Students' Learning Styles and Their Correlation with ...

Abstract of thesis

“Students’ Learning Styles and Their Correlation with Academic

Performance in Architectural Design Studio” Submitted by

Jia Yunyan For the degree of Master of Philosophy At the University of Hong Kong In December 2003 Architectural curricula and studio design programs are typically written with concern for theoretical and professional training in mind, and pay no attention to the ways in which a particular problem may privilege or disadvantage different students. It is important therefore to understand how students learn before we try to improve teaching in architectural design studio. The issues of how students learn and how their ways of learning differ from each other seem rarely discussed in architectural education. Individual differences of learning have been explicitly explored in the field of education, but the insights from these studies have not been applied to architectural studio teaching and learning.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory, a widely used model in professional education, indicates that learners acquire design knowledge through a four-staged learning cycle (concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation), and that individual learners develop their own learning preferences. Students may begin their design learning from different starting points—imaging, watching, meta-planning, or doing—and may rely particularly on one or two of the learning stages. In this model, learners can be classified, according to four learning styles, as either divergers, assimilators, convergers, or accommodators. Using Experiential Learning Theory, this study explores the learning styles of architectural students in a school in China and correlates their learning styles with design studio

performance. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, developed and revised by Kolb, was administered to 91 students to identify their learning styles. The students participated in one of two studio programs and their academic performance was correlated to learning styles. It was found that there was a statistically significant correlation between learning styles and academic performance in architectural design studio. It was also found that Assimilators achieved the statistically significantly lowest mark in Program 2. And the only Converger in Program 1 achieved the lowest mark, but no statistically significant differences were found due to the small sample size. From these results, we conclude that architectural studio programs can disadvantage students with certain learning styles. The results were then compared with the findings of a similar study reported by Demirbas and Demirkan. The comparison suggests that a design studio can encompass a wider range of learning styles if its programs start from ill-defined design problems, permit a range of communication media, and last for a relatively long duration, than if the design problem is well-defined and the process heavily restricted. This study also suggests that a test of learning style can be conducted in the early phase of design studio and an awareness by the teacher and the need to accommodate diverse learning styles could result in different studio programs.

Students’ Learning Styles and Their Correlation with Academic Performance in Architectural Design Studio

by

Jia Yunyan

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong

December 2003

To Jesus Christ

Declaration

I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowledgement is made, and that it has not been previously included in a thesis, dissertation or report submitted to this University or to any other institution for a degree, diploma or other qualification.

Signed ………………………………………………….. Jia Yunyan Department of Architecture The University of Hong Kong

I

Acknowledgement

This thesis was made possible by the contributions from many people. Thanks to my supervisor Dr. Beisi Jia, who has given me kind guidance and patience during my two-year’s study.

Acknowledgement is gratefully addressed to Prof. Thomas Kvan for his enduring comments and insightful inquiries, which helped me explore a great mass of new knowledge, gradually involve in a rigorous attitude to research, and come to enjoy doing research. During my thesis writing, he provided encouragement, sound advice and prompt feedback on my thesis drafts.

I own special debts to Ms. Qin Lin, who effectively helped me in the survey, Ms. Huang Ling, who afforded me the studio project briefs. Special thanks to Dr. Thilakaratne Ruffina Sharmila, Prof. S Ganesan, Mr. Zeng Jian, and Mr. Fernando Harsha for their dedicated involvement and detail comments in the early phase of my research. Thanks to Ms. Gao Song, Prof. Gu Daqing, Mr. Wang Haofeng, Ms. Chen Haiyan, Ms. Candy, and Mr. M A Schnabel et al for their helpful comments and discussions. Finally, acknowledgements are due to all the students who completed the survey.

Needless to say, I should acknowledge the Hong Kong Government’s University Grants Committee (UGC) for their generous offer of Postgraduate Studentship that financially supported my study.

II

Contents Declaration…………………………………………………………………

I

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………... II Contents……………………………………………………………………. III Figures……………………………………………………………………… VI Tables……………………………………………………………………….

VI

Abbreviations……………………………………………………………… VII Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………

1

Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………..

2

1.1 Definition of learning styles………………………………………………………..

4

1.2 Design of research……………………………….…………………………………

5

1.3 Structure of the thesis……………………….……………………………………..

6

Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………….

7

2.1 The Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)………………………………………….

7

2.1.1 The learning cycle…………………………………………………………..

8

2.1.2 The four learning styles……………………………………………………..

11

2.2 Application of ELT………………………………………………………………..

15

2.2.1 The test of undergraduates’ learning styles………………………………...

16

2.2.2 Correlation between learning style and academic achievement……………

18

2.2.3 ELT applied for improving learning and teaching…………………………

19

2.3 Learning in architectural design studio…………………………………………….

21

2.3.1 Design studio setting………………………………………………………

21

2.3.2 Design problems………………………..…………………………………

23

2.4 Problems of traditional design studio programs……………………………………

27

2.5 Efforts of improving studio programs……………………………………………...

29

2.6 Study of learning styles in design learning………………………………………….

33

III

Chapter 3 The Study………………………………………………………

35

3.1 Background of the case studies…………………………………………………….

35

3.2 Aim of the study …………………………………………………………………..

37

3.3 Selection of cases ………………………………………………………………….

38

3.4 Research Question………………………………………………………………...

39

Chapter 4 Methodology…………………………………………………..

40

4.1 Instrument…………………………………………………………………………

40

4.2 The Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ)………………………………………….

41

4.3 The shifted axis of K-LSI (II)………………………………………………………

43

4.4 Cross-cultural application of K-LSI (II)……………………………………………

46

4.5 Selection of instrument…………………………………………………………….

48

4.6 Administration of the K-LSI (II)…………………………………………………..

48

4.7 Methods of data analysis……………………………………………………………

49

Chapter 5 Findings………………………………………………………... 50 5.1 Learning style distribution of the sample groups…………………………………...

50

5.2 Correlation between learning style and students performance……………………..

52

5.2.1 The two programs………………………………………………………….

52

5.2.2 The assessment criteria……………………………………………………...

53

5.2.3 Results of correlation analysis……………………………………………….

56

Chapter 6 Discussion……………………………………………………..

59

6.1 The comparing research…………………………………………………………...

59

6.2 Learning style distribution…………………………………………………………

62

6.3 Ill-defined problems vs. well-defined problems…………………………………..

64

6.4 The time dimension in studio design programs……………………………………

65

6.5 The product-based assessment…………………………………………………….

69

6.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………..

71

IV

Chapter 7 Conclusion……………………………………………………

72

7.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..

72

7.2 Limitation…………………………………………………………………………

76

7.3 Future research…………………………………………………………………….

76

Appendix…………………………………………………………………..

78

References………………………………………………………………….

89

V

Figures Figure 1

The learning cycle………………………………………………………………

Figure 2

Structural dimensions underlying the four staged

8

learning process……………………………………………………………..

11

Figure 3

The four learning styles………………………………………………………..

12

Figure 4

Results of students’ learning styles tested by two different instruments…………………………………………………………

43

Figure 5

The shifted axis of K-LSI (II)………………………………………………….

45

Figure 6

Learning style distribution of the participants in Program 1 and Program 2……………………………………………………

51

Figure 7

Performance means of final marks of different styles of learners……………………………………………………………………

57

Figure 8

The t-test results of different learners’ performance…………….……………..

58

Figure 9

The percentages of active learners vs. reflective learners……………………...

63

Figure 10

The link between Speed and Action…………………………….……………...

67

Tables Table 1

Learning styles and the five levels of behavior………………………………...

15

Table 2

Coding schema of Broadbent et al (1997)……………………………………...

31

Table 3

Values of Hofstede’s (2001) five dimensions of culture……………………….

47

Table 4

Summary of the two programs…………………………………..……………..

54

Table 5

Results of chi-square analysis…………………………………………………..

56

Table 6

Means of the final marks……………………………………………………….

57

Table 7

T-test results……………………………………………………………………

58

Table 8

Comparison between the Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) research and the present research in duration, assessment,

Table 9

and results……………………………………………………………………

61

Proposed revision of the two programs………………………………………..

74

VI

Abbreviations

AC

Abstract Conceptualization

AE

Active Experimentation

CE

Concrete Experience

RO

Reflective Observation

ELT

Experiential Learning Theory

K-LSI

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory

LSQ

Learning Style Questionnaire (Honey and Mumford 1986, 1992)

VII

Jia Yunyan

Accommodating Different Learning Styles in Architectural Design Studio

Hypotheses

There is a significant correlation between students’ learning styles and their performance in design studio project.

1

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 1. Introduction

This chapter briefly reviews the nature of architectural design learning and teaching, and a need for accommodating individuality of learners. The need for such a study will be made present.

The teaching method employed in design studios has a long tradition in architectural education and has been held up as an exemplar for teaching in other disciplines (Boyer and Mitgang 1996). Derived from the ‘atelier’ in the Ecole des Beaux Arts over one hundred years ago, it was transformed into a ‘workshop’ in the Bauhaus in the early twentieth century and later came to be perceived as a design laboratory in America (Gu 2001). Schön (1983) observed the communication between a tutor and a student in studio and argued that studio learning was developed through a process he named “reflection-in-action”. He further argued that such process was a typical of professional work and could be generalized to other professional educations (Schön 1983). However, Schön neglected the fact that architectural design process differs between individuals (Akin 1979; Davies 1987; Lloyd and Scott 1995). The too small sample size of his study left him no chance to address individual differences in studio learning processes. Recently, new studio programs are introduced and discussed in academic journals to improve the efficiency of studio teaching. But one should notice that more about what teachers should teach but few about how students learn.

2

Jia Yunyan


The issues of how students learn and how their ways of learning differ from each other seem rarely discussed in architectural education. On the other hand, individual differences of learning have been explicitly explored in the field of education.

The bulk of educational theories proposed so far have classified learners into different learning styles. But few have been applied to architectural studio teaching and learning. In the area of professional education, Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) has been widely used to explore the learning styles of undergraduates. In this theory, learners are classified into four types according to their preferences of cognitive stages of learning: accommodator, diverger, assimilator, and converger. This study adopts Kolb’s theory as a model to explore the issue of individual difference of architectural undergraduates and the correlation with design learning performance.

Increasing pressures to optimize learning opportunities offered to students (Fox 1984) also increase the importance of studying learning styles. Considering individual difference in teaching decreases the likelihood of learners being exposed to learning experiences that they find unhelpful and thus can help reduce frustration (Honey and Mumford 1986; Honey and Mumford 1992). On the other hand, architectural curricula and studio design programs are typically written with concerns for theoretical and professional training in mind without paying any attention to the ways in which a particular problem may privilege or disadvantage different students (Kvan 2003). For

3

Jia Yunyan


design studio learning, a study on the learning styles of students and whether the current studio program encourages or disadvantages learners of certain learning styles is needed the improve the current studio programs.

1.1 Definition of learning style The concept ‘style’ represents a distinct notion of coherent singularity (Rayner and Riding 1997).

“Learning Style” has many different definitions varied with the

different theoretical framework and dimensions. For example, Dunn and Griggs (1988) focused on individual’s preferred learning environment and defined learning styles as the manner in which a combination of physical, psychological, emotional, sociological and environmental elements affect an individual’s ability to perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment, which is often used in special education. Keirsey and Marilyn (1984), focusing on personality differences, identified learning style as learners’ preferred instructional technique, curriculum content, and their preferred response to appropriate feedback from their mentors. In spite of the different definitions, they are common in classifying learners into different categories in order to study the individual difference of learners. In this study, Kolb’s (1984) ELT, which lends great weight on the developmental nature of learning ability and style, is employed as the underlying structure of learning styles. Learning styles thus can be defined as individual’s preferred way of learning (Kolb 1984). As a life-long cognitive growth process, the learning process is a four-stage experiential learning cycle that

4

Jia Yunyan


reflects how people perceive information and process information. As most learners place emphasis on one or two stages, they can be classified into four types of learning style (Kolb 1984): --Divergers: learners who typically perceive information concretely and process it reflectively; --Convergers: learners who perceive information abstractly and process it actively; --Assimilators: learners who perceive information abstractly and process it reflectively; --Accommodators: learners who perceive information concretely and process it actively;

1.2 Design of research The theoretical foundation of this research is based on ELT (Kolb 1984). Samples are 91 Year Two and Year Three architectural undergraduates in an architectural school in China. The study employs Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI (II)) (Kolb 1985) for evaluation of the students’ learning styles. Marks for the design project and program files were collected for further discussion. The results of the learning styles and the students’ marks of the design project are correlation analyzed by statistical program SPSS.

5

Jia Yunyan


1.3 Structure of the thesis This thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter One is the Introduction. Chapter Two presents a detailed discussion of ELT and its application, the design studio teaching and program, and the research efforts of improving studio teaching. Chapter Three shows the framework of the study. Chapter Four describes the methodology of the study. Chapter Five reports the results of the research. Chapter Six discusses the results and their possible reasons. Chapter Seven presents the conclusions.

