Exploring the Collaboration Skills among Architecture Students: A Quantitative Study in North Cyprus

Abstract

This research investigates the collaboration competencies among architecture students at Eastern Mediterranean University, in North Cyprus, highlighting the necessity for curricular enhancements to foster teamwork skills essential for professional practice. A structured questionnaire was administered to 77 final-year students, evaluating their knowledge, abilities, and experiences in collaborative settings. Factor analysis revealed twelve key components of collaboration, indicating moderate skill levels overall. Notably, students excelled in work quality, self-reflection, and time management yet exhibited deficiencies in team learning, role adaptability, and equitable idea contribution. This study identified five critical dimensions of teamwork: interpersonal facilitation, collaborative leadership, engagement contribution, active listening, and transparent information exchange. A strong correlation emerged between students’ perceived readiness for collaborative work and their self-rated leadership and interpersonal skills. Comparative analysis showed distinct collaboration skill sets between international and domestic students and across different academic years. These insights emphasize the imperative for architectural education to progressively incorporate specific learning activities and interventions to cultivate teamwork competencies systematically. The development of such skills is vital for preparing graduates to effectively navigate and lead within the multidisciplinary contexts they will face. Recommendations include curriculum redesign to integrate explicit teamwork instruction, faculty development programs, and fostering an educational culture that consistently values collaboration. Future studies should investigate effective pedagogical strategies for nurturing collaboration skills and examine how individual variances affect the acquisition of these critical abilities.

1. Introduction

Collaboration is a pivotal skill in architectural practice, particularly in the 21st century where the complexity of building projects necessitates effective teamwork across interdisciplinary groups. Architects must not only synthesize diverse perspectives but also navigate the design process collaboratively [1,2,3,4,5]. However, the current architectural education system has been criticized for being too insular, focused primarily on technical skills and design aesthetics, and disconnected from broader societal, environmental, and interdisciplinary considerations [6,7]. This raises the question of whether students can truly develop robust collaboration abilities if the overarching educational framework is not sufficiently collaborative itself.

There has historically been insufficient emphasis on developing these competencies within architectural education programs [8,9], resulting in many graduates feeling underprepared for the realities of collaborative work environments they will encounter in their professional careers [10,11].

The increasing complexity of architectural projects underscores the need for a reassessment of how collaboration skills are taught and nurtured within architectural curricula [12,13]. While group projects offer some exposure, they frequently fall short in fostering the interpersonal, procedural, and leadership skills essential for effective teamwork [14]. A more deliberate and structured approach is required to scaffold these competencies and ensure that architectural programs are equipping graduates for success.

This study addresses the gap in collaboration skills’ development by assessing the perspectives and self-reported abilities of students within an architectural education program at an international university in North Cyprus. This institution’s international and national accreditations make it an ideal setting for a comprehensive investigation. Employing quantitative methods, this research collected data from a significant participant pool, providing measurable insights into the state of collaboration skills among students. This study delves into the following research questions:

• What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses in collaboration skills among architecture students?
• Are there discernible differences in collaboration abilities between international and domestic students, and what cultural factors might influence these differences?
• How do students’ perceived collaboration capabilities evolve throughout their academic journey?
• Can we identify distinct dimensions of teamwork skills from the collected data?

This study aims to investigate the current state of collaboration skills’ development in an internationally accredited architectural education program. By examining student perspectives and self-reported abilities, as well as situating the findings within the context of the existing critiques of architectural education, this research seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and systemic gaps in collaboration skills’ development in today’s architectural education. This study’s findings will inform efforts to evaluate and enhance the integration of teamwork skills within architectural curricula, ultimately ensuring that graduates are better equipped to thrive in the collaborative environments of professional practice.

Background

Education serves as a cornerstone of human development, influencing intellectual, social, and personal growth. It transcends classroom boundaries, shaping attitudes, values, and behaviors [15]. The shift towards collaborative learning paradigms has been significant, promoting active engagement, perspective sharing, and mutual learning among students [16].

