Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring student perceptions and experiences of different teaching and learning approaches in architectural history education: a comparative case study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the current research was to investigate the perceptions and experiences of university students regarding three different teaching and learning approaches constructed as a face-to-face approach, a technology-supported traditional approach, and an e-learning approach. The researchers attempted to report the preliminary findings of student perceptions and experiences from test lectures given during an EU-funded project which utilised new approaches (i.e. a digital interactive tool and an e-learning platform) in architectural history education. Our qualitative comparative case study involved focus-group interviews with 22 students who took part in different groups for the same course over 6 weeks in the 2018–2019 academic year at a large public university in Southeastern Turkey. The same curriculum content was used for each group in the same course divided into three groups. Semi-structured interview forms were used to examine students’ perceptions and experiences about their groups to compare the pros and cons of the approaches and recommendations for the improvement of each approach. Students put great emphasis on teacher guidance, but they demanded alternative ways to enhance their learning. Timeline travel tool was regarded as a useful interactive tool to be used as a companion and supportive material in architectural history courses. It was understood that the timeline travel e-learning platform could be used as a supplementary resource, not necessarily taking over the role of an instructor. The research suggested that a blended learning approach could make more contributions to student learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This teaching method is described by Hudnut (1957).

  2. For a recent study on the integration of teaching architectural design and architectural history, see Li (2018). For an approach that puts the use of AR (augmented reality) into focus, see Sanusi et al. (2018).

  3. For more information about the project, partner institutions, associate partners, team members, intellectual outputs and project news, visit the project website: http://timelinetravelproject.gantep.edu.tr/.

  4. At the time of writing, new test lectures were to be held at Gaziantep University, as well as architecture faculties of the University of Bologna and Yeditepe University.

References

  • Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Musa, A., & Al-Mobark, A. (2005). E-learning the fundamentals and the implementations. Riyadh: Datanet.

  • Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15–44). Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Qahtani, A. A., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students’ achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 45–74). Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arends, R. (2012). Learning to teach. New York: McGraw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artino, A. R., Jr., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4), 146–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batdı, V., Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2018). The effect of technology supported teaching on students’ academic achievement: A combined meta-analytic and thematic study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 13(1), 44–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baydar, G. (2003). Teaching architectural history in Turkey and Greece: The burden of the mosque and the temple. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 62(1), 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergdoll, B., & Thomine, A. (2002). Teaching architectural history in France: A shifting institutional landscape. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 61(4), 509–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozdoğan, S. (1999). Architectural history in professional education: Reflections on postcolonial challenges to the modern survey. Journal of Architectural Education, 52(4), 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brill, J. M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3), 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimadomo, G. (2014). Teaching history of architecture—Moving from a knowledge transfer to a multi-participative methodology based on it tools. Journal of Learning Design, 7(3), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, A., & Jeffrey, B. (2008). Creativity and performativity in teaching and learning: Tensions, dilemmas, constraints, accommodations and synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 577–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers and Education, 125, 327–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face to face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (MindTrek ‘11) (pp. 9–15). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040.

  • Eze, S. C., Chinedu-Eze, V. C., & Bello, A. O. (2018). The utilisation of e-learning facilities in the educational delivery system of Nigeria: A study of M-University. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(34), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillion, G., Limayem, M., Laferrière, T., & Mantha, R. (2007). Integrating ICT into higher education: A study of onsite vs online students’ perceptions. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11(2), 45–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrick, D. (2014). Comparative case studies (Methodological briefs: Impact evaluation 9). Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hameed, S., Badii, A. & Cullen, A. J. (2008) Effective e-learning integration with traditional learning in a blended learning environment. In European and mediterranean conference on information system. Dubai.

  • Hara, N. & Kling, R. (1999). Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/710/620#h8.

  • Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heynen, H., & De Jonge, K. (2002). The teaching of architectural history and theory in Belgium and the Netherlands. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 61(3), 335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudnut, J. (1957). On teaching the history of architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 12(2), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hui, W., Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., Tam, K. Y., & Milton, J. (2008). Technology-assisted learning: A longitudinal field study of knowledge category, learning effectiveness and satisfaction in language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 245–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowallah, R. (2008). Using technology supported learning to develop active learning in higher education: A case study. US–China Education Review, 5(12), 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. J., Hong, A. J., & Song, H. D. (2019). The roles of academic engagement and digital readiness in students’ achievements in university e-learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(21), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D., & Ware, M. (2003). E-learning: New opportunities in continuing professional development. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 34–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K. W., & Hong, K. S. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. (2000). The five attributes of innovative e-learning. Training and Development, 54(6), 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W. (2018). A research on undergraduate architecture teaching approach based on integration of architectural design and architectural history teaching. Creative Education, 9(12), 1843–1853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, D. H. (2002). Perceived differences between classroom and distance education: Seeking instructional strategies for learning applications. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1). Retrieved July 19, 2019, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/ijet/v3n1/d-lim/index.html.

  • McWilliam, E. (2009). Teaching for creativity: From sage to guide to meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 281–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., & Ram, J. (2000). Web-supported emergent-collaboration in higher education courses. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 94–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1126–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, D. (2002). Teaching the history of architecture in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: “Architekturgeschichte” vs. “Bauforschung”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 61(3), 370–380.

  • Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, L., Richardson, J. T., & Jelfs, A. (2007). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutz, E., Eckart, R. E., Wade, J., Maltbie, C., Rafter, C., & Elkins, V. (2003). Student performance and acceptance of instructional technology: Comparing technology-enhanced and traditional instruction for a course in statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salama, A. M. (2010). Delivering theory courses in architecture: Inquiry-based, active, and experiential learning integrated. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 278–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanusi, A., Abdullah, F., Kassim, M., & Tidjani, A. (2018). Architectural history education: Students’ perception on mobile augmented reality learning experience. Advanced Science Letters, 24(11), 8171–8175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solimeno, A., Mebane, M., Tomai, M., & Francescato, D. (2008). The influence of students’ and teachers’ characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 5(1), 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swenarton, M. (1987). The role of history in architectural education. Architectural History, 30, 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teal, R. (2011). Foundational history: An integrated approach to basic design, history, and theory. Journal of Architectural Education, 64(2), 37–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. R. (2017). Teaching global architectural history. Retrieved on 27.01.2020 from https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/teaching-global-architectural-history(e102a765-afe7-47ef-8c12-71113e86b1b6).html.

  • Thor, D., Xiao, N., Zheng, M., Ma, R., & Yu, X. (2017). An interactive online approach to small-group student presentations and discussions. Advances in Physiology Education, 41, 498–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D., & Klassen, J. (2001). Technology-supported learning: Status, issues and trends. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 104–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorhees, R. A. (2001). Competency-based learning models: A necessary future. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(110), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, X., Yang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Innovative thinking on the education of contemporary Chinese architectural history. In Advances in social science, education and humanities research (ASSEHR) 156 (pp. 189–192). Proceedings of the 2017 2nd international seminar on education innovation and economic management.

  • Yıldırım, İ. (2017). The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student achievement and students’ attitudes toward lessons. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım, İ., & Şen, S. (2019). The effects of gamification on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yıldız, E. (2020). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin topluluk hissine etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi—Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(1), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.8c.1s.9m.

  • Yıldız Durak, H., Sarıtepeci, M., & Bağdatlı Çam, F. (2020). Arkeoloji alanında artırılmış gerçeklik teknolojisinin kullanımına yönelik üniversite öğrencilerinin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi—Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(1), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.8c.1s.8m.

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the EU Project Timeline Travel: An Alternative Tool for Architectural History Learning and Teaching under the framework of 2017 Erasmus+ KA203 (Grant No. 2017-1-TR01-KA203-046818) Strategic Partnerships for Higher Education Grants by the Center for European Union Education and Youth Programs (Turkish National Agency).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

    Mahmut Kalman, Melike Özyurt & Sevilay Şahin

  2. Faculty of Architecture, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

    Muzaffer Özgüleş

Authors
  1. Muzaffer Özgüleş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahmut Kalman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melike Özyurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sevilay Şahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahmut Kalman.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özgüleş, M., Kalman, M., Özyurt, M. et al. Exploring student perceptions and experiences of different teaching and learning approaches in architectural history education: a comparative case study. Learning Environ Res 24, 269–297 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09328-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09328-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation