Technology-Enhanced Learning in Light of Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Student-Experience Study of the History of Architecture Course

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether and how the use of video-based learning resources by architecture students contributes to the development of high-order cognitive abilities in light of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, as well as how satisfied these students are with this integration into their coursework. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants who completed a two-phase questionnaire (n = 52) and focus-group interviews (n = 16). This study provided empirical evidence of the advantages of this integration in establishing a student-centered atmosphere, and as a cost-effective, accessible, and sustainable strategy for enhancing blended learning in the field of architectural history. Nonetheless, the examination of the narratives suggests that this strategy primarily nurtures low-order cognitive abilities. To maximize the potential of this pedagogical strategy to improve student learning outcomes, educators must develop curricula that nurture high-order thinking using Bloom’s taxonomy taking into consideration the characteristics of each discipline. Learning activities should go beyond memorization and recall of facts, allowing students to apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate their knowledge, as well as consider concepts from multiple perspectives.

1. Introduction

Since the pandemic, substantial changes have occurred in higher education. Universities requested that all students and lecturers utilize a range of online communication channels to ensure the continuity of the educational process. This has generated substantial challenges for the higher education sector. After the pandemic, however, a blended mode of learning was adopted to provide students with an engaging learning experience, and there was a shift toward asynchronous learning, in which instructors provide resources for students to learn outside the traditional classroom. Blended learning is, in the simplest terms, the integration of online learning activities with face-to-face, classroom-based instruction. This concept of integrating synchronous (face-to-face) and asynchronous (online) learning activities is pedagogically beneficial [1]. Students can take more responsibility in their education and benefit from greater personalization of the learning process through the use of a variety of asynchronous activities.

The primary objectives of this adoption were to preserve the continuity of the educational process and to address issues that students encountered when learning online, such as a lack of motivation or a feeling of isolation brought on by the physical absence of peers, etc. Fundamentally, blended learning requires rethinking and altering the relationship between teaching and learning through a rigorous evaluation of the design and delivery of learning materials in many forms to maximize student engagement [1]. Using blended learning techniques as opposed to traditional one-way, passive teaching methods has also resulted in a shift in perspectives and applications of video-based education in the field of architecture.

The current generation of youth is well-equipped with digital media; thus, efforts are being made to integrate as many digital media as are practically possible into the existing instructional and pedagogical practices. While free video repositories, such as YouTube, have become increasingly popular among architecture students as a primary resource for learning and expanding architectural knowledge, they lack consistent quality; therefore, researchers must investigate the influence of video-based learning materials on the development of more meaningful learning experiences.

Along with this shift toward the integration of technology in learning, there is an increasing emphasis on sustainable education. This strongly corresponds with Sustainable Development Goal 4 of the United Nations, which is to “Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning”. Lifelong learning has been identified as critical to achieving sustainable education, which prioritizes meaningful communication and information exchange between students and faculty in higher education and fosters a student-centered paradigm in which professors serve as facilitators rather than specialists [2,3]. In order to do this, students must engage in critical reflection and self-awareness, which in turn improves their capacity to learn [4] and develops high-level cognitive abilities.

1.1. The Role of Technology-Enhanced Learning in Sustainable Education

As it has the potential to transform the way we teach, technology-enhanced learning is quickly gaining popularity as a method of providing sustainable education [5]. The term “technology-enhanced learning” may apply to a variety of software, tools, and technologies designed to accommodate the varied learning styles of students and to promote lifelong learning and student engagement. Technology-enhanced learning stimulates creativity, provides learners with a sense of achievement, and encourages them to think beyond conventional methods [6]. In this regard, the use of information technology in learning, specifically video-based materials, is recognized as having a promising future, especially now that the Internet has dominated the space for information exchange, particularly among young people [7]. Internet and social media platforms’ capacity to store and manage vast amounts of information in multiple formats provides learners with additional learning resources and materials. This is referred to as “pedagogy 2.0” by McLoughlin and Lee [8], which provides learners with more chances for engagement, personalization, and productivity. As a result, the majority of available knowledge is not only readily accessible to students, but also edited and shared in an open and collaborative manner.

