Modeling the Critical Factors Affecting the Success of Online Architectural Education to Enhance Educational Sustainability
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Navigating the Shift: Theoretical Foundations of Online Architectural Education
3. Research Background and the Literature Gap
- (1)
- Previous studies have yet to determine the critical challenge factors of OAE that, quantitatively and qualitatively, hinder its success;
- (2)
- No study highlights the most influential factors.
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Determining Challenges of OAE
4.2. Organizing the Questionnaire
4.3. Administrating the Questionnaire and Data Collection
4.4. Analyzing the Data
5. Findings
5.1. Reliability of the Questionnaire
5.2. Identification of the Critical Challenges
5.3. Determination of Critical Challenge Factors of OAE
- Factor 1: Support, Engagement, and Communication Obstacles in Online Architectural Education (SECO);
- Factor 2: Digital Learning Environment Barriers in Online Architectural Education (DLEB);
- Factor 3: Technological Integration and Accessibility Problems in Online Architectural Education (TIAP).
5.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
5.5. Establishing the Hypothetical Model
5.6. Reliability and Validity Testing
5.7. Evaluation of Structural Model
6. Discussion
6.1. Examining the Criticality of Top Challenges
6.2. Evaluation of Critical Factors
6.2.1. Support, Engagement, and Communication Obstacles in Online Architectural Education (SECO)
6.2.2. Digital Learning Environment Barriers in Online Architectural Education (DLEB)
6.2.3. Technological Integration and Accessibility Problems in Online Architectural Education (TIAP)
7. Conclusions
7.1. Enhancing Minds: Practical Implications for the Future
- Educational authorities should prioritize enhancing students’ interaction and communication with peers and faculty members. This will also reinforce a sense of belonging;
- Enriching peer learning will be beneficial for all students. Therefore, educational institutions should adopt approaches that provide opportunities for socialization, collaborative learning, and group engagement;
- It would also be beneficial to ensure that cameras used in online courses remain activated to promote interaction and emotional connection;
- Educational authorities should facilitate access to assistance from faculty members. Providing direct access opportunities can be crucial for students;
- Online courses and design juries should be simplified for better understanding, utilizing concise and adequate concepts. Additionally, instructors should provide more explicit and precise instructions and expectations for students, enhancing the educational process;
- Making lectures and presentations engaging contributes significantly to the online educational process by increasing students’ interest and attention in the courses;
- Educational institutions should strive to recreate a virtual campus atmosphere online. This can be achieved by reflecting university culture in the virtual environment through digital tools and interactive platforms, which will help reinforce the bond between students and the university;
- Students should have access to appropriate study environments. Additionally, steps can be taken to minimize interruptions during online class sessions. Raising awareness among family members and other stakeholders about this matter is essential;
- Prioritizing technology-oriented education will enhance the success of online education systems in architectural education;
- Given users’ lack of software experience and diversity, opting for more user-friendly applications would be advantageous;
- It would be favorable to provide fast, affordable, secure, and easily accessible Internet service for all education stakeholders;
- Students and instructors should receive technical support and guidance on using technology and tools in online architectural education;
- Students’ time spent awaiting instructor feedback should be minimized, accompanied by increased frequency and volume of feedback. Additionally, students should be encouraged to ask questions and seek assistance when required. Establishing a feedback loop between instructors and students, encompassing a range of topics, can also prove advantageous. Continuous improvement cycles, achieved through ongoing evaluations and enhancements, will enrich the learning experience;
- Licensed software, platforms, and hardware, such as tablets and computers, should be provided;
- Access to mobile devices should be increased and alternative devices should be permitted;
- Students should be provided with adequate time and preparation to familiarize themselves with new software and applications. Encouraging them to gain practical experience in using these tools would be beneficial;
- Offering training sessions for instructors on utilizing technology and online course tools would prove advantageous for online architectural education. Indeed, developing instructors’ ability to integrate technology, their pedagogical content knowledge, and their proficiency in online teaching methods are crucial for the success of online architectural education;
- Providing online access to resources like libraries and archives would greatly benefit students;
- Utilizing digital resources for course materials can be advantageous. Opting for digital copies when selecting resources and materials would be beneficial;
- The proposed conceptual framework, which identifies the CCFs, will assist those implementing online architectural education in achieving success. With these distinctive features, it stands out significantly within its relevant context. To further enhance its success, all education stakeholders should adapt themselves and the curriculum accordingly. This adoption is crucial, particularly considering the disparities between developed and developing countries. By comprehending these differences, educational institutions can craft course materials and training packages suited to the challenges and opportunities encountered in developing nations. Overall, the variations in architectural education between developed and developing countries underscore the necessity for a customized approach that considers the specific contexts, challenges, and priorities of each setting;
- Higher education institutions transitioning to online learning will strategically redesign their curricula, enhancing flexibility and capacity within the broader digitized educational environment. This adaptation will better equip them to navigate the challenges of an increasingly online world. Indeed, educational authorities are increasingly embracing this new approach. Therefore, the implications of this study will extend beyond borders, particularly as institutions worldwide consider the transition to online formats for architectural education.
