1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic had a major effect on the learning environment of higher education (HE) when distance work and multilocality sprouted as solutions to the situation. However, the discussion of changing needs and context of HE in planning is not new, and calls for improvements regarding knowledge, methods and tools of planning education have been voiced periodically (e.g. Sandercock, 1999; Healey, 1999; Bertolini et al., 2012; Frank and da Rosa, 2021). Upgrading spatial planning programs has thus become essential to assure the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, and to cope with newly imposed challenges (e.g., Biggs & Tang, 2007; Frank & da Rosa, 2021). In line with these propositions, this article discusses the changes in studio education during the COVID-19 pandemic and the identified opportunities of utilizing these experiences in further developing studios as a learning environment.

Mirroring the increasing digitalization of all aspects of life, online forms of university education have been on the rise for several decades. The COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered extensive distancing measures globally from 2020 onwards, has vastly accelerated the digitalization of education through emergency remote teaching (ERT). The urgent and sudden needs mandated by the pandemic demonstrated the capabilities of HE to digitalize their learning environments (Frank, 2022). The use of pre-recorded videos as well as live online lectures or discussions became common features in HE from 2020 onwards.

Naturally, the distancing measures also forced learning formats which had traditionally been on site into the digital realm, for instance studio courses in the fields of architecture and spatial planning. Studios have been a common course type in design-oriented disciplines such as architecture for more than a century but are also frequently used in planning education. Typically, studios build on a real-life case and enable collaboration between students and practitioners to provide a hands-on learning experience and bridge the gap between theory and practice (Németh & Long, 2012; Pojani et al., 2018; Purkarthofer & Mäntysalo, 2022). The pedagogical approaches employed in studio education include problem-based, student-centered and student-led learning; thus, they significantly differ from other more teacher-led course types used in HE.

In this article, we reflect on the experiences with four studio courses from the fields of architecture and spatial planning which were held (mostly) online in 2020 and 2021. All four studios were held at Aalto University in Finland and are targeted at master’s degree students. The article addresses two research questions:

  1. 1)

    How did teachers and students experience the virtual studios during the COVID-19 pandemic?

  2. 2)

    What opportunities and challenges for studio education arise from the increasing digitalization of HE?

The analysis builds on semi-structured interviews with course teachers and an online survey for students who attended the studios in 2020 or 2021. It must be noted that the authors have also been instructors of some of these studios before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, we cannot completely separate our own experiences and tacit knowledge from the collected data. However, we have aimed to clearly demarcate the information obtained from students and course teachers from our own reflection.

While the COVID-19 pandemic presented a sudden need to enable online teaching of all aspects of HE, digitalization will continue to be a major concern even as the pandemic recedes into the background. Ideas about a virtual campus in which learners study and/or join research events without being physically present at a specific university are gaining popularity globally (Alvarez-Blanco et al., 2022). However, Hodges et al. (2020) argue that online teaching should not be assessed naively when assessing ERT during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to them, successful online learning is structured by rigorous instructional course planning and through employing systematic methodologies for design and development.

The aim of this article is to start a discussion on the future of architectural design and planning studio education in the light of digitalization. Instead of conducting studios as ERT, as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, it offers lessons learned which can help to systematically rethink and improve studio teaching in the future. The article is structured as follows. Section 2 summarizes the characteristics of studio courses in architectural design and spatial planning including their pedagogical framing based on a review of the relevant literature. Section 3 introduces the research methods and the context of the studios. Sections 4 and 5 present teacher and student experiences on the four studios. Section 6 discusses the results and identifies the most important lessons learned. Section 7 concludes the article by expounding the relevance of the findings for the future of studio education in architecture and planning.

2 Studio education in architecture and spatial planning

Since the early 19th century, the studio (sometimes called “atelier”) has been a popular environment for teaching design and architecture, building on the idea of doing hands-on work in a shared workspace. In the 20th century, the studio format was expanded to teaching urban design, urban planning, landscape architecture and strategic planning (Long, 2012). Currently, studios are typically organized for (1) teaching architecture (design and urban design), and (2) planning (regional and strategic planning). However, the two types of studios differ regarding their characteristics, i.e., contents, objectives, social setting, and teaching methods. Thus, these aspects need to be scrutinized to understand the shortcomings and opportunities of digitalizing studio teaching.

