Since design is a problem-solving strategy, critical thinking must be an essential aspect to be taught inside a design studio. Based on previous studies, it has been established that a design studio has great potential for architecture pedagogy and acts as a foundation for diverse methods of studio pedagogies and typologies ( Salama, 2010).

Ideological assumptions, the nature of values, or a specific skill are better left discussed inside the design studio whether amongst the teacher and student or the students themselves as well as enabling a collaborative environment; this is where good judgment comes from ( Salama, 2010).

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic crisis on March 2020, and ever since, remote learning was obligated in order to minimize the spread of the coronavirus. Consequently, design studio courses’ instructors have been forced to teach remotely ( Ibrahim et al., 2021). McKinsey et al., estimated that the overall average percentage of students who received high-quality remote instruction was a minority with a percentage of 32% only ( Komarzyńska-Świeściak et al., 2021). When offered a choice between a fully offline design studio versus a fully online method, architecture students prefer studying in a face-to-face environment ( Komarzyńska-Świeściak et al., 2021). On an international scale, it was found that the majority of architecture students struggled with distance learning and almost 59 percent of students mentioned that E-learning is worse compared to face-to-face interaction ( Bailey, Doty & Pinkerton, 2020).

The research aims to support active learning strategies concerning the architectural design studio courses adapting to any sudden transitions in the design studio settings. The study aim can be achieved through providing insights into architecture pedagogical approaches with, the significance of active knowledge where it can be actively applied rather than passively received by the learners. Also, the study will shed light on the opportunities and challenges that can be of benefit from the pandemic phase and therefore, exploit them to achieve the most efficient pedagogical approaches in studio courses under any circumstances ( Ibrahim et al., 2021).

The study was approved by the Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport University (AASTMT), Architectural Engineering and environmental design department (AEED) Ethics Committee (Reference number 15/22) on September 15th, 2022. A written consent form was furnished to respondents for review and signature before starting interviews/questionnaires and approved by the AASTMT committee.

In order to enhance the active learning experience in an architectural design studio, the study will implement a qualitative and quantitative data collection technique by conducting two questionnaires inside a specific design studio course. Consequently, more valuable insights will be provided and the areas needed for improvement will be identified ( Figure 3).

The initial questionnaire will be distributed to the interior design (1) staff and the second questionnaire will be taken by interior (1) design students at the end of the spring semester. Both questionnaires will include questions related to the entire studio duration; the individual and the collaborative context.

Students and instructors will have the opportunity to provide feedback on their active learning experiences. Accordingly, this feedback can be used to improve the overall quality of education received in architectural design studios and to develop new pedagogical approaches into the curriculum.

The case study took place in the academic year; spring 2022/2023 with a duration of 16 weeks. The researcher selected ‘Interior Design (1) – AR416’ to be the case study for various reasons. Firstly, interior design (1) is a design studio course, thus the design phases will be applicable in this case as well as the researcher has access to the studied course which will lead to more accurate results. Secondly, the course is taught in the 8 ^th semester; 4 ^th year, and is Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) accredited within the Arab Academy for Science Technology and Maritime Transport (AAST) university. Finally, this course is divided into an individual phase and a group work phase where students work in a collaborative environment, thus active learning strategies will be assessed in two different contexts through a comparative case study ( Figure 4).

Additionally, all case study participants were found in the same subject, whether the academic staff or the students themselves to obtain accurate results. The course consisted of 4 design studios with a total of 90 students, however, only 73 students agreed to participate in the survey after being given a clear explanation on the research in a verbal form. Additionally, the survey was meant to be totally anonymous for unbiased results. Students were classified into groups by the beginning of the 8 ^th week. Each student was required to answer a questionnaire that focused on the individual and the collaborative project equally.

Regarding the interior design (1) academic staff, they were divided into lecturers and teaching assistants. The total number of academic staff in this case study was almost 13 persons. Each one of the staff members was required to answer a questionnaire anonymously as well, however, this survey was based on interior design (1) staff point of view ( Figure 4).

The study experienced two various phases with different architecture pedagogies in the same interior design (1) studio course. The initial phase was the individual phase where each student encountered the entire design phase on his own with the course staff’s guidance. The individual phase took place in the first seven weeks focusing on the AAST staff’s cafeteria’s renovation. Starting from the 8 ^th week till the 15 ^th week, a collaborative phase was held where students were divided into groups and experienced the design process together ( Figure 5).