6

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 2. Literature Review 2.1 The Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) A widely employed framework of learner’s learning styles in the area of professional education is Kolb’s (1984) ELT model. Kolb reports that he developed ELT from the works of Lewin (1948), who proposed that learning is best facilitated by an integrated four-staged cycle, Dewey (1934; 1929), who stated learning is a dialectic process integrating experience and concepts, observations, and action, and Piaget (1964; 1970), who viewed the learning process as a four-staged cognitive growth process. All these theories share a common view that learning is a process whereby concepts are derived from and continuously modified by experience (Kolb 1984). The education process should begin with bearing the learner’s original beliefs and theories in mind and integrating the new ideas into his own knowledge systems by examining and testing the old ones. In ELT, learning is “a holistic process of human adaptation to the world” (Kolb 1984 p.31). Learning in this sense is an active, self-directed, and life-long process that can be applied in everyday life. It occurs in all kind of settings and encompasses all life stages. To learn involves the integrated functioning of thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving, as well as communications between the person and the environment.

7

Jia Yunyan


2.1.1 The learning cycle From these foundations, Kolb has developed a learning theory in which learning is modeled as a four-staged cycle (Figure 1) comprised of concrete experience (CE), reflective

observation

(RO),

abstract

conceptualization

(AC),

and

active

experimentation (AE).

Figure 1. The learning cycle

Concrete experience (CE) At the stage of concrete experience the learner simply participates with an open mind, carrying the task with intension. Fully involved in the new experience, he acts as an intuitive decision maker in unstructured situations. He is extroverted and collaborative occupied in mind by the uniqueness and

8

Jia Yunyan


complexity of present reality (Honey and Mumford 1986; Hutcheson 1999; Kolb 1984; Kolb 1985).

Reflective observation (RO) At this stage the learner steps back from task involvement and reviews what has been done and experienced. He views experiences impartially or from many different perspectives and relies on his own thoughts and feelings to form opinions when gathering information. This stage of learning ensures a considered, thoughtful judgment approach during problem-solving or decision making (Honey and Mumford 1986; Hutcheson 1999; Kolb 1984; Kolb 1985) .

Abstract conceptualization (AC) After evaluating different alternatives, the learner continues with interpreting the events that have been noticed and understanding the relationships among them. He generalizes the reflected-upon experience into an abstract conceptual framework and develops explanations or hypotheses. It is at this stage that theory may be particularly helpful as a template for framing and explaining events. The learner creates concepts that integrate observations and experiences into (Hutcheson 1999). At this learning stage, he relies mainly on analysis and study to form general models and concepts (Honey and Mumford 1986; Hutcheson 1999; Kolb 1984; Kolb 1985).

9

Jia Yunyan


Active experimentation (AE) The learner then uses the built theory to make decisions and solve problems in real-world situations (David 1993). He tests and elaborates generalizations by experiencing actively to see the outcomes of this inquiry. This enables the learner to translate his new understanding into predictions about what is likely to happen next or what actions should be taken to refine the way the task is handled. At this stage, he mainly cares about what works, as opposed to what is absolute truth, eager to see the results and focusing on practical application rather than reflective understanding. Hypotheses tested by future actions will lead the learner into another cycle of experience, reflection, and so on (Honey and Mumford 1986; Hutcheson 1999; Kolb 1984; Kolb 1985).

From this, Kolb establishes two dimensions of the four stages in the learning cycle: the prehension dimension—whether the learner grasps knowledge via apprehension or comprehension; and the transformation dimension—whether knowledge is transformed via extension or intension. He suggests that the CE dimension is dialectically opposed to AC, which constructs the prehension dimension, and likewise RO to AE, which constructs the transformation dimension (Figure 2).

10

Jia Yunyan


Figure 2. Structural dimensions underlying the four staged learning process (taken from Kolb 1984 p.42)

2.1.2 The four learning styles An effective learner needs four dialectically opposed abilities. That is, he must be able to involve himself fully and openly in new experiences (CE), followed by reflecting on and observing the experience from many perspectives (RO), which leads to creating concepts and integrating his observations into logically sound theories (AC), resulting in using these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE) leading to a new cycle. As a result of the learning cycle, the learner must continuously change his set of learning abilities in different learning situations. In an entire process of learning, he moves in varying degrees from actor to observer and from specific involvement to general

11

Jia Yunyan


analytical detachment. Based on life experience and innate characteristics, individuals will develop preferences for one or two particular phases of the learning cycle. By mapping the individual’s location on each of the concrete-abstract and active-reflective dimensions it is possible to identify that person’s relative emphasis of concreteness over abstractness and active experimentation over reflection (Kolb 1984). Learners can thus be classified in this model into one of four learning styles, namely, converger, diverger, assimilator, and accommodator, mapped in one of the four quadrants (Kolb 1976; Kolb 1984) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The four learning styles (adapted from Kolb (1984))

12

Jia Yunyan


Kolb (1984; 1985) describes these four styles as:

Assimilators (combine AC and RO) Assimilators are best at understanding a wide range of information and organizing it into concise, logical form. They are good at assimilating disparate facts into coherent theories, yet incapable of or not interested in deducing hypothesis from the theory. Their strength lies in inductive reasoning and the ability to create theoretical models, in organizing disparate observations into an integrated explanation. They are interested in abstract ideas and concepts rather than people. They value the logical soundness of a theory more than its practical value.

Convergers (combine AC and CE) Convergers are best at finding practical use to theories and ideas and are good at solving problems and making decisions. They tend to do best in situations where there is a single correct answer to a question. They organize knowledge by hypothetical-deductive reasoning, focused on specific problems. Usually they are reluctant to express their emotion and prefer dealing with technical tasks than with social and interpersonal issues.

13

Jia Yunyan


Diverger (combines CE and RO) Divergers are best at viewing concrete situations from different points of view and organizing many relationships into a meaningful whole picture. They prefer brainstorming situations to taking action. They are interested in people and tend to be imaginative and feeling-oriented. They involve themselves in new experiences, tackling problems by brainstorming and moving from one task to the next as the excitement fades and are especially good at imaginative ability and awareness of meaning and values.

Accommodator (combines CE and AE) Accommodators learn primarily from “hands-on” experience. They prefer to act on feelings rather than on logical analysis. In solving problems, they rely more heavily on people for information than on their own technical analysis. Their strength lies in doing things, in carrying out plans and tasks and getting involved in new experiences. They are good at opportunity seeking, risk taking, and handling changing immediate circumstances. When the theory or plans do not fit the facts, they would discard the plan or theory (while on the contrary, the assimilator would reexamine the facts.)

Learning styles result from unique individual programming of the basic but flexible structure of human learning. According to Kolb (1984), they are related to five levels

14

Jia Yunyan


of behavior: personality, educational specialization, professional career, current job role, and adaptive competences. The particular learning style is continuously shaped by a learner’s personality disposition, his educational experiences, his professional academic career commitment, the demand of his current job and the specific task he is working on. Table 1. Learning styles and the five levels of behavior (summarized from Kolb 1984) Learning styles

Diverger

Assimilator

Converger

Accommodator

Personality type

Introvert feeling

Introvert intuition

Extrovert thinking

Extrovert sensing

Educational

Arts

Social science

Physical science

Social science

Professional

Science-based

Social professions

career

professions

specialization

Current job role

Personal jobs

Information jobs

Technical jobs

Executive jobs

Adaptive

Valuing skills

Thinking skills

Deciding skills

Acting skills

competencies

2.2 Application of ELT The ELT has been applied in a variety of professional education contexts (Kolb et al. 2001). Between 1985 and 2002, there have been more than 800 papers based on ELT that range the disciplines of education, management, computer science, psychology, medicine, nursing, accounting and law (Kolb and Kolb 2002). Studies have aimed to describe the predominant learning styles of various professional groups (Brown et al.

15

Jia Yunyan


1994; Cavanagh et al. 1995). Learning styles have also been used to predict students’ academic achievement (Kruzich et al. 1986). Chou and Wang (1999) found that the AE-RO dimension of Kolb's learning style has a significant impact on learning performance.

Researchers explored several instruments based on experiential learning theories (Kolb 1985; Hutcheson 1999; Honey and Mumford 1986) to evaluate individual’s learning style. They have been used as tools to help students discover their own learning styles in a non-threatening way, to compare their strengths and weakness to demands of the field into which they intend to move, and to stimulate their conscious efforts to develop new learning potential (Stout and Ruble 1991; Veres et al. 1987). By clarifying how they learn, teachers can help students better adapt to various learning environments. Sadler-Smith (1997) suggests that the experiential learning model might provide useful guidelines for accommodating individual differences between learners when designing self-instructional materials which may enable the effectiveness of learning and autonomy in learning.

2.2.1 The test of undergraduates’ learning styles Certain learning styles are developed that reflect the special needs and learning demands of the discipline. Researchers have looked into the relationship between educational specialization and learning style (Kolb et al. 2001). People with

16

Jia Yunyan


undergraduate major in the arts, history, political science, English, and psychology had preference for diverging styles, whereas those majoring in more abstract and applied areas such as physical science, and engineering were found to have converging styles. Individuals with educational backgrounds in business and management had converging styles, and those with backgrounds in economics, mathematics, sociology, and chemistry had assimilating learning style.

The results of widely tested nurse

undergraduates are rather different from each other: Hutch (1981) found that the predominant learning style of student nurses was accommodator; King (1984) found preferences for accommodator and diverger; Rumfelt (1991) diverger and assimilator; and O’ Kell (1988) converger or accommodator. While Cavanagh et al. (1995), on surveying 192 nurse students, report that in this sample the nurse students have fairly evenly distributed learning styles. Brown et al (1994) employ the Myers-Briggs-type indicator (MBTI), based on Jung’s (1921) model of psychological types, to assess the character and temperament types by asking people’s habitual behaviors (Brown et al. 1994; McCaulley 1990). They report that the personality preferences in their sample of landscape architecture students and faculty are generally intuitive-thinking and intuitive-feeling types. According to Kolb (1984)’s relating learning style to the MBTI personality types (Table 1), this result may probably indicate the three learning styles: diverger, assimilator, and converger. That is, accommodators are the minority of landscape architectural undergraduates in this sample. Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) find similar results using Kolb’s LSI (II) to test the learning styles of architectural undergraduates.

17

Jia Yunyan


2.2.2 Correlation between learning style and academic achievement Research has also looked into the relationship between learning styles and academic achievement. There is a widely held view that matching learning style and instructional strategy can improve the effectiveness of education and training. Hayes and Allinson (1993) reviewed 17 studies on the interaction effect of learning style and instructional strategy, five of which were based on Kolb’s ELT model (Sein 1988; Sein and Bostorm 1989; Sein 1987; Kolb and Goldman 1973; Vondrell and Sweeney 1989). All of the five studies provide support for the proposition that instructional strategy will be differentially effective for students with different learning styles.

Bostrom et al (1990) compared three studies which examined the relationship between learning styles and students’ performance on learning to work with computing software packages. The three studies provided two conceptual models in training methods: the analogical model, in which the computers’ actions were explained in terms of the actions of a messenger, and the abstract model, in which the same content were explained through a simple mathematical notation. Scores on a post-training quiz and time taken to perform a task were used as measurements of academic achievement. Two of the studies (Sein, Bostrom and Olfman 1987; Sein and Bostrom 1989) report significant higher achievement of abstract learners in the abstract training model and,

18

Jia Yunyan


conversely, concrete learners in the analogue training model. Researches also explored whether there is a correlation between learning style and other factors such as gender or age (Cavanagh et al. 1995; Kruzich et al. 1986), but no significant correlations were reported.

2.2.3 ELT applied for improving learning and teaching The ELT implies that learners learn most effectively when they are provided opportunities to learn in their preferred styles. Thus an awareness of the learning cycle and the identification of learning styles are of immediate relevance to all of those involved in program design (Sadler-Smith 1997). Suggestions are also made by Davis (1993) to accommodate different learning styles in the class including teacher’s sensitivity to students’ learning styles, providing multiplied choices in assignments and learning activities. This provides instructors a perspective to address conflicts between their teaching style and a student’s contrasting learning style by supplementing their instruction with aspects of other methods.

On the other hand, an ideally effective learner would have the ability to integrate the dual dialectics of the learning process (Kolb et al. 2001). On this concern, Felder notes that a teacher does not have to teach in students’ preferred way (Cardellini 2002). Instead, he suggests “balance” as the key to accommodate diverse learning styles in a curriculum. That is, to make sure “that we address both sides of every learning style

19

Jia Yunyan


dimension rather than always favoring one side at the expense of the other” (Cardellini 2002 p.64). Honey and Mumford (1986) also suggest that a balanced teaching approach should accommodate each stage of the learning cycle. Specifically they suggest two approaches to improve learning: 1) The program should provide and facilitate a range of activities to enable learners to learn at their preferred styles. 2) The tutor should help the students to be aware of the learning cycle and their own strengths and preferences, as well as help them develop under-developed learning styles (Honey and Mumford 1992 p.24).