Collaboration is vital not only in educational spheres but also in professional domains, where it is instrumental in resolving complex challenges, driving innovation, and nurturing creative solutions [17]. Collaborative efforts in education enable students to engage in meaningful dialogues, challenge ideas, and collectively address intricate issues [18]. This mode of learning bolsters social and interpersonal skills, which are paramount in our interconnected society [19]. Teamwork experiences prepare students for future collaborative ventures, both personally and professionally, by honing their communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution abilities [18]. Moreover, collaboration cultivates a sense of community and belonging, which can amplify student motivation and engagement, leading to academic perseverance and success [20].

Architectural education, a specialized domain, readies students for the multifaceted architectural profession. It emphasizes the development of design thinking, spatial awareness, technical acumen, and creative problem-solving while instilling an appreciation for architecture’s social, environmental, and cultural implications [21]. The goal is to prepare students to create designs that are aesthetically pleasing, functional, sustainable, and contextually relevant [11]. The significance of architectural education lies in its impact on the built environment, affecting human well-being, social dynamics, and environmental sustainability [22]. Architects design spaces that fulfill functional needs and contribute to the cultural, economic, and social tapestry of communities. Architectural education is comprehensive, blending theoretical knowledge with practical skills and fostering both individual and collaborative learning experiences [23]. Through lectures, seminars, and design studios, students gain a profound understanding of architectural principles, construction methods, and the wider societal, historical, and environmental contexts of their craft.

Working together is a big part of being an architect, which shows how important teamwork is in architecture education. Collaborative learning helps students prepare for their future jobs by teaching them important skills like how to communicate, negotiate, and work as a team [16,24]. Architects have to deal with different points of view, discuss solutions, and combine ideas from related fields like engineering, urban planning, and environmental science [25]. These experiences are like the ones they have in real life. Collaboration also leads to new ideas and creativity in design because students build on each other’s work, question beliefs, and look for new ways to design [26,27,28].

The design studio is the most important part of architectural education. It is here that students work together on projects and learn how to be creative, innovative, and critical thinkers [29,30]. In this setting, students come up with design ideas on their own or with others, try out different approaches, and then show their work to be critiqued [31]. Students can learn from each other, share ideas, and work together to find design solutions in the design workshop when they work together [32]. Students learn important skills like teamwork, communication, and how to solve problems through collaborative design projects that are important for their future professional work [5]. Collaboration in the design studio also encourages learning and feedback from peers, which is important for improving design skills and making design ideas better [33]. When students show their work to their teachers and classmates, they obtain helpful feedback and different points of view, which can help them figure out what works and what does not about their ideas [34]. Collaborative learning in the design studio is also a reflection of how architects often work with engineers, urban planners, and other pros from different fields [35]. When students work together, they learn how to combine different ideas and skills, which leads to a more complete way of designing that takes into account many practical, aesthetic, and environmental aspects [36].

Collaboration in the design studio enables students to learn from one another, ex-change ideas, and collectively explore design solutions while developing essential skills such as teamwork, communication, and conflict resolution.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Design

This study adopted a quantitative survey research approach, aligning with the positivist philosophy of Saunders’ Research Onion, which posits that reality is objective and can be described by measurable properties [37]. The research strategy involved a structured questionnaire, enabling the collection of numerical data from a broad participant pool, offering a more extensive analysis than qualitative methods like interviews or observations alone.

2.2. Data Collection Method

The questionnaire gathered numerical data on various aspects of collaboration skills and experiences, including the following (see supplementary table):

• Perceptions of readiness for collaborative architectural practice.
• Ratings of 12 specific collaboration abilities, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale.
• Open-ended reflections on experiences from group projects.

Questionnaires were distributed in hard-copy format, ensuring voluntary and anonymous participation, in accordance with the institutional ethics review board’s approval. Information sheets and consent forms were provided prior to survey access.

2.3. Sampling

A census sampling approach was utilized, targeting the entire population of fourth-year students in the Architecture and Interior Architecture departments at Eastern Mediterranean University. These students were chosen to assess the development of their collaboration skills after substantial exposure to an inclusive architectural education. The sample included all 80 students enrolled in the capstone design studio courses (ARCH491, ARCH492, INAR491, INAR492) during the fall semester of the 2022/2023 academic year, with a high response rate of 96.25%, resulting in 77 valid responses. This way, a total population sampling technique which aimed at examining the entire population was used.

