October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

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 20 th 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
115