A successful development of individual learners can be achieved by self-instruction. Sadler-Smith (1997) develops a series of activities for self-instruction according to Honey and Mumford’s (1986) guideline. The self-instruction strategy is based on a prerequisite that learners be aware of their learning cycle, aware of their own strengths and preferences, and able to select those activities congruent with their own preferences. But the model is still in need of validation by further empirical research.

20

Jia Yunyan


2.3 Learning in architectural design studio The design process can be seen as a learning process. In the course of designing, the designer is learning about the problem, the solution, and relationships between them (Cross 1983; Levin 1966; Eastman 1970). Design learning thus is learning “how to learn”. During the process of design learning, students learn to clarify ideas and develop ideas independently.

2.3.1 Design studio setting The design studio is the locus of architectural design learning and teaching, a setting where students communicate with one another and receive comments from the tutor. The bulk of students’ design work at school is accomplished in the design studio (Woolley 1991). The studio experience thus becomes the most important aspect of an architectural student’s education. Schön (1985) describes a typical studio setting in MIT:

The setting is a loft-like space in which each of twenty students has arranged his or her own drawing tables, paper, books, pictures and models. This is the space in which students spend much of their working lives, at times talking together, but mostly engaged in private, parallel pursuit of the common design task. At the beginning of the semester, … the studio master gave all of the students a “program”—a set of design requirements … and a graphic description of the site on which the (designed building) is to be built.

21

Jia Yunyan


In the course of the semester, each student is to develop his own version of the design, recording his results in preliminary sketches, working drawing and models. At the end of the semester, there will be a “crit” at which the students present their designs to (the studio master) and to a group of outside critics (the “jury”). At intervals throughout the semester, (the studio master) holds design reviews with each student …(Schön 1985 p.32)

With an architectural teaching background in MIT, Yakeley (2000) refines the description of teaching and learning in design studio with more details:

Studios usually last either one or two semesters. Design projects are devised and supervised by the studio professor who conducts weekly tutorials or “desk crits”, group discussions and activities. Student development in the studio is monitored through work presented in tutorials and at the more formal “crits” (also known as “pin ups” or “juries”) that punctuate the semester’s progression. A typical studio will have two or three major crits – one at the end of the semester, and one or more “mid-terms”. In a crit the student presents her work to date through drawings, models, computer images and animations, or whatever medium she has been working with. The juries offer criticism, advice and suggestion of direction or work to be completed (Yakeley 2000 p.21).

Anthony (1991) compares design studio in North America with other classes on university campus and noted the differences in process, end product and method of evaluation. In studio learning, design students work in a group setting instead of solitarily. They receive advice from the faculty as well as from classmates and visitors during the process of design. The end product is in the form of graphic, supplemented

22

Jia Yunyan


by oral presentation in public. They receive public and immediate feedback of their work, graded with comments from jurors and/or instructors.

2.3.2 Design problems The studio program, which provides the initial design problems, plays an important role in the development of the design learning process. Students acquire preliminary information of the location of the site and the constraints of design from a program brief at the start of the project. As the student becomes more experienced, studio programs become progressively more complex in their requirements and constraints (Schön 1984a, Schön 1985).

Design problems are widely recognized to be well-defined or ill-defined problems that requiring a particular methodological approach (Schön 1983; Newell 1970).Welldefined problems refer to the end and the goals of those are already prescribed and identified such as the problems of natural science (Salama 1997). Ill-defined problems are ones where both ends and means of solutions are unknown, ambiguous, or uncertain (Newell 1970). Similarly, Simon (1973) categorizes design problems into well-structured and ill-structured problems. He defines ill-structured problem as ‘a problem whose structure lacks definition in some respect’ (Simon 1973).

23

Jia Yunyan


To work on ill-defined problems need a different process from that on well-defined problems with rational approaches (Schön 1983; Kvan 2000a). Seeing the design process as a mechanical problem-solving process, positivists tended to see design problems as well defined and tried to improve the studio program by specifying certain design processes focusing on problem-solving skills. A turning point occurred in 1967 when Churchman reported the idea of “wicked problem”, which defined by Rittel as the “class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Churchman 1967). Rittel and Webber (1973) further identified ten properties of ‘wicked problems’: no definitive formulation, no stopping rule, no true-or false solution, no immediate and ultimate test of a solution, no opportunity to learn by trialand-error, no exhaustively describable set of solutions, and essentially unique, a symptom of another problem, choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution, no right to be wrong (for the effects can matter a great deal to those people that are touched by those actions). The studies of wicked problems “encouraged a rethinking of design process and a recasting of their methods in a different light” (Kvan 2000 p.54). People came to realize that rational approach is inadequate as a description of professional practice that mainly deals with “uncertainty, uniqueness, and value conflict” (Schön 1987 p.6). Instead, professionals often find themselves engaged in ill-defined situations that require a creative approach.

24

Jia Yunyan


Like Schön, Simon illustrates the work of architects as an example of dealing with illstructured tasks—of which there are neither definite criterion to test a proposed solution, nor a mechanic process to apply the criterion, and even the final product is merely the presentation of real products.

“… the architect begins with the sole problem of designing a house. The client has presumably told him something of his needs, in terms of family size or number of rooms, and his budget (which the architects will multiply by 1.5 or 2 before accepting it as a constraint). Additional specification will be obtained from the dialogue between architect and client, but the totality of that dialogue between architect and client will still leave the design goals quite incompletely specified. The more distinguished the architect, the less expectation that the client should provide the constraints (Simon 1973 p.153).”

Eraut (1994) suggests five typical features of the process for solving ill-defined problems: some uncertainty about outcomes; guidance from theory which is only partially helpful; relevant but often insufficient contextual knowledge; pressure on the time available for deliberation; a strong tendency to follow accustomed patterns of thinking; and an opportunity, perhaps a requirement to consult or involve other people.

25

Jia Yunyan


During the process the designer must continuously analyze and modify both his current solution and his understanding of the problem at every stage (Schön 1983, Schön, 1984; Simon 1973). In other words, they frame “the problematic situation presented by site and program in such a way as to create a springboard for design inquiry” (Schön 1984, p.6). Only when the final design is complete is it possible to precisely define the original design problem. The design activities of problem-framing happen through out the process of design (Schön 1984a; Schön 1984b). “The student must impose his preferences onto the situation in the form of choices whose consequences and implications he must subsequently work out” (Schön 1984 p.6). The same identical program and the same technical constraints can thus generate as many solutions as there are students (Broadbent et al. 1997).

The wicked or ill-defined nature of design problems makes it impossible to teach by means of a formulaic process. It is, instead, necessary to engage the students in an activity that can promote and develop their own personal method of designing. Each student must construct his or her own understanding of what the design process involves. This is one of the reasons that Schön (1984) was convinced that the design studio offered a paradigm for other professional education that require sensitive judgment under changing conditions of conflict and ambiguity. In this way, some educators provide programs with the least information to leave most space for the students’ creative exploration.

26

Jia Yunyan


2.4 Problems of traditional design studio programs Architectural education, particularly the teaching and learning in design studio, faces many problems. Researchers have noticed the gap between studio programs and the professional design work. As early as 1932, in a study of North American architectural schools, Bothworth and Jones noted that the program inherited from the Ecole des Beaux Arts was highly artificial and that it cannot match the work of practicing architects. The difference noted was that students were kept away from writing programs, while a large part of an architect’s work consists of writing programs, which essentially “relates to investigating, systematizing, and formulating his clients’ needs” (Bothworth and Jones 1932, cited by Salama 1997 p.61). Anthony’s (1991) interview with a number of educators and practitioners in US shows that studio program didn’t improve much in this aspect up to 1990s.

The traditional studio teaching sees the design process as an intuitive process. The teaching of studio tended to be largely intuitive; learning is from role models (Woolley 1991;Salama 1997). Many novice students assume that designing a building occurred in a single, huge leap of the imagination where the architect moves from not knowing, to knowing exactly the final building design in a single design thought.

27

Jia Yunyan


As the process is seen as a mystery, the assessment of traditional studio programs is typically based on the quality of the products (Kvan 1997; Darke 1979, Lloyd & Scott 1995; Anthony 1991). The emphasis on products is a similar tradition with professional architectural practice. Yet in the academic context, the products of design studio learning are representations in the form of models or drawings rather than built form in practice (Oxman 1999; Yakeley 2000). Design representations are different from sketches or working models during the design development process, they are usually created after the completion of the design for public display instead of a communication tool for private use.

The assessment of traditional studio teaching assumes the effectiveness of designing to be reflected in the quality of these representations (Oxman 1999). As a result students with good representation skills will usually do better in architecture school than those whose skills are less well developed. Architecture students quickly learn that the higher quality of the images, the more likely they are to succeed. They learn to spend a great deal of time developing beautiful, iconographic imagery instead of learning to design. The focus on product thus makes students forget “the journey of getting there and the lessons learned” (Kvan 2001). Individual differences inherited in the design development process are omitted in such context (Yakeley 2000).

28

Jia Yunyan


2.5 Efforts of improving studio programs Considering the above-mentioned problems of traditional design studio programs, efforts have been made to improve studio programs. Some educators have tried to compare the design process with the research process to deeper explore certain issues in architectural design. In Salama’s (1997) survey 81.1% of the studio instructors agree that research methods should be introduced into the studio, though most of them do not have a clear identification of the nature of research. For example, Jia (2001b) integrated design and research in an international housing design competition by integrating survey, analysis, discussion, evaluation, design and public participation into the design process. Liu, Macdonald et al (1999) focused on a thematic study as a portion of the second term of design studies in a first professional Masters of Architecture degree program. Recently program as adaptive reuse of historical buildings aimed to explore spatial potentiality and the architectonic dialogue on new/old relationships (Fu 1998). Burns (2001) run a program of manufactured housing to explore the culture of domestic structures. In a second-year graduate studio at the University of Pennsylvania, students were assigned to explore the issue of transparency by generating different spatial and tectonic models in transparent surfaces (Fierro 2003). The reports are usually structured with an introduction of the program, followed by selected students’ works. Yet we may wonder how the programs affected students’ learning, which was neglected in these reports.

29

Jia Yunyan


Researches have also examined the differences of teaching content in the design studios. Broadbent et al (1997), noting Schön’s small sample size, conducted a study to observe several professors and a large number of students in order to find differences among the conversational exchanges in studio. They employed a different coding criteria from Schön, developing one based on Broadbent’s (1973) “Type of Design”, Broadbent’s (1988) “Five Function Model”, and four factors derived from Kuhn’s (1962) four paradigm components. The detail of their coding schema is summarized in Table 2.

They used these combined criteria to assess the contents of professor’s comments and student’s response separately. In each of the several programs they observed, they found quite unevenly distribution of the exchanges related to the thirteen issues. By comparing the number of times topics were discussed in different studio programs, they illustrated the differences between studio programs in emphasis and teaching style.

30

Table 2. Coding schema of Broadbent et al (1997) Model

Name PD

Types

Definition

Pragmatic Design

of

design

“Anything to do with materials, construction, structure, servicing systems, etc.” (p. 14)

TP

Typologic Design

“In which design at whatever scale may be replicated according to some established type.” (p. 14)

AD

Analogic Design

“In which the designer draws analogies with: other architectures; paintings; natural forms, and so on.” (p. 14)

SD

Syntactic Design

In which the designer draws on some rule-based system as the determinant of form.

SA The Five Function

Fit of Space to

The extent to which how the building facilitates activities.

Activities EF

Model CS

Environmental

The extent to which how building provide finest possible conditions in terms of

Filtering

the physical feeling of users within the building.

Cultural

Concerning how building carries meaning.

Symbolism EP

EI

K1

Economic

Issues concerning profit and cost (constructional costs, capital costs, running

Performance

costs, and so on).

Environmental

Issues concerning how building will cause environmental degradation, such as

Impact

shading other buildings, generating wind vortices, and so on.

Shared Values

Ways of approaching things that architects share, those make them “members of

The

the club”, e.g. their attitudes to the environment, their views on the architect’s

“Kuhnian

role in society, and so on.

Paradigms

K2

”

Theoretical

Laws, theories and definitions to which architects subscribe, “probably history,

Background

(aesthetic and) philosophy, possibly anthropology, psychology, sociology, hopefully the (scientific) theories of materials and structures, the physics of heat, light and sound in buildings” (p.20).

K3

K4

Process

and

Design media such as sketches, drawings, and models, either “ontological” or

Representations

“heuristic”.