2.4. Instrument Validation

Content validity was ensured through expert reviews from architecture education professionals, who assessed the questionnaire for relevance and clarity. Feedback led to item refinement, while pilot testing with students improved comprehensibility. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to assess the construct validity of the collaboration skill items.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was granted for this study. Participants were informed about the study details, confidentiality protocols, and their rights through information sheets. Confidentiality was maintained using codes, encrypted data files, and secure storage, with only researchers having access to identifiable information.

2.6. Data Analysis

The data analysis procedures were as follows:

• Descriptive statistics summarized self-reported skills and sample characteristics, with mean ratings identifying strengths and gaps in collaboration abilities.
• Independent sample t-tests compared ability ratings between the students in two levels.
• Exploratory factor analysis revealed the underlying factor structure of the skill items, grouping related competencies into broader components.
• Correlation analyses investigated relationships between extracted factors, preparedness ratings, prior training, age, and gender.
• Thematic analysis distilled open-ended reflections into overarching themes related to teamwork experiences.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Description

The final sample included 77 valid student questionnaires from the final year of the program. Figure 1 presents the demographic breakdown of the student sample. The majority were female (57.5%), with males comprising 42.5%. Most respondents were Turkish-speaking students, reflecting the university’s geographical location and student composition. The remaining participants came from over 10 other countries across the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and Africa. The average age was 22.6 years (SD = 42.5), ranging from 19 to 32 years old.

3.2. Quantitative Findings

Student Collaboration Skill Self-Ratings

Figure 2 provides a summary of the students’ self-assessed abilities in 12 areas of collaboration skills. These ratings were given on a 5-point Likert scale.

In general, the sample scored an average of around 3.5 for most competencies, which suggests moderate levels of self-assessed teamwork skills. The areas with the highest ratings are as follows (refer to

Table 1. Comparative analysis of skill levels among international and domestic students.

Quality	INAR 491—Total	INAR 491—International	INAR 491—Domestic	INAR 492—Total	INAR 492—International	INAR 491—Domestic	ARCH 491—Total	ARCH 491—International	ARCH 491—Domestic	ARCH 492—Total	ARCH 491—International	ARCH 492—Domestic
Contribution skill	41.7	53.63	29.77	66.7	55.2	78.2	50	49.1	50.9	39.3	48.9	29.7
Teamwork skill	53.8	46.85	60.75	50	49.8	50.2	61.8	64.8	58.8	50	50	50
Team dynamics	41.7	47.19	36.21	50	49.8	50.2	55.9	33.8	78	42.9	41.3	44.5
Interactions with students	58.3	39.5	77.1	66.7	55.1	78.3	55.9	46.8	65	50	50	50
Interactions with instructors	41.7	64.5	18.9	50	39.5	60.5	64.7	38.5	90.9	64.3	63.8	64.8
Participation skill	66.7	97.1	36.3	50	64.1	35.9	61.8	78.5	45.1	46.4	42.9	49.9
Work Quality	75	35.6	114.4	83.3	78.9	87.7	67.6	68.5	66.7	64.3	63.3	65.3
Time management	58.3	65.1	51.5	100	100	100	52.9	59.2	46.6	60.7	50.1	71.3
Preparation skill	66.7	57.8	75.6	50	50	50	58.8	52.8	64.8	57.1	52.6	61.6
Self-Reflection skill	100	100	100	50	50	50	70.6	71.6	69.6	67.9	56.4	79.4
Team learning	58.3	46.8	69.8	16.7	12.6	20.8	41.2	40.5	41.9	39.3	41.2	37.4
Role flexibility skill	41.7	47.6	35.8	66.7	55.1	78.3	57.1	53.9	60.3	47.1	45.2	49

):

Noteworthy strengths include the following:

• Work Quality: This refers to a group of skills related to delivering high-quality work. On a scale of 1 to 5, scores ranged from 3.2 (64.3% of the maximum score) to 4.2 (83.3% of the maximum score) across different courses, indicating a strong focus on delivering high-quality work.
• Self-Reflection Skill: This skill involves self-assessment and improvement. Scores averaged from 3.4 (67.9% of the maximum score) to 5 (100% of the maximum score), suggesting a proactive approach towards self-assessment and improvement.
• Time Management: This skill involves managing time efficiently. Scores varied between 2.6 (52.9% of the maximum score) and 5 (100% of the maximum score), implying an overall proficiency in managing time efficiently.
• However, there are certain areas that could benefit from improvement:
• Team Learning: Scores between 0.8 (16.7% of the maximum score) and 2.9 (58.3% of the maximum score) indicate a potential gap in collaborative learning processes.
• Role Flexibility Skill: Scores ranging from 2.1 (41.7% of the maximum score) to 3.3 (66.7% of the maximum score) suggest a need to enhance adaptability and versatility within team roles.