Therefore, one could claim that modern technologies such as the Internet and social media platforms generate a paradigm change in education from “learning from the instructor to learning from the world”. Additionally, it enables students to enhance their own learning through collaboration and co-construction of knowledge [2].

Technology-enhanced learning is not only about finding the right combination of technologies or widening access to learning, although a secondary result may be increased efficiency and convenience for both students and instructors. Technology-enhanced learning is first about pedagogy and learning culture, and then about choosing appropriate tools. Integration of technology into education is dependent on and a reflection of the uniqueness of each discipline and necessitates precise philosophical and pedagogical grounds; otherwise, it may represent inaccurate or inconsistent knowledge [9].

In a recent study that set out to determine the role of digital technologies in education, Haleem et al. [6] argue that video-based learning materials enable students to engage with a wide variety of freely accessible learning materials, thereby contributing to the development of a self-learning environment. Jenkins and Walsh [10] found that senior students of nursing benefited from repeated exposure to a video designed to foster critical reflection on their roles as patients and that this led to enhanced problem-solving skills. Other studies also suggest that educators, for example, are more hesitant and less inclined than students to utilize social media for teaching and view it as disruptive technology that does not support student learning [11,12,13,14,15]. These studies also suggest that some academics have not embraced the chance to employ pedagogy 2.0 technology to enhance their pedagogy, material delivery, and evaluation.

A 2019 UNESCO report [16] titled “Exploring the Potential of Digital Technology in Achieving Quality Education” emphasized that institutions must address learner motivation, interest, and persistence in order to integrate technology in learning. However, emerging research reveals contradictory results regarding the integration of video-based Internet resources into the educational process. These studies also pose challenges and questions as to how educators can effectively utilize these resources while balancing the benefits that they offer and their potentially negative impacts.

Researchers [17,18,19,20] have discovered that the adoption of video-based materials in higher education is still governed more by the beliefs and personal experiences of instructors than by actual evidence-based strategies. This may result in an educational system that is not fully optimized or taking advantage of the full capabilities of technology. Purvis et al. [21] supported this view in a recent study by discussing academics’ opinions and concerns about increasing use of multiple/social media in higher education. The study found that integrating social media is challenging and unpredictable, and that it is not necessarily pedagogically driven or coordinated between institutions [22,23].

Recent efforts to integrate multi-participatory techniques and active learning into the history of architecture courses have piqued the interest of a number of academics [24,25,26,27,28]. These studies focused on the use of IT technologies and programs inside and outside of the classroom to improve architecture students’ learning outcomes. All participants in a study on the pedagogy of the history of architecture [25] agreed that documentaries and videos play a vital role in enhancing students’ understanding and stimulating their interest in the subject. When students realize a building’s actual scale and dimensions and examine it in relation to light and shadow, texture, color, and many other factors, their scope of comprehension is broadened. While these and other studies provide important insights about video-based materials, none of them focus on learners’ perception and satisfaction.

Moreover, the usage of video-based materials in education has presented certain difficulties [29]. First, integration of video-based materials into learning necessitates a key skill on the part of its users to select educationally relevant content, as the sites may contain both valuable and useless content. Therefore, students will need to critically evaluate the content’s credibility, veracity, and contribution to their learning objectives. Secondly, the accessibility of websites that provide video material, such as YouTube, may be considered an issue. There are institutions that prohibit access to YouTube, primarily owing to the inappropriate nature of some of its content. Third, it is possible that the same content cannot be located at a later date because it has been removed by its uploaders. Therefore, institutional efforts should be made to improve the breadth and depth of architectural educational video content. Priority should be placed on assessing and evaluating the effects of this integration on the learning process. Important baselines include student satisfaction, engagement, and exhibiting higher-order thinking (e.g., critical and reflective thinking). To measure these baselines, educational institutions usually use methods such as surveys and questionnaires to assess student satisfaction and engagement, as well as prominent educational frameworks such as Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate high-order thinking in their students and determine the level of each learner.