7.2. Limitations of the Study and Guidelines for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Varma, A.; Jafri, M.S. COVID-19 Responsive Teaching of Undergraduate Architecture Programs in India: Learnings for Post-Pandemic Education. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2021, 15, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Megahed, N.; Hassan, A. A Blended Learning Strategy: Reimagining the Post-COVID-19 Architectural Education. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2022, 16, 184–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abusaada, H.; Elshater, A. COVID-19 Challenge, Information Technologies, and Smart Cities: Considerations for Well-Being. Int. J. Community Well-Being 2020, 3, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akçay Kavakoğlu, A.; Güleç Özer, D.; Domingo-Callabuig, D.; Bilen, Ö. Architectural Design Communication (ADC) in Online Education during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Turkish and Spanish Universities. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 361–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metinal, Y.B.; Gumusburun Ayalp, G. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Architectural Education: Bibliometric and Content Analyses. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 657–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.F.; Attia, A.S.; Bataineh, A.M.; Ali, H.H. Evaluation of the Online Teaching of Architectural Design and Basic Design Courses Case Study: College of Architecture at JUST, Jordan. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 2345–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alnusairat, S.; Al Maani, D.; Al-Jokhadar, A. Architecture Students’ Satisfaction with and Perceptions of Online Design Studios during COVID-19 Lockdown: The Case of Jordan Universities. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2021, 15, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asadpour, A. Student Challenges in Online Architectural Design Courses in Iran during the COVID-19 Pandemic. E-Learn. Digit. Media 2021, 18, 511–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tandon, U.; Mittal, A.; Bhandari, H.; Bansal, K. E-Learning Adoption by Undergraduate Architecture Students: Facilitators and Inhibitors. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 29, 4287–4312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamorro Martin, E.; Chadha, K. Hyper-Connected Hybrid Educational Models for Distributed Learning through Prototyping. In Proceedings of the IX Jornadas sobre Innovación Docente en Arquitectura (JIDA’21), Valladolid, Spain, 11–12 November 2021; pp. 567–578, ISBN 978-84-9880-969-5. [Google Scholar]
- Bhandari, H.; Tandon, U.; Bansal, K.; Mittal, A. Barriers to the Adoption of Technology in Learning and Assessment of Undergraduate Architecture Students. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing and Technologies, 3ICT 2020, Sakhir, Bahrain, 20–21 December 2020; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: New York, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, K.; Newton, C.; Sawang, S. A Learner Perspective on Barriers to E-Learning. Aust. J. Adult Learn. 2013, 53, 211–233. [Google Scholar]
- Muilenburg, L.Y.; Berge, Z.L. Students Barriers to Online Learning: A Factor Analytic Study. Distance Educ. 2005, 26, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milovanović, A.; Kostić, M.; Zorić, A.; Dordević, A.; Pešić, M.; Bugarski, J.; Todorović, D.; Sokolović, N.; Josifovski, A. Transferring COVID-19 Challenges into Learning Potentials: Online Workshops in Architectural Education. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peimani, N.; Kamalipour, H. Online Education and the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Case Study of Online Teaching during Lockdown. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Ceylan, S.; Şahin, P.; Seçmen, S.; Somer, M.E.; Süher, K.H. An Evaluation of Online Architectural Design Studios during COVID-19 Outbreak. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2021, 15, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schön, D. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials(Architecture and the Higher Learning); RIBA London; Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust: London, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmad, L.; Sosa, M.; Musfy, K. Interior Design Teaching Methodology during the Global COVID-19 Pandemic. Interiority 2020, 3, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumusburun Ayalp, G.G.; Erman, O. Learning Styles of Architecture Students and Performance in Construction Management Courses: A Case Study. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2019, 35, 1250–1262. [Google Scholar]