Studio courses, whether aimed at educating architects or planners, share a set of common characteristics. Typically, studios revolve around a complex and open-ended problem, often based on a real-world case, and are executed in collaboration with actors external to the university (e.g., planning authorities or private developers). As part of the studio, students need to frame the problem as well as present possible solutions to address it (Purkarthofer & Mäntysalo, 2022). Studio teachers support the learning process through guidance and input, often in structured tutoring conversations between teachers and students or among the whole class. Professional experts are frequently involved to provide specific knowledge relevant to the studied problem. However, there are also significant differences between studios aimed at educating planners and architects, resulting from their varying approaches towards the nature of the examined problem, the sites and scales, the clients and stakeholders, the knowledge domains, and the skills to be obtained (Long, 2012).

In architecture education, studios are typically design-oriented, i.e., their goal is to develop a concrete design proposal for a specific site or neighborhood. In the architectural design process, the student has the sole authority and freedom on creating design concepts (Lawson, 2006) while expert designers guide students in tutoring sessions to help refine their design concept (Cennamo et al., 2011). Design ideas are displayed through sketches, drawings, and models (Demirkan & Hasirci, 2009). The architectural design process is relatively linear by nature, progressing through problem definition, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and solution (Rahbarianyazd & Hourakhsh, 2019).

Planning studios, on the other hand, have a broader range of outputs, including plans, urban design concepts, policy proposals, strategies, and visions. Planning students are expected to learn how to make plans of various scales and diverse functions, as well as to obtain the skills required to produce these plans such as data analysis, production of graphics, and writing. With the increasing criticism towards environmental determinism and blueprint planning in the field of spatial planning since the 1960s, many planning educators reject the term design studio, as planning is perceived as an inter- or multidisciplinary field interlinking architecture, landscape architecture and urban design to both social and political sciences (Long, 2012; Manley & Parnaby, 2000). Furthermore, planning education needs to accommodate the fact that planning often deals with long-term developments, which are taking place in a future that cannot be predicted or forecasted (Purkarthofer & Mäntysalo, 2022). Thus, uncertainty plays a major role in planning, while it is of little importance in the context of architecture. Planning studios can focus on the physical development of neighborhoods or districts, but also cover planning components beyond land use such as transportation, economic development, or housing (Balsas, 2012).

Lastly, in design-oriented architecture studios, it is common for students to work individually, while sharing the same learning space. Architecture studios thus create an atmosphere of competition for the attention of the studio critic, leading to students sometimes guarding their ideas from each other (Salama & Wilkinson, 2007). In planning studios, which are strategy-oriented, learners typically work in teams, and the atmosphere is generally more collaborative.

2.1 Pedagogy of the studio learning environment

Both architectural design and planning studios revolve around projects and employ ideas of student-centered and student-led learning, in which the role of the student is essential in the learning process and course progression. While the instructors typically define the context and set the overall task, students themselves need to grasp the subject, frame the issue, and propose an adequate response. Building on a specific case, studios use problem-based learning (PBL) (Yanar, 2001), case-based learning (Cifuentes et al., 2010) and/or project-based learning (Bell, 2010). Regular conversations between teachers and learners help the students to incrementally develop their design or plan.

Studio pedagogy is tailored to teach synthesis, learning-by-doing, and reflection-in-action through a learning environment exposing learners to the complexities of real-world problems (Rittel & Weber, 1973). In doing so, studios aim to enable professional socialization and bridge the gap between theory and practice (see e.g., Schön, 1985, 1987; Yanar, 2001; Long, 2012; Pojani et al., 2018; Purkarthofer & Mäntysalo, 2022). Thus, it is essential to include both academics and practitioners in studio teaching to understand the tasks through the lenses of theory and practice. Heumann and Wetmore (1984) provide an overview of the pedagogical objectives of studios (Table 1), while Higgins et al. (2009) suggest framing studio pedagogies along five Cs (Creativity, Criticality, Collaboration, Citizenship, and Contemplation).

Table 1 The essential learning objectives of studios (based on Heumann & Wetmore, 1984, p. 124)
Full size table

Long (2012) argues that, among these pedagogical objectives, synthesis is most often associated with studio pedagogy, referring to students’ ability to apply judgment and values to the selection of methods and actions. Moreover, learning-by-doing, as originated from Schön’s (1985) cognitive foundation of reflection-in-action, allows students, as individuals or in groups, to gain “tacit knowledge through work on subsequent iterations under the guidance and criticism of a master practitioner” (1985, p. 6). At the same time, students are expected to acquire critical thinking skills, enabling them to be self-critical, reflect on their use of knowledge and their ethical considerations, as well as be reflective of the professional practices and the societal role of planners and architects.