1.2. Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy in Higher Education

Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy, developed in 1956, is the most widely recognized taxonomy for education; it classifies learning into six stages: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

The six levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were transformed from nouns to verbs in the RBT, or revised Bloom’s taxonomy, created by Anderson and Krathwohl in 2001, and it is widely used in higher education for teaching, learning, and assessing [30]. The revised version features the verbs of remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create [2]. Learning in Bloom’s taxonomy is organized in a hierarchy, from the most basic level (remembering) to the most complex level (creating). See Figure 1 below.

The revised Bloom’s taxonomy serves as a method for measuring learning by correlating particular verbs and actions with a two-dimensional organization (high-order thinking and low-order thinking). Educators can use the list of measurable action verbs that corresponds to each of Bloom’s six levels of learning as they design teaching materials and assess student progress. Thus, instructors can use Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate their students’ development and identify the specific level at which each student is operating.

High-order thinking is associated with problem-solving abilities, creative and critical thinking, and, more recently, the use of technology in the classroom, all of which are thought to improve lifelong learning [31]. Departments of architecture are becoming more aware of the significance of sustainable education and the necessity for architecture students to employ higher-order thinking abilities. High-level thinkers are better suited to deal with the workplace, are able to think clearly and autonomously, can effectively manage their own lives, and can make substantial contributions to society.

Therefore, in light of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, the purpose of this study is to determine if and how architecture students’ exposure to video-based learning resources contributes to the development of high-level learning, as well as their satisfaction with this integration.

2. Materials and Methods

This research is conducted over the span of a whole semester (15 weeks) and the course is structured differently than standard architecture history courses. The majority of architectural history classes are lecture-based, which means that lecturers are often always actively presenting while students listen and take notes [32,33,34]. The first lecture of this course began with an overview of the intended learning outcomes and instructional strategies. Khan Academy, the National Geographic Channel, and the websites of a variety of museums including the British Museum, Louver, etc. provided video-based materials. These videos were uploaded to the learning system (portal) and played for around 10 to 15 min throughout each lecture. The remaining thirty to forty minutes were allocated to tasks at the high and low levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. These activities included discussions and explanations utilizing various representational techniques, such as PowerPoint presentations, and group work that promoted peer-to-peer learning through drawings, model-making activities, and group sheetworks. The instructor uploaded more resources to the learning platform so that students could watch more videos at their own pace.

According to Connell [35], qualitative methods can examine a phenomenon through the eyes of those who experience, discover, and describe it, whereas quantitative methods permit rigorous hypothesis testing and the study of cause-and-effect interactions between variables [36]. A methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches can increase the validity and reliability of conclusions by offering reciprocal confirmation of findings [37], in addition to giving a wealth of information and a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed to analyze the research question.

Convenience sampling was utilized to recruit the participants. Researchers approached students enrolled in a course on the history of architecture, briefed them on the topic of the study, and asked for volunteers to complete a questionnaire and provide contact information if they were interested in participating in a focus-group interview. The following Table summarizes the phases and sample sizes of the study.

Table 1. Phases and sample sizes of the study.

	Survey 1	Survey 2	Both Surveys (Paired)	Focus Group
Time of completion	Enrollment week 1	End of the course week 15	Weeks 1 and 15	End of the course week 15
Sample size	52	35	31	16

provides a summary of the methodology’s phases and sample sizes.

2.1. Quantitative Approach—Questionnaire

Two groups comprised the quantitative study’s sample. The first group was comprised of 52 students who completed the questionnaire when they enrolled in the history of architecture course (week 1), while the second group was comprised of 35 students who completed the questionnaire after the course was completed (week 15). As both surveys were voluntary and anonymous, students were asked at the end of each questionnaire if they would like to provide their university identification number. Thus, a new sample of 31 students who had completed both questionnaires could be identified.