Exemplars

“‘Known to work’ procedures in planning, composition and so on” (p.20).

31

Jia Yunyan


Suggestions are also given on helping students adapt to the current studio system. In her book Design Juries on Trial Anthony (1991) suggests a number of tips for students to prepare for the final jury or client presentations and to cope more effectively with the design studio experience, including time management, researching the project and its users, the art of communications, preparing effective graphic presentations for the jury, and handling studio stress. Meanwhile she suggests that faculty and critics deliver constructive criticism.

On enhancing the opportunity of ‘doing’ and ‘experiencing’, many studios included fullscale construction activity in their programs. Such activities make the design more substantial and reduce the possible errors of imagination. Concrete realities such as materials and methods of construction are conceived as forms of embodied resistance to the conventional design process that provide occasions to test and reshape ideas imaginatively and poetically. Ideas gain poignancy through the concrete confirmation of the artifact. Participants learn to reflect on relevant architectural issues through an embodied, inter-subjective discourse comprising representational and constructed artifacts. Chi (1999) used full-scale installations as speculative devices in a third-year studio in Cornell’s five-year B.Arch. program. They explored the possibility of learning from having to live in their own designs for a time, showed another intriguing potential of the full-scale construction project. They reported that student participants learn both to explore new materials for typical construction applications and to invent new applications for typical materials. Studio 804 at the University of Kansas School of

32

Jia Yunyan


Architecture and Urban Design used the design-build experience as a way to explore alternative models for design practice (Ascher-Barnstone 2002).

2.6 Study of Learning styles in design learning Learning and designing can be thought of as the same basic process of adaptation viewed from different perspectives. Acquiring the knowledge of how to design needs action, personal experience and on appropriate learning environment (Gu 2001). Thus, design processes can vary with an individual’s learning style. For example, in a playground project, one student may begin his design with meta-planning (AC) in Kolb’s model, others may begin with drawing, sketching and modeling (AE), or imaging if he was a child playing on the playground what will he need (CE), or, begin with observing how his classmates design (RO) (Kvan 2003).

Although learning styles and their correlation with discipline and student performance has been extensively explored, few have applied the analysis to architectural design education. There have been some empirical studies looking at the designing activities of different individuals (Akin 1979; Davies 1987; Lloyd and Scott 1995). Newland et al (1987) conducted a study exploring the perception and cultural bias of architectural designers from which they identified four design learning styles: common sense learners, dynamic learners, contemplative learners, and zealous learners. Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) evaluated the effects of learning style preferences on the

33

Jia Yunyan


performance of design students using Kolb’s ELT; they found that the number of accommodating students was lower than that of other learning styles and most students were assimilators and convergers and that there were statistically significant differences between the performances of students with different learning styles in different stages of the design process. Since Demirbas and Demirkan’s study shares several similarities with this current study, we will discuss it in detail later in this thesis.

34

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 3. The Study In this research, we examined students currently engaged in architectural education in China and correlated their learning styles to their academic performance in design studio over the course of one semester.

3.1 Background of the case studies The architectural design studio system of China followed that of Ecole des Beaux Arts and University of Pennsylvania (Zhao 2002b). The typical design studio setting in China has much in common with that described by Schön (1985), Anthony (1991), and Yakeley (2000), with slight difference in the number of students and tutors (30~40 students vs. 2 tutors). And the duration of the project in China is shorter—usually students participate two studio projects sequentially within each semester.

Recently architectural design education in China has been increasingly criticized in three aspects. First, the teaching method in studio is mainly based on the tutor’s imbuing and directing, which accommodates little critical thinking (Jia 2001b; Xu et al. 2001). This approach does not encourage individuality and creativity effectively (Meng 2001; Wang 1995; Zheng et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2001), but leads to a large number of students and graduates being inclined to copy rather than create. Second, the assessment of studio, based on the subjective judgment of the tutor or a shared standard of a group of teacher, precludes individuality and variety (Wang 2001; Hu

35

Jia Yunyan


1994; Hu 1995). Last, the system educates all students in a unified and singular mode, ignoring personal needs and differences of students (Luo 1995). With these three problems in mind, educators have called for a liberal, general and life-long architectural education, that will encourage critical thinking and self-education (Zhong 2001; Hu 1994; Kuo 1998; Jia 2001b).

As we examine efforts to improve studio teaching, we find that it was a common strategy to introduce western design theories and programs into China’s current studio programs. Some international competition programs were employed as the studio programs in individual studio (e.g. Wang 1995). In addition, there are two newly established architectural graduate schools in China experimenting with western studio programs in their studio. The Architectural School of Beijing University (Zhang 2001) has proposed a ‘two-way’ teaching structure, that is, they encourage full-scale construction in one hand and develop a design topic for intensive research on the other hand. Zhang (2001) states that the structure of the studio programs is based primarily on that of IIT established by Mies van der Rohe in 1938. The other newly established architectural graduate school, the Architectural School of Nanjing University, mainly imported its studio system from ETH. They employ modern architecture theory as the foundation of their curriculums, also with full-scale construction and supplementary courses on tectonics (Zhang 2002; Zhao 2002a).

36

Jia Yunyan


There are efforts to improve studio programs based on educators’ experience. For example, Wang (2001) did not provide measured site maps for the studio project and explore the potential of the site with students. The Architectural School in Shenzhen University encourages teachers with extensive professional experience in order that their teaching will be more close to practice (Qin 2001). Yet these revisions in program and policy were lack of further reports of the effects on students’ learning.

3.2 Aim of the study Most educators are trying to resolve the existing problems by revising what they teach in studio. From the review of literature and additional personal interviews, we have not found any attempt to consciously base these revisions on educational theoretical foundation. However, new educational theories such as experiential learning could provide a solid foundation. These theories suggest that different people learn in different ways and people learn most effectively through their personal experience (Kolb 1984). This means there will be no one particular teaching method to suit all the students, and what the students experience during a studio program would have greater impact than what they are taught in a lecture. Earlier research also shows the design process differs with each individual, thus a more individually responsive approach to studio teaching will be more supportive of a student identifying an effective personal approach to designing.

37

Jia Yunyan


As reviewed in this chapter and the last, much has been written about the context and activity of studio teaching, yet little advice on how to teach consider the question of how students learn. And even fewer address the issue of individual difference in design learning. This research aims to study the learning style distribution of architectural undergraduates and the correlation between learning styles and the performance in architectural design studio. The identification of learning styles is based on Kolb’s ELT. Two programs from an architectural school in China are compared in terms of design problems, duration, and assessment. From this we will identify whether different formulation of studio program could privilege or disadvantage students of learning styles and thus suggest possible improvement for studio program writing.

3.3 Selection of cases We selected two cases in one of the eight oldest architectural schools in China for a comparative study: a Year Two studio program and a Year Three studio program. The educational system is a five-year B. Arch. Program, which is common in China. The overall curriculum consists of design studio, history and theory courses, building technology and environment courses, and other general education courses. In Year Four there is a practice course that requires students to go out of campus and work in a design company for a half-year. The Year One design studio mainly teaches visual communication and representation skills. Students begin to learn building design from Year Two studio.

38

Jia Yunyan


Kolb (1984) suggests that learners’ learning style is relatively stable, but can be gradually shaped by personal experience. We can interpret that the learning styles are not likely to change remarkably during a single studio program. However, the half-year practitioners’ experience, required in Year Four curriculum, may affect learning styles in a different way from the studio learning experience. For these reasons we selected our cases from Year Two and Year Three studio programs to study the learning styles under design studio setting.

3.4 Research Question Specifically the following question is addressed from which the research develops suggestions to improve studio program:

Is there a correlation between learning style and students’ academic performance in architectural design learning?

39

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 4. Methodology 4.1 Instrument Several instruments have been developed for assessing learning styles based on the ELT (Honey and Mumford 1986; Kolb 1985; Hutcheson 1999). The most widely used is Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI (II) (1985)). This is a revised version of the original K-LSI (I) released in 1976. The K-LSI (II) has been demonstrated to have an improved internal consistency of the scales than version I (Veres et al. 1987; Sims et al. 1986). The K-LSI (II) consists of 12 questions in which respondents describe their learning preferences in different contexts by rank-ordering four sentence endings that correspond to the four learning styles. The activity of ranking the items in each row (forced scaling) is conceptualized as paralleling the learning process itself: forcing participants to choose between opposing abilities. As the four-stage learning model reflects abilities that are polar opposites (CE/AC vs. RO/AE), the learner must continually choose between these sets of learning abilities. By calculating the score for AE-RO and AC-CE, the respondent can be mapped into one of the four quadrants, each representing one of the four learning styles (Kolb 1985; Smith and Kolb 1996).

Newstead (1992) declared that the reliability of the K-LSI (II) as poor to moderate and its validity as unproven. However, coefficient studies have shown that performance on one item is a good predictor of performance of any other item in the same instrument.

40

Jia Yunyan


Sims et al (1986) found that the internal reliability of the K-LSI(II) sub-scales ranged from 0.76 and 0.85 and test-retest indices of 0.24 to 0.66 using a sample of 438 business undergraduates and postgraduates. Results of a research for a sample of 187 Arts and Science students in an Australian university (Willcoxon and Prosser 1996) indicate high internal consistency of the K-LSI (II) scales and some evidence of validity. Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) also find supportive results of K-LSI (II) through Cronbach alpha reliability analysis and Pearson correlation tests among learning modes and combined scores using the sample of 83 architectural undergraduates.

4.2 The Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) Honey and Mumford (1986) modified Kolb’s approach and classified learners in terms of their strengths and weaknesses for each stage of the cycle. They named learners with four different learning styles as activist (learners preferring CE), reflector (RO), theorist (AC), and pragmatist (AE). Based on this framework, they developed the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) as an alternative to the K-LSI (II). Allinson and Hayes (1988) compared K-LSI (II) and LSQ, identifying slight differences in reliability in favor of the LSQ. More recently, Duff and Duffy (2002) and Cockerton et al. (2002) examine groups of larger sample size and conclude that the LSQ is not a satisfactory alternative of the K-LSI (II) in that it is not consistent with its theoretical framework. Sadler-Smith and Riding (1996) in a factor analytical study of the LSQ

41

Jia Yunyan


reviewed its validity as a diagnostic instrument and failed to confirm its four-factored structure. However, they conclude that the Experiential Learning Model still has high face validity.

To test which instrument to use between LSQ and LSI, we conducted a pilot study. In the pilot study we administered the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) (Honey and Mumford 1986; Honey and Mumford 1992) at the beginning of a studio program to 11 Year One architectural students in the University of Hong Kong. Two months later, we administered the Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI (II)) (Kolb 1985) to the same subjects, 8 of which were completed correctly.

In this pilot study, we obtained some different results from the two instruments. Since the two instruments employ different scaling systems, the score of learning style from the two are not comparable. However, as we looked into the four quadrants that represent the four learning styles, we can find that only three subjects changed quadrants in the two tests (Figure 4). One converger in LSQ (student H) changed to diverger in K-LSI (II), one accommodator to assimilator (student F), and another accommodator to converger (student B). Kolb indicates that individual learning styles are relatively stable in the ELT. So the result difference may reflect the difference between the two instruments. This result seems to confirm the dimensionality analysis by Smailes and Senior (1999) that the theorist dimension of LSQ is not distinct enough, but this can hardly come to a conclusion because of the too small sample size.

42

Jia Yunyan


Activist (CE)

Diverger Diverger

Accommodator Accommodator

Pragmatist

Reflector

(AE)

(RO)

Converger Converger

Assimilator Assimilator

Theorist (AC)

Figure 4. Results of students’ learning styles identified by two different instruments (Legend: ●results of LSQ; ◎ results of K-LSI (II))

4.3 The shifted axis of K-LSI (II) A two-dimensional map of learning space is used to empirically characterize differences in the four learning styles in K-LSI (II) (Kolb 1984). As the scores of CE are negatively correlated with AC, and scores of AE to RO, a learner can be mapped to the learning space of the four learning styles with two combination scores: AC-CE and

43

Jia Yunyan


AE-RO. Research also indicates that the correlations between AE and CE, AC to RO from an empirical sample are more negatively biased than that from a random sample (Kolb 1984 p.75). Thus, the axis that distinguish the learning spaces of the four learning styles are shifted from the zero point to an empirical norm (AC-CE=3~4; AERO=5~6), derived from 1,446 adults ranging from 18 to 60 years of age and a wide range of occupations and educational backgrounds (Kolb 1985) (Figure 5).

