Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2006). Using Online Education Technologies to Support Studio Instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), 114-122.

114 ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.

Using Online Education Technologies to Support Studio Instruction

Diane M. Bender

College of Design, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 872105, Tempe, AZ 85287-2105, USA Tel: +1 480-965-8684 diane.bender@asu.edu

Jon D. Vredevoogd

School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, 309 Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA

Tel: +1 517-353-3054 vredevoo@msu.edu

ABSTRACT

Technology is transforming the education and practice of architecture and design. The newest form of education is blended learning, which combines personal interaction from live class sessions with online education for greater learning flexibility (Abrams & Haefner, 2002). Reluctant to join the digital era are educators teaching studio courses (Bender & Good, 2003), who may be unaware of the possibilities and benefits of teaching with technology. The argument proposed in this study is that blended learning will enhance studio courses. Studios are unique learning environments embedded in an historical context. This article presents a process of infusing a traditional studio with online technologies. The result is a more streamlined course that enhances student learning, provides targeted instruction to individual students, serves a larger group of students than a traditional studio, and does not increase faculty workload.

Keywords

Online education, Studio, Faculty workload Introduction Technology is moving higher education from the traditional campus of “brick and mortar” to the electronic classroom of “wire and chip.” The technology with the greatest potential for impact on architectural education is the Internet. By the year 2006, it is estimated there will be 900 million computers and other web-based appliances in use, providing universal access, multimedia resources, and interactive medium (Charp, 2000). The Internet has revolutionized the design process by allowing architects and designers to research new products, download specifications, access code information, transfer drawings, and even synchronously collaborate with colleagues from around the world. Technology is also having an impact on the process and culture of architectural education, as evident in previous research on digitally immersed classes and studios (Matthews & Weigand, 2001). The use of digital media is a logical addition to the traditional design studio. Technology has radically changed the way educators can exchange information with students. Higher education support systems have adapted to changes in technological innovation, but the studio has remained disturbingly constant. Pedagogical integration of digital media is critical to the success of future architecture and design education. With the ever-increasing need to communicate globally, distance is no longer a barrier to education (Matthews & Weigand, 2001). Based on several years of experimentation, the authors believe studio courses can be enhanced with online technologies. A popular format for teaching both in the classroom and online is blended learning. Blended learning involves both traditional face-to-face instruction, where both students and faculty are present at the same time and place, supplemented with asynchronous and/or synchronous communication via the Internet. In comparison to courses that are completely online, courses with a combination of online and face-to-face interaction produce the same or better success rates, plus dropout rates are lower (Dziuban & Moskal, 2004). The authors are not advocating technology as a substitute for the existing process, but as a means to enrich instruction in the design studio. There are many benefits of using online technologies, such as the accuracy and consistency of data. All students are guaranteed to receive the same presentation material and get the same view of the professor and material, unlike the front row advantage in the traditional classroom. Students appreciate the on-demand access of online classes, for it allows them flexibility in viewing course information at their convenience and as many times as they wish. This information may include course syllabus and outline, staff profiles and contact information, examples of projects, and other useful items typically provided to students in a traditional course. Electronic

115

collaboration allows students to propose, experiment, refine, and resubmit ideas. The following study examines the impact of blended learning on the traditional studio, in particular the impact on student learning, accessibility of course material, and faculty workload. The goal is to increase the quality of interaction without losing the master-apprentice relationship established in the traditional studio. The Traditional Design Studio The concept of today’s architecture and design studios began with the French Royal Academy and continued with the methodologies of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. It became traditional for schools in the United States to pattern their instruction in Beaux-Arts format, in which the studio is the central focus of the curriculum (see Figure 1). Studios (where drawing, debate, and analysis of design take place) are considered more of an active learning experience than a lecture-style classroom.