Students were asked to rate the questionnaire statements on a five-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree” (1 point) to “strongly agree” (5 points). For analysis, the statements are formulated and weighted such that a higher value corresponds to more positive attitude toward video-based materials and overall learning experience. This kind of response collection enables researchers to evaluate students’ experiences and satisfaction with video-based materials, providing an indication of the strategy’s capacity to engage students. Descriptive statistics were produced using SPSS and utilized to measure the students’ responses.

2.2. Qualitative Approach—The Focus Group

To validate the outcomes of the quantitative study, qualitative data were triangulated by conducting a focus-group study with 16 students to acquire a deeper understanding of the students’ perspectives, specifically about their experience using video-based learning resources outside the class time. With the permission of the participants, each interview was audio recorded. All participants who took part in the study provided informed consent, and with their permission, each interview was audio recorded.

The interviews were loosely focused on a set of questions to ensure a clear impression of the students’ evolving conceptions of the use of videos and multiple modes of teaching on their learning experiences. Notes were also taken during the interviews, allowing for more effective summaries of the interviews after transcription.

During the focus group, the narratives of students’ learning activities were assessed in line with Bloom’s taxonomy guide of action verbs, and correlated with examples of its objective verbs.

3. Results: The Transformative Potentials of Video-Based Materials

3.1. Students’ Satisfaction and Engagement

Overall, the data gained from the questionnaire indicate a significant change in students’ perception of the integration of video-based material into their learning. As seen in Figure 2, students expressed positive attitudes on the use of video-based learning materials for blended learning in the history course, as indicated by their increasing satisfaction rates with the majority of questionnaire items.

Figure 2 illustrates that, with the exception of item 6, a positive shift occurred for all items, demonstrating that students grew more receptive to new approaches when completing learning activities and valued various learning experiences that incorporated video-based resources. This finding is consistent with previous research that identified video-based resources as effective tools to motivate student learning [10,19,29].

As shown in Figure 3, the satisfaction rates of questionnaire 2 at week 15 were in general higher than those of questionnaire 1 items at week 1.

Over 61% of students considered video-based materials to be a beneficial learning tool in the history of architecture course at the beginning of the semester (item 2), and yet this percentage increased considerably to 81% by the end of the semester. At the end of the semester, a significant proportion of students (74%) believed they had gained more knowledge and enhanced their learning as a result of using video learning resources (item 3).

In addition, a positive attitude toward learning behaviors was evident in the responses of the students, with over two-thirds of the participants reporting that they were using more video-based resources and sharing them with others (item 4). During the interview, it was evident that students collaborate and enjoy sharing knowledge. One student commented: “When I view a video and recognize a vital piece of information, I share it to my friends… it’s became a habit for me”.

Numerous students rely on websites that provide video materials, such as YouTube, to overcome academic challenges and obtain answers to any problems they may have. The extensive use of these websites by students, their familiarity with them, and the effectiveness of videos for learning necessitate the use of appropriate technology for teaching and a reconsideration of instructional methodologies.

New technologies and channels can be included into the education system as a supplement, thereby minimizing the inadequacies of current methods and boosting teaching and learning. Students recognized the utility of video-based resources for learning, and the majority (68%) would seek out further video-based resources and recommend their usage in other courses of the degree (item 5). One student perceived video-based materials as a chance to discover one’s own abilities and interests by saying: “I watched more videos to learn more about the historical context of each civilization, its architectural language, culture, etc. They were long, but they were intriguing and inspiring”.

The focus group supported this percentage and revealed that it is possible to have an enjoyable experience with a technology-enhanced approach, and many students appreciate the time saving and increased accessibility of the video materials compared to traditional learning techniques. One student commented: “Watching a video with narration makes it easier to recall the structure and any important details than reading a text… It somehow helps you save time”.

However, students’ satisfaction with this integration did not prevent them from relying on other learning resources, particularly text-based resources. When asked about their first choice of learning resources to learn a new concept (item 6), the percentage of students who preferred video-based materials decreased from 61% to 55%, while their reliance on video-based materials to gain additional knowledge to complete an assignment or presentation increased (item 7). Students during the interview brought up the point that, despite their availability, video-based materials are not always the primary learning tool. One student commented: “The video is a secondary learning tool, not the primary tool”.

