Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: One of the essential skills architecture students need to succeed in their careers is the ability to collaborate and work in teams cooperatively. However, this skill is often neglected in the education system of architecture schools. As a result, after graduation, students realize that design is not an individual task and that they need to collaborate with others to move forward. Successful cooperation in architectural design requires teaching social and teamwork skills in design courses. Therefore, design education needs a shift towards a more collaborative approach. In this study, students first design individually using the traditional method, and then a collaborative design and teamwork model is introduced in workshops. Finally, these two methods are compared from the perspectives of both professors and students, and the key components of the collaborative education model are identified. The aim of this article is to describe the implementation and evaluation of the collaborative education model in architectural design courses.
Methods: This study evaluates the nature, outcomes, and effectiveness of the collaborative teaching method in architectural design courses. To achieve this, the study focuses on students in the Architectural Design Studio III at Azad University of Ardabil during the second semester of 2018. Two different teaching methods were tested: one is the traditional method of teaching architectural design, and the other is the collaborative teaching method. Two student groups were formed: one group participated in a ten-day course on the principles of participation, while the other group did not. The students in both groups were randomly selected. The results of these two experiences were then compared. Based on Linda Groth’s seven general strategies for research methods, the “causal-comparative” strategy was identified as the most appropriate research method for this study. Data collection was carried out by grouping students, working on a design topic, and conducting group evaluations. Tools such as “task scheduling,” “feedback essays,” and “peer evaluation” were used. The outcomes of the collaborative learning experience were assessed through questionnaires completed by students and professors. In the analysis phase, the responses were evaluated using an inductive approach.
Findings: The effectiveness of the collaborative design learning method was evaluated from both the students’ and refereeing professors’ perspectives. The results of the initial questionnaire (before implementing the collaborative learning method) revealed that students recognized the benefits of design teamwork but also perceived some weaknesses, which they identified as the main reason for decreased productivity in design teamwork. After implementing the collaborative method for both groups (the first group participated in the ten-day training course, and the second group did not), the results of the second student questionnaire showed that, with the proper implementation of this method in the architectural design workshop, the disadvantages of the method were minimized, and its benefits became more apparent. Additionally, the groups that participated in the ten-day training workshop performed better, had more positive evaluations of the method’s effectiveness, and encountered fewer challenges during the semester. The evaluations from the professors who judged the method were consistent with the students’ views. They rated the results of the group work as better and confirmed the improvement in students’ social and communication skills. They also positively evaluated the ten-day training course and their participation as effective ways to introduce students to the principles of collaboration and believed that the way students cooperated with their peers, responded to group work challenges, and presented their final results was better in the group that participated in the course compared to the other group.
Conclusion: The findings of the study indicate that the collaborative teaching method enhanced students’ interaction and participation in the design process, improved their learning capacity, and boosted their motivation, communication, and social skills. This method also prepared them to face future challenges in the architectural profession. By integrating the different perspectives, interests, and personalities of group members, it offers a more comprehensive view of various aspects of design work. Students are also challenged to divide tasks, schedule the project, coordinate among members, and prepare for working on large projects in the profession. The various critiques of the design work during the process provide a deeper understanding of the design itself, helping students share their knowledge and increase their learning capacity through collaborative learning strategies.