Figure 1: A Typical Studio Environment The strength and assurance of the Beaux-Arts approach was influential on the creation of architecture and design programs in the United States in the early 20th century (“Architectural Education”, 2000). Since that time, studio instruction has essentially remained unchanged. Students then and now attend a studio where instruction is delivered from master to apprentice within a small group setting. Faculty to student ratio can range from 12 to 24 students per instructor, with an average of 17 to 1 (Ochsner, 2000; Design Futures Council, 2005). Studio classes may range from four to 12 hours per week, during which the instructor works with each student independently for short periods of time. It may common for a student to wait almost three hours for a few minutes of insight and direction. While waiting, a student may not have the opportunity to view and hear the critique addressing the work of classmates. The more students present in the studio, the less time can be spent with each student. Because of the long tradition of one-on-one instruction, faculties in the arts frequently generate significantly more weekly contact hours than faculty in other disciplines (Lawn, 1998). Perpetuated by past experience, design educators continue to teach with the Beaux-Arts method, even though there is little evidence to suggest that it is an effective means of instruction (Rapoport, 1983, 1984). Since architectural design is viewed as a subjective process, the defense of the studio instruction format has been very feeble and unsuccessful (Wooley, 1991). The current model of teaching and learning is not used because it is the “right way”, but because the method has worked for so long a time (Farrington, 1999). The traditional studio is but one method of teaching architecture and design. Other forms of instruction are used in combination with the studio, such as large lectures, small group sessions, and classes held in computer labs

116

(see Figure 2). The incorporation of technologies commonly used in online education into the traditional studio can alter the interaction between the faculty and the student (or the master and apprentice). It is hypothesized that blending technology with traditional instruction will impact typical studio problems of high student to faculty ratio and high faculty workload.

Figure 2: Alternative Education Environments

The Modified Design Studio This case study focused on an introductory course in Structural Systems for integration with online teaching technologies. This course is offered at a large public state university and is offered to students in majors such as building construction, engineering, interior design, landscape architecture, and packaging. After years of teaching this course as a traditional design studio with multiple class sections, the authors sought to streamline the teaching process. This course was a logical choice in which to add online technologies, as the students were creating their projects with Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software. The existing six hours of studio times were divided into a one-hour weekly lecture by the faculty and four hours of computer lab time supervised by qualified teaching assistants. A course website was created to house course materials and the faculty members were available outside of lecture via email and web-based conferencing. The proposed model expands the educational opportunity to participate in the design critique to more students, in more places, and in more ways than ever before. Blended learning is being used in various educational environments outside architecture and design (Jonasson, 1997; Ravaglia, 2001). This form of mediated education brings many benefits to the studio. One limitation is the need for both parties to be physically present in the same location at the same time. The proposed model streamlines the interaction loop by incorporating technology in the teaching and delivery of feedback to the entire class of students at one time. The instructor can post course materials and students can access it from any place and at any time. Typical studio interaction involves one student requesting feedback and one faculty providing it directly to that student. Though individual feedback is beneficial for student learning, the lower faculty to student ratio typical in a studio is impractical. As educational institutions continue to increase enrollments by expanding their “territory” through online education, faculty must deal with larger courses, often as multiple sections of the same studio course. A typical class size for this course is 100 students. Traditionally, this would equate to five sections

117

of 20 students with six contact hours each, for a total of 30 faculty contact hours per week. The new model pars this down to one hour of lecture by the faculty, plus time spent training teaching assistants, answering email, doing conference calls, and preparing online critiques, for a total of approximately five hours per week. Teaching assistants cover 20 hours of computer lab time each week.

Figure 3: The Modified Design Studio Process

The new model involves 12 steps (see Figure 3). As in a traditional studio, each student works toward completing one or more major projects for the semester. Each week, parts of the project are due and critiqued in lecture. In a study of traditional studio interactions, students often can choose when to work in isolation and when to be interact socially (James, 1996). In this course, computer lab time is available for students to work independently or in small groups; lecture time is for interaction with the whole class. Students draw their projects by hand and with CAD. Each student reports his weekly progress by scanning the drawing into an image file, or by capturing the CAD drawing off the computer screen by depressing the Print Screen button on his keyboard. The student then pastes the image onto a blank Microsoft PowerPoint© slide. He may resize and add text as necessary. Assignments are saved to Adobe’s Portable Document File (PDF) format. This allows the drawing file to be compressed, while retaining the layout and graphic presentation of the submission. Using available file transferring software, he submits a copy of the image to the course website. The goal is to use basic technology, which every student will have on his computer, such as the Print Screen key on a keyboard, or free software to watch MP3 movies and view PDF files. All assignments are time and date stamped when submitted electronically, keeping the students more accountable for submitting their work on time. The process then transfers to the instructor or teaching assistant, who assembles all the image files into a single collection representing student work for that week (see Figure 4). Student work is placed in alphabetical order by last name. This allows the faculty to compare current work with previous work to ascertain progress (or lack of). Confidentiality is maintained by removing all names from the slides.