Evidently, traditional face-to-face instruction alone is insufficient in the field of architectural history; thus, it should be supplemented with a digital, visually rich, interactive learning tool. One student explained this by saying: “I believe that videos are an excellent source of visual feed for architecture students”. On the other hand, Harrington and Lofredo [38] emphasized the social emotional outcomes of face-to-face learning for students. Similarly, the study conducted by Paechter and Maier [39] found that students preferred face-to-face contact when the instructor serves to build up knowledge. One student expressed similar sentiments by saying: “Videos are really helpful for learning, but we like to have a discussion with the instructor while watching because it keeps us more engaged”. In other words, when instructors used video resources to explain and steer students to a topic that was not explicitly stated in their textbooks, students claimed that they were more attentive during those portions of the video.

3.2. Students’ Cognitive Abilities

The analysis of the focus group examined the students’ learning activities in accordance with Bloom’s taxonomy in order to expand upon the previous findings, which mostly concerned the students’ satisfaction with the usage of video-based learning resources in their course. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy evaluates learning by associating verbs and actions to a two-dimensional organization (high-order thinking and low-order thinking).

The narratives of students were examined to determine whether this integration led to an improvement in their high-order cognitive abilities or whether it was limited to low-order cognitive abilities. Students’ ability to exhibit high levels of cognitive complexity can be seen as an indicator of their learning responsibility and autonomy.

The list of quantifiable action verbs for each of Bloom’s six levels of learning was utilized to assess students’ development and determine the extent to which they benefited from the integration of video materials into their classroom. The narratives of students were analyzed using manual coding by searching for those action verbs, and

Table 2. Examples of the use of video-based material to support low and high-order thinking learning activities.

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy		Action Verbs	Examples of Learning Activities Supported by Video Materials (Quotes from Students)
Low-Order Thinking	Remember Can video resources help students in recalling a specific historical and architectural information?	Recognize, Find, Locate, Name, Retrieve, Identify, Describe, List, Define, Duplicate, Recall, Repeat, State.	“I answered a question on the exam based on a video I saw once…When you watch a video, it’s easier to remember what you’ve learned”.
	Understand Can video resources help in understanding and explaining given architectural ideas and concepts?	Interpret, Exemplify, Summarize, Infer, Paraphrase, Explain, Compare, Classify, Discuss, Report, Paraphrase.	“When you watch videos, you subconsciously compare the various architectural styles we learn about... and even relate to the contemporary buildings around us”.
	Apply Can video resources help students in using architectural elements, principles, and ideas in a new situation?	Execute, Use, Carryout, Implement, Choose, Demonstrate, Employ, Illustrate, Operate, Schedule, Sketch, Solve.	“I used the idea of clerestory windows, which I learned about in history class, in my design project. The video we watched helped me implement my idea into a product”.
High-Order Thinking	Analyze Can video resources help students in distinguishing and breaking architectural knowledge into components and elements to explore their relationships with the context?	Compare, Organize, Deconstruct, Attribute, Outline, Structure, Integrate, Differentiate, Discriminate, Distinguish, Examine, Question.	“Videos are much better than photos. Videos and walkthroughs let you feel the material, understand the scale and topography, and accordingly the relationship with the context… This will help you think about buildings in a more critical way”.
	Evaluate Can video resources help students in developing and applying analytical thinking to judge and value architectural concepts, materials, methods of construction, etc.?	Monitor, Detect, Test, Judge, Experiment, Critique, Hypothesize, Check, Argue, Defend, Select, Value, Evaluate.	_____
	Create Can video resources help students in putting together historical architectural concepts and elements to create a new concept through creative thinking?	Make, Devise, Invent, Produce, Plan, Construct, Design, Assemble, create, develop, Formulate, Write.	“Videos inspire my creativity; for example, reading books doesn’t give me ideas as often as watching videos”.

demonstrates examples of how video-based learning resources were used to increase learning activities requiring low- to high-order cognitive abilities.

