Blended E-learning in the Architectural Design Studio

Transcription

1 Blended E-learning in the Architectural Design Studio An Experimental Model Mohammed F. M. Mohammed Associate Professor, Architecture Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt (Associate Professor, Architecture Department, Effat University, Jeddah, KSA)

2 Blended E-learning in the Architectural Design Studio An Experimental Model The availability of information & communication technologies (ICT) has great potential for a surge in E-learning techniques. However, traditional one-on-one tutoring, especially in the field of architecture, represents some sort of an impediment of applying E-learning approaches in the architectural design arena. This piece of research explores experimentally the possibility of integrating some ICT techniques especially cloud technologies- in an architectural design studio context. It starts by providing a theoretical framework that addresses the theoretical concepts of E-learning, its different mechanisms and techniques, concepts of cloud technology and its applications. This is followed by a presentation of architectural design teaching methodologies, stages and requirements. The researcher introduces a model for exploration. This covers structure, operational definitions, roles of different parties and data analysis techniques. The paper concludes by discussing and evaluating the model in action, and its outputs, hurdles encountered and possible refinements for future consideration. Keywords: Arch. Education; Design Studio; E-learning; Cloud Technology Introduction Many challenges are facing learning environments on how to deal and respond to the needs of the digital era. Information technology can be considered as a successful mean for providing students with more flexibility to address the learning environment. (Saghafi, Franz, and Crowther, 2012). Formal timetabled classroom-based learning is decreasing compared to collaborative oriented education, where participants share their knowledge and experiences and develop them by discussion and collaboration (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). The design studio is an active place where students are engaged in various activities. Developing social presence is considered the main strength of faceto-face (F-2-F) learning environments, with the problems of limited time and the participation of all members. While the main advantages of web-based learning are time and place flexibility, the opportunity for participation of all learners, and deeper

3 reflection (Graham, 2006). Design education needs F-2-F activities such as peerlearning and cannot be successful in a full online mode, as such, it is believed that webbased design studio will not replace the F-2-F studio setting in the future. Some instructors think that posting the course content and reading materials are enough to consider as a web-based learning, but what they really need is to think more about the interactivity, where the blended learning can play a great role (Ko and Rossen, 2010). Blended learning is the combination of an ideal teaching program for particular learners, and different learning media such as activities, technologies, or events. The architecture design studio, by its very precise nature, offers opportunities to examine the role of blended learning and how it can be integrated with physical models and methods. More research about the influence of online environments in architecture education is necessary due to rapid changes in the design process, architectural practice, and students' expectations and behavior. The current research introduces a practical model to incorporate the best features of F-2-F with online teaching to foster active independent learning and increase interactivity in the architectural design studio. Blended E-learning A report presented by the United States Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) discovered that over 90% of public colleges and universities offered distant learning courses during 2007 (Jered Borup, et al., 2011). While fully online learning has become well established in United States institutions of higher education; several schools appear to be striving for conceptualization and implementation of blended learning. While both classroom-based and fully online instruction are well understood, it seems that the mixture of the two models poses challenges for some institutions (Dziuban, Charles, 2011). Blended courses, or courses in which both online methods and traditional classroom are used to deliver instructional content and interaction, have shown to be among the most top choices for students. At first glance, this prevalence seems intuitive because blended courses enable the student to take advantage of the flexibility and utility of an online course while retaining the

4 benefits of the F-2-F classroom experience (Dziuban, Charles, 2011). For students, blended courses offer the benefits of online learning integrated with the instructional and social interactions that may not allow themselves to distance delivery. Much of the research on blended learning focuses on integrating the digital technologies in F-2-F courses to meet learning outcomes of the individual course or program level (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002; Garrison & Vaughn, 2008; Twigg, 2003). Blended learning is also about creating a more flexible learning environment. According to Collis and Moonen (2001), flexible learning has often been understood as distance education. However, this is not necessarily the case. "Flexibility can include options in course resources, in types of learning activities, in media to support learning" even for full-time, on-campus students (Borup, Jered, 2011). In addition to increasing cost effectiveness, access, and flexibility, Graham (2008) also cited that blended learning can facilitate more efficient pedagogical practices by increasing active learning, cooperative learning, and learner-centered strategies. Figure 1: Blended Learning Methodology Architectural Design Studio Architectural design is a complex and dynamic process. Designers start with something that is abstract and has progressively developed a problem that can be produced in the form of products. According to Lawson (1997), the architectural design is a process in which architects create spaces, places, and buildings that have a significant impact on the quality of human life. Many definitions can describe this term but for this study,