- Peimani, N.; Kamalipour, H. Online Education in the Post COVID-19 Era: Students’ Perception and Learning Experience. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Maani, D.; Alnusairat, S.; Al-Jokhadar, A. Transforming Learning for Architecture: Online Design Studio as the New Norm for Crises Adaptation under COVID-19. Open House Int. 2021, 46, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masdéu, M.; Fuses, J. Reconceptualizing the design studio in architectural education: Distance learning and blended learning as transformation factors. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2017, 11, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eissa, H.; Lee, J.-H. Dynamic Adaptive Web-Based Model for Architectural Design Education (DAAD)-An e-Learning Environment for Architectural Design Course. Artic. Int. J. Archit. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2008, 2, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Crowther, P. Understanding the Signature Pedagogy of the Design Studio and the Opportunities for Its Technological Enhancement. J. Learn. Des. 2013, 6, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mccarthy, S.; Melibeu De Almeida, C. Self-Authored Graphic Design: A Strategy for Integrative Studies. J. Aesthetic Educ. 2002, 36, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahda, M.M. Biomimicry as a Tool to Enhance the Skills of Architecture Students in Understanding Construction Systems. Archit. Res. 2019, 9, 126–142. [Google Scholar]
- Reza Saghafi, M.; Franz, J.; Crowther, P. Perceptions of Physical versus Virtual Design Studio Education. Int. J. Archit. Res. 2012, 6, 6–22. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, A.R.; Thilagam, N.L. The Virtual Design Studio and the Key Integrals. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 316–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakir, R.; Alsaadani, S. A Mixed Methods Study of Architectural Education during the Initial COVID-19 Lockdown: Student Experiences in Design Studio and Technology Courses. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 338–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alatni, B.S.; Abubakar, I.R.; Iqbal, S.A. COVID-19 and Rapid Course Adaptations in Saudi Arabia: An Experiential Learning and Recommendations for Online Education. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 643203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nubani, L.; Lee, E. Sense of Classroom Community in Interior Design Studios: In-Person Learning Versus Online Learning Approaches. J. Inter. Des. 2022, 47, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Travis, S. Onsite/Online: A Case Study Approach Pivots to virtual and Back with New Strategies Learned. Archit. MPS 2022, 22, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, R.; Ostwald, M.J.; Gu, N.; Skates, H.; Feast, S. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Online Teaching in Architecture Courses. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2022, 65, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soccio, P.; Tregloan, K.; Thompson, J. Well-Coordinated: Learner-Focused Coordination Tactics beyond the Pandemergency. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2021, 15, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brzezicki, M. Strengths and Weaknesses of Architectural Education On-Line Classes conducted during COVID-19. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2020, 18, 381–386. [Google Scholar]
- Thorne, M.; Duran, P. The Role That Architecture Can Play in the Development. Available online: https://www.devex.com/news/the-role-that-architecture-can-play-in-the-development-agenda-88124 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
- Donovan, E. Explaining Sustainable Architecture. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Beijing, China, 20 November 2020; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK; Volume 588. [Google Scholar]
- Hendawy, M.; Junaid, M.; Amin, A. Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into the Architecture Curriculum: Experiences and Perspectives. City Environ. Interact. 2024, 21, 100138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, K.E.; Elias-Ozkan, S.T. Incorporating sustainability principles into architectural design education: Results of an experimental design studio. J. Green Build. 2019, 14, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, J.; Wyborn, C.; Westman, L.; Brisbois, M.C.; Milkoreit, M.; Jayaram, D. The Political Effects of Emergency Frames in Sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sonetti, G.; Brown, M.; Naboni, E. About the Triggering of UN Sustainable Development Goals and Regenerative Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainability 2019, 11, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taleghani, M.; Ansari, H.R.; Jennings, P. Renewable Energy Education for Architects: Lessons from Developed and Developing Countries. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2010, 29, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceylan, S. Adapting Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Principles to Architectural Education: A Conceptual Model Proposal for the Design Studio Sequence. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 329, 01070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceylan, S.; Soygeniş, M.D. A Design Studio Experience: Impacts of Social Sustainability. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR 2019, 13, 368–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ðorđević, A.; Milovanović, A.; Milojević, M.P.; Zorić, A.; Pešić, M.; Trajković, J.R.; Nikezić, A.; Djokić, V. Developing Methodological Framework for Addressing Sustainability and Heritage in Architectural Higher Education—Insights from HERSUS Project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danaci, H.M. A Different Aspect of the Architectural Education. Eur. J. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 9, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maneejuk, P.; Yamaka, W. The Impact of Higher Education on Economic Growth in Asean-5 Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altomonte, S.; Rutherford, P.; Wilson, R. Mapping the Way Forward: Education for Sustainability in Architecture and Urban Design. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikezić, A.; Marković, D. Place-Based Education in the Architectural Design Studio: Agrarian Landscape as a Resource for Sustainable Urban Lifestyle. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9711–9733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasar, Y.; Kalfa, S.M. The Effects of Social, Cultural and Education Dynamics on the Education-Training Environment in Architectural Education; The Case Study of the Department of Architecture, KTU. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 182, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espinel, J.A.S.; Arias, A.C.S.; Van Gameren, E. Quality Differences of Higher Education and Its Determinants in a Less-Developed Country. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2015, 37, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodges, C.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B.; Trust, T.; Bond, A. The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. In EDUCAUSE Review—The Voice of the Higher Education Technology Community; Educause: Boulder, CO, USA, 2020; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Sahuc, P.A. From Pencil to Mouse, from Face to Screen. A Teaching Experience in Times of COVID 19. FAMag. Ric. Progett. Sull’archit. Città 2021, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, M.; Scherrer, A.; Hohmann, C.; Heiberg, J.; Brugger, A.; Nuñez-Jimenez, A. COVID-19 and the Academy: It Is Time for Going Digital. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jimenez-Vicario, P.M.; Navarro-Moreno, D.; Mestre-Martí, M.; García-Martínez, P.; Ródenas-López, M.A.; Muñoz-Mora, M.J. COVID-19 and Online Teaching: Impact on Academic Results in the Subjects of Architectural Graphic Expression at the Polytechnic University of Cartagena. In Springer Series in Design and Innovation; Springer Nature: Berlin, Germany, 2022; Volume 23, pp. 42–50. [Google Scholar]
- Iranmanesh, A.; Onur, Z. Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2021, 40, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Güler, K. Structuring Knowledge-Building in Online Design Education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2023, 33, 1055–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, P.C.L.; Wong, S.K. Students’ perception of online learning and institution’s engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study of Taylor’s design, architecture and engineering students. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2021, 16, 635–651. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, B.; Guo, S.; Yeboah, M.; Wang, Z.; Cheng, S. Quality Evaluation of Online Courses during COVID-19 Pandemic Based on Integrated FCE-AHP Method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2021, 41, 1487–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.L.; Hsu, Y.; Yang, Q.F.; Chen, J.J. A Spherical Video-Based Immersive Virtual Reality Learning System to Support Landscape Architecture Students’ Learning Performance during the COVID-19 Era. Land 2021, 10, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhusban, A.A.; Alhusban, S.A.; Alhusban, M.W.A. Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Architectural Education: A Case Study of Jordanian Universities. Educ. Train. 2023, 65, 749–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harry, S.; Kumar, A. Transformation of the Design Studio in New Learning Spaces: Virtual Design Studio in Architecture Pedagogy. ECS Trans. 2022, 107, 6251–6260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, S.; Abro, S.; Hussain, R. Post COVID-19 Pandemic Experience of Architecture Students in Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Jamshoro Sindh Pakistan. J. Bus. Soc. Rev. Emerg. Econ. 2022, 8, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez Bernal, C.M. Student-Centred Strategies to Integrate Theoretical Knowledge into Project Development within Architectural Technology Lecture-Based Modules. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2017, 13, 223–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, A.; Sutton, A.; Papaioannou, D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd. ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Boland, A.; Cherry, M.G.; Dickson, R. Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Wolfswinkel, J.F.; Furtmueller, E.; Wilderom, C.P.M. Using Grounded Theory as a Method for Rigorously Reviewing Literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2013, 22, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, G.; George, B.; Li, D.; Tao, Z.; Yu, S.; Lee, R.J. Online Learning in Landscape Architecture: Assessing Issues, Preferences, and Student Needs in Design-Related Online Education. Landsc. J. 2018, 37, 41–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Headley, D.; Slee, B.; De La Cruz, E. How Do We Sketch with Someone 1000 Miles Away?: Distance Collaboration for Designers. Living Learn. Res. A Better Built Environ. 2015, 977–986. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, P.A. Source: Landscape Architecture Magazine. Landsc. Archit. Mag. 2001, 91, 56–58. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silveira, V.C. E-Learning by Studying: Topics for Online Architectural Design Teaching. In The Oxford Conference: A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture; WIT Press: Southampton, UK; Billerica MA, USA, 2008; pp. 339–342. [Google Scholar]
- Mayer, F. Experiences with Digital Teaching Formats during The-19 Pandemic at the Department of Spatial Design at the Faculty of Architecture, RWTH Aachen University, as Illustrated by the Course Einführen in Das Entwerfen(Introduction to Design). FAMag. Ric. Progett. Sull’archit. Città 2021, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koenig, R.; Schneider, S. Evaluation of Systems for Video-Based Online Teaching Create Your Own MOOC or SPOC. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe; Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Porto, Portugal, 11–13 September 2019; Volume 1, pp. 109–116. [Google Scholar]
- George, B.H. Drawing Online A Comparative Analysis of an Online Basic Graphics Course. Landsc. J. 2018, 37, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senyapili, B.; Karakaya, A.F. The Future Setting of the Design Studio. Open House Int. 2009, 34, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scatena, D.; Gulel, Z.; Terracina, S.A.; Volanti, V. The Architectural Plan: Teaching and Learning Methods in social Distance’s Times. FAMag. Ric. Progett. Sull’archit. Città 2021, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taşlı-Pektaş, Ş. Virtual Design Studio Revisited A Blended Approach for the Digital Natives. Collab. Des. Ecaade 2012, 2, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
- Shannon, S.J.; Francis, R.L.; Chooi, Y.L.; Ng, S.L. Approaches to the Use of Blended Learning in Teaching Tectonics of Design to Architecture/Design and Architectural Engineering Students. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2013, 56, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deshmukh, J. Speculations on the Post-Pandemic University Campus—A Global Inquiry. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2021, 15, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, A.R.; Thilagam, N.L. The Confluence Approach—A Theoretical Proposition for Effective Structuring of Architecture Studio Pedagogy in e-Learning Mode. Open House Int. 2021, 46, 510–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dadar, A.-K.; Bolotin, S.; Malsagov, A.; Oolakai, Z. Improving Construction Duration Forecasts and Management of Construction Operations. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 110, 01078. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, G. Likert Scales, Levels of Measurement and the “Laws” of Statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2010, 15, 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akintoye, A. Analysis of Factors Influencing Project Cost Estimating Practice. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamil, Y.A.; Abdullah, M.; Abd Rahman, I.; Asad, M.M. Internet of Things in Construction Industry Revolution 4.0: Recent Trends and Challenges in the Malaysian Context. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 18, 1091–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enshassi, A.; AlSwaity, E. Key Stressors Leading to Construction Professionals’ Stress in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2015, 20, 53–79. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, L.; Teo, E.A.L. Critical Success Factors for Enhancing the Building Information Modelling Implementation in Building Projects in Singapore. J. Civil. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 1029–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Low, S.P. Enterprise Risk Management in International Construction Firms: Drivers and Hindrances. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2015, 22, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, L.R.; Velicer, W.F. Principles of Exploratory Factor Analysis. In Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality; Strack, S., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 209–237. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Kennesaw State University: Kennesaw, GA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Marcoulide, G.A., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; p. 295. [Google Scholar]
- Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; Volume 4, ISBN 0335223664. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P.; Fischer, A.; Nitzl, C.; Menictas, C. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling-Based Discrete Choice Modeling: An Illustration in Modeling Retailer Choice. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Abd Appl. 2010, 11, 5–40. [Google Scholar]