Initially, interior design (1) students were asked to renovate the AAST staff indoor cafeteria without any changes in the campus’ elevation or the structure system. During the first week, interior design (1) lecturers prepared a brief introduction explaining the basics of design principles, color philosophy, concepts, different design styles, furniture samples, and materials samples regarding cafeteria designs providing a complete introduction to the first individual project. Furthermore, students were assigned to undertake a site visit to the existing cafeteria, take some photos, measure the dimensions, and understand the user’s problems and needs if possible, in order to design a more appealing and practical cafeteria through ‘Experiential Learning’.

Moreover, students were given another lecture expanding their critical thinking and imagination through a variety of relevant cafeteria examples located inside universities and campuses. Afterward, staff members were distributed evenly so that each teaching assistant had an even number of students to correct their work on a weekly basis. Students started to brainstorm with their TAs and lecturers about their preliminary design concept sketches, keywords, and interior design philosophies.

During their third week, there was noticeable progress achieved by students. For instance, each student settled on his/her final concept and design style, designed his/her cafeteria’s mood board, and obtained some furniture samples related to his/her interior design styles and philosophy.

Furthermore, the majority of the students’ furniture plans started to be more clear in the fourth week. Based on the student’s progress, the tutors began selecting the most successful furniture plans according to interior design concepts, circulation, zoning, and furniture samples as shown in Figure 6.

Interior design (1) staff member proceeded to guide the students during the fifth week. In particular, the most suitable floor patterns, materials, false ceiling designs, and lighting fixtures were selected in order to reveal the looking up and floor plans in the most ideal approach.

Last but not least, students worked on their cafeteria’s sections, elevations, and 3D virtual shots using 3D programs such as 3D Max, Revit, Time Motion, and Lumion to demonstrate their ideas. Finally, students were able to submit a full individual project in their seventh week.

Finally, the entire staff has agreed to prepare certificate prizes for students who have reached the project goal in the most applicable way by meeting the users’ needs and fixing the project challenges. Those prizes were made as an appreciation for their hard work and effort.

The individual approach was a beneficial experience when it came to both; integrative and inquiry-based pedagogies as shown in Table 1. The staff cafeteria has a serious issue regarding its interior design and according to this, the project’s main aim was to renovate the old cafeteria into a more pleasing and functional one. Thus, students’ designs were highly needed to intervene in this problem. Furthermore, in order to obtain a realistic design, integrative learning was needed so students can understand all theories and project dimensions thoroughly.

Additionally, the individual experience was a highly student-centered approach with instructors working as guides and there was almost no peer interaction. In this project, the majority of the students fully understood the data received from their analysis and instructors’ explanation, offered virtual application, but they did not construct or deal with an actual human scale giving them a fine opportunity for criticizing as there wasn’t a clear and accurate perception.

The 8 ^th week started with the collaborative project brief given by the lecturers. The project’s aim was to create an exhibition through a ‘learning by doing’ pedagogical approach allowing students to translate the knowledge received into an actual application using their bare hands in the architecture building atrium inside the AAST campus. The exhibition is classified into four main categories; students’ projects, historical timeline, successful student outcomes, and sponsors. Subsequently, interior design (1) staff began to divide the students into groups of five to six maximum. Each group was assigned to bring analyzed relevant examples for exhibitions which they will benefit from in their designs.

Additionally, all groups started to brainstorm and present their analyzed examples with their peers, staff members, and lecturers during their ninth week. Each example analyzed benefited the students with a certain outcome. For instance, the visual presentations allowed the students to select certain materials and high-tech solutions so they can use them in their 3D models, other examples presented new fixation techniques in a clear manner, creating a more engaging and interactive learning experience. As a result, students were asked to filter their options into 3 models only to simplify their design process.

Furthermore, in the 10 ^th and 11 ^th weeks, students revealed their two or three models’ choices on a small scale to train themselves on handling the choice of the material with the chosen fixation method ( Figure 7).

All students worked on their mistakes throughout the 12 ^th and 13 ^th weeks in order to enhance their work and picked only one display unit to transform into a 1:1 scale model without any obstacles ( Figure 8).

Last but not least, students presented their final 3D models that demonstrated their learning by doing and comprehension of the active learning techniques they had studied throughout the semester in the 14 ^th week. The models were submitted in various forms, materials, visual presentations, interactive simulations, structures, and fixation mechanisms. The students were able to showcase their creativity and critical thinking skills in their models, and the projects were a testament to the effectiveness of the active learning approach utilized in the course ( Figure 9).

Finally, all groups submitted their final charts at the beginning of the 15 ^th week revealing all their concepts, mood boards, display units, circulation and zoning diagrams, plans, sections, and their virtual 3D shots ( Figure 10) (researcher).