3.3. Differences in Collaboration Skills between International and Domestic Students

The results revealed significant differences in collaboration skills between interior architecture and architecture students, as well as between international and domestic cohorts. Across various dimensions of collaboration, distinct patterns emerged, shedding light on the strengths and weaknesses of each group (see Figure 3).

The results revealed significant differences in collaboration skills between different student groups. Distinct patterns emerged across various dimensions of collaboration, shedding light on the strengths and weaknesses of each group.

In terms of collaboration skills, interior architecture and architecture students demonstrated varying levels. The mean scores, which represent the average rating given by the students, indicate that interior architecture students had a moderate level of contribution skills, while architecture students scored higher. When it comes to teamwork skills, interior architecture students scored higher on average, while architecture students scored slightly lower. On the other hand, architecture students exhibited higher team dynamics skills compared to interior architecture students.

In terms of interactions with peers, interior architecture students displayed better skills, while architecture students showed higher interactions with instructors. Architecture students displayed higher participation skills, while interior architecture students scored lower in work quality compared to architecture students. Interior architecture students demonstrated better time management skills compared to architecture students, and they also exhibited better preparation skills. Both interior architecture and architecture students scored equally high in self-reflection skills. However, interior architecture students displayed higher team learning skills compared to architecture students, and architecture students exhibited higher role flexibility skills.

In terms of international versus domestic participants, the mean scores suggest that international students scored lower in contribution skills compared to domestic students. However, international students displayed higher teamwork skills. In the international context, students scored lower in team dynamics, while domestic students scored higher. International students scored significantly higher in interactions with peers compared to domestic students, but they scored lower in interactions with instructors. In the international context, students scored lower in participation skills, while domestic students scored higher. International students scored higher in work quality compared to domestic students, but they scored lower in time management. International students scored higher in preparation skills, but they scored lower in self-reflection skills compared to domestic students. In the international context, students scored lower in team learning and role flexibility skills, while domestic students scored higher in both.

These findings suggest that both the department and the cultural context (domestic vs. international) can influence the development of collaboration skills among students. Further research could delve into the cultural factors that contribute to these differences. It is also important to note that these are average scores, and individual scores may vary. A graphic representation of these findings would provide a clearer visual understanding of the differences.

Differences Between Departments (Interior Architecture vs. Architecture):

• Contribution Skill: Interior architecture students demonstrate a moderate level of skill with a mean score of 41.7, while architecture students exhibit a slightly higher capability at 53.63.
• Team Dynamics: Reflecting stronger dynamics, architecture students score 47.19 on average, surpassing the interior architecture students’ 41.7.

International vs. Domestic Differences:

• Contribution Skill: There is a substantial difference in contribution skills, with international students scoring 29.77 and domestic students scoring significantly higher at 66.7.
• Teamwork Skill: International students exhibit slightly weaker teamwork skills with an average of 60.75, compared to 50 for domestic students.

Cultural Implications: Further discussion might delve into the cultural factors influencing these skills. For instance, cultural dimensions such as collectivism and individualism could play significant roles in shaping teamwork and participation skills among international and domestic students.

Conclusion and Recommendations: This detailed analysis underscores the need for tailored educational strategies that address both cultural and educational background differences to enhance collaborative skills effectively.

When contrasting the skills, more extreme changes are seen between INAR491 and INAR492 students (in the Department of Interior Architecture) with several skills demonstrating dramatic increases or decreases. The architecture students’ self-assessments are generally more stable or show more moderate changes. The most significant difference is seen in time management, where students of INAR 492 report a perfect score, potentially indicating a highly effective curriculum change or class experience that promoted this skill.