44

Figure 5. The shifted axis of K-LSI (II) (Kolb 1985 p.5)

Jia Yunyan


4.4 Cross-cultural application of K-LSI (II) Hayes and Allinson (1988) conducted a study exploring influences of cultural factors on learning styles. They employed Hofstede’s (1980) four-dimensional model to measure the difference of culture, that is, Power Distance (concerned with human inequality), Uncertainty Avoidance (concerned with the tolerance for uncertainty), Individualism-Collectivism (concerned with the relationship between the individual and the collectivity which prevails in a given society), and Masculinity-Femininity (concerned with the extent to which the dominant values in society are “masculine”). Hayes and Allinson concluded in their study that differences in learning styles could be correlated with cultural differences. In the revised edition of his work Cultural Consequences (Hofstede 1980) Hofstede (2001) added a fifth dimension to the measurement of cultures: Long versus Short-term Orientation (concerned with the extent to which the virtuous living is a goal). In the reported indexes of the five dimensions, Chinese culture countries score considerably lower on Individualism and higher on Long-term Orientation than do those of the Western world (Table 3). If this were true, at least the empirical norm given by K-LSI (II) for discriminating the four learning styles would be problematic when apply it to Chinese population.

Although there may be some doubt in the discriminating norms, the K-LSI (II) has been used in a wide range of cultural backgrounds (Demirbas and Demirkan 2003; Duff et al. 1992). In research on learning styles of Chinese nursing faculty, Duff,

46

Jia Yunyan


Johnston et al. (1992) translated the K-LSI (II) into Chinese and administered it to 36 members of a nursing faculty in a medical college in China. In spite of the cultural differences between China and Western countries, they found similar learning style distribution in this sample compared with several studies in Western cultures. This may provide some evidence of validity of K-LSI (II) used in the cultural context of China.

Table 3. Values of Hofstede’s (2001) five dimensions of culture

Countries and Regions Western

United

Culture

States

Countries

Great Britain

PDI

UAI

IDV

MAS

LTO

40

46

91

62

29

35

35

89

66

25

Chinese

Taiwan

58

69

17

45

87

Culture

Hong Kong

68

29

25

57

96

Countries and

China

Not included

Not included

Not included

Not included

118

57

65

43

49

Not included

regions Mean of 53 countries and regions Taken from Hofstede, 2001, p.87, 151, 215, 286, 356. (PDI — Power Distance Index Values; UAI — Uncertainty Avoidance Index Values; MAS — Masculinity Index Values; LTO — Long-Term Orientation Index Values)

47

Jia Yunyan


4.5 Selection of instrument From these studies we conclude that K-LSI (II) been extensively tested and applied. It is a robust instrument suitable for testing students’ learning styles in China and we have therefore adopted the instrument for this research.

4.6 Administration of the K-LSI (II) The Kolb-LSI (II) was translated into Chinese before being administered to subjects. As far as possible, the master version employed plain formulations of the questions without culturally loaded idioms. The translation was made, back translation checked and revised by two bilingual experts. A pilot study was run of the translated versions with Chinese students who were asked to signal any difficulties or ambiguities they met in answering. The translation proved to be right.

A total of 91 Year Two and Year Three undergraduates in the Architectural School of Chongqing University took part in this study. The subjects were administered the translated Kolb-LSI (II) at the end of the academic year. Their academic performance was obtained from grades collected from official academic records. All participants were informed that the questionnaire was part of a research project and were advised of their rights as participants. Students were given detailed instructions on how to complete the questionnaire and how to accurately record their responses on the scoring sheets.

48

Jia Yunyan


4.7 Methods of data analysis Two standard statistical tests were performed in the analysis of the learning styles and performance data: 1) The chi-square analysis The chi-square analysis “provides a numerical index of the strength of association between two nominal scale variables and a test statistics for assessing the statistical significance of this relationship”. It is performed in this study to see whether there is a significant correlation between students’ learning styles and their marks of studio work (Diekhoff 1992 p. 229). 2) The between-subjects t-test The between-subjects t-test “compares the means of two samples to determine if those means differ significantly” (Diekhoff 1992 p.140). It is performed in this study to compare the mean marks of students of different learning styles in pairs and to identify if the differences are statistically significant.

49

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 5. Findings 5.1 Learning style distribution of the sample group In Program 1, a sample of 43 undergraduates were administered the questionnaires, of which 37 were filled correctly for learning style distribution analysis, while only 32 (21 (56.8%) males and 11 (29.7%) females) filled in their names for analysis of performance. Ages of the students range from 19 to 21. In Program 2, 48 undergraduates were administered the questionnaires, of which 44 (33 (75%) males and 11 (25%) females) were valid. Students’ ages range from 19 to 22. In Program 2 one of the subjects was marked zero due to a failure to submit the final project; this subject was excluded in the analysis.

Figure 6 shows the two program participants’ learning style distribution. In Program 1, there is only one converger (2.7% of the sample) and five (13.5%) accommodators, much fewer than assimilators (13, 35.1%) and divergers (18, 48.6%); in Program 2 the percentages were similar (2 (4.5%) convergers and 7 (15.9%) accommodators vs. 18 (40.9%) assimilators and 17 (38.6%) divergers). The small number of convergers in both populations proved to be problematic when t-tests were conducted in subsequent analysis, as shall be seen in the next section.

50

AE

AE

RO

AC Program 1 (Totally 37 subjects)

AE

RO

AE

AC Program 2 (Totally 44 subjects)

Figure 6. Learning style distribution of the participants in Program 1 and Program 2

51

Jia Yunyan


5.2 Correlation between learning style and students performance

5.2.1 The two programs The students were participating in two studio programs, one for each grade respectively. The task in Program 1, the last design project of the Year Two studio, is to design a kindergarten in nine weeks. Program 2 for Year Three students consists the design of a residential neighborhood in eight weeks. The information provided to the students is summarized in Table 4; in some sections very detailed information was provided; where the details have been omitted an indication is given.

The programs have some points in common and some differences. The Objectives differ in that Program 2 allows for more flexibility in approach. The Submission requirements are also somewhat different, Program 2 being more specific in required outcomes. Program 1 provided detailed functional requirements and areas, while in Program 2 students need to explore such issues. The processes given in the two programs were similar to each other. In the first week, there was a public lecture on design principles and basic service requirements of kindergarten. After the lecture, students had a chance to study the program, collect information, and engage in brainstorming. In the following stages, students developed their design and handed in their working drawing for review three times during the semester. The last phase was to draw up the final solution. During the semester, students met with their tutor two

52

Jia Yunyan


mornings each week. There were public reviews after every submission of drafts, supplemented by the twice-weekly desk crits during which the tutor gave comments to the student individually.

5.2.2 The assessment criteria Final products of both programs are assessed on the same criteria: oral presentation (10%); concept (30%); function (40%); drawing and model presentation (20%). There was a public jury at the end of the program during which the instructor and three external critics decided the marks. The final marks of students are calculated as 40% from instructor, 60% from external critics. The marks were transformed into nine grades to be recorded on the official transcript using the following bands: A (93-100); B+ (88-92); B (83-87); B- (82-78); C+ (75-77); C (70-74); C- (65-69); D (60-64); F (59~0). There was an additional requirement that the studio instructors should normalize the distribution of grades, such that no more than 10% should receive a grade of 'A’; students with a grade of 'F’ should be no more than 10%. We observe here that the assessments are focused on the final products rather than on the learning process.

53

Table 4. Summary of the two programs (Please see Appendix for more details) Program 1: design of a kindergarten

Program 2: design of a residential neighborhood

Studio objectives:

Studio objectives:

1) To master the design principle and methods of public

1) To master the principle and methods of urban residential neighborhood design, environmental design,

building;

vertical design, and drainage design;

2) To gain initial problem-analyzing and problem-solving skill;

2) To learn the whole procedure of residence construction and the connection between master plan, detail

3) To learn the background knowledge of kindergarten design

plan, neighborhood plan, and housing design. 3) To be familiar with various types of residential building, how they are accommodated in the site, and their advantage and disadvantage in land saving, volume-rate increasing, ventilation, lightening and view. 4) To learn the history of China’s residence construction, the current situation and policy of residence industrialization, and the tendency of urban plan, construction and management.

Design problems to be considered:

Design problems to be considered:

1) the physical and psychological characteristic of children

1) environment, energy-saving, sustainability

2) function

2) society, relationship with community

3) sunlight, ventilation, and security (comply with the design

3) economic

criteria)

4) feasibility 5) local culture

Function and area guideline (Details omitted)

Function and area guideline (Details omitted)

Rooms needed and area of each room (Not provided with such information) (Details omitted)

Program 1: design of a kindergarten


Submission requirement


1) layout plan

1) site analysis

2) plans

2) planning analysis

3) elevations

3) general plan

4) sections

4) road system and vertical plan

5) detailed plan of activity room

5) perspective drawing of individual building

6) model

6) representative drawing of key landscape design

7) text explanation of design concept, with area index

7) model 8) text explanation, with tables of comprehension area index, public facilities, and housing types.

Process:

Process:

1) (1week) public lectures, brainstorming

1) (1 week) public lectures; concept draft.

2) (3 weeks) first draft, concept modeling

2) (2 weeks) first draft., proposal of planning

3) (2 weeks) second draft

3) (1 week) second draft

4) (2 weeks) formal draft

4) (2 weeks) formal draft

5) (1 studio week) final product drawing

5)

Reference

Reference (details omitted)

Table 4 continued.

(2 weeks) final product drawing

(details omitted)

Jia Yunyan


5.2.3 Results of correlation analysis To explore whether there is a correlation between learning style and students’ academic performance in studio, a chi-square analysis was performed to test the correlation between the four learning styles and grades. The result showed that there is statistical significant correlation between learning style and grades in both Program 1 and Program 2 (Table 5). The means of final marks have been calculated (Table 6) and showed in bar-chat (Figure 7). Table 5. Results of Pearson chi-square analysis χ2

df

95% interval

Results

Program 1

19.929

18

28.87

Significantly correlated

Program 2

24.715

21

32.67

Significantly correlated

The small sample size precluded the use of an ANOVA test to explore whether there were significant differences between different styles of learners, so t-tests were conducted instead to see if there are significant differences between performances of students of every pair of different learning styles. Since only one student in Program 1 exhibited a convergent style, a t-test could not be applied to this sample. Available ttest results of Program 1 show that there are no statistically significant differences between the performance of accommodators, divergers, and assimilators (Figure 8). In Program 2, the t-test results show that there are significant difference between the performance of assimilators and that of the other three types of learners (Table 7, Figure 8).

56

Figure 7. Performance means of final marks of different styles of learners

Table 6. Means of the final marks

Accommodators

Divergers

Assimilators

Convergers

Program 1

80.25

79.13

78.91

62

Program 2

77.86

81.94

73.94

84

57

Accommodators

Divergers

Accommodators

Divergers

Convergers

Assimilators

Convergers

Assimilators

Program 1

Program 2 Significantly correlated

Figure 8. The t-test result of different learners’ performance

Table 7. T-test results (confidence level 90%) No.

Program1

Program2

Pair

1

assimilator vs accommodator

2

assimilator vs converger

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

t

3

0.502

0.650

10

0.818

0.236

3

0.830

-0.234

3

assimilator vs. diverger

4

accommodator vs. converger

5

accommodator vs. diverger

6

converger vs. diverger

7

assimilator vs. accommodator

6

0.466

-0.778

8

assimilator vs. converger

1

0.350

-1.632

9

assimilator vs. diverger

16

0.064

-1.987

10

accommodator vs. converger

1

0.656

-0.600

11

accommodator vs. diverger

6

0.078

-2.119

12

converger vs. diverger

1

0.874

-0.200

58

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 6. Discussion

While this research was under way, a similar study was published (Demirbas and Demirkan 2003) based on the same theoretical basis (Kolb’s ELT), using similar subjects (freshmen architectural undergraduates), with a similar sample size (83) as our research (81 year two and year three architectural undergraduates). It is therefore possible to compare our results with those of this recently published paper.

6.1 The comparing research Demirbas and Demirkan assigned a four-staged staircase program to students for research of performances. Students were to design a staircase in a prescribed volume. The first stage was to conduct research on staircases and prepare a report within one week. This was followed by a second stage in which there was a lecture and drawing exercise with instructions of detailed technical drawing rules in a 4-hour studio session. In the third stage students were assigned to build a model of the staircase. The fourth stage was to finish the orthographic drawing within 3 hours. The product of each stage was assessed according to detailed criteria (see Table 8). The paper reports that the distribution of learning styles in their sample was: accommodator 12.5%, diverger 22.7%, assimilator 31.8%, and converger 33%. The assessments indicated that

59

Jia Yunyan


the mean performance of accommodators was significantly higher in stage 2 and the mean performance of assimilators was significantly higher in stage 3.

