a business law course”. Metevelis (2008) compared the outcomes of graduates in interior design between the face to face and online delivery modes. Weir, Dale and Deery (2015) compared students in a problem-based tourism course. Sohn and Romal (2015) compared student performance in micro and macroeconomics. Other studies, such as one by Derwin (2008) compares results in critical thinking between “online and face-to-face liberal studies classes at a university with locations in California and Washington”. Lane (2012) has explored how art students can be motivated in an online environment. It appears from the literature that no studies have been conducted comparing outcomes in the teaching of architecture between the two modes of delivery.
Therefore, as it is essential that the student experience between the online and face-to-face delivery modes is equivalent, we need to conduct research to measure equivalency and effectiveness in teaching and learning and how tangible outcomes can be reached. Whilst Dillon, Dworkin, Gengler and Olson (2008) argue that “online and face-to-face courses can be equally effective in delivering professional development materials” it has yet to be proved in architecture. In addition, Hampel (2014) says there are difficulties in measuring “student’s progress”.
The studio is a social and collaborative space in which the cohort learn from each other as much as they do from their tutors. In an online pedagogy Liang (2006) links learning outcomes with “social presence” and argues that a “high level of connectedness with other community members” is “one of the most important antecedent conditions for constructive learning”. This is corroborated by Zhu and Dao (2014), who studied interaction between students and teachers and found that it was greater online than with face-to-face which would suggest better learning outcomes. Again, this is not yet proven in architecture.
The proposed research aims to address this deficiency in our knowledge and determine whether the studio can be replicated online and whether outcomes for students studying architecture online are equivalent to those studying face-to-face. However, rather than taking the approach that the studio is the best way of teaching architecture and comparing online delivery with this “gold standard” the research is open to the possibility that an online delivery platform may be more effective in some areas and will identify these. This research is important as it may uncover effective techniques and best practices that can be applied not only to the teaching of architecture via an online delivery platform but in other design-based disciplines.
Aims/objectives
1. Describe in depth the nature of
architectural training and the key competences graduates are required to
achieve;
2. Describe the pedagogy of an architectural
education in an online and face-to-face setting;
3. Measure and critique the effectiveness of
various methods of teaching in both delivery modes – including the concept of
the studio;
4. Measure student performance, satisfaction
and outcomes in both delivery modes; and
5. Determine whether graduates of both the
online and face-to-face delivery modes are equally prepared to enter the next
phase of their professional training.
Methodology
·
Surveys
will be designed to assess the intangible aspects of the research – for example
satisfaction.
·
Other
data to measure tangible student performance is readily available through known
grades awarded (i.e. through Blackboard).
·
An
external examiner may be sought to conduct a “blind” assessment of a sample of student
work between students enrolled in the online versus on-campus courses to
determine if there are any differences in results – i.e. whether an educated
third-party could distinguish.
·
Ideally
(if sufficient in sample size) it would be beneficial to survey employers as to
the job-readiness of employees that
have completed the online course and commenced working.
·
Statistical
analysis (through Blackboard and data held by OUA) will be used to determine
correlation between key factors such as attendance; participation, performance;
satisfaction; method of teaching etc.
Comparison
should be straight-forward as the content (and assessment briefs) of the online
and on-campus courses are designed to be equivalent. It will be possible to compare between
individual units and the four streams (culture, technology, studio and methods)
and across year groups.
Significance
The research is significant as it aims to determine if graduates of an
online architecture degree are of an equivalent standard to those that have
studied on-campus and if not investigate areas for improvement and further
development. The wider benefit of the
research is that it will identify best-practices in the online teaching of
design-based disciplines that may be applied across several fields.
References
Alter, Frances. The experience of teaching tertiary visual
arts education in a purely online learning environment [online]. Australian
Art Education, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2014: 48-64. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=706087629464096;res=IELHSS>
ISSN: 1032-1942. [cited 25 Nov 15].
Butcher, Cristen W., Kathryn K. Epps, and M. C. Cleaveland.
2015. "COMPARING BUSINESS LAW IN ONLINE AND FACE TO FACE FORMATS: A
DIFFERENCE IN STUDENT LEARNING PERCEPTION." Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal 19 (1): 123-134.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1693219108?accountid=10382.
Derwin, Ellen Baker. 2008. "Critical Thinking in
Online Vs. Face-to-Face Higher Education." Order No. 3343844, Fielding
Graduate University. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304836636?accountid=10382.
Dillon, Kristin, Jodi Dworkin PhD., Colleen Gengler, and
Kathleen Olson. 2008. "Online Or Face to Face? A Comparison of Two Methods
of Training Professionals." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences
100 (3): 28-33.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/218174751?accountid=10382.
Hampel, György. 2014. "LEARNING IN A VIRTUAL
ENVIRONMENT." Acta Technica Corviniensis - Bulletin of Engineering
7 (4): 35-40.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1618069503?accountid=10382.
Lane, Susan L. 2012. "Viability of an Online Community
of Practice for Motivating Studio Art Students' Creativity." Order No.
3504054, Walden University.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1010625190?accountid=10382.