Both groups show variations in self-assessed skill development over time, reflecting the dynamic nature of the learning process. These variations could be influenced by the curriculum, the instructional methods, the projects undertaken, or the individual engagement levels of the students. The data indicate certain areas of strength within each program and potential areas for improvement, such as ensuring consistent skill development across all competencies from one course to the next (see Figure 4).

Some key observations:

• Time management shows a dramatic increase to 100% for INAR 492 students.
• The self-reflection skill drops notably for INAR 492 compared to very high for INAR 491.
• Team learning decreases in all groups, especially for INAR students.
• Work quality tends to increase slightly for both programs in 492.
• The contribution skill rises for INAR 492, drops for ARCH 492.

The ANOVA results, as depicted in Figure 5, indicate that statistically significant differences between groups are observed in the following areas: self-reflection skills with a p-value of 0.008 and team learning skills with a p-value of 0.043. Time management skills show a marginal difference with a p-value of 0.055, which is just above the commonly used significance level of 0.05.

These results align with some of the large differences observed in the plots. In summary, students’ self-reported skill development shows variation across different competencies and changes over time. However, the quantitative analysis reveals significant group differences only in a subset of skills. This suggests that both programs exhibit strengths and weaknesses in fostering specific collaborative abilities. It is important to note that these findings are based on the students’ self-assessments and the statistical analysis of the collected data.

3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

In order to identify the broader underlying dimensions of collaboration represented in the skill data, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 12 competency items, as depicted in Figure 6. The analysis employed principal axis factoring extraction and promax rotation, which allows for correlation between factors.

Several criteria were considered to determine the retention of factors. These included Eigenvalues greater than 1, an examination of the scree plot for discontinuities, factor loadings greater than 0.4, the interpretability of factors, and accounting for at least 60% of total variance.

Following these guidelines, a 5-factor solution emerged as the best fit for the data. These factors accounted for 64.3% of the total variance, as illustrated in Figure 6. This means that the five factors identified in the analysis collectively explain about 64.3% of the variation in the 12 competency items. This is a significant proportion and suggests that these factors are important dimensions of collaboration skills in the context of this study.

Figure 7 presents the matrix pattern showing how the 12 collaboration skill items loaded onto the extracted five factors after rotation. The factors were labeled based on the item composition as follows:

• Factor 1: Interpersonal facilitation, which includes seven items.
• Factor 2: Collaborative leadership, which includes three items.
• Factor 3: Contributing engagement, which includes two items.
• Factor 4: Active listening, which includes two items.
• Factor 5: Open information sharing, which includes one item.

These labels reflect the nature of the skills that loaded most strongly onto each factor. For instance, Factor 1, interpersonal facilitation, represents skills related to establishing a supportive team climate and mutual understanding. These skills loaded most strongly together, indicating that they are closely interrelated.

Similarly, Factor 2, collaborative leadership, represents leadership behaviors like managing dynamics, delegating, and resolving conflict. These behaviors clustered together, suggesting that they form a distinct aspect of collaboration skills.

Factor 3, contributing engagement, represents active engagement in contributing ideas and collectively setting goals/priorities. The two active listening items comprised their own distinct factor, Factor 4, indicating that active listening is a separate dimension of collaboration skills.

Lastly, Factor 5, open information sharing, emerged as a separate single-item factor, suggesting that information sharing is a unique aspect of collaboration skills that is distinct from the other dimensions.

This factor structure suggests the key underlying dimensions of collaboration skills. It highlights areas where students feel relatively stronger, such as interpersonal facilitation, and areas where they feel weaker, such as collaborative leadership. This structure also shows how some collaboration skills are more closely interrelated than others, providing insights into the complex nature of collaboration in an educational setting. These findings can guide efforts to enhance collaboration skill training in the program (see Figure 8).

4. Correlation Analysis

To understand which collaboration factors were the most strongly associated with students’ overall sense of preparedness for teamwork in architectural practice, a correlation analysis was conducted.

Table 2. Correlations between collaboration factors and perceived readiness.