118

Figure 4: Example of Summary Image File

Figure 5: Example of Creating Audio Critique The instructor reviews each student’s submission to generate a critique in the form of a 20- to 30-minute MP3 audio file (see Figure 5). This audio critique can be recorded while speech recognition software is running in the background, such as Nuance’s Dragon Naturally Speaking. This provides a written text of the critique as an alternative form of feedback or to accommodate diverse student learning styles. Not every slide receives comments each week, as some comments are redundant or have little impact on the class as a whole. A student may receive comments on his individual project one week and not the following week. All comments are in one audio file. Students hear comments directed at both their project and those of their classmates. The audio file and summary image file are then uploaded to the course website, where they are archived and accessible throughout the remainder of the semester. This format maintains a permanent record of student work and participation. Finally, the student reviews both files prior to the next weekly lecture. He is able to note his individual progress in comparison to his peers, which can be used as a measure of progress toward course goals (James, 1996).

119

Student Learning Integrating blended learning with the traditional studio can increase student learning. Technology provides several benefits to students. It can be used to present information in a variety of formats, accessible at all times, and leaving live class time for the intellectual communications that only people can provide. The one-hour weekly lecture focuses on interaction with and between the students, reviewing a specific project with the whole class or doing problem solving in informal groups. The instructor uses this time to gauge the progress of the whole class, which is an important component of other technology-enhanced courses (Gilbert, 1999). It was believed that combining face-to-face meetings and online education would better provide access to instructional materials, facilitate group work, enhance the quality of interaction, and provide a superior level of feedback to students. Positive factors of learning with technology such as accuracy and consistency are hard to surpass. All students viewing the lecture are guaranteed to receive the exact same lecture material, regardless of the instructional model implemented (Charp, 2000). All students get the same audio and video materials, unlike the front row advantage in conventional classroom situations (Romiszowski, 1988). Students who have difficulty grasping concepts from printed materials may be more at ease with learning experiences that engage all of their senses. Information technologies are predominantly visual rather than relying primarily on audio and text in the traditional classroom. Because of this, complex content can be conveyed more effectively due to the integration of multiple representations of material such a computer animations with audio and video. These alternative technologies can provide an additional degree of motivation, allowing students to express themselves in new and creative ways (Dias, 1999). In addition, students hear all critiques of all projects and benefit from feedback to their peers. In a traditional studio, individual faculty comments are rarely shared with the entire class. Faculty Workload Many instructors are integrating computers into their architecture and design curriculums (Budd, Vanka, & Runton, 1999; Andia, 2002). Like them, the authors believe a major advantage to adding online technologies to the curriculum is the efficiency of instruction. In the traditional studio, it may be common for a student to wait two or more hours for a few minutes of insight and direction. With blended learning, the student gets more succinct feedback in less time. In addition, he learns to communicate a creative design solution with the latest technologies used in today’s design offices. Becoming familiar with these technologies is an advantage to the student as it helps prepare him to progress in professional practice offers career opportunities in digital architecture fields (Proctor, 2003). This model of interaction provides a number of advantages to the studio instructor. First, there is an opportunity to see the range of responses before making comments. He can quickly ascertain the effectiveness of each assignment and make any necessary adjustments in the instructional format. Tracking student work from week to week can also be done easily. The history and process of design is clearly articulated through the layering of information. This allows the faculty to watch the project evolve from concept to final presentation (Norman, 2001). Second, faculty fatigue is reduced because critique duplication and the amount of time necessary for giving and receiving project feedback substantially decrease. This is a common problem in large classes with multiple sections where critiques are limited by time and space (James, 1996). Third, the feedback is streamlined because the instructor spends less time repeating the same information. He can increase the turn-around time for feedback to larger groups of students. Several other advantages are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: A Comparison of the Two Instructional Models Traditional Design Studio Modified Design Studio Assignments are introduced by the instructor and submitted by the students during class time.

Assignments are introduced in the same manner but are submitted electronically 24-48 hours before class time.

Class size is typically 15-20 students to one instructor per section. The same instructor may oversee two or more sections.

Class size remains the same but the instructor can handle an increased number of sections with assistance.

The individual critiques provided in class are seldom shared with other class members. Therefore, the same feedback may be repeated to several students within the same class period.

Students receive feedback via the audio critique and group feedback during the weekly lecture period.

The critic repeatedly corrects the same or similar student errors.

