Lotfabadi, P and Iranmanesh, A (2024) Evaluation of learning methods in architecture design studio via analytic hierarchy process: A case study. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 20(1), pp. 47-64. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The architecture design studio is a complex pedagogical space and constantly evolving practice that aims to train students in a wide range of skills. The complex nature of the studio makes it a challenging topic to approach as a whole and requires a method that can address its multitude of dimensions all at once. This study explores an adaptation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in evaluating the effectiveness of four learning mediums embedded in architecture studio pedagogy: critiquing (crit), jury, peer learning, and self-learning. A set of four main criteria and twelve sub-criteria were extracted from the program’s learning outcomes to create the hierarchy table. Each criterion/sub-criterion was compared to each of the other criteria using a pair-wise comparison survey. The survey was conducted among fourth-year students and teachers in a department of architecture in Cyprus. The results indicate a complex set of minor differences between students' and teachers' responses. The students' over-dependency on crit as their medium of choice for learning is among the notable findings of the study. Furthermore, the potential for utilizing AHP to develop more comprehensive models for architectural pedagogy is highlighted.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Architecture; Architectural pedagogy; analytic hierarchy process; AHP; crit; jury; peer learning; self-learning; design studio; Pedagogy; Students; Surveys; Learning; Choice learning; Teachers; Criteria |
| Index terms: | program, Cyprus, case study, survey, studio, adaptation, effectiveness, dimension, design studio, pedagogy, learning outcome |
| Subjects: | performance management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, teaching methods, student development, software systems, construction type, Geography, data collection methods, design practice, user focus |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Education, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here