- Czerniewicz, L.; Agherdien, N.; Badenhorst, J.; Belluigi, D.; Chambers, T.; Chili, M.; de Villiers, M.; Felix, A.; Gachago, D.; Gokhale, C.; et al. A Wake-Up Call: Equity, Inequality and COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2020, 2, 946–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olweny, M.R.O.; Ndibwami, A.; Ahimbisibwe, A. Online Architectural Education: Reflections on COVID-19 Emergency Remote Learning in East Africa. E-Learn. Digit. Media 2023, 20, 579–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shulman, L.S. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educ. Res. 1986, 15, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eutsler, L. TPACK’s Pedagogy and the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model Coalesce: Integrating Technology into Literacy Teacher Preparation. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2022, 54, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nepembe, V.; Simuja, C. Instructors’ Perspectives of TPACK in a Vocational Training Classroom in Namibia. J. Vocat. Adult Contin. Educ. Train. 2023, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duhaney, D.C. Blended Learning in Education, Training, and Development. Perform. Improv. 2004, 43, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis, R.; Shannon, S.J. Engaging with Blended Learning to Improve Students’ Learning Outcomes. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 38, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chai, C.S.; Chin, C.K.; Koh, J.H.L.; Tan, C.L. Exploring Singaporean Chinese Language Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Its Relationship to the Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2013, 22, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillett-Karam, R. 2020: COVID-19 & International Higher Education. Int. J. Entrep. Econ. Issues 2020, 4, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
- Krishnamurthy, S. The Future of Business Education: A Commentary in the Shadow of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almetwazi, M.; Alzoman, N.; Al-Massarani, S.; Alshamsan, A. COVID-19 Impact on Pharmacy Education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and Opportunities. Saudi Pharm. J. 2020, 28, 1431–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rose, S. Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2020, 323, 2131–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lama, A.V. The Importance of Digital Skills in Education in the COVID-19 Era. UBT Int. Conf. 2020, 103, 178–184. [Google Scholar]
- Haythornthwaite, C.; Kazmer, M.M.; Robins, J.; Shoemaker, S. Community Development among Distance Learners: Temporal and Technological Dimensions. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2000, 6, JCMC615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovai, A.P.; Baker, J.D. Gender Differences in Online Learning: Sense of Community, Perceived Learning, and Interpersonal Interactions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2005, 6, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
- Wellman, B. The Network Community: An Introduction. In Networks in the Global Village; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Metinal, Y.B.; Gumusburun Ayalp, G. Unveiling Success Factors and Digital Platform Suitability in Distance Architectural Education: Enhancing Sustainability in the Post-COVID Era. In Progress in Education; NOVA: West Hollywood, CA, USA, 2024; Volume 79, pp. 123–156. [Google Scholar]
- Landa, N.; Zhou, S.; Marongwe, N. Education in Emergencies: Lessons from COVID-19 in South Africa. Int. Rev. Educ. 2021, 67, 167–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vladova, G.; Ullrich, A.; Bender, B.; Gronau, N. Students’ Acceptance of Technology-Mediated Teaching—How It Was Influenced during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020: A Study from Germany. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 636086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margalina, V.M.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Montes-Botella, J.L. Achieving Quality in E-Learning through Relational Coordination. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1655–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhawan, S. Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2020, 49, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tregloan, K.; Samayoa, N.; Chu, A.; Jativa, F.; Burns, S.; Wilson, M. COVID-19 Catalyst: Emergent Pedagogies and a DIAgram Framework. Archit. MPS 2022, 22, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Rook, M.M.; Hooper, S. Design Thinking in Action: Perspectives on Teaching and Redesigning a Learning Design Studio. In Studio Teaching in Higher Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 247–259. [Google Scholar]
Classification | Code of Challenges | Challenges | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Technical and technological infrastructure | C1 | Lack of an adequate technical background to solve networking and software-related issues | [13,32,69] |
C2 | Technical issues | [2,21,30,36] | |
C3 | Lack of fast and stable internet connection | [6,7,11,13,14,15,21,29,30,36,56,70,71] | |