This study demonstrates how the use of video-based materials can shift students from passive to active participants. The examination of narratives suggests, however, that students use video-based materials to support relatively low-order thinking (e.g., recalling information for the exam). Despite the presence of some high-order learning activities, their frequency was lower than that of low-order learning activities.

4. Discussion

Blended learning, and in particular the use of video-based learning aids, has been the subject of a large amount of research, and many of these studies have proposed methods for adopting it in architectural education. Although prior studies have examined technology-enhanced learning in architecture in considerable detail, no studies have looked at whether or not this approach has any effect on students’ ability to acquire high-level cognitive skills. In addition, while prior studies have provided vital insights on video-based resources, none of them have focused on the perception and satisfaction of learners.

Therefore, the main aims of this study were to (1) assess the extent to which history of architecture students are satisfied with the integration of video-based learning resources into their coursework; and (2) ascertain whether or not the use of video-based learning resources by students contributes to the development of high-level learning in light of Bloom’s revised taxonomy.

This study presented empirical evidence that the introduction of video-based materials into the history of architecture courses was highly valued by students, motivated them, and provided various benefits as a cost-effective, efficient, scalable, and sustainable learning technique. Combining visual and audio data simultaneously helps the perception and acquisition of architectural and design knowledge in a variety of ways.

First, the simple act of watching video footage of both historical and contemporary architecture is a crucial learning activity for expanding students’ visual library.

Second, listening to and viewing video footage of both historical and contemporary architecture are crucial learning activities for acquiring a greater understanding of past and present design practices. Architectural documentaries, for example, enhance students’ comprehension of the circumstances and context that shaped architectural styles and trends by providing countless worldwide examples.

Third, students can also take the opportunity to watch tutorials on different architectural software to gain knowledge related to digital skills free of charge and in their spare time. Fourth, the fact that international architectural seminars and lectures are recorded and made available online for students to watch at their own pace is an additional advantage.

Such benefits promote the development of design abilities and stylistic awareness, which can subsequently be represented in the architectural thinking of students and serve as the basis for more genuine and context-sensitive design solutions. This finding also supports previous research in the domain of architecture [24,25,26,27,28] even though they did not address students’ experiences in their evaluation of the benefits of video-integration in education.

The integration of video-based materials can also increase critical thinking skills because students continue to learn both inside and outside of the classroom. The widespread availability of videos and the importance of architecture education to expose students to different formal languages in design were considered as important motivators for their use, but this does not negate the limitations and challenges associated with this integration.

Despite the fact that evidence of high-order learning activities was found as a result of this integration, they were significantly less prevalent than low-order learning activities. This integration primarily improves low-order cognitive abilities, such as memorization and recall. Video-based learning is therefore a useful approach to interact with students, whether for educational content, administrative information, or personalized feedback, due to the fact that it improves learners’ attentiveness and retention of knowledge. A combination of audio, text, and images expedites the delivery of information, which allows for more content and conversation in a shorter amount of time.

Therefore, video-based content should be utilized with careful pedagogical design to support and implement learning activities that demand high-order thinking skills (e.g., developing and using analytical thinking to evaluate historical architectural concepts, materials, and methods). Given that instructors and students possess distinct skill sets, collaborative teaching and learning are recommended [40]. This strategy stresses the acquisition and transmission of knowledge, and gradually blurs the lines between instructors as creators of knowledge and students as recipients of knowledge [41], thus establishing a learner-centered atmosphere. We suggest that institutions provide a clear statement on the university community’s support and expectations for the use of technology in a variety of ways, taking into account the specifics of each discipline, in order to build a strategy for the optimal administration of group and peer learning using internet video resources.

5. Limitation and Future Studies

It is essential to keep in mind that the study is based on a small sample size; hence, our findings cannot be generalized to all courses. However, they can be interpreted as an indication of how a specific learning technique might provide a variety of learning experiences for students and to what extent it may achieve the anticipated learning outcomes. Further research could include a larger sample size focusing on the effects of participating in different learning/teaching approaches on student academic performance, attitudes toward blended learning, and metacognitive awareness.