The critic needs to address student errors only one time.

120

The competitive nature of design classes limits the sharing and nurturing of ideas and causes many students to work independently.

Design skills are strengthened by the student’s ability to build on the feedback of other students’ projects and feedback.

Students have to be physically present in studio when a critique is given. Unless recorded, it cannot be reviewed later time.

Students can review critiques on demand and can “attend” the critique from remote locations.

Guest critics must travel to the class site during a specified class period to participate in critiques.

Guest critics can review the projects and provide an audio critique (independent or with others) at their convenience.

Work done in the studio may turn into a collaborative effort between the student and the instructor, making it difficult to determine what part of the project the student has done. The instructor must be cautious about doing the assignment for the student.

The instructor does not guide any single student through the design process, but guides the class as a whole.

Limitations It is apparent this form of instruction has limitations. With the array of necessary technology, the instructor must devote time to learning these tools. The authors of this study were self-taught. Likewise, time must be spent teaching the tools to the students so that they feel comfortable using them. This is particularly true for students and educators who are only knowledgeable of traditional studio instruction (Sagun, Demirkan, & Goktepe, 2001). Data from the latest NEA faculty survey indicate the level of technical support is an important factor in determining whether a faculty member has positive or negative feelings toward various forms of distance education (NEA, 2000). There is an obvious need for faculty development offered by the institution. In the new model, the instructor is not able to spend much personal time with each individual student. Though student interaction is high in the computer lab sessions, the traditional studio setting may provide the students more opportunity to socialize and network than in this format. Depending on the submissions received, the faculty may or may not address individual student work each week. Some students may have difficulty gleaning insight from comments not made directly to them. In a national survey of online education faculty, the average number of students in their courses is 26 students (Schifter, 2000). When much larger classes are accommodated in this online format, a potential downside is that each student will receive less individualized attention from the faculty. This process has been successful for introductory and advanced CAD courses. However, this approach may not be appropriate for every course because online activities cannot replace hand-drawing and rendering exercises, or activities requiring textual artistic media. In addition, educators may prefer to balance the lecture and lab times in a different ratio to allow more personal time with students. While student expectations are consistent between this model and traditional studio, assignment submission procedures are different. All assignments are now submitted electronically, freeing the student from the physical restraints of time and place. There is also a shift from instructor time devoted to teaching, to time spent on course development and management. The development and administration of a new course using online technologies can take more time than traditional studio methods (Bender, Wood, & Vredevoogd, 2004). Once initial course development is complete, faculty workload decreases due to increased instructor experience (Visser, 2000). Future Research Several issues need further exploration. One issue is setting boundaries for implementing new technology into curriculum. Similar to other findings (Visser, 2000), the development time for this course was higher than a traditional course. The formal individual interaction time noted in this paper can also be misleading. Email is exchanged between faculty, teaching assistants and students for additional communication throughout the week, which has been found to contribute to a heavy instructor workload (Lehman, 1996). Unless carefully monitored, the instructor can find himself available to students 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and spending more time answering email, critiquing projects, and working with the teaching assistants than interacting in a traditional studio setting. These concerns lead to a need for research in the area of course management strategies.

121

Issues of Acceptance With the implementation of online technologies, the traditional studio environment and the instructor’s workload have been altered with the proposed process. Though many design educators are reluctant to embrace teaching with technology, the authors believe the addition of online technologies enhances studio education. The proposed alternative approach to studio instruction may provide potential solutions to the unease and resistance of these other faculty. In order to change the culture of the existing studio environment, digital media must become a transparent tool for design inquiry. Instructors should give serious thought to the complex pedagogical issues underlying new methods of teaching and learning before implementing them in the curriculum. Though this form of blended learning provides many benefits to students and faculty, the personal component should not be eliminated from studio education. To rely solely on virtual instruction poses a serious risk, as “live instruction has to build upon the virtual part and vice versa” (Van Eijl & Pilot, 2003, p. 55). As rapid changes occur in architectural practice, student populations, and the design process, continued research is necessary in order to understand technology’s impact on architectural education. Conclusion This study demonstrates that blended learning can revolutionize instruction in the design studio. Student learning can be enhanced by having pertinent course material available online whenever students wish to access it. Project critiques can be delivered in both audio and text format. They can be reviewed at any time and as many times as needed. All students can view and hear projects and comments of the entire class, which is something that is often missing in studio. This model also exemplifies the ability to serve a larger body of students without increasing faculty workload. The student enrollments of architecture and design programs are increasing at a faster-than-average rate in comparison to other disciplines. It is anticipated this trend will continue through 2010, exacerbating the problem of increased faculty workload (ASID report, 2004). The use of technology in the studio allows faculty feedback to be less repetitive and more streamlined. More students can be accommodated in this model than the traditional studio. If blended learning can be used to positively impact student learning with the same amount of faculty effort, the integration of technology into the studio environment will be viewed in a more favorable light. References Abrams, G. & Haefner, J. (2002). Blending online and traditional instruction in the mathematics classroom. The Technology Source, retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=970. Andia, A. (2002). Reconstructing the effects of computers on practice and education during the past three decades. Journal of Architectural Education, 56 (2), 7-13. Architectural Education, (2000). A brief history. Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Retrieved August 5, 2004 from https://www.acsa-arch.org/students/education.aspx. ASID Report. (2004). The interior design profession: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: American Society of Interior Designers. Bender, D. M. & Good, L. (2003). Attitudes of higher education interior design faculty toward distance education. Journal of Interior Design, 29 (1/2), 66-81. Bender, D. M., Wood, B. J. & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2004). Teaching time: Distance education versus classroom instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18 (2), 103-114. Budd, J. Vanka, S. & Runton, A.(1999). The ID-online asynchronous learning network: A ‘virtual studio’ for interdisciplinary design collaboration. Digital Creativity, 10 (4), 205-214. Charp, S. (2000). Internet usage in education. T.H.E. Journal, 27 (10), 12, 14. Design Futures Council (DFC). (2005). 2005 Architecture & Design Schools Rankings Issue Overview, retrieved May 6, 2006 from http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=374.

122

Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, International Society for Technology in Education, 27 (3), 10-13. Dziuban, C. & Moskal, P. (2001). Distributed learning program impact evaluation, retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/F_Eval_Cases/UCF_DistribLearn.htm. Farrington, G.C. (1999 July/August). The new technologies and the future of residential undergraduate education. Educom Review, 34 (4). Retrieved May 28, 2005 from http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERM9949. Gilbert, J. (1999). But where is the teacher? Learning and Leading with Technology, 27 (2), 42-44. James, J. (1996). The construction of learning and teaching in a sculpture studio class. Studies in Art Education, 37 (3), 145-159. Jonasson, J. (1997 June). The Internet: The educational medium of today. Educational Media International, 34 (2), 88-93. Lawn, R. J. (1998). Integrating the arts and technology. Educational Technology, 38 (6), 56-59. Lehman, J. D. (1996). Computer networking in distance education (147-155). In Boschmann, E. (Ed.) The electronic classroom: A handbook for education in the electronic environment, London: Learned Information. Matthews, D. & Weigand, J. (2001). Collaborative design over the Internet. Journal of Interior Design, 27 (1), 45-53. National Education Association (NEA). (2002). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. Retrieved February 26, 2006 from http://www.nea.org/nr/nr000614.html. Norman, F. (2001 April). Towards a paperless studio. Proceedings from the ARCC Spring Research Conference at Virginia Tech, 85-91, retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www.asu.edu/caed/arcc/articles/AAINDEX.PDF. Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53 (4), 194-206. Proctor, G. (2003). Digital Foundations: Building a base for digital futures. In Bermudez, J. & Klinger, K. (Eds.), Digital technology and architecture, Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, white paper. Rapoport, A. (1983 October). Studio questions. The Architects’ Journal, 55-57. Rapoport, A. (1984 October). Architectural education. Architectural Record, 100-105. Ravaglia, R. (2001 August/September). E-education: The case for blended e-learning. Education West, 12-13. Romiszowski, A. J. (1988). The Selection and Use of Instructional Media (2nd Ed.). New York: Nichols. Sagun, A., Demirkan, H. & Goktepe, M. (2001). A framework for the design studio in web-based education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 20 (3), 332-342. Schifter,C. C. (2000). Compensation models in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3 (1), retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/schifter31.html. Van Eijl, P. & Pilot, A. (2003). Using a virtual learning environment in collaborative learning: Criteria for success. Educational Technology, 43 (2), 55. Visser, J. A. (2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14 (3), 21-32. Wooley, T. (1991). Why Studio? The Architects’ Journal, 20, 46-49.