C4 | Low-screen resolution quality—the screen resolution makes it difficult to see the design work in detail | [54,71,72] | |
C5 | The emergence of cyber security risks | [21,55,73,74] | |
C6 | Insufficient screen resolution to accurately display and critique scaled drawings | [36,54,72] | |
C7 | Lack of the possibility of drawing or sketching on the screen; difficulties with using the mouse for sketching | [4,30,36,54] | |
C8 | Issues with the availability of up-to-date and appropriate hardware and software platforms | [1,4,9,13,14,15,29,32,54,73,74] | |
C9 | The need for user-friendly interfaces and applications to make e-learning easy | [7,9,74] | |
Health and psychology | C10 | Lack of guidance and support | [7,8,22,30,33,73] |
C11 | Lack of privacy (felt by both teachers and students) | [6,8,12,30,74] | |
C12 | Time and workload management (i.e., an increase in the number of tasks) | [1,6,7,11,30] | |
C13 | Increased sense of isolation and disconnection from peers and colleagues | [2,13,30,32,54,75] | |
C14 | Psychological problems/negative feelings that could lead to alienation, uncertainty, confusion, and identity loss | [2,6,7,15,17,22,28,32] | |
C15 | The dissolved boundaries between the work environment and home environment (i.e., struggle with establishing boundaries between work and family) | [2,6,55,56] | |
C16 | When feedback is delayed, students feel stress, frustration, and confusion | [7,30,33,72] | |
C17 | The lack of emotional connection | [4,7,30,32,76] | |
C18 | Insufficiency of self-discipline and concentration issues | [1,9,11,21] | |
C19 | Extended working hours for instructors | [2,7,56] | |
Interaction, communication, and satisfaction | C20 | Instructors need help to keep students concentrated throughout the lesson | [1,6,31,56,73] |
C21 | Instructors are struggling to motivate students to ask question | [31,32,56,73] | |
C22 | Students are deprived of this opportunity because the university cannot create a campus culture and university spirit online | [28,32,73] | |
C23 | Participants’ designs and presentations become rather dull without facial expressions and body language | [30,71,73,77] | |
C24 | Expectations from students to be more responsible for their education | [7,8,9,17,22,28,29,30,33,35,57,69] | |
C25 | Lack of skills to utilize devices or facilities (the need for more time and practice to use new software and applications) | [4,7,32,56] | |
C26 | Instructors’ inability to integrate technology or insufficient software skills (which influences the efficiency of the course) | [1,2,4,7,8,28,29,69] | |
C27 | Students are struggling to understand online lectures, design juries, and critiques | [8,9,30,32,33,77] | |
C28 | Lack of peer learning | [2,4,15,22,28,32,69,73,76,77,78] | |
C29 | Students are uncomfortable because they cannot view their classmates’ progress and projects | [15,30,32,75,77] | |
C30 | Lack of interaction, communication, and cooperation among students | [4,12,13,15,23,30,32,36,73,77] | |
C31 | Low interaction and communication issues among students and between students and instructors | [4,6,7,12,13,15,22,23,30,32,36,73,76,77,78] | |
C32 | The difficulties in understanding teachers’ instructions online | [7,8,9,13,22,30,32,33,77] | |
Educational adaptation | C33 | Working with 3D and animations without hand sketches or physical models makes expressing design ideas difficult | [4,22,30,54,73] |
C34 | Inadequacy of critique frequency and quantity | [7,8,22,33,75,79] | |
C35 | Student assessment issues | [2,9,29,56,73] | |
C36 | Lack of immediate access to teachers’ help | [30,69,72] | |
C37 | Concerns about cheating | [56,69,80] | |
C38 | Increased time spent on lectures and design critiques | [2,7,30,56] | |
C39 | Students would prefer the new assessment criteria adapted to online education | [22,56,73] | |
C40 | Adequate and reliable assessment tools are needed due to unsupervised exams, projects, and assignments | [6,56,73] | |
C41 | It causes stereotypical designs that are far from aesthetic | [9,30,73] | |
C42 | There will be a biased evaluation as the students’ names are visible to the evaluators on screen while evaluating | [9,29,56] | |
C43 | The focus is on learning the technology rather than on the information taught | [9,15,35] | |
C44 | Unfamiliarity with quiz/exam formats | [31,56,73] | |
C45 | Instructors must determine whether the students understand the lesson topics and contents | [31,32,56] | |
C46 | Instructors cannot agree among themselves on student work or reconciling grades | [2,29,31,73] | |
C47 | Instructors need help preparing, publishing, and administering online exams | [2,31,56] | |
C48 | Having students’ cameras turned on during online lecture sessions will significantly benefit their learning experience | [21,30,32] | |
C49 | Working with drawings and 3D models in a digital environment with an adequate hand sketch helps the designs reach the expected maturity level | [4,7,30,73] | |
C50 | Lack of access to resources | [7,22,29,30,36,73,74,77] | |
C51 | The absolute need for accessibility to hardware such as tablets and computers | [1,4,6,7,8,32,73,74,81] | |
C52 | There must be more privacy and a proper work environment (home and dormitory) | [6,8,15,30,56,77] | |
