October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integrating technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with Technology, International Society for Technology in Education, 27 (3), 10-13. Dziuban, C. & Moskal, P. (2001). Distributed learning program impact evaluation, retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/F_Eval_Cases/UCF_DistribLearn.htm. Farrington, G.C. (1999 July/August). The new technologies and the future of residential undergraduate education. Educom Review, 34 (4). Retrieved May 28, 2005 from http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ERM9949. Gilbert, J. (1999). But where is the teacher? Learning and Leading with Technology, 27 (2), 42-44. James, J. (1996). The construction of learning and teaching in a sculpture studio class. Studies in Art Education, 37 (3), 145-159. Jonasson, J. (1997 June). The Internet: The educational medium of today. Educational Media International, 34 (2), 88-93. Lawn, R. J. (1998). Integrating the arts and technology. Educational Technology, 38 (6), 56-59. Lehman, J. D. (1996). Computer networking in distance education (147-155). In Boschmann, E. (Ed.) The electronic classroom: A handbook for education in the electronic environment, London: Learned Information. Matthews, D. & Weigand, J. (2001). Collaborative design over the Internet. Journal of Interior Design, 27 (1), 45-53. National Education Association (NEA). (2002). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. Retrieved February 26, 2006 from http://www.nea.org/nr/nr000614.html. Norman, F. (2001 April). Towards a paperless studio. Proceedings from the ARCC Spring Research Conference at Virginia Tech, 85-91, retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www.asu.edu/caed/arcc/articles/AAINDEX.PDF. Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53 (4), 194-206. Proctor, G. (2003). Digital Foundations: Building a base for digital futures. In Bermudez, J. & Klinger, K. (Eds.), Digital technology and architecture, Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, white paper. Rapoport, A. (1983 October). Studio questions. The Architects’ Journal, 55-57. Rapoport, A. (1984 October). Architectural education. Architectural Record, 100-105. Ravaglia, R. (2001 August/September). E-education: The case for blended e-learning. Education West, 12-13. Romiszowski, A. J. (1988). The Selection and Use of Instructional Media (2 nd Ed.). New York: Nichols. Sagun, A., Demirkan, H. & Goktepe, M. (2001). A framework for the design studio in web-based education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 20 (3), 332-342. Schifter,C. C. (2000). Compensation models in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3 (1), retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/schifter31.html. Van Eijl, P. & Pilot, A. (2003). Using a virtual learning environment in collaborative learning: Criteria for success. Educational Technology, 43 (2), 55. Visser, J. A. (2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14 (3), 21-32. Wooley, T. (1991). Why Studio? The Architects’ Journal, 20, 46-49. 122
Page 1 and 2:
October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Guidelines for authors Submissions
Page 5 and 6:
How Does Educational Technology Ben
Page 7 and 8:
Adaptivity is one of the most impor
Page 9 and 10:
3. Ease of editing and updating: wh
Page 11 and 12:
Accessible and personalized Learnin
Page 13 and 14:
From this definition, we figured ou
Page 15 and 16:
Verifying contents Figure 3. The pa
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 7. The ISA on line interface
Page 19 and 20:
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Page 21 and 22:
World Wide Web Consortium (1999a).
Page 23 and 24:
guiding and supporting environment
Page 25 and 26:
As an example, to improve the acces
Page 27 and 28:
option). Although this finding migh
Page 29 and 30:
of eLearning content and enhance th
Page 31 and 32:
Hodgings, W. & Duval, E. (2002). IE
Page 33 and 34:
the entire course of study. This sy
Page 35 and 36:
information useful for the contextu
Page 37 and 38:
Nr of student 25 20 15 10 5 0 a - w
Page 39 and 40:
Vincenzo, a second year student, ne
Page 41 and 42:
Evaluation Recently embodied conver
Page 43 and 44:
The interaction may be performed on
Page 45 and 46:
Poggi, I., Pelachaud, C., & de Rosi
Page 47 and 48:
Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costa
Page 49 and 50:
quality in use, which is measured b
Page 51 and 52:
process of designing high quality c
Page 53 and 54:
eLSE methodology Designers and eval
Page 55 and 56:
Execution phase Execution phase act
Page 57 and 58:
on the inspection process and, cons
Page 59 and 60:
Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006).
Page 61 and 62:
Answers and reinforcement A.1: Use
Page 63 and 64:
potential project ideas (from pure
Page 65 and 66:
For each column in Table 2, the sum
Page 67 and 68:
educational goals and the various r
Page 69 and 70:
A new computerized Records Manageme
Page 71 and 72:
eflected in artifacts and other str
Page 73 and 74:
any distributed community include b
Page 75 and 76: message in order to obtain a respon
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Social network after intr
Page 79 and 80: increased face-to-face collaboratio
Page 81 and 82: References Bogenrieder, I. (2002).
