October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

The competitive nature of design classes limits the
sharing and nurturing of ideas and causes many students
to work independently.
Students have to be physically present in studio when a
critique is given. Unless recorded, it cannot be reviewed
later time.
Guest critics must travel to the class site during a
specified class period to participate in critiques.
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.
Limitations
Design skills are strengthened by the student’s ability to
build on the feedback of other students’ projects and
feedback.
Students can review critiques on demand and can
“attend” the critique from remote locations.
Guest critics can review the projects and provide an
audio critique (independent or with others) at their
convenience.
The instructor does not guide any single student through
the design process, but guides the class as a whole.
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.
120