Factor	Perceived Readiness for Collaborative Practice
1. Interpersonal Facilitation	0.58 **
2. Collaborative Leadership	0.71 **
3. Contributing Engagement	0.50 **
4. Active Listening	0.37 **
5. Open Information Sharing	0.25 *

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

presents the Pearson correlations between the factor scores for each of the five extracted components and students’ self-rated level of collaborative readiness on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all prepared, 5 = Extremely prepared).

The results indicate that students’ perceived preparedness was most highly correlated with the following:

• Collaborative leadership abilities (r = 0.71, p < 0.001).
• Interpersonal facilitation skills (r = 0.58, p < 0.001).
• Contributing engagement (r = 0.50, p < 0.001).

There were smaller but still significant positive correlations with active listening (r = 0.37, p = 0.001) and open information sharing (r = 0.25, p = 0.032).

This suggests that students’ overall confidence in their readiness for collaborative architectural practice depends most heavily on their self-assessed leadership, interpersonal relating, and active engagement abilities within teams. Deficits in these domains likely contribute to greater feelings of unpreparedness.

Some additional analyses explored relationships between the collaboration factors and other variables like prior teamwork training experience, age, and gender:

The amount of prior teamwork training had small positive correlations with collaborative leadership (r = 0.26, p = 0.021) and contributing engagement (r = 0.24, p = 0.037), suggesting more training may enhance these areas.

Age had a small negative correlation with interpersonal facilitation (r = −0.23, p = 0.048), indicating younger students rated themselves higher in these types of teamwork skills.

No significant differences emerged between genders on any of the collaboration factor scores.

5. Discussion

The present study explored collaboration skills among architecture students at a university in North Cyprus through quantitative survey methods. The findings provide insights into students’ self-assessed abilities, areas of strength and deficiency, underlying dimensions of teamwork competencies, and how factors like training, education level, and student background relate to collaboration readiness. This section interprets and contextualizes the key results in relation to prior scholarly work while also addressing the critical question of whether the current architectural education system is collaborative enough.

5.1. Student Collaboration Skill Self-Assessments

The finding that architecture students in this study reported moderate levels of collaboration skills across most areas, with strengths in work quality, self-reflection, and time management, aligns with prior research indicating that many programs successfully cultivate individual work standards, self-directed learning, and basic project management abilities [38]. However, the lower self-ratings in areas like team learning, role flexibility, and equitably contributing ideas highlight ongoing challenges in moving architectural education away from insular, individual-focused approaches towards truly fostering the process-oriented, socially negotiated collaboration skills required in professional multidisciplinary settings [10,39].

The results reinforce calls from the literature for architecture pedagogy to deeply embed collaborative learning experiences that move beyond simply group projects, instead developing systematic approaches to progressively build abilities across collective information processing, role negotiation, coordinating contributions, and adaptability throughout a program’s scope and sequence [14,40,41]. Overcoming resource constraints to implement such approaches is crucial for adequately preparing graduates [42,43].

5.2. Differences between Student Groups

The significant differences observed between interior architecture and architecture students’ self-assessed collaboration skills likely stem from pedagogical and cultural variations between these disciplines. Prior work notes interior design tends to emphasize more socially oriented, client-focused training compared to architecture’s historically rationalist, object-based approaches [44,45]. This contextual situated nature of collaboration skill development points to the need for curricula to be attuned to and potentially adjust based on students’ distinct collaborative readiness profiles across fields of study.

Such disciplinary variations highlight the contextual, situated nature of collaboration skills development within different educational settings. The findings suggest curricula may need to be attuned to and potentially adjust for the distinct collaborative readiness profiles students develop based on their field of study. Interdisciplinary projects requiring coordination between architecture and interior architecture students could be one avenue for intentionally bridging these gaps.

Differences also manifested between domestic and international students regarding their self-assessed teamwork abilities. Domestic students reported higher skills in areas like contributing ideas, leadership, and role flexibility. In contrast, international students rated themselves higher on peer interactions and teamwork fundamentals. These variations could be attributed to cultural factors, language barriers, prior educational experiences, or difficulties adjusting to the program’s cross-cultural studio environments.