The collaborative experience has achieved almost 90% of the pedagogical approaches inside an architectural design studio as shown in Table 2. As an example, diverse interactions and sharing of different opinions with peers and instructors have ensured the presence of a collaborative context. Regarding constructivism inside an architectural design studio, students were able to translate their knowledge and theories into a 1-1 physical model which made them learn thoroughly about different materials and new fixation techniques.

Moreover, students and staff reached the critical reflection level by improving their teaching and learning experience and coping with nowadays needs by providing new presentations, teaching methods, and hands-on experience. Hence, both parties were able to criticize and negotiate throughout the design process till the final outcome. Furthermore, all studied theories were an accumulative learning process that helped the students to comprehend and connect all materials whether in theory or practice. However, the inquiry-based pedagogy was not highly supported in the collaborative project as the main aim of the project was to experience a hands-on experience through constructing 1-1 scale units to be eventually displayed in an exhibition. Thus, there was no actual problem with the exhibition zone in order to be fixed.

After acknowledging the design process in the studio course (interior design 1) which lasted for 15 weeks, two questionnaires were created on an online google documents at the end of both course’s phases; the individual and the collaborative phases. The questionnaires were distributed by the end of week 15 and collected by the end of week 18 anonymously on an online platform (google docs). All 13 staff members have participated in the survey, however 73 out of 90 students have submitted the survey ( Kassem, 2023).

All active learning strategies found in Figure 2 were mentioned in both surveys, in order to test the new active learning strategies, identify areas for improvement and help refine the existing ones.

In addition to this, the questionnaires focused on two working modes; the individual and the collaborative mode as a comparative study experience to achieve the most efficient pedagogical methods inside a studio course. The surveys also revealed the type of studio setting that each one of the students and staff members experienced during the pandemic and whether the studio setting influenced the pedagogical strategies inside the studio course or not.

The following criteria were focused on in both surveys; •

‘Learning by doing’ or ‘hands-on experience’

All previous criteria were anonymously analyzed and collected via the online google documents platform through comparative charts for both parties; staff members and students ( Kassem, 2023).

The staff members were an average of 33% lecturers to 67% teaching assistants distributed among the studios. As shown in Figure 11, a variety of staff members have experienced an online studio during the pandemic, followed by a lower percentage of hybrid studios and the least percentage experienced a traditional design studio.

On the other hand, when interior design (1) staff were asked which studio type was the most effective in the process of teaching design studio courses, their responses were totally different. 61.5% preferred the traditional design studio (PSD), 30.8% chose hybrid studios and only 7.7% supported online learning in a studio course ( Figure 12).

‘Learning by doing’ or ‘hands-on’ experience active learning strategy includes four main sub-criterions; experiential learning (site visits and observations), inquiry-based learning (fixing the design problem through the students’ designs), collaborative learning (allowing peers to brainstorm and interact with each other) and finally design-build programs (where students build a 1:1 scale model either using their bare hands or virtually). According to this, the staff was asked which criteria were mainly achieved in both the individual and collaborative projects based on their personal opinions ( Figure 13).

The ‘collaborative context’ was mainly achieved in the collaborative project only according to the staff’s opinions. Encouraging collaboration with other fields, supporting diverse opinions, and gaining new skills were the main sub-criterions achieved ( Figure 14).

Moreover, ‘potential learning’ was 84% achieved in both projects through three main aspects; offering new competition opportunities between all groups in the entire studio course, providing professional guidance through lecturers, teaching assistants, and talks and finally gaining new management, programs, and business skills ( Figure 15).

‘Reflective learning’ includes four modes/phases; habitual reflection (where students receive the material taught without comprehension), understanding (where students start to understand the material taught as facts or theories without an actual application), reflection (where students fully understand and apply the material taught) and finally critical reflection (where diverse opinions and criticism are revealed by students). Based on this, the staff was asked about their opinions about the majority of students’ reflection levels in both the individual and collaborative projects ( Figure 16).

As for the staff reflection, all lectures and power points were updated to match the new pedagogical approach; ‘hands-on/learning by doing’ experience, new teaching assistants with new visions, and all four studios shared the same experience which lead to fair outcomes and assessments.

Moreover, 92% of the staff participants agreed that both projects achieved a ‘process-focused’ strategy and the final 8% agreed that it was achieved in the collaborative project only. Based on the staff perspective, hands-on and workshop experiences had the most percentages, followed by collaboration and interaction encouragements followed by supporting critical thinking ( Figure 17).

Last but not least, the technological intervention was mostly equal in both projects and it was minor as well. However, the staff offered accessibility to the digital library and incorporated 3D fabrication in the collaborative project ( Figure 18).

The staff members’ level of satisfaction was biased toward the collaborative project than the individual project as the ‘hands-on experience’ or ‘learning by doing’ revealed students’ skills and reflection vividly ( Figure 19).