Studios can thus be understood as an example of social learning. First, professional socialization plays a strong role in studio education: learners gain tacit knowledge about the role associated with their profession, the procedural aspects of their work, and the existing and partly unconscious social norms of the community of practice (Long, 2012; Oonk et al., 2016; Wenger, 2000). Second, studios typically take place in a social setting, which has traditionally required in-class attendance, active student contribution, and collaborative project-based learning (Purkarthofer & Mäntysalo, 2022; Wenger, 2000).

2.2 Digitalization of studio education

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, online education was represented mostly by self-learning courses running in an asynchronous setting in order to reach a broader audience (Godschalk & Lacey, 2001; Lawhon, 2003). However, architecture and planning as disciplines are anchored in space; thus, virtual teaching platforms cannot easily recreate the studio atmosphere (Katsavounidou, 2022). Furthermore, the studio as a learning environment is interactive, participatory, and collaborative by nature. Thus, in pre-covid settings, studio courses were not commonly organized online (Pojani et al., 2018). However, the urgent need to organize teaching remotely in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic also affected architectural design and planning studios (Katsavounidou, 2022; Kim, 2022).

Although remote teaching during the pandemic has been reported to be stressful, tiring, and “much hated” (Mironowicz & Schretzenmayr, 2020, p.107), it has also revealed the adaptability and endurance of university teachers around the globe (Katsavounidou, 2022). However, some constraints have been identified in the execution of distance learning. Both teachers and students have been described as suffering from “Zoom-fatigue” (Bailenson, 2021), and online learning has also affected students developmentally. While teachers might have the skills and strategies to cope with mental strain that students are yet to develop, they might have their own struggles to deal with, be they practical or psychological (Katsavounidou, 2022). Even though online teaching has supposedly increased temporal and spatial flexibility, the workload for educators has generally increased (Frank, 2022). Distance education has also amplified existing inequalities, posing the biggest challenges for poor or rural students and for students with a learning disability (Sheasley, 2021).

In the case of architectural design and planning studios, instructors had to make essential modifications to the contents and course practicalities in response to the restrictions of the lockdown, for example substituting site visits or weekly on-site tutoring with pre-recorded videos (Frank, 2022; Mironowicz & Schretzenmayr, 2020). Although student feedback on the effectiveness of these approaches is still sparse, some students have indicated that such materials were not realistic to convey scale, size, and the feeling of a space (Frank, 2022). The latter complaints might be more applicable to design-oriented courses, as more strategic problems can hardly be conveyed through site visits in the first place. Furthermore, teachers had to find digital tools to replicate the studio atmosphere, enhance teamwork, and foster engagement, which are the cornerstones of studios as previously discussed. In a nutshell, it can be claimed that the sudden shift to ERT reduced the scope and methodology of the studios to what is possible (Katsavounidou, 2022).

Despite the constraints faced by teachers and students, the sudden digitalization of HE has in many cases worked better than anticipated even in spatial planning education (Frank, 2022). However, such a success should not be considered a complete surprise, since there are already functioning spatial planning degrees delivered fully online (Evans-Cowley, 2018). Although the shift from face-to-face to virtual teaching formed obstacles for some learning tasks and events, it enabled smoother implementation of others, for example by giving students more flexibility regarding their time management and the option to participate in courses from various locations (Mironowicz & Schretzenmayr, 2020; Marinoni et al., 2020).

3 Setting the scene: Research context and methods

The analysis covers four studio courses conducted at Aalto University in Finland. Table 2 presents an overview of the four courses. Studios 1 and 2 are catered to architecture students and aim to develop a design concept for a specific site. Studios 3 and 4 are from the field of planning and attended by students with various educational backgrounds. Despite these different course settings, the four studios are comparable as all of them represent typical examples of the studio learning environment. The number of students attending each studio ranged from 12 to 39, and the number of teachers from two to four (some of them employees of the university and some of them practitioners with an hourly-paid contract).

