October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

Issues of Acceptance
With the implementation of online technologies, the traditional studio environment and the instructor’s workload
have been altered with the proposed process. Though many design educators are reluctant to embrace teaching
with technology, the authors believe the addition of online technologies enhances studio education. The
proposed alternative approach to studio instruction may provide potential solutions to the unease and resistance
of these other faculty. In order to change the culture of the existing studio environment, digital media must
become a transparent tool for design inquiry. Instructors should give serious thought to the complex pedagogical
issues underlying new methods of teaching and learning before implementing them in the curriculum.
Though this form of blended learning provides many benefits to students and faculty, the personal component
should not be eliminated from studio education. To rely solely on virtual instruction poses a serious risk, as “live
instruction has to build upon the virtual part and vice versa” (Van Eijl & Pilot, 2003, p. 55). As rapid changes
occur in architectural practice, student populations, and the design process, continued research is necessary in
order to understand technology’s impact on architectural education.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that blended learning can revolutionize instruction in the design studio. Student learning
can be enhanced by having pertinent course material available online whenever students wish to access it.
Project critiques can be delivered in both audio and text format. They can be reviewed at any time and as many
times as needed. All students can view and hear projects and comments of the entire class, which is something
that is often missing in studio.
This model also exemplifies the ability to serve a larger body of students without increasing faculty workload.
The student enrollments of architecture and design programs are increasing at a faster-than-average rate in
comparison to other disciplines. It is anticipated this trend will continue through 2010, exacerbating the problem
of increased faculty workload (ASID report, 2004). The use of technology in the studio allows faculty feedback
to be less repetitive and more streamlined. More students can be accommodated in this model than the traditional
studio. If blended learning can be used to positively impact student learning with the same amount of faculty
effort, the integration of technology into the studio environment will be viewed in a more favorable light.
References
Abrams, G. & Haefner, J. (2002). Blending online and traditional instruction in the mathematics classroom. The
Technology Source, retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=970.
Andia, A. (2002). Reconstructing the effects of computers on practice and education during the past three
decades. Journal of Architectural Education, 56 (2), 7-13.
Architectural Education, (2000). A brief history. Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Retrieved
August 5, 2004 from https://www.acsa-arch.org/students/education.aspx.
ASID Report. (2004). The interior design profession: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: American Society of
Interior Designers.
Bender, D. M. & Good, L. (2003). Attitudes of higher education interior design faculty toward distance
education. Journal of Interior Design, 29 (1/2), 66-81.
Bender, D. M., Wood, B. J. & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2004). Teaching time: Distance education versus classroom
instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18 (2), 103-114.
Budd, J. Vanka, S. & Runton, A.(1999). The ID-online asynchronous learning network: A ‘virtual studio’ for
interdisciplinary design collaboration. Digital Creativity, 10 (4), 205-214.
Charp, S. (2000). Internet usage in education. T.H.E. Journal, 27 (10), 12, 14.
Design Futures Council (DFC). (2005). 2005 Architecture & Design Schools Rankings Issue Overview, retrieved
May 6, 2006 from http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=374.
121