Conflict of virtual and reality in interior design studio: Assessment of student success rates

Kamil Güley; Nisan Akalın

doi:10.47818/DRArch.2025.v6i1163

Conflict of virtual and reality in interior design studio: Assessment of student success rates

Authors

Kamil Güley Short Bio Eastern Mediterranean University

Kamil Güley holds a PhD in architecture. Since 2014, he has been working in the Department of Interior Architecture at Eastern Mediterranean University. He became an assistant professor that same year. His research areas encompass the use of color on building façades, color psychology, identity, interior atmosphere, and architectural education. He has published nationally and internationally on these topics.
Nisan Akalın Short Bio Eastern Mediterranean University

Nisan Akalın completed her foundation degree at the University for the Creative Arts in Art & Design and her undergraduate education at London Metropolitan University in Furniture and Product Design. Following, she proceeded with her master's studies in Interior Design, followed by Ph.D. in Architecture, and is working as a Senior Instructor in the Department of Interior Architecture at EMU.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2025.v6i1163

Keywords:

face-to-face education, online education, design studio courses, student success, Pandemics

Abstract

This study evaluates the relative efficiency of interior architecture education programs delivered through face-to-face education (FFE) compared to online education (OE), from the perspectives of both students and educators. The quality of learning, as perceived by educators, was assessed through the analysis of semester grades assigned after each academic term. Conversely, the student perspective was gathered via a structured questionnaire. This research addresses a notable gap in existing literature regarding student success by incorporating the educators' viewpoints into the analysis with a comparative analysis examining student success rates between FFE and OE. This investigation, from the student perspective, found the FFE model to be a more effective educational approach compared to the OE model. The disparity between the instructors' perspectives was not significant. Nevertheless, valuable insights were obtained from educators utilizing the OE model, especially regarding their experiences during the pandemic. These insights could inform future research on hybrid educational models. As a result, this study advocates for the implementation of a hybrid educational model as a progressive direction for interior architecture education.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Afacan, Y. (2016). Exploring the effectiveness of blended learning in interior design education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(5), 508-518.
Ahmad, L., Sosa, M., & Musfy, K. (2020). Interior design teaching methodology during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Interiority, 3(2), 163-184.
Bhattacharjee, S. (2019). Using a hybrid pedagogical method in undergraduate interior design education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 93-109.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
Crowther, P., & Briant, S. (2020). Predicting academic success: A longitudinal study of university design students. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(4), 1-15.
Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Hybrid online education: Identifying integration models using adventure learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 23-41.
Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design education: Meta-connective pedagogy. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(3). 483-497.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to study and perceptions of university teaching – learning environments: Consepts, measures and preliminary findings. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project, Occasional Report. 1-21.
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between online and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53-64.
Gul, G. G. C., & Afacan, Y. (2018). Analyzing the effects of critique techniques on the success of interior architecture students. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 37(3), 469-479.
Gümüş, S. (2007). Çevrimiçi işbirliği ekiplerinde öğrenenlerin sorun çözerek öğrenmeyle ilgili tutum ve görüşleri (Master). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Uzaktan Eğitim ABD.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.
Ioannou, O. (2017). Design studio education in the online paradigm: Introducing online education tools and practices to an undergraduate design studio course. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, 1871–75.
Iranmanesh, A., & Onur, Z. (2021). Mandatory virtual design studio for all: Exploring the transformations of architectural education amidst the global pandemic. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(4).
Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2020). Together but apart: Creating and supporting online learning communities in an era of distributed studio education. The International Journal of Art and Education, 39(4). 826-840.
McConnell, M., & Waxman, L. (1999). Three-dimensional CAD use in interior design education and practice. Journal of Interior Design, 25(1), 16–25.
McCormack, C., & Jones, D. (1998). Building a web-based education system. New York:Wiley Computer Publishing.
McLain-Kark, J. (2000). A strategic story of using computer technology: The EPA project by HOK. Journal of Interior Design, 26(2), 25–40.
Oblinger, D., G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8(1), 1-18. Doi:10.5334/2004-8-oblinger
Oktay, H. E., Mutlu, H., Unvan M., Kavas K. R., & Bakır İ. (2021). Mimarlık eğitiminde sanal eğitim denemeleri ve değerlendirme süreci. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 25, 311-324. doi: 10.14689/enad.25.13
Pektaş, Ş. T. (2015). The virtual design studio on the cloud: A blended and distributed approach for technology‐mediated design education. Architectural Science Review, 58(3), 255–65.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. MCB University Press, 9(5).1-6.
Richardson, E., T., J. (1994). A British evaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 59-68.
Salama, A. M., & Wilkinson, N. (2007). Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future. Gateshead, UK: The Urban International Press.
Valadares, K., Slavkin, M., & Reasons, G, S. (2005). Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 9(1). Doi:10.24059/olj.v9i1.1804
Zuo, Q., & MaloneBeach, E. E. (2010). A comparison of learning experience, workload, and outcomes in interior design education using a hand or hybrid approach. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(1), 90-106.

Downloads

PDF

75

47

Published

2025-04-30

How to Cite

Güley, K., & Akalın, N. (2025). Conflict of virtual and reality in interior design studio: Assessment of student success rates. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 6(1), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2025.v6i1163