Table 2 Studio overview
Full size table

To gather the teacher experiences, semi-structured interviews were conducted with one or two course teachers for each of the four studios. Five out of seven interviewed course teachers had been teachers on the respective course also before the pandemic. The interviews were conducted in November 2022, lasted for approximately one hour, and were conducted face-to-face or online.

To gather student experiences, an online survey was sent to students who participated in the four studios in 2020 and 2021. The survey contained both Likert-scale questions and open questions. Answers were collected using the Webropol survey tool. The survey was conducted in November 2022, and the invitation was shared by the teachers responsible for the studios in order to adhere to data protection guidelines. A total of 176 students were invited to participate in the survey, out of which 20 students completed it, resulting in a response rate of 11%. Consequently, the survey allows for qualitative analysis of student experiences rather than quantitative analysis or comparison between studios.

Teacher and student experiences are presented in the following sections and structured according to five themes: practicalities of the course, student-teacher interaction, social aspects of learning, workload and wellbeing, and shortcomings and opportunities of the online setting. If not stated otherwise, statements refer to both teaching years 2020 and 2021.

4 Teacher experiences

4.1 Practicalities of the course

Despite the shift to an online setting, the phases and tasks of the studios remained the same as before the pandemic, partly because the courses were planned to be held on site and distancing measures were introduced after the courses had already started. All teachers noted that schedules were made much more in advance due to the online setting, and in more detail than usual. For example, each student or group had specific time slots for receiving feedback on their work, while traditionally these feedback sessions were taking place during the studio hours, but not at a scheduled time. According to one teacher, this resulted in fewer “no shows” among the students compared to the traditional “walk-in” studio feedback.

All studios worked with a real-life case and collaborated either with a company or a public sector organization (municipality or regional authority). Consequently, site visits were planned for all studios. In most cases, these could be organized despite the pandemic, either because distancing rules came into force only after the site visit had taken place, or they were organized with enhanced distancing measures. In one studio, students were asked to visit the site individually.

Most studios used Zoom or Teams for their teaching sessions, occasionally supplemented with some additional tools (e.g., Miro, Flinga). One teacher gave a reason for not using additional tools in the studio:

“I learned about all kinds of different tools in the pedagogical courses, but it seemed that using those would take time away from the actual project. The task is quite complex, so you don’t need any polls or something like that, you just need to work on the task itself.” (Studio 1)

All teachers considered their ICT skills and equipment sufficient to conduct the studio courses online, although none of them had any experience with online teaching before 2020. While the teachers were overall satisfied with using Teams or Zoom as a communication platform, some pointed out that the drawing tool integrated in Zoom was not sophisticated enough to be used for architectural purposes, for instance to sketch onto a student’s design proposal. One teacher also criticized the user interface of the video call software, which in their opinion was functional but limited creativity and created “visual noise”.

All studios used synchronous teaching, meaning that lectures were not pre-recorded. However, some courses recorded lectures and made them available for students to watch afterwards. Three studios made use of the opportunity to organize guest lectures delivered by academics from other universities or practitioners which, due to time and budget constraints, could not have visited on campus in a traditional course setting.

4.2 Student-teacher interaction

From the teacher perspective, it was challenging to lead the courses when students did not turn on their cameras. This setting made it impossible to get non-verbal feedback from the students, for example to understand whether a task was sufficiently well explained. Speaking only to “black boxes” also significantly decreased teacher motivation as several interviewees pointed out.

Feedback on the tasks is a key element of studio courses, as the projects are developed and refined over a long period of time. All interviewees stated that no specific tools were introduced to give feedback, but that feedback was given verbally in discussions between the teacher(s) and the student(s). Contrary to the traditional on-campus studio, other students did typically not listen in on others getting comments on their work.

Some teachers pointed out that online supervision was very effective in some stages of the course, for example during the final phases of the design-oriented studios. The online setting made it possible to view designs on your own screen in high resolution and to talk about concrete aspects of the sketches. These advantages also applied to the final presentation sessions, during which everybody could see the projects better than when being in a classroom. However, the teachers of the design-oriented studios argued that the initial creative phases of the course, focused on finding a design idea and concept, did not work so well in the online setting. In other words, online supervision worked better when there was a concrete drawing to talk about.