5 we ll focus on the definition of the design process as a systematic process that has several levels to produce new products that can be evaluated physically and has many benefits (Ismail, M., 2012). In the educational process, the main focus not only on the assessment, but also in the process of learning during the course. So, a process of continuous and comprehensive learning becomes crucial in architecture studio. Well-designed assessment leads to clear expectations and provides opportunities for students to selfmonitor, practice and receive feedbacks. Students to be critical and always question existing conventions, experiment, and explore their design ideas. Self-criticism is a behavior where a student enacts while creating a design to explore possibilities and debate ideas inside their mind. Students presenting a project and the students in the class observing the jury should benefit from the jury process (Utaberta, N., 2013). By the beginning of a semester, a design problem is given to solve till the end. The design challenge is delivered in the form of a brief or detailed program that contains user requirements, client goals, site conditions and other technical information. In the early stages of the project, students may be asked to do research on the main issues related to the design problem to be shared with the whole studio class. Also, some lectures from the instructors on different aspects of the problem are often given to the studio class in which some design precedents are criticized, reviewed, and finalized. The instructor suggests some improvements in the design that he/she feels will be better in solving a specific aspect of the design problem. Following the desk crit, the student is expected to explore more thoroughly and examine these options and suggestions by revisiting his/her solution. The instructor will then evaluate the outcome of the student's updated solution suggesting further improvements. Joined with the formal studio desk critique, students will informally assess each other's work during the design process, and learn various design skills and drawing and model construction techniques from each other. The solution will present in different evolving forms from sketches to fully developed drawings and models, dimensions and scales of the design problem.

6 There are several types of design studio applications which can be performed by the supervisor of design studio according to the critic style and/or given possibilities to the student to be creative and productive which lead to classification of the assessment tools in architectural design studios into different categories including: Individual criticism, Formative & Summative criticism, Peer & Group discussion, Seminars, and Panel Discussion. The discussions, which are carried out in a participatory atmosphere, are effective mediums of learning. This format provides feedback to the students indirectly and avoids the critic to be taken personally (Şeniz, Ç., 2009). Generally in every criticism type, the design process is an educator-centered one. Conversely, the design process should be changed into a student-centered process, because educator-centered activities inhibit students creativity and prevent them from doing practice freely. In every criticism type, there is limited participation and collaboration among students. There is not enough group study to motivate students to be creative and socially satisfied (Hassanpour, B., 2013). Cloud Technology A F-2-F learning environment requires student and instructor to share the same physical space; however, it also allows synchronous communication where ideas and information can be shared with a very short lag time. Also, in this environment, there is a high level of fidelity were the senses of sight, audio, touch, and smell are active in the learning process. In contrast, in an online environment, the student and instructor do not need to share the same physical space. Similarly, the time dimension of interaction is also commonly distributed through the use of asynchronous communication which gives online education the flexibility that has made it popular with instructors and students. However, interactions found in an online learning environment have a low level of fidelity with most interaction being text based. Both models of instruction have their affordances and constraints with F-2-F instruction providing a high level of fidelity but also providing little flexibility and online instruction providing a high level of flexibility with a low level of fidelity (Graham 2006).

7 Space High Flexibility (Virtual/ distributed) Low Flexibility (Live Physical/ face.2.face) F-2-F Online Time High Flexibility (Synchronous and long lag time) Low Flexibility (Live Synchronous/ very short lag time) F-2-F Online Fidelity High Flexibility (rich all senses) Low Flexibility (text only) F-2-F Online Figure 2: Dimensions of interaction in a text based online & F-2-F environments As a result, the level of fidelity in a blended learning course can be raised only so much through F-2-F instruction and still retain the flexibility that has made online education attractive. Instructors in a blended learning format try to find an adequate balance between the online education that is high in flexibility and the F-2-F instruction that is high in fidelity. The Internet has changed from being a communication mode of text-only to a dominant two-way multimedia communication system with applications that have the inherent to transforming teaching and training (Borup, J. 2011). Cloud technology was suggested to be used as a platform providing both synchronous and asynchronous communication to help offer high students interaction in fidelity and flexibility. This Platform may also include larger variety of perspectives because the essence of the discussion provides time for more people to participate including shy students who usually do not participate in F-2-F group discussion. The following description of cloud computation has been stated by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.

8 Figure 3: The main aspects forming a cloud system The characteristics of cloud computing include on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity and measured service. The cloud computing service models are Software as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). In a Software as a Service model, a premade application, along with any required software, operating system, hardware, and network are provided. Cloud services are popular because they can reduce the cost and complexity of owning and operating computers and networks. Some other benefits to users include scalability, reliability, and efficiency. Virtualisation is an essential technological characteristic of clouds which hides the technological complexity from the user and enables enhanced flexibility (Neidecker, B., 2010). Research Model In order to increase the interactivity and communication in architecture design studios, An Experimental model was developed and implemented by the researcher through teaching architecture design studios to architecture students at EFFAT University for three consecutive semesters. The traditional methods lack to have a simultaneous interaction between the users, while this model aimed to establish a virtual platform that allows synchronous communication and interaction between studio members to enable them to discuss and develop the design ideas. The most familiar form of synchronous communication available to instructors is text-based chat, which is not effective in the architectural design studio where graphics are the main communication medium. The

