Abstract :

Architectural education has long placed a strong emphasis on the studio, which serves as a crucial place for teaching and learning. The architecture studio is a dynamic and lively place where students can engage in design discussions, exchange ideas, and receive feedback from instructors and peers. Despite recognising the vital role architecture studios play in shaping the learning experience of architecture students, limited research has explored which specific attributes of the studio environment are most important to students. This research aims to address this gap by determining the priorities of architecture students regarding key studio attributes. The research employs a quantitative approach using the Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) model and a questionnaire survey. A pilot study was conducted with undergraduate architecture students. The results reveal the ranking and relative importance of key studio attributes, organised into five categories: Physiological Facilities, Information and Communications Technology, Indoor Environment Quality, Territoriality, Furniture, and Reference. This research provides a valuable reference for designing student-centred studio environments and demonstrates the viability of using the BWS method to determine students’ priorities for studio attributes.

---

Keywords :

Architecture Education, Best-Worst Scaling, Studio, Studio Attributes, Studio Environment.

---

References :

1. Huang, R.C.-F., An exploration of an open-plan design studio: A conceptual model of the physical and social-psychological environment. 1998, University of Guelph: Canada.
2. Lueth, P.L.O., The architectural design studio as a learning environment: A qualitative exploration of architecture design student learning experiences in design studios from first- through fourth-year. 2008, Iowa State University: United States. p. 238-n/a.
3. Wong, C.S. and M.B.M. Jusan, Application of means-end chain research model to explore attributes of architecture studio. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 2017. 12(4): p. 498-508.
4. Brandt, C.B., et al., A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2013. 23(2): p. 329-348.
5. Demirbas, O.O. and H. Demirkan, Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2000. 20(1): p. 53-64.
6. Demirbas, O.O., Design studio as a life space in architectural education: Privacy requirements. 1997, Bilkent University: Ankara.
7. Stamps, A.E., Jungian epistemological balance: A framework for conceptualizing architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 1994. 48: p. 105-112.
8. Shaffer, D., Understanding design learning: The design studio as a model for education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 2002.
9. Schön, D.A., The design studio. 1985, London: RIBA Publication Ltd.
10. Obeidat, A. and R. Al-Share, Quality learning environments: Design-studio classroom. Asian Culture and History, 2012. 4(2): p. 165-174.
11. Marchand, G.C., et al., The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2014. 40: p. 187-197.
12. Che-Ani, A.I., et al., The architecture studio of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM): Has the indoor environmental quality standard been achieved? Asian Social Science, 2012. 8(16): p. 174-183.
13. Musa, A.R., et al., Indoor environmental quality for UKM architecture studio: An analysis on lighting performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 60: p. 318-324.
14. Musa, A.R., et al., Temperature analysis for indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of UKM architecture studio. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 60: p. 575-581.
15. Nasir, A.R.M., et al., Identification of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) parameter in creating conducive learning environment for architecture studio. Procedia Engineering, 2011. 20: p. 354-362.
16. Kamrani, A. and M. Behzadfar, Place semantics based on Lynch, Rapoport and Semiotics viewpoints. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 2016. 5(3 (s)): p. pp. 82-90.
17. Sommer, R., Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. 2008: Bosko Books.
18. Rapoport, A., Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man—Environment approach to urban form and design. 2016: Elsevier Science.
19. Mehrabian, A., Nonverbal communication. 2007: Aldine Transaction.
20. Temple, P., Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of literature. 2007, Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of Education, University of London: London.
21. Louviere, J.J., T.N. Flynn, and A.A.J. Marley, Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. 2015, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
22. Mahbob, N.S., et al., Correlation and regression studies of indoor environmental quality (IEQ), human productivity, comfort and stress level in office buildings. Advanced Science Letters, 2013. 19(1): p. 342-345.
23. Yusoff, W.Z.W. and M.A. Sulaiman, Sustainable campus: Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) performance measurement for Malaysian public universities. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 2014. 3(4): p. 323-338.
24. Fisk, W.J., D. Black, and G. Brunner, Benefits and costs of improved IEQ in US offices. Indoor Air, 2011. 21(5): p. 357-367.
25. DeVaney, S.A., Understanding the millennial generation. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 2015. 69(6): p. 11-14.
26. Schulmeister, R., Deconstructing the net generation thesis. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 2015. 10(1): p. 69-103.
27. Uygarer, R., H. Uzunboylu, and F. Ozdamli, A piece of qualitative study about digital natives. Anthropologist, 2016. 24(2): p. 623-629.
28. Srinivasan, V., D.A. John, and M.N. Christine, Generational cohorts and personal values. Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives, 2014: p. 185-205.
29. Meek, T., Global survey: Today’s millennials are tech-savvy, footloose, confident and practical. Coca-Cola Journey website, October, 2014. 13.
30. Palfrey, J.G. and U. Gasser, Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. 2013: Basic Books.
31. Thompson, P., The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 2013. 65: p. 12-33.
32. Hutchison, E.D., Essentials of human behavior: Integrating person, environment, and the life course. 2016: Sage Publications.
33. Scott-Webber, L., A. Strickland, and L.R. Kapitula, Built environments impact behaviors: Results of an active learning post-occupancy evaluation. Planning for Higher Education, 2013. 42(1): p. 28.
34. Brown, G., C. Crossley, and S.L. Robinson, Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychology, 2014. 67(2): p. 463-485.
35. Thompson, S., The applications of proxemics and territoriality in designing efficient layouts for interior design studios and a prototype design studio. 2013, California State University, Northridge.
36. Datta, Y., Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs: An ecological view. Oxford Journal: An International Journal of Business & Economics, 2014. 8(1).
37. Healy, K., A theory of human motivation by Abraham H. Maslow–Reflection. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2016. 208(4): p. 313-313.