There are some significant differences between the current study and that of Demirbas and Demirkan. The subjects are participants in one program whereas divided into two programs in this research. The design problems differ in that Demirbas and Demirkan initiated with a simplified design problem, while the two programs in this research start with wicked or ill-defined problems. The duration of the programs is also considerably different. Demirbas and Demirkan provided students with a short task (Table 8); while the other two programs endured months long. Furthermore, there are differences in assessment criteria between the two studies. The Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) program assessed the products of the four stages step by step with detail technical criteria; while the two programs in this study assessed the product of the final submission. These differences will be further discussed in the following sections.

60

Table 8. Comparison between the Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) research and the present research in duration, assessment, and results Programs Program in Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) research

Stage 1

Tasks

Duration

Assessment criteria

Results

Conducting a research on staircase and preparing a report

1 week (homework)

Description of staircase

No significant difference in performance.

Listing the components Presence visual examples Presentation quality

Stage 2

Designing a staircase

60 min lecture 180min drawing exercise

Correctness of the staircase Technical drawing rules

Accommodators performed significantly higher than the other three types of learners.

Presentation quality Stage 3

Building up a model of the staircase designed in stage 2.

Homework

Completeness Correctness

Assimilators performed significantly higher than the other three types of learners.

Craftsmanship

Programs in the present research

Stage 4

Orthographic drawings of the staircase

180 min

Same as stage 2

No significant difference in performances.

Program 1

Designing a kindergarten

8 weeks (two morning session each week) plus 1 studio week

Function

No significant difference in performances.

Concept Drawing and model presentation Oral presentation

Program 2

Designing a residential neighborhood

8 weeks (2 studio session each week)

Same as program 1

Assimilators performed significantly lower than the other three types of learners.

Jia Yunyan


5.2 Learning style distribution Kolb and Wolfe (1981) suggest that there are disciplinary differences in learning styles and that the dominant style among professional architects is accommodator (highly inclined to doing and slightly inclined to feeling). However, in both programs of this research, as well as in that of Demirbas and Demirkan’s, accommodators are the fewest or second fewest represented among the four learning styles (13.5%, 15.9%, and 12.5% respectively)*. We notice that subjects in both studies are students in junior years. If the practice field of architecture privilege accommodators, students may experience a transition from reflective observation to active experimentation during their undergraduate study, which is probably continued during their professional career. In the two programs of this study, the percentage of active learners (accommodators + convergers) increases from Program 1 (Year Two students), 16.2%, to Program 2 (Year Three students), 20.4%, which seems to be some indication of transition (Figure 9). But we note that this conclusion cannot be confirmed since the two programs were not of the same subjects.

* Brown et al (1994) found similar results in their sample of 136 undergraduates and 30 graduates of landscape architecture students. But we will not discuss their results in this thesis due to different instruments, different subjects, and different curricula.

62

Jia Yunyan


Active: 16.2%

Reflective: 83.7%

Active: 20.4%

Reflective: 79.5%

Program 1 (Year 2) Program 2 (Year 3)

Figure 9. The percentages of active learners (accommodators + convergers) vs. reflective learners (divergers + assimilators)

Another remarkable result is that convergers in our study (2.7% in Program 1 and 4.5% in Program 2) are significantly fewer than in the Demirbas and Demirkan sample (31.8%). Kolb (1984) suggests that learning styles would be gradually shaped by individual experience. This result may indicate that participants of these two programs had few learning experience in converger-preferred stage, namely, decision making and problem solving. The educational model in many primary schools and secondary schools in China is a traditional one, which sees children as empty vessels waiting to be filled with facts by the teacher. Teaching is primarily through lectures in which student plays a passive role. Consequently, learning is seen as memorizing a body of knowledge. This model continues in the apprentice-based design studio inherited from Ecole des Beaux Arts: students learn how the "experts" works and are expected to do the same. Students are trained to design something but they are not solving the problem themselves. Learning is seen as memorizing someone else’s experiences.

63

Jia Yunyan


The different learning style distribution between our research and that of Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) may also be explained in terms of cultural differences. As the discriminating axis of K-LSI (II) is an empirical norm, it is doubtful whether this norm fits Chinese population. Were it different, the percentage of each learning style in this sample and the correlation results would change accordingly. On this account differences Hofstede (2001) argues strongly for the non-universality of theory and practice.

This would have important implications for architectural education on

writing of design studio programs and a consideration on whether western architectural design theories are suitable for design training in China. It may well be that the kind of learning environments and activities which promote effective learning in some cultures may not promote the same outcomes in other cultures where different learning styles predominate. Further studies are needed to identify the “shifted axis of Kolb-LSI (II)” concerning cultural difference.

6.3 Ill-defined problems vs. well-defined problems The performance of students in a studio may be correlated to the particular design program. The program used by Demirbas and Demirkan poses a well-defined design problem (Rowe 1987) with a clearly delineated process that took students through a step-by-step problem solving experience. The two programs in this research, typical studio programs in architectural schools in China, begin with wicked or ill-defined design problems and the whole process show an integral evolution of design concepts

64

Jia Yunyan


and details from vague to clear. That is, they encompass both the process of problem framing (Schön 1985) and problem-solving. Such a process allows more ambiguity in choice and direction, hence can accommodate more variety in learning approaches. This explanation may be confirmed by the result that certain learning style was privileged in stage 2 and stage 3 of the Demirbas and Demirkan program, while the majority achieved similar performance and only one particular learning style was disadvantaged in our research.

To explain the different results concerning of performance in Program 1 and Program 2, we look into the difference between the two programs. In Program 1, the brief sets out detailed instructions on requirements and the size of each room. There is little problem analysis and decision making required. In such a context, convergers might be confused and discouraged.

6.4 The time dimension in studio design programs The factor of time can be another reason that leads to the different performance in the current study and Demirbas and Demirkan’s study. In a review of Schön’s analysis of the design process as reflection-in-action, Eraut (1994) points out that Schön ignores one important variable—time, and that duration of the design task will significantly influence the process. If the time dimension is considered, design activity may be more than only reflection-in-action; Eraut identified three modes of design activity: routinized

65

Jia Yunyan


unreflective action, action monitored by reflection, action following a period of deliberation.

When time is extremely short, decisions have to be rapid; the scope for reflection is extremely limited. Insufficient time would inhibit the design conversation (Kvan 2000a). Meta-processes are limited to implicit monitoring and short, reactive reflections. In such a situation, the designer responds with rapid interpretation and decision making, which is more of an intuitive routine without reflection. As the available time becomes longer, the action can be monitored by reflection. The role of meta-processes becomes more complex, expanding beyond self-awareness and monitoring to include the framing of problems, thinking about the deliberative process itself and how it is being handled, researching for relevant knowledge, introducing value considerations, etc. Further extending the period of time for consciously exploring a range of possible options or even to consult with other people, is likely to allow the ‘action following a period of deliberation’ (Eraut 1994) (Figure 10).

66

Jia Yunyan


Routinized

Action

Action flowing

unreflective action

monitored by reflection

a period of deliberation

●

Quicker

●

Speed

●

Slower

Figure 10. The link between Speed and Action (adapted from Eraut 1994)

Well-defined problems can be handled without a great deal of deliberation (Eraut 1994; Schön 1985). Solving wicked or ill-defined problem needs a deliberative process. A designer needs for reflecting on what they are doing and discussing and deliberating over their general approach to the problem. Deliberation happens whenever we can remove ourselves from the situations and thinking things through: “typically we do it in the shower, the car, in dreams” (Kvan 2001 p.97). And the deliberative use of expertise will depend on both the skillful management of working time and the disposition to make time for deliberation (Eraut 1994).

The duration of a task will affect learning. When duration of the task is restricted to a short period, fewer learning stages are accommodated, for people tend to rely on their preferred learning style and are not likely to experience the full learning cycle in an instant reaction. Thus a relatively long duration and free setting can allow for a variety of learning styles and more deliberative processes.

67

Jia Yunyan


On comparison of the two studies, the duration of the two programs is significantly longer than that of the staircase design task (Table 8). Stage 2 and stage 4 of the staircase task are even restricted to an examination duration, which prohibits the process of deliberation or reflection. For example in the Phase 2 a 60min lecture is followed by an immediate drawing exercise and submission. Under such condition a learner with preference of RO would have no chance to observe what others do and reflect on his observations before he was required to submit his product. The long duration of Program 1 and Program 2 allows for more free communication, self-selected design strategies, and different learning approaches by students. These choices may explain the different results in performance between the two studies.

Considering the time dimension, Kvan (2000b) suggests the virtual studio can be a possible way to make more time and space for deliberation. He notes that virtual design studio brings distant students and faculty together and makes the absence of “being there” an educational opportunity by “multiplying time and divorcing teaching from place” (p.185). In a study of virtual design studio he reports that students explored design issues more extensively than those who worked only face-to-face. The students using the web board were exposed in greater depth to the work and thinking of their peers. More design alternatives were explored, different approaches observed, more issues raised and examined.

68

Jia Yunyan


6.5 The product-based assessment The assessments of the two studies are both product-based but differ in assessing methods and criteria. In Demirbas and Demirkan’s four-phased program, products of each phase were collected and assessed. The phased and product-focused assessment, together with the short duration, engaged students rushing the products under time pressure. While in this research the set of final products are collected and assessed at the final jury, which leave more space for flexibility in the learning process and learning approaches.

The assessment criteria of the two studies (Table 8) differ significantly in that one is accurate the other contains more ambiguity. The assessment criteria of the staircase task are mainly accurate technical requirements such as listing the architectural components, correctness of the staircase, or completeness. These seem to be a response to the welldefined design problem the solution of which can be measured by “right” or “wrong” criteria. In the two programs of this research, the criteria concerns with function, concept, representation, and oral presentation. The criteria of “function” and “concept” respond to the ill-defined design problem that can only be measured by “good” or “bad” criteria.

As we see in the result of the two programs’ students, we may find some indication that product-based assessment disadvantaged assimilators in Program 2. As the atmosphere

69

Jia Yunyan


of most schools of architecture is highly competitive, a product-focused assessment leaves little space for discussion in which to identify design problems. As a result, the assimilator-preferred stages of learning in which information is integrated into the model is discouraged. On this account Kvan (2001) notes that the current product-focused studio teaching is lacking opportunities for deliberation.

The product-based assessment also influences the time planning of learners. As products can be achieved most effectively in an instant decision making process, less time is spent in identification of problems and relatively more time in making the product, but not solving the problem, and the total time spent on the actual design process is reduced. Thus the program disadvantages certain styles of learners.

The difference in submission requirements between the two programs would have some further influence on the performance. We notice that the assessment criteria for program 1 correlates very closely to the stated functional requirements and representation requirements are limited to a model photo only, leaving the presentation of the concept and oral presentation as the major presentation tasks. As convergers are keen on resolving problems and not very interested in communication with people, Program 1 could put them at a disadvantage. The submission requirement for Program 2 asked for two more representative drawings. Since assimilators are more interested in abstract ideas rather than working out concrete products, it was more difficult for them in Program 2 to finish the final product. As Program 2 requires more products but

70

Jia Yunyan


allows less time than Program1, it is possible that the product-based assessment criteria resulted in assimilators gaining lower marks.

6.6 Summary The comparison suggests that the two programs of this research accommodate more a wider range of learning styles than that of Demirbas and Demirkan’s (2003). What makes difference is that the two programs in this research start with wicked or illdefined problems, consequently followed by longer duration and more flexible assessment. A studio program starts with well-defined problems is not likely to benefit design learning though it may improve the quality of “products” if the time factor and individual difference in design development are taken into account.

71

Jia Yunyan


Chapter 7. Conclusion 7.1 Conclusion From the findings, the formulation of a design studio program, as well as the duration and the assessment of the program, can privilege certain learning styles. A comparison between the two programs of this research and the study reported by Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) suggests that a design studio can encompass a wider range of learning styles if its programs start from a wicked or ill-defined design problems than if the design problem is well-defined and the process heavily prescribed. When engaged over a relatively long duration, the programs permit a range of communication media hence allowing more freedom in learning approaches. The competitive environment of the design studio limits the possibility of exploring different design problems. In conclusion, these results provide a basis for the hypothesis that there is a significant correlation between learning styles and students’ academic performance in design studio. This research suggests that design studio programs can be improved to be more inclusive of a range of learning styles and hence enable a wider range of students to learn how to design. A test of learning style can be 72

Jia Yunyan


conducted in the early phase of design studio and awareness by the teacher of the need to accommodate diverse learning styles could result in different studio programs. Concerning the accommodation of diverse learning styles, the two programs could probably be revised in the following three aspects (as shown in Table 9): 1) Omit the function and area guideline to leave more space for activities of alternative exploration, problem framing, and decision-making. 2) Prolong the duration of the programs to accommodate the more learning activities. 3) Join the assessment criteria “drawing and model representation” with “oral presentation” to provide different types of learners with optional choices of representations.