While students previously made models in the design-oriented studios, this was entirely omitted in the online iterations of the studios. One teacher expressed concern that students would not learn this skill of making real-life models in other courses. However, the decreasing use of physical models is a common trend in architecture and urban design. Referring to the latest iteration of their studio course in 2022, when it was possible to have the course on campus again, one teacher mentioned that students were reluctant to build models and preferred to create their designs digitally. Although models were not common in the strategy-oriented planning studios before the pandemic, there was often sketching onto printed maps. Such hands-on brainstorming sessions were difficult to organize online, as some teachers claimed.

Regarding assessment, no fundamental differences between the virtual and on-campus iterations of the studios were mentioned by the teachers. Generally, grading was a bit more generous to account for the mental stress that students experienced during the pandemic. One teacher mentioned that it was useful to rewatch the recorded final presentations to remind oneself about the students’ projects when deciding on the grades.

One teacher also expressed that it was more challenging to collect feedback from the students about the course in the online setting, which was usually done in a less formal setting after the final critique. However, such a casual atmosphere could not be created in the online meeting.

Overall, student-teacher-interaction was very structured in the online setting, and there was no small talk or informal conversations. One teacher summarized this as “the complete absence of spontaneity” in the studio. This made it impossible for teachers to get to know students well for further studies, such as master’s thesis supervision.

4.3 Social aspects of learning

In Studios 1 and 2, most of the work was done individually by students, although some smaller tasks were done in groups. In Studios 3 and 4, most work was done in groups of three to six students. This posed fundamentally different opportunities and challenges regarding the social aspects of learning, but overall, the digitalization significantly reduced peer interaction in all courses. From the teachers’ perspective, the individual work was more boring in the online setting, because students did not necessarily interact with others. Due to the strict scheduling of feedback sessions, students typically only attended their own session and did not listen to the feedback other students received, which is more common in an on-site studio setting. One teacher claimed that this isolated working also created less pressure to make progress with the project, compared to working in the same room with others.

For those courses that required a lot of group work, peer interaction took place within the groups, but not between the groups. The teachers were uncertain whether the groups met in real life or online to complete their assignments. In one studio, the teachers attempted to facilitate interaction between groups through a type of “speed dating” where different groups would share their work progress with each other.

The online setting made feedback discussions as well as mid-term presentations or final presentations more time efficient, but it also eliminated opportunities to continue conversations after the official session, potentially in a more informal setting.

One interviewee mentioned that the online setting also precluded any interaction between the students and the department staff not involved in the studio. Traditionally, when studios are held in a specific workspace and students occupy a specific room or desk for several weeks to work on their project, teaching staff might walk by and chat about the projects.

Overall, the community spirit was missing from all studio courses, as peer interaction was significantly reduced. According to the teachers’ observations, students also received little peer support, unless students knew each other already from other courses. Consequently, the sentiment of “we are all in this together” was missing, and the sense of accomplishment after the final presentation session was less pronounced.

4.4 Workload and wellbeing

After the initial stress of dealing with a completely new teaching situation amidst a global pandemic, the teachers remarked that their workload was the same as before the pandemic. Some mentioned that their total working hours spent were lower due to time savings regarding commuting to campus. However, some mentioned that the preparation of the schedules and online resources took more time than previously. Several teachers regarded the teaching mentally more demanding, as leading the online sessions felt more exhausting than being in the classroom. Teachers did not explicitly refer to a lack of wellbeing, but several teachers stated that they missed the social aspects of teaching and consequently found the teaching experience less rewarding.

The teachers were cautious to make statements about the student workload but considered it overall the same as before the pandemic. However, they suspected that many students might have experienced emotional stress and thus felt more exhausted, even if the tasks were the same as before and students also saved time by not commuting to campus and not attending such long studio sessions.

Regarding the teachers’ assessment of student wellbeing, all teachers voiced concern for the students during the pandemic. These concerns did not relate to a specific course but HE as a whole. The lack of immediate student-teacher-interaction made it challenging to assess whether students needed more help or additional instructions with their tasks. One teacher also pointed out that the online setting made it difficult to follow up on students who seemed to disappear from the studio:

“In the on-site setting you can ask other students naturally: ‘what happened to student X?’. In the online setting, when you have a meeting with a specific student, it is strange to ask about someone else like this.” (Studio 2)

4.5 Shortcomings and opportunities

The teachers considered the studios held in 2021 overall more successful than those held in 2020 because both students and teachers already had some experience with online education. One of the main shortcomings that remained was the lack of social interaction, both between students and teachers and among students. Talking to “black boxes” decreased teacher motivation but also made it challenging to see whether students had understood the tasks or needed more instructions, as one teacher explained:

“In the classroom you can see if someone is confused, and you can immediately assist them. But online you just hope that they hear you and they actually follow, as they get distracted and so on.” (Studio 4)

The biggest opportunities identified by the teachers were the possibility to easily invite guest lecturers to hold online lectures and the improved timekeeping and scheduling. Moreover, the possibility to participate from anywhere led to fewer overall absences and no shows. Recordings of lectures also allowed students to view these later.