The gaps between domestic and international students’ teamwork abilities further underscore how collaboration manifests differently across cultural contexts. Implementing strategies like mixed student pairings, bridging programs for acclimating international cohorts, and internationalizing curricula may help better integrate diverse collaboration norms and styles [46,47]. Some strategies proposed include pairing domestic and international students during projects to facilitate the cultural exchange of teamwork norms, offering bridging programs to acclimate international cohorts, and internationalizing curricula to better integrate diverse perspectives [48]. The results suggest that with such efforts to accommodate the cultural diversity and collaboration styles and better support, integration may be warranted.

The observation of skill level differences across groups aligns with the literature acknowledging collaboration as a developmental process requiring progression over time [49]. Systematically mapping collaboration learning trajectories and developmental progressions across all program years could better ensure graduates build a comprehensive skill set.

These findings reinforce the need for scaffolded, longitudinal approaches versus assuming that collaboration capabilities can be fully developed through limited one-off experiences [12,50]. Programs should plan to help students systematically develop all their collaboration skills from basic team fundamentals to more advanced process skills, perspective-taking, and shared leadership over successive years of study. Mapping targeted collaboration learning outcomes and developmental progressions across a program’s full trajectory may better ensure that graduates exit prepared for collaborative work.

5.3. Underlying Dimensions of Collaboration Competencies

The five underlying dimensions identified—interpersonal facilitation, collaborative leadership, contributing engagement, active listening, and open information sharing—align with theoretical teamwork frameworks [51,52] while providing contextualized insight into how these components cluster uniquely in architectural training.

The bifurcation between “team unity” abilities like emotional understanding being strengths and the lower rated shared leadership skills like managing dynamics and delegation mirrors previous observations of architecture programs prioritizing individual over true collaborative process leadership [53,54]. Targeted learning activities around techniques like situational leadership could address this gap [55,56].

The separability of contributing engagement and active listening reflects the value ascribed to areas like creativity, channeling input, and perspective-taking in design collaboration [57,58]. Meanwhile, information sharing around goals and rationales emerging independently underscores its importance in multidisciplinary projects [59,60].

Overall, these multifaceted dimensions reinforce avoiding treating collaboration as unidimensional in architecture education. Developing intentional, comprehensive approaches that systematically scaffold this range of competencies is needed [61].

5.4. The Limitations of the Current Architectural Curriculum

While the findings highlight specific areas for enhancing student collaboration skills, it is important to recognize that the current architectural education system may be fundamentally limited in its ability to foster true collaborative practices [6]. Scholars have critiqued the standard architectural curriculum for its insular, siloed nature, disconnected from broader societal, environmental, and interdisciplinary considerations [62,63]. This raises the question of whether students can truly develop robust collaboration abilities if the overarching educational framework is not sufficiently collaborative itself.

Architectural education has been characterized as too narrowly focused on technical skills and design aesthetics, often failing to equip graduates with the critical thinking, problem-solving, and interprofessional communication capacities required for effective collaboration in complex, real-world scenarios [7]. Calls have been made for architectural curricula to expand beyond the traditional studio model and engage more deeply with disciplines such as urban planning, environmental science, sociology, and community engagement [64].

These broader criticisms suggest that the development of student collaboration skills, as examined in this study, may be limited by the inherent structure and priorities of the current architectural education paradigm. Addressing the systemic gaps in collaborative learning within the curriculum could be a necessary precursor to truly cultivating the teamwork competencies that students will need to thrive in professional practice.

5.5. Factors Influencing Collaboration Readiness

As expected from prior work [49], collaboration abilities like leadership, interpersonal skills, and active engagement being the most strongly associated with perceived readiness underscores concentrating on these areas when defining learning outcomes and assessments. Providing practice in shared leadership, perspective-taking, conflict resolution, and group decision-making appears key for instilling confidence to transition into professional collaborative environments.

The modest link between prior teamwork training and self-efficacy in advanced process skills like monitoring dynamics and decision-making aligns with the literature emphasizing that metacognitive instruction and repeated authentic practice is required to master these higher-order capabilities [65]. This suggests that implementing targeted training programs utilizing approaches like coached debriefs, simulations, and guided reflections could benefit overall preparedness, moving beyond simply group project experiences.

The results suggest training programs targeting these advanced collaboration competencies may benefit students’ overall preparedness for collaborative practice in architecture. By intentionally designing curricula and learning experiences that allow students to repeatedly apply teamwork skills in authentic scenarios, they can develop metacognitive awareness and the mastery of the complex processes involved in activities like collective monitoring, coordinating contributions, and shared leadership.