73

Table 9. Proposed revision of the two programs Program 1: design of a kindergarten Studio objectives 1) Students should be able to search various resources to learn the background knowledge of kindergarten design, such as: the physical and psychological characteristic of children, the function of kindergarten,

Program 2: design of a residential neighborhood Studio objectives 1) Students should be able to explore various resources and prepare a report on the following topics: a)

Background knowledge of residential neighborhood design: the history

sunlight, ventilation, and security (comply with the design criteria), and

and status quo of residence construction and urban plan in China; the

prepare a repot.

procedure of residence construction and the connection between master

2) Students should be able to define the design problem, frame the problem and solve the problem in a kindergarten design with knowledge they

plan, detail plan, neighborhood plan, and housing design. b) Issues of environment, energy-saving, sustainability, society, relationship

learned through the previous research. In the end of the program they should be able to submit a whole set of design drawing, supplemented with oral presentations, to explain their design.

with community, economic, feasibility, local culture. c)

Case studies analyzing precedents of similar projects: types of residential building, in their relationship with the site, land saving issues, volume-rate, ventilation, lightening and view.

2) Students should be able to define the design problem, frame the problem and solve the problem in a kindergarten design with knowledge they learned through the previous research. In the end of the program they should be able to submit a whole set of design drawing, supplemented with oral presentations, to make their design understood. Submission requirement


1) Layout plan

1) Site analysis

2) Plans

2) Planning analysis

3) Elevations

3) General plan

4) Sections

4) Road system and vertical plan

5) Detailed plan of activity room

5) Representations that enable your design being understood

6) Representations that enable your design being understood

Program 1: design of a kindergarten


Process

Process

1) (3 weeks) public lectures, reading of background knowledge of

1) (3 weeks) public lectures; read literatures and prepare report; define the function and

kindergarten design, preparing report; define the function and area guideline

area guideline in the conclusion of your report 2) (2 weeks) proposal of planning, concept design

2) (5 weeks) concept design and design development

3) (3 weeks) design development

3) (2 weeks) design finalization

4) (2 weeks) design finalization



Assessment criteria

Assessment criteria

1) Text report

1) Text report

2) Function

2) Function

3) Concept (the main design problems identified and solved during the

3) Concept (the main design problems identified and solved during the process)

process)

4) Representation (including drawing or model, and oral presentation)

4) Representation (including drawing or model, and oral presentation) Reference

Reference (Details omitted)

Table 9 continued

(Details omitted)

Jia Yunyan


7.2 Limitation The study was limited in the conclusions that it could draw by the size of the available population. Due to small sample size and the imbalance of the numbers of learners with the four learning style, some statistical test cannot be conducted to get more accurate test about the significance of difference between different learning styles students’ performance.

7.3 Future research This thesis has identified some opportunities for future research: 1) The validity of K-LSI (II) is to be tested and its empirical norm identified in a larger population concerning cultural differences. 2) Larger sample size is needed in identifying architectural students’ learning styles. Further correlation study is needed in considered selection in balance samples of different learning styles. 3) Observing the transition of learning styles during the architectural undergraduate education.

76

Jia Yunyan


4) Developing the structure of writing studio programs to accommodate different learning styles concerning design problems, time dimension, and assessment. 5) Evaluating studio programs written to accommodate different learning styles. 6) Investigating design learning more specifically on the contents of design learning and difference on different styles of learning.

77

Jia Yunyan


Appendix Program 1. Design of A Kindergarten 1. Studio Objectives 1.1 To master the design principle and methods of public building; 1.2 To gain the primary problem-analyzing and problem-solving skill; 1.3 To learn the background knowledge of kindergarten design.

2. The Site Site 1: site area: 6500 m2 Site 2: site area: 6756.62 m2

3. Problems to be considered 3.1 Kindergarten is a social service facility for taking care of and educating children of three to six years old. The design should well consider physical psychological characters of the children. 3.2 The ultimate building should function efficiently, and be harmonious with the site. It should be convenient for management, facilitated with playground and outdoor garden. The building should be easily recognized as a kindergarten in appearance. 3.3 The design should strictly comply with the Criteria of Nursery and Kindergarten Building Design in the technical standard of sunlight, ventilation and security. By the end of this design students should be familiar with those regulations.

78

Jia Yunyan


4. General guideline of design 4.1 Capacity of the kindergarten: nine classes; 30 person/class; totally 270 children. 4.2 Built area: 9~12 M2/person; totally 2430~3240 m2 4.3 Height: three floors or less

5. Rooms needed and area of each room 5.1 Activity room and assistant rooms: Function

Area of each room (m2)

Number of the rooms needed

Activity room

50~60

9

Bedroom

50~60

9

Washroom

15

9

Store room

9

9

150

1

Music and sports room

5.2 Office and service rooms: Function Office



12~15

3~4

25

1

Infirmary

15~18

1

Reception room

12~15

1

Isolation room

12~15

1

Watchman room

9~12

1

Store room

12

3~4

Staff washroom

15

1

Library and meeting room

5.3 Service rooms: Function



Working room for kitchen

45

1

Refining room for kitchen

18

1

Store room for kitchen

18

1

Antisepsis room for kitchen

12

1

Staff retiring room

12

1

Laundry

15

1

79

Jia Yunyan


5.4 Outdoor playground Function

Area of each (m2)

Number needed

Playground for classes Public playground (including playing facility, bunker, 30m raceway, lavabo, dabbling pool (with depth less than 0.3m)

60

9

340

1

6. Submission requirement Drawing

Scale

Requirement

Layout plan

1:500

Illustrate the overall dimension of the building and the distance between the site boundary and the building boundary

Floor plan(s)

1:200~1:150

Elevations

1:200~1:150

No less than two, with the level of each floor and the dimension of overall height.

Section

1:200~1:150

The section should show the inner space of the main room or staircase.

Detail plan of activity room

1:50

Illustrated with dimensions, with furniture layout design.

Perspective drawing or model photo With concise explanation of design concept and index of scale, Illustration site area, overall built area, usable area of activity unit, music and sports room usable area Drawing specification: presentation board in size A1; dimension of frame: 594 x 841mm, 10mm margin, logo at right lower corner.

7. Schedule Academic week 10: (Nov. 5, Nov. 7) A public lecture on design principles and basic functional requirement. Students should study the program, search for references, and brainstorm. Academic week 11~13: (Nov. 12, 14, 19, 21, 26, 28) Use sketch or working model to test your design concept. Finish site analysis drawing, building function analysis drawing, floor plan(s), elevation (1:200), and layout plan (1:500). Submit first draft.

80

Jia Yunyan


Academic week 14~15: (Dec. 3, 5, 10, 12) A public review of first drafts, after which students should revise the design responding to the comments received. Finish floor plan(s), elevation (1:200), and layout plan (1:500). Submit second draft. Academic week 16~17: (Dec. 17, 19, 24, 26) Tutors review the works. Submit the formal draft. Academic week 18: (Drawing week) Draw up the final products, make the formal model and take photo of the model.

8. Bibliography 8.1 Criteria of Nursery and Kindergarten Building Design (JGJ39-87) 8.2 Architectural Drawing Standard (GBJ104-87) 8.3 Nursery and Kindergarten Building Design, (ed.) Liu, B.Z., China Building Industry Publisher 8.4 Building Design Data Collection (3) (2nd version), China Building Industry Publisher 8.5 Drawing Collection of Kindergarten Design, (ed.) Southeast University Building Design Institute, Southeast University Publisher 8.6 Architectural Journal Vol.8,9,10, 1987; Vol. 11, 1990; Vol. 6, 1992; Vol. 5, 1993, Vol. 6, 9, 1994; Vol. 8, 1996

81

Jia Yunyan


Program 2. Design of Residential Neighborhood

1. Studio Objectives 1) To master the principle and methods of urban residential neighborhood design, environmental design, vertical design, and drainage design. 2) To learn the whole procedure of residence construction (market investigation Æprophase programmingÆplanningÆconstructionÆmarketingÆmanagement) and the connection between master plan, detail plan, neighborhood plan, and housing design. 3) To be familiar with various types of residential building, how they are accommodated in the site, and their advantage and disadvantage in land saving, volume-rate increasing, ventilation, lightening and view. 4) To learn the history of China’s residence construction, the current situation and policy of residence industrialization, and the tendency of urban plan, construction and management.

2. Problems to be considered 2.1 Students should consider the methods to minimize energy consuming, to minimize environmental degradation in terms of sustainability. 2.2 Social effect: consider the relationship between neighborhood construction, urban construction and community construction.

84

Jia Yunyan


2.3 Economic: the design of neighborhood predominantly affects the profits of real estate development. Students therefore should consider how to improve the economic efficiency in design. 2.4 Feasibility: the design should strictly comply with the following current national criteria, regulations, or standards: (1) Criteria of Urban Residence Planning GB5018093 (2) Criteria of Residence Building Design GB50096-1999 (3) Criteria of Tall Building Fire Prevention GB50096-1999 (4) local urban planning management regulations 2.5 Local culture: consider the local dwelling culture and its possible modernization under the trends of globalization.

3. Function and area guideline 3.1 Site area: 15~20ha. Tutor of each studio can decide the site map respectively. 3.2 Housing area: the dominant type of flat should be 100m2~130m2 each 3.3 Floor number: dominantly multi-floored housing (4~7 F), supplemented by some lower-tall building (8~10 F), and a small amount of tall housing and low housing (1~3 F). 3.4 Volume ratio: 1.5~2.0; greenland ratio: no less than 35%; outdoor parking space: 10% of the housing area 3.5 Car park: one car park serves 300 m2 housing area or 200m2 public building area. 3.6 A 12-class primary school (with formal 200m circled raceway, 60m straight raceway) should be accommodated in the neighborhood.

85

Jia Yunyan


4. Submission requirement Drawing

Content requirement Topological analysis: gradient, sunlight, elevation, etc.

Site analysis 1:2000

Object analysis: existing road, underground water, pipe lines, etc.

building,

vegetable,

Planning analysis drawing

Analysis of planning organizational structure, road system, afforestation system, and outdoor spaces

Master Plan

1:1000, colored drawing

Road system and vertical plan

1:1000, black and white drawing 300 words, explaining the residence’s statistical numbers, with tables of comprehension area index, public facilities, and housing types. 1:1000, join the photo with the drawing works

Illustration Model Representational drawing on housing cluster, courtyard, or single building Representational drawing of key landscape design

No less than 1, perspective drawing or bird-viewing drawing Perspective or bird-viewing drawing

5. Schedule Academic week1: preparing week. A lecture is given on task and requirement of the project. Students should study the site map and finish the actuality analysis, propose land area distribution for different functions, sketch the neighborhood plan structure and brainstorm on design concepts of architectural space. Academic week 2~3: first draft. Propose the ratio of flat types, select the typical housing plan, and make the selected plans into cards. Develop detail plan. Finish the drawing of the housing group. Academic week 4: second draft. Revise the first draft and develop the vertical design (reviewed by desk crit). Academic week 5~6: formal draft. Revise the second draft and the vertical design draft. Work out the representative drawing and analysis drawings. Submit formal draft at 12:00pm, Tuesday, week 6 Academic week 7~8 Final drawing. Submit at 6:00pm, Friday, week 8

86

Jia Yunyan


6. Bibliography 6.1 Residence Planning, Chongqing Jianzhu University, China Building Industry Publisher 6.2 Drawing Collection of Residence Planning, (ed.) Deng, S.P. and Wang, Z.G., China Building Industry Publisher 6.3 Building Design Data Collection (3) (2nd version), China Building Industry Publisher 6.4 Journals: Architectural Journal, Housing Science and Technology, Urban Planning, Architect, etc. 6.5 Criteria of Urban Residence Planning GB50180-93 6.6 Criteria of Housing Design 6.7 Criteria of Tall Building Fire-proof Design GB50096-1999 6.8 General Design, Linch, K, China Building Industry Publisher 6.9 Technological Regulation of Urban Planning Management of Chongqing (Valid since Aug.1, 2002) 6.10 World Urban Residence Design, (ed.)(Japan) Urban collective housing research institute, China Building Industry Publisher 6.11 China’s Habitant Situation and Housing Design, (ed.) Li, Y.P., Southeast University Publisher.