72 participants with different grade point averages (GPAs) completed the students’ survey. The majority of the students’ scores were between 2.4-3.6 and the rest were either more than 3.6 or below 2.0 as shown in Figure 20.

Based on the students’ points of view, the majority preferred the hybrid studio followed by the traditional studio and the online studio respectively, unlike the staff’s opinion ( Figure 21).

Additionally, according to the student’s results, the design-build or hands-on experience and the collaborative context in the collaborative project have overweighed the individual project ( Figure 22). However, experiential and inquiry-based learning overweighed the individual project compared to the collaborative project as there was a major issue in the staff cafeteria which made them observe the site clearly, take photos, take accurate dimensions, and therefore fix the project problem through their own designs. On the contrary, the collaborative project (Exhibition) did not have a major problem to be fixed, hence, the students were assigned to make the architecture atrium a more representable space only.

As for the collaborative context, the students’ results were almost equal to the staff’s results, however, not all students knew how to collaborate with external fields ( Figure 23).

Regarding the students’ opinions, potential learning was achieved in both projects with nearly 52%, followed by a 33.3% in the collaborative project only unlike the staff’s results. A vast number have voted for the collaborative project only because group works and brainstorming plays a huge role in professional careers. In addition to this, 4.2% have added a new potential learning sub-criterion which is learning new software and 3D rendering methods ( Figure 24).

In comparison with the staff’s results, methods of reflection were almost similar to students’ results. However, the collaborative project’s materials were received as facts in the beginning and the students’ reflection levels improved gradually ( Figure 25).

Furthermore, almost 66% of the participants agreed that both projects achieved a ‘process-focused’ strategy, followed by 17.1% who voted for the individual project only, and the rest were distributed amongst other options. Based on the students’ experience, they highly think that studio interaction and collaborations supported the process-focused strategy more than workshops ( Figure 26).

Last but not least, students’ votes between both projects and the collaborative project only were almost the same concerning the technological intervention inside the studio course. Moreover, an up-to-date staff, incorporating 3D fabrication into the studio course, and accessing a digital library benefited all students in their projects ( Figure 27).

The students’ levels of satisfaction were almost absolutely satisfactory, however, the collaborative project was preferable and beneficial based on their statistics ( Figure 28).

The average results of the staff and students survey in the comparative case study have established that the collaborative approach achieved higher percentages of active learning strategies than the individual one ( Figure 29).

The study highlighted the need for more flexible and adaptable approaches to teaching and learning. It has also brought to the forefront the importance of active learning strategies in architectural design studio education and the light on three main crucial aspects of architecture; the architecture studio setting, the curriculum and the pedagogy.

The setting: the architectural design studio

The presence of technology will continue to play a significant role in architecture education even after the pandemic subsides as it facilitates the design process. One of the most recommended technological approaches in studio course education is the ‘Metaverse’.

Hence, it is important to recognize that virtual learning should exist in the architecture design setting however, it cannot replace the value of face-to-face interaction and hands-on experience. Therefore, it is crucial for educators to find a balance between virtual and in-person learning experiences to ensure that students receive a well-rounded education which is known as a hybrid or blended design studio as previously mentioned.

The curriculum: the architectural design studio courses

One of the noticeable comments was coping with nowadays technology systems such as allowing virtual reality rooms, augmented reality and ‘Metaverse’ integration into the architectural design studio curriculum. The suggested technological interventions will therefore provide students with a more interactive and immersive pedagogical experience, save time and money, and prepare undergraduate architects for their future careers in an up-to-date manner.

The pedagogies: students and staff

Support the learning-by-doing approach either physically or virtually by creating more activities and field trips, and providing more resources for students and staff in order to offer a better experience. For instance; offering an interactive environment, providing various resources such as different materials, workshop rooms, connection materials, 3D fabrication or printing, laser cutting, VR goggles and rifts. Moreover, work and time schedules should be essential tools inside an architecture design studio. One of the most effective ideas concerning projects’ efficiency is using heat maps during the project’s correction and evaluation phase in order to rapidly detect areas of improvement and points of strength.

Overall, incorporating active learning strategies such as project-based learning, hands-on experiences, peer-to-peer learning, and problem-based learning can provide students with valuable opportunities to develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration skills. These strategies can be implemented both in virtual and in-person learning environments. Moreover, it is crucial for educators to continue to adapt and evolve their teaching methods to meet the changing needs of the industry and ensure that students are well-prepared for a future in their professional architecture practice. Figure 30 shows an updated checklist of the active learning strategies after all previous analyses and recommendations in order to obtain the most efficient outcomes inside architectural studio courses regardless of any urgent shifts.