Liang, Kristy Yan. 2006. "Promoting Social Presence:
Building Connectedness in Educational Cyberspace." Order No. NR19894, The
University of British Columbia (Canada).
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/304903676?accountid=10382.
Metevelis, Melissa Ann. 2008. "Recent Interior Design
Graduates from Two Types of Programs and the Potential Employers of Interior
Designers: A Descriptive Study of Opinions regarding Online Education."
Order No. 1454502, University of Central Oklahoma. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/230685596?accountid=10382.
Pribesh, Shana, Gail K. Dickinson, and Katherine T. Bucher.
2006. "A Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Cohorts in a School Library
Media Specialist Graduate Program: A Preliminary Study." Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science 47 (4): 303-323. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/203239071?accountid=10382.
Sohn, Kyongsei and Jane B. Romal. 2015. "Meta-Analysis
of Student Performance in Micro and Macro Economics: Online Vs. Face-to-Face
Instruction." The Journal of Applied Business and Economics 17 (2):
42-51. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1726798459?accountid=10382.
Weir, Brian; Dale, Naomi and
Deery, Marg. The monster under the bed?: Insights from a comparison of 'online'
and 'face to face' modes of teaching a problem-based undergraduate tourism unit
[online]. In: Wilson, E (Editor); Witsel, M (Editor). CAUTHE 2015: Rising
Tides and Sea Changes: Adaptation and Innovation in Tourism and Hospitality.
Gold Coast, QLD: School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University,
2015: 766-770. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=226357465260345;res=IELBUS>
ISBN: 9780987050762. [cited 25 Nov 15].
Zhu, Yong and Dao, Dzung. Peer
learning and deep learning through online discussion boards [online]. In: Bainbridge-Smith,
Andrew (Editor); Qi, Ziming Tom (Editor); Gupta, Gourab Sen (Editor). 25th
Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education :
Engineering the Knowledge Economy: Collaboration, Engagement &
Employability. Barton, ACT: School of Engineering & Advanced
Technology, Massey University, 2014: 772-778. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=420550291713305;res=IELENG>
ISBN: 9780473304287. [cited 25 Nov 15].
Bibliography
Amirault, Ray J. 2012. "DISTANCE LEARNING IN THE 21ST
CENTURY UNIVERSITY: Key Issues for Leaders and Faculty." Quarterly
Review of Distance Education 13 (4): 253-265,269.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1356976074?accountid=10382.
Dell, Cindy Ann, Christy Low, and Jeanine F. Wilker. 2010.
"Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Classes." Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching 6 (1): 30.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1497198893?accountid=10382.
Dykman, Charlene A., PhD. and Charles K. Davis PhD. 2008.
"Part One - the Shift Toward Online Education." Journal of
Information Systems Education 19 (1): 11-16. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/200154588?accountid=10382.
Dykman, Charlene A., PhD. and Charles K. Davis PhD. 2008.
"Online Education Forum: Part Two - Teaching Online Versus Teaching
Conventionally." Journal of Information Systems Education 19 (2):
157-164. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/200158633?accountid=10382.
Larreamendy-Joerns, Jorge and Gaea Leinhardt. 2006.
"Going the Distance with Online Education." Review of Educational
Research 76 (4): 567-605. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/214115678?accountid=10382.
Li, Qing and Melina Akins. 2005. "Sixteen Myths about
Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Don't Believe Everything You
Hear." TechTrends 49 (4): 51-60. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/223118502?accountid=10382.
Lu, Li-Fen Lilly. 2008. "Art Café: A 3D Virtual
Learning Environment for Art Education." Art Education 61 (6):
48-53.
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/199427734?accountid=10382.
Moors, Tim. Lessons learned from adopting external online
materials for an existing on-campus course [online]. In: Bainbridge-Smith,
Andrew (Editor); Qi, Ziming Tom (Editor); Gupta, Gourab Sen (Editor). 25th
Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education :
Engineering the Knowledge Economy: Collaboration, Engagement &
Employability. Barton, ACT: School of Engineering & Advanced
Technology, Massey University, 2014: 81-89. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=409295977073352;res=IELENG>
ISBN: 9780473304287. [cited 25 Nov 15].
NASH, Julie Ann. 2015. "Future of Online Education in
Crisis: A Call to Action." TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology 14 (2). http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1700079265?accountid=10382.
Soylu, Mary Katherene. 2014. "A Virtual e-Telier: A
Descriptive Study of Interaction, Presence, Learning, and Satisfaction in an
Online Studio Art Course for Undergraduate Non-Art Majors." Order No.
3637900, Indiana University. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1617975892?accountid=10382.
Standridge, Gloria A. 2010.
"Learning Style Preferences of Adult Students Enrolled in Career Technical
Education Programs." Order No. 3437607, Alliant International University,
San Diego. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/820720895?accountid=10382.
Verkroost, Marie-Jose, Leonie
Meijerink, Harry Lintsen, and Wim Veen. 2008. "Finding a Balance in
Dimensions of Blended Learning." International Journal on ELearning
7 (3): 499-522. http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/210330142?accountid=10382.
Samuel Fardoe, 2015
Comments
Post a Comment