Page 83 and 84: Donoghue, S. L. (2006). Institution
Page 85 and 86: contemplate part-time, rather than
Page 87 and 88: espective institutions. The primary
Page 89 and 90: greater flexibility in course selec
Page 91 and 92: Cost-benefit One distinct benefit o
Page 93 and 94: Resources The development of online
Page 95 and 96: courses where it is has little pote
Page 97 and 98: A fellowship programme, such as the
Page 99 and 100: Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. I
Page 101 and 102: Software reuse has two dimensions,
Page 103 and 104: Courseware development process mode
Page 105 and 106: Didactics analysis This phase consi
Page 107 and 108: Process didactics design We focus o
Page 109 and 110: The repository is organized into co
Page 111 and 112: the analysis and the design phase o
Page 113 and 114: Figure 12. Weaving content and dida
Page 115 and 116: complete user-specific (author, ins
Page 117 and 118: References ADL (Advanced Distribute
Page 119 and 120: Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D.
Page 121 and 122: (see Figure 2). The incorporation o
Page 123 and 124: Figure 4: Example of Summary Image
Page 125: The competitive nature of design cl
Page 129 and 130: materials built into the system. Th
Page 131 and 132: This theory of multimedia learning
Page 133 and 134: E-Tutor (with video). Two weeks aft
Page 135 and 136: empirically tested in TML environme
Page 137 and 138: Rieber, L. P., (1990). Animation in
Page 139 and 140: Appendix B The following 44 items r
Page 141 and 142: Appendix C A Sample of Exam Questio
Page 143 and 144: Appendix D Perceived Usefulness Que
Page 145 and 146: Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) have a
Page 147 and 148: 2001). The system thus aims to assi
Page 149 and 150: a strong agreement between the two
Page 151 and 152: of the dynasty. 3. Information on
Page 153 and 154: Comparing works designed using the
Page 155 and 156: Tselios, N., Stoica, A., Maragoudak
Page 157 and 158: strategies during their interaction
Page 159 and 160: P(B|D) is the probability of a netw
Page 161 and 162: Online help adaptation using Bayesi
Page 163 and 164: AUSM that will return the most prob
Page 165 and 166: direct experimentation with a new s
Page 167 and 168: Figure 7. An example of use of the
Page 169 and 170: Cooper, J. & Herskovits, E. (1992).
Page 171 and 172: Goldberg, A. K., & Riemer, F. J. (2
Page 173 and 174: In addition to convenience, propone
Page 175 and 176: members increased flexibility. They
Page 177 and 178:
Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The c
Page 179 and 180:
The basis of reform in science educ
Page 181 and 182:
technology and are not confident in
Page 183 and 184:
participants that learning as a gro
Page 185 and 186:
A hierarchy of Systems Identifying
Page 187 and 188:
the change agents to recognize the
Page 189 and 190:
Nonis, A. S., & O’Bannon, B. (200
Page 191 and 192:
maintaining the interest levels of
Page 193 and 194:
Focus group interviews with our stu
Page 195 and 196:
course and again at the end of the
Page 197 and 198:
second phase of valuing, commitment
Page 199 and 200:
Kinzie, M. B., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 201 and 202:
Although this work is based on a st
Page 203 and 204:
Website Design The MTP website (www
Page 205 and 206:
Researchers, for review and coding
Page 207 and 208:
quality that are the focus of the M
Page 209 and 210:
Kelley, M. A., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 211 and 212:
or underserved populations. For exa
Page 213 and 214:
2004 Baruch College Computer Center
Page 215 and 216:
professional-level tools and resour
Page 217 and 218:
Third, with the exception of the Om
Page 219 and 220:
Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E.
Page 221 and 222:
The AccessForAll strategy complemen
Page 223 and 224:
of people with special needs, or di
Page 225 and 226:
(including where their search for r
Page 227 and 228:
international standard. The ISO pro
Page 229 and 230:
information will be expressed using
Page 231 and 232:
DC Metadata Terms: http://dublincor
Page 233 and 234:
Choquet, C., & Corbière, A. (2006)
Page 235 and 236:
TEL Standards, Specifications and P
Page 237 and 238:
The Resources Management Process ma
Page 239 and 240:
Step 1: Instantiation of the enterp
Page 241 and 242:
Step 5: Instantiation of the techno
Page 243 and 244:
correlation of the different viewpo
Page 245 and 246:
Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tatters
Page 247 and 248:
Karagiannidis, C. (2006). Book revi
Page 249 and 250:
Glenn, L. (2006). Book review: Visu
show all

October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?