Simply having students complete group projects is likely insufficient for developing these higher-order collaboration abilities. Instead, explicit training using strategies like coached team debriefs, role-play simulations, and guided reflections may be needed to foster the self- and team regulation capabilities required in multidisciplinary contexts. Instructors should aim to make typically opaque team processes more visible and create scaffolded opportunities for students to cycle through various team roles and responsibilities.

However, the modest correlation also implies that other individual factors like personality traits, cognitive styles, cultural backgrounds, and institutional climate likely interact in shaping collaboration self-efficacy beliefs from training initiatives. A comprehensive approach complementing training with a programmatic culture reinforcing collaboration skills’ value may be needed, such as embedding teamwork into program goals, incentivizing team pedagogies, and coaching faculty as facilitators.

Investigating how specific intervention characteristics impact student preparedness, and developing a systematic evidence base around the optimal instructional design of teamwork training within architectural education, represents an important future research direction for maximizing the effectiveness of collaboration skill-building efforts.

Ultimately, the findings highlight viewing collaboration not as secondary skill but a complex suite of cognitive, behavioral, and affective competencies requiring purposeful, integrated development across the entire curriculum. Employing strategic methods like targeted training, practice, cultural reinforcement, and authentic project experiences can generate graduates truly prepared for multidisciplinary professional realities.

6. Conclusions

This study has illuminated the self-perceived collaborative competencies among architecture and interior architecture students at Eastern Mediterranean University, highlighting their significance in team-oriented design projects and professional settings. This investigation has pinpointed both commendable strengths and potential areas for pedagogical enhancement.

The students demonstrated commendable work ethics, with an emphasis on producing high-quality work, alongside well-honed self-reflective and evaluative skills, and generally adapting time management. Nonetheless, opportunities for growth were identified in fostering more robust collaborative learning environments, enhancing adaptability to various team roles, and bolstering the collective ideation process.

However, the findings also suggest that the development of student collaboration skills may be limited by the inherent structure and priorities of the current architectural education paradigm. Broader critiques highlight the need for architectural curricula to expand beyond technical skills and design aesthetics and engage more deeply with interdisciplinary, socially oriented, and community-based learning. Addressing these systemic gaps in collaborative learning could be a necessary precursor to truly cultivating the teamwork competencies that students will need to thrive in professional practice.

Through exploratory factor analysis, five key facets of teamwork emerged: interpersonal facilitation, collaborative leadership, contributory engagement, active listening, and transparent information exchange. These elements are pivotal in preparing students for the collaborative demands of architectural practice, accentuating the need for leadership acumen, interpersonal adeptness, and active participation.

Differences noted between international and domestic students suggest that collaborative abilities are cultivated distinctively, necessitating tailored educational strategies to uniformly nurture specific skills within a heterogeneous student body.

The study’s setting, within two accredited departments of the Faculty of Architecture, lends credibility to the educational standards represented, suggesting a level of comprehensiveness in the architectural training provided. However, for the broader applicability and enhanced validity of the findings, future inquiries should consider a more expansive and varied academic sample.

This research underscores the complex nature of teamwork and offers a blueprint for refining the instruction of these vital skills within architectural and design education. A balanced focus on fostering collaborative leadership, interpersonal interaction, group engagement, and effective communication, in conjunction with technical knowledge, is essential. Cultivating these core competencies is imperative for preparing future architects and designers to excel in the inherently collaborative nature of their profession.

To augment the collaborative aptitudes of architecture students, it is recommended to integrate a greater number of team-based learning experiences within the curriculum, conduct specialized workshops to hone teamwork skills, promote interdisciplinary projects that mirror real-world collaboration, and devise detailed assessment tools for evaluating and enhancing teamwork abilities.

This investigation marks a progressive stride in the quest to endow architecture graduates with formidable collaborative skills. However, the findings also suggest that addressing the broader limitations of the current architectural education system may be necessary to truly unlock the full collaborative potential of future architects and designers. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of diverse instructional methods on teaching teamwork, to understand how individual variances affect skill acquisition and to establish effective strategies for embedding collaboration skill development within architectural education.