87

Jia Yunyan


References Akin, O. (1984) An exploration of the design process In Developments in Design Methodology (Ed, Cross, N.) John Wiley, Chichester. Anthony, K. H. (1991) Design Juries on Trial: the Renaissance of the Design Studio, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Ascher-Barnstone, D. (2002) Building designs for living: studio 804 University of Kansas, Journal of Architectural Education, 55 (3), 186-193. Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L. and Sein, M. K. (1990) The importance of learning style in enduser training, MIS Quarterly, 1990 (March), 101-119. Boyer, E. L. and Mitgang, L. D. (1996) Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, N.J. Broadbent, G. (1973) Design in Architecture: Architecture And the Human Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, London. Broadbent, G. (1988) Design in Architecture: Architecture And the Human Sciences, D. Fulton, London. Broadbent, G., Cardaci, E. and Zolio, A. (1997) The design studio revised, Environment By Design, 2 (1), 5-18. Brown, R. D., Hallett, M. E. and Stoltz, R. R. (1994) Learning and teaching landscape architecture: student learning styles in landscape architecture education, Landscape And Urban Planning, 30, 151-157. Burns, C. J. (2001) A manufactured housing studio: home/on the highway, Journal of Architectural Education, 55 (1), 51-57. Cardellini, L. (2002) An interview with Richard M Felder, Journal of Science Education, 3 (2), 62-65. Cavanagh, S. J., Hogan, K. and Ramgopal, T. (1995) The assessment of student nurse learning styles using the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory, Nurse Education Today, 15, 177-183. Chi, L. (1999) Boundary studies, Journal of Architectural Education, 53 (2), 115-121.

89

Jia Yunyan


Chou, H. W. and Wang, T. B. (1999) The effects of learning style and training method on computer attitude and performance in world wide web page design training, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21 (No 3), 323-342. Churchman, C. W. (1967) Wicked problems, Management Science, 4 (14), 141-142. Cockerton, T., Naz, R. and Sheppard, S. (2002) Factorial validity and internal reliability of Honey and Mumford's Learning Style Questionnaire, Psychological Reports, 91 (No 2), 503-519. Cross, N. (1983) The relevance of cognitive styles in design education, Design Methods and Theories, 17 (1). Davies, R. (1987) Experiencing ideas: identity, insight and the imago, Design Studies, 8 (1), 17-25. Davis, B. G. (1993) Tools for Teaching, Jossey-Bass Publishing, San Francisco. Demirbas, O. O. and Demirkan, H. (2003) Focus on architectural design process through learning styles, Design Studies, 24 (No 5), 437-456. Dewey, J. (1929) The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action, Southern Illinois University Press, Chicago. Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience, Perigee Books, New York. Diekhoff, G. (1992) Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Univariate, Bivariate,Multivariate, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA, US. Duff, A. and Duffy, T. (2002) Psychometric properties of Honey & Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), Personality and Individual Differences, 33 (No 1), 147-163. Duff, V., Johnston, N. and Laschinger, H. (1992) Learning styles of Chinese nursing faculty and career choice preferences, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17 (No 2), 229-233. Dunn, R. and Griggs, S. A. (1988) Learning Styles: Quiet Revolution in American Secondary Schools, National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, Va. Eastman, C. M. (1970) On the analysis of intuitive design process In Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (Ed, Moore, G.) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, The Falmer Press, London . Washington, D. C. 90

Jia Yunyan


Fierro, A. (2003) Transparent pedagogy: visions for a contemporary public school, Journal of Architectural Education, 56 (4), 37-39. Fox, R. D. (1984) Learning styles and instructional preferences in continuing education for health professionals: a validity study of the LSI, Adult Education Quarterly, 35 (2), 72-85. Fu, C. (1998) Experiences of education on adaptive reuse of historical buildings, World Architecture, (3), 25-27. Gu, D. (2001) Atelier, workshop and design lab: design studio and the development of design teaching methods, Architect, 98, 20-36. Hayes, J. and Allinson, C. W. (1988) Cultural differences in the learning styles of managers, Management International Review, 28 (3), 75-80. Hayes, J. and Allinson, C. W. (1993) Matching learning style and instructional strategy: an application of the person-environment interaction paradigm, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 63-79. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986) The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Berkshire, England. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Berkshire, England. Hu, S. (1994) A Comparison of contemporary architectural education between China and Western, Architectural Journal, 1994 (4), 44-48. Hu, S. (1995) Issues on Chinese contemporary architectural education, Architectural Journal, 1995 (1), 19-20. Hutch, M. (1981) Adult Students' Locus of Control, Learning Styles and Satisfaction with the Baccalaureate Nursing Programme, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Mississippi. Hutcheson, C. (1999) Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ): Leader's Guide, HRD Press, Amherst, Massachusetts.

91

Jia Yunyan


Jia, B. S. (2001) Problem-based learning in crossing university joint studio of architecture, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 55-56. Jung, C. G. (1921) Psychological Types, Princeton University Press. Keirsey, D. and Marilyn, B. (1984) Please Understand me: Character & Temperament Types, Prometheus Nemesis Book Co., Del Mar, CA. King, J. E. (1984) A Comparative Study of Adult Development Patterns of Generic Students and RN Students in A Baccalaureate Nursing Programme and the Correlation of Impact of the Education Experience on the Development Pattern, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University. Kolb, A. and Kolb, D. A. (2002) Experiential Learning Theory Bibliography, http://www.learningfromexperience.com. Kolb, D. A. (1976) Management and the learning process, California Management Review, 18 (3), 21-31. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J. Kolb, D. A. (1985) Learning Style Inventory: Self-Scoring Test and Interpretation Booklet, McBer and Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. and Mainemelis, C. (2001) Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions In Perspectives on Cognitive Learning and Thinking Styles (Eds, Sternberg, R. and Zhang, L.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Kolb, D. A. and Goldman, M. B. (1973) Toward a typology of learning styles and learning environments: an investigation of the impact of learning and discipline demands on academic performance, social adaptation and career choice of MIT seniors In Sloan Working Paper MIT, pp. 673-688. Kolb, D. A. and Wolfe, D. (1981) Professional Education And Career Development: A Cross-Sectional Study of Adaptive Competencies in Experiential Learning, ERIC/Higher Education Research Report Final Report, Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. Kruzich, J. M., Friesen, B. J. and Soest, D. V. (1986) Assessment of student and faculty learning styles: research and application, Journal of Social Work Education, 3, 22-30.

92

Jia Yunyan


Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kuo, C. L. (1998) Issues on architectural education, World Architecture, 1998 (3), 24. Kvan, T. (2000a) Designing together apart: Computer-Supported Collaborative Design in Architecture, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Open University, UK. Kvan, T. (2000b) Teaching architecture, learning architecture In Proceedings of CAADRIA 2000 (Eds, Tan, B.-K., Tan, M. and Wong, Y.-C.) Singapore, pp. 181-190. Kvan, T. (2001) The problem in studio teaching--revising the pedagogy of studio teaching, Architectural Education for the Asian Century, Proceedings of the 1st ACAE Conference on Architectural Education, Singapore, 95-104. Kvan, T. (2003) Seminar at the University of Hong Kong. Levin, P. (1966) Decision making in urban design In Developments in Design Methodology (Ed, Cross, N.) (1984) John Wiley, London. Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science, Harper, New York. Liu, A. T., Macdonald, C., Schotton, E. and Techentin, W. (1999) Weather register, Journal of Architectural Education, 53 (2), 110-114. Lloyd, P. and Scott, P. (1995) Difference in similarity: interpreting the architectural design process, Environment and Planning B, 22 (4), 383 - 406. Luo, L. (1995) Architectural education: shake the "invisible hand", Architectural Journal, 1995 (8), 28-29. McCaulley, M. H. (1990) The MBTI and individual pathways in engineering design, Engineering Education, 80 (5), 537-542. Meng, J. (2001) What kind of Graduates do we need: problems in architectural education in China, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 36-37. Newell, A. (1970) Heuristic programming: ill structured problems In Progress in Operations Research (III) (Ed, Arnofsky, J. A.) John Wiley, New York. Newland, P., Powell, J. A. and Creed, C. (1987) Understanding architectural designers' selective information handling, Design Studies, 8 (1), 2-16. Newstead, S. E. (1992) A study of two 'quick and easy' methods of assessing individual differences in student learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299-312. 93

Jia Yunyan


O'Kell, S. P. (1988) A study of the relationship between learning style, readiness for self-directed learning and teaching preferences of learner nurses in one health district, Nurse Education Today, 8, 197-204. Piaget, J. (1964) The Child's Conception of the World, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Piaget, J. (1970) Genetic Epistemology, Columbia University Press, New York London. Qin, L. (2001) Exploration and practice, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 13-14. Rayner, S. and Riding, R. (1997) Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles, Educational Psychology, 17 (1/2), 5-24. Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973) Planning problems are wicked problems In Developments in Design Methodology (Ed, Cross, N.) (1984) John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 135-144. Rowe, P. G. (1987) Design Thinking, MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Rumfelt, J. J. (1991) The Relationship of Learning Style and Type of Instruction about AIDS with Achievement And Attitudes of College Nursing Students, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Southern Illinois University. Sadler-Smith, E. (1997) Learning styles and Instructional design, Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 33 (4), 185-193. Salama, A. (1997) New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio, Tailored Text & Unlimited Potential Publishing, North California. Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books Inc., New York. Schon, D. A. (1984a) The Architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action, Journal of Architectural Education, 38 (1), 2-9. Schon, D. A. (1984b) Problems, frames and perspectives on designing, Design Studies, 5 (3), 132-136. Schon, D. A. (1985) The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials, RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Trust, London. Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner : toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Sein, M. K. (1987) Conceptual models in training of novice users, INTERACT'87, Stuttgart, Germany, 861-867. 94

Jia Yunyan


Sein, M. K. (1988) Conceptual Models in Training, Novice Users of Computer Systems: Effectiveness of Abstract vs. Analogical Models and Influence of Individual Differences, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Sein, M. K. and Bostorm, R. P. (1989) Individual differences and the training of novice users, Human-Computer Interaction, 1989 (4), 197-229. Simon, H. A. (1973) The structure of ill-structured problems In Developments in Design Methodology (Ed, Cross, N.) (1984) John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Sims, R. R., Veres, J. G., Watson, P. and Buckner, K. E. (1986) The reliability and classification stability of the Learning Style Inventory, Education and Psychological Measurement, 46 (Autumn), 753-760. Smith, D. and Kolb, D. (1996) User Guide for the Learning Style Inventory: A Manual for Teachers and Trainers, McBer and Company, Boston. Stout, D. E. and Ruble, T. L. (1991) A reexamination of accounting students' learning styles, Journal of Accounting Education, 1991 (9), 341-354. Veres, J. G., Sims, R. R. and Shake, L. G. (1987) The reliability and classification stability of the Learning Style Inventory in corporate settings, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47 (4), 1127-1133. Vondrell, J. H. and Sweeney, J. M. (1989) Independent study: using learning style assessment to predict student success, Continuing Higher Education, 1989 (Winter), 5-7. Wang, G. (1995) A new horizon to pursue: notes of the faculty meeting of Architectural School in Southeast University, Architectural Journal, 1995 (1), 22-24. Wang, S. (2001) Education/simplicity, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 35-36. Willcoxon, L. and Prosser, M. (1996) Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1985): review and further study of validity and reliability, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 247-257. Woolley, T. (1991) Why studio?, The Architects Journal, 193, 46-49. Xu, Z., Yuan, Y. and Li, W. (2001) Encouraging creativity and exploring innovative education, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 46-50.

95

Jia Yunyan


Yakeley, M. (2000) Digitally Mediated Design: Using Computer Programming to Develop a Personal Design Process, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Zhang, L. (2002) Interview record. Zhang, Y. (2001) Issues on architectural education, Architect, 98, 14-19. Zhao, C. (2002a) Interview record. Zhao, C. (2002b) The necessity of a new system, Architectural Journal, 2002 (4), 3839. Zheng, X., Xu, G. and Li, X. (2001) Develop individuality to stimulate creativity, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 51-54. Zhong, D. (2001) Instructor and promoter of architectural education in China, Time+Architecture, 2001 (Supplementary Issue), 8-9.

96

Students' Learning Styles and Their Correlation with ...

Students' Learning Styles and Their Correlation with ...

Suggest Documents

Students' learning styles and their correlation with performance in ...

The Effect of Students' Learning Styles to Their Academic Success

The Effect of Students' Learning Styles to Their Academic Success

Learning styles and their relation to teaching styles - Science ...

Learning Styles of Students and Teaching Styles of ...

Correlation of Honey & Mumford Learning Styles and Online Learning ...

Correlation of Honey & Mumford Learning Styles and Online Learning ...

Learning styles and learning preferences of higher diploma students ...

Learning styles and their application for effective learning

ARE STUDENTS' LEARNING STYLES DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC?

An analysis of students' preferred learning styles

Academic Achievement of Students with Different Learning Styles

Engaging students with diverse learning styles in large, media

learning styles of freshmen engineering students - CiteSeerX

Characteristics of Chinese Students' Learning Styles - ipedr

Learning Styles Of Yemeni Undergraduate Science Students

Learning styles preferences of statistics students

Characteristics of Chinese Students' Learning Styles - ipedr

Understanding Engineering Students' Learning Styles - International ...

Primary School Students' Cognitive Styles and Their ...

Students' Goals Influence Their Learning

An investigation on the correlation of learner styles and learning

LEARNING STYLES AND E-LEARNING

LEARNING STYLES AND E-LEARNING