C53 | Interruptions of online lessons due to family members or environmental factors | [12,13,15] |
Classification | Code of Challenges | Means and ranking of challenges | Rank | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Standard Deviation (SD) | Normalized Mean Value (NMV) | |||
Technical and technological infrastructure | C1 | 3.10 | 1.318 | 0.396 | 37 |
C2 | 3.23 | 1.308 | 0.519 * | 23 | |
C3 | 3.42 | 1.4 | 0.698 * | 5 | |
C4 | 3.19 | 1.438 | 0.481 | 29 | |
C5 | 2.68 | 1.26 | 0.000 | 53 | |
C6 | 3.08 | 1.387 | 0.377 | 40 | |
C7 | 3.33 | 1.401 | 0.613 * | 9 | |
C8 | 3.09 | 1.383 | 0.387 | 38 | |
C9 | 3.25 | 1.311 | 0.538 * | 19 | |
Health and psychology | C10 | 3.26 | 1.396 | 0.547 * | 15 |
C11 | 2.76 | 1.283 | 0.075 | 52 | |
C12 | 3.03 | 1.414 | 0.330 | 45 | |
C13 | 3.17 | 1.41 | 0.462 | 31 | |
C14 | 3.1 | 1.415 | 0.396 | 36 | |
C15 | 3.12 | 1.409 | 0.415 | 34 | |
C16 | 3.41 | 1.392 | 0.689 * | 6 | |
C17 | 3.15 | 1.405 | 0.443 | 33 | |
C18 | 3.16 | 1.369 | 0.453 | 32 | |
C19 | 3.24 | 1.414 | 0.528 * | 22 | |
Interaction, communication, and satisfaction | C20 | 3.24 | 1.352 | 0.528 * | 21 |
C21 | 3.11 | 1.323 | 0.406 | 35 | |
C22 | 3.46 | 1.444 | 0.736 * | 4 | |
C23 | 3.27 | 1.374 | 0.557 * | 14 | |
C24 | 3.17 | 1.277 | 0.462 | 30 | |
C25 | 3.56 | 1.298 | 0.830 * | 3 | |
C26 | 3.6 | 1.302 | 0.868 * | 2 | |
C27 | 3.22 | 1.31 | 0.509 * | 24 | |
C28 | 3.32 | 1.412 | 0.604 * | 10 | |
C29 | 3.06 | 1.393 | 0.358 | 42 | |
C30 | 3.37 | 1.365 | 0.651 * | 7 | |
C31 | 3.3 | 1.372 | 0.585 * | 12 | |
C32 | 3.25 | 1.314 | 0.538 * | 18 | |
Educational adaptation | C33 | 2.99 | 1.366 | 0.292 | 47 |
C34 | 3.19 | 1.354 | 0.481 | 28 | |
C35 | 3.08 | 1.325 | 0.377 | 39 | |
C36 | 3.29 | 1.338 | 0.575 * | 13 | |
C37 | 3.19 | 1.397 | 0.481 | 27 | |
C38 | 3.25 | 1.344 | 0.538 * | 17 | |
C39 | 2.86 | 1.248 | 0.170 | 49 | |
C40 | 3.24 | 1.326 | 0.528 * | 20 | |
C41 | 3.03 | 1.361 | 0.330 | 44 | |
C42 | 2.81 | 1.34 | 0.123 | 51 | |
C43 | 2.84 | 1.358 | 0.151 | 50 | |
C44 | 2.97 | 1.314 | 0.274 | 48 | |
C45 | 3.25 | 1.366 | 0.538 * | 16 | |
C46 | 3.04 | 1.282 | 0.340 | 43 | |
C47 | 3.01 | 1.289 | 0.311 | 46 | |
C48 | 3.06 | 1.281 | 0.358 | 41 | |
C49 | 3.19 | 1.376 | 0.481 | 26 | |
C50 | 3.2 | 1.335 | 0.491 | 25 | |
C51 | 3.74 | 1.346 | 1.000 * | 1 | |
C52 | 3.30 | 1.403 | 0.585 * | 11 | |
C53 | 3.34 | 1.45 | 0.623 * | 8 |
Factors | Code of CCs | EFA | CFA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor Loadings | % of Variance | Standardized Coefficients | |||
Factor 1 | C53 | 0.762 | 30.156 | 0.77 | |
C30 | 0.739 | 0.86 | |||
C45 | 0.731 | 0.75 | |||
C31 | 0.728 | 0.87 | |||
C52 | 0.721 | 0.77 | |||
C32 | 0.707 | 0.84 | |||
C28 | 0.694 | 0.86 | |||
C36 | 0.685 | 0.74 | |||
C27 | 0.660 | 0.87 | |||
C23 | 0.600 | 0.86 | |||
C10 | 0.561 | 0.80 | |||
C20 | 0.564 | 0.86 | |||
C19 | 0.501 | 0.80 | |||
C22 | 0.504 | 0.81 | |||
Factor 2 | C2 | 0.751 | 25.519 | 0.79 | |
C9 | 0.737 | 0.81 | |||
C3 | 0.693 | 0.81 | |||
C16 | 0.636 | 0.83 | |||
C7 | 0.626 | 0.83 | |||
Factor 3 | C38 | 0.770 | 16.613 | 0.60 | |
C26 | 0.697 | 0.88 | |||
C51 | 0.648 | 0.80 | |||
C25 | 0.612 | 0.83 | |||
Total Variance Explained | 72.288 | χ2/df: | 2.27 | ||
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Value | 0.958 | RMSEA: | 0.04 | ||
Barlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square: | 5538.735 | CFI: | 0.98 | |
df: | 276 | GFI: | 0.97 | ||
p: | 0.000 | AGFI: | 0.93 |
Constructs/Latent Variables | CR | Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) | AVE |
---|---|---|---|
SECO | 0.966 | 0.966 | 0.82 |
DLEB | 0.907 | 0.908 | 0.74 |
TIAP | 0.880 | 0.887 | 0.79 |
Fit Index | Suggested Values | Structural Equation Results | Evaluation |
---|---|---|---|
χ2/df | 0 ≤ χ2/df ≤ 3 | 2.31 | Good |
GFI | 0. 95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.95 | Good |
AGFI | 0. 95 ≤ AGFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.91 | Good |
RMSEA | 0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.05 | 0.05 | Good |
CFI | 0. 95 ≤ CFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.97 | Good |
NFI | 0. 95 ≤ NFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.96 | Good |
Hypothetical Paths and Expected Influences | Path Coefficient a | t-Value (1-Tail) | Interpretation | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: SECO→OAE | −0.96 | 13.17 | Supported | 0.92 |
H2: DLEB→OAE | −0.95 | 13.29 | Supported | 0.90 |
H3: TIAP→OAE | −0.84 | 11.76 | Supported | 0.69 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Metinal, Y.B.; Gumusburun Ayalp, G. Modeling the Critical Factors Affecting the Success of Online Architectural Education to Enhance Educational Sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093803
Metinal YB, Gumusburun Ayalp G. Modeling the Critical Factors Affecting the Success of Online Architectural Education to Enhance Educational Sustainability. Sustainability. 2024; 16(9):3803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093803
Chicago/Turabian StyleMetinal, Yusuf Berkay, and Gulden Gumusburun Ayalp. 2024. "Modeling the Critical Factors Affecting the Success of Online Architectural Education to Enhance Educational Sustainability" Sustainability 16, no. 9: 3803. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093803