Overall, most teachers were in favor of holding the studios on campus in the future but organizing some studio days online, for example during guest lectures or when giving feedback on concrete drafts. All teachers were wary of the hybrid option, meaning that some students would participate online while some would be on campus.

5 Student experiences

There were no notable differences regarding student satisfaction between the two years or the different studio types. 75% of all respondents were satisfied with the studio courses overall. Furthermore, a large majority of the respondents (80%) estimated that the teachers had handled the uncertainty of the pandemic well. While all students in the design-oriented studios agreed on this, the students of the strategy-oriented planning studios had more diverging views. Some students indicated potential contradictions between the traditional meaning of studios and their online format. One student explained:

“What I really like about Studio courses is that there is more interaction and communication, and I hope that the online format does not compromise its own character.” (Studio 4)

5.1 Practicalities of the course

As much as a half of the respondents of strategy-oriented studios strongly agreed on the desire to join the studio on campus, whereas only 22% of the respondents of design-oriented studios desired to do so. Despite the majority of events being organized online, 70% of the respondents visited the project site in person. In addition to familiarizing oneself with the actual location, the site visits were considered important for building a sense of belonging in the group, as described by one student:

“Joint excursions would be really important and build course spirit.” (Studio 2)

65% of the respondents thought the online setting provided new opportunities of participating in the course (e.g., joining from various locations). The remote sessions increased flexibility and also allowed those who worked full-time to join. However, the respondents indicated in their open answers that the actual participation in spontaneous discussions as well as possibilities for networking were decreased. One respondent explained:

“One of the perks of studios is the opportunity to network with the collaborating partner (i.e., the city planning department) and this is essentially lost when the studio is online”. (Studio 4)

However, the ability to remain more anonymous in the online sessions also supported the learning process for some of the students when they did not have to feel anxiety of the social settings of the course. One participant explained:

“Presentations are also easier from the comfort of your home where you can have your notes, and no one sees”. (Studio 4)

A majority (70%) of the respondents considered that their technical tools and connections worked adequately well without disturbances, and approximately half of them felt comfortable with using their camera and microphone in online sessions. However, the connection challenges experienced by some of the students also disturbed the participation of the rest, especially in the studios where most of the work was done in collaboration. Not having a camera on also made it possible for some of the participants to pursue other activities during the sessions, distracting their attention away from the lectures and collaborative activities. Moreover, some of the students were missing the possibility to utilize “traditional” planning methods. This challenged some of the basic aspects of planning, such as understanding of the different scales, as explained by one respondent:

“It was challenging to understand the scale of the project, as everything was done online. The studio didn’t either encourage the use of various planning tools (such as models), but mainly digital tools”. (Studio 1)

Consequently, over half of the respondents from the design-oriented studios thought that they would have delivered better assignments if the course had taken place in the classroom. The share was considerably lower (35%) for the strategy-oriented studios.

5.2 Social aspects of learning

Over half of the respondents said their group did not meet in real life during the online studio. However, 90% of the students in the strategy-oriented studios reported that their group organized virtual meetings to work together outside the studio hours. For the design-oriented studios the share was lower, but nonetheless half of them also met each other outside the studio hours (50%). When the groups met, the experience was rated more productive and of higher quality. Some of the respondents assumed that the experience could have been even better if they had met more on-site:

“The best days of the studio were at the end when we met in-person on campus. The group work during that time was so much more productive and higher quality than most of the group work completed online.” (Studio 4)

Due to the remote collaboration, some respondents reported that their group lacked spontaneous interaction both within and between the groups. Moreover, some respondents indicated that the discussion was difficult and prone to misunderstandings due to the lack of nonverbal communication. One of the students explained:

“Discussion was awkward online.” (Studio 2)

Nearly