9 model depended on the potentials and features of cloud technology and its different mechanisms to build this virtual platform. Google Drive engine was selected as the virtual platform to apply this model. This cloud technology proceeds this possibility throughout Google drawing application that is included in Google Drive applications which allow establishing an effective synchronous virtual environment. The proposed model was designed by creating a participatory folder for the course on "GoogleDrive", this folder will contain a group of subfolders that are divided into two main Groups: The first Group: is the general group which is available to all the students and their supervisors to communicate through it, and it contains a group of subfolders that provides the primary information of the course and project s initial information course syllabus, project proposal and reading materials" and also the information that students collect about the proposed design project. The second Group: is a special group, it contains subfolders for each student where he/she can communicate and where comments and information can be interchanged only between the student and his/her supervisor. First Group Second Group Figure 4: Platform Subfolders groups Types of interaction Throughout the designed platform, communication and interaction can take place in three different ways as following:

10 The first introduces the possibilities of communication between students and the Educational content through a group of folders that contains course and project information where students can freely reach its contents and deal with it. The second, where the social communication takes place between students through the social communication platform, contains the information that students collect and upload to the folder which allows sharing, discussing and interacting with other students according to their ideas and opinions. The third allows interaction between the student and his supervisor about the details of the project and discusses all possible developing suggestions on what he offers in an environment that allows insertion and edition to graphics as shown in the enclosed graphics. Synchronous interaction mode The simultaneous interaction occurs through Google drawings where anyone of the users uploads the initial image -to be discussed and developed- to the application through the participatory folder established before, even through the private sharing with his/her supervisor or the public sharing with the students group, then the rest of participants leave their comments and suggestions on the drawing, even by using drawing tools or by writing, and discussing it with the student that interact with them at the same time, whereas all the participants are sharing the same cloud folder, the modifications and additions appears simultaneously for all of the participants. Figure 5: Sample of interaction mode between students and her supervisors Following up students' activity "Revision History menu" allows supervisor/supervisors to follow up all activities,

11 additions, and modifications done by all those involved in the folder which allows supervisors to support and develop students' activity and their interaction and allows them to follow up the development and enables them to introvert to treat any unwanted behaviour and encourage interaction between students throughout the platform. Figure 6: Revision History menu Results To study the effect of the implemented method on students, after applying the proposed model for consecutive semesters (Fall2013 Fall2014), an online survey was formulated and distributed among architecture students to identify their perceptions of the used model. The survey questions were classified into two main groups: the first group consisted of a similar type of attitude measurement items which is having five levels; while the second group consisted of open-ended questions asking the students about their thoughts on the issue. The students' feedback showed their interest in the experiment. They reported that the model helped them in the early stages of the design process which include concept and idea generation as it had a great effect in the last stages while it didn't show a perceptible achieve in the middle stages. The model raised the interactivity and offered discussion groups on different days and times. The model raised the interactivity and offered discussion groups on different days and times. The students reported that the model helped them to improve their presentation and discussion skills. Some students suggested working on integrating the social media applications ("WhatsApp" as an example) and enable using of mobile technology within the studio courses.

12 a) Students satisfaction of the model impact on design stages b) Level of students satisfaction of the model d) Model impact on students skills c) Model impact on e-learning characteristics Figure 7: Graphical analysis of the results of students survey Conclusions The studio can provide an appropriate space which helps students to find and improve ideas for their design projects. Learners have different learning styles that respond to these in various ways. Therefore, a combination of several media appears to be appropriate. This tends to suggest the need for a blended design studio model where the cloud technology can play a fundamental role to enhance the benefits of the traditional design studio model. More research work is needed to develop the model to increase the flexibility of the quality of interaction in the graphical mode and to benefit from the mobile technology. References: Borup J., et al., (2011). The Use of Asynchronous Video Communication to Improve Instructor Immediacy and Social Presence in a Blended Learning Environment, in: Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for Implementation, Information Science Reference, IGI Global, pp

13 Çıkış Ş., Çil E., (2009). Problematization of assessment in the architectural design education: First year as a case study, procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 3-5 Dziuban C. D., (2011). Blended Courses as Drivers of Institutional Transformation, in: Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for Implementation, Information Science Reference, IGI Global, Garrison, D. and Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines, Jossey-Bass Inc Pub., p. 7 Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions, in Bonk, J. and Graham, C. R. (Ed.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, pp Hassanpour B., et al., (2013). Upgrading Education Architecture by Redefining Critique Session in Design Studio, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102, pp Mell P., Grance T., (2011). The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, p. 2 Ismail M. A., et al., (2013). Digital Studio vs. Conventional in Teaching Architectural Design Process, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 64, pp Jeffery K., Neidecker-Lutz B., (2010). The Future of Cloud Computing: Opportunities for European Cloud Computing Beyond, Expert Group Report, [SAP Research], European Commission Ko, S. and Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching Online: A Practical Guide, Routledge, New York. Saghafi, M. R., Franz, J. and Crowther, P. (2012). Perceptions of Physical versus Virtual Design Studio Education, Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 6 - Issue 1, pp. 7-8 Spiliotopoulos, V., (2011). Towards a Technology-Enhanced University Education, in: Blended Learning across Disciplines: Models for Implementation, Information Science Reference, IGI Global, pp The Report on the (2010) Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada s Consultations on Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting, and Cloud Computing. In: ( Utaberta N., et al, (2013). A Comprehensive Learning of Architecture Education: Understanding Critique Session as Learning Process and Criteria-Based Assessment in the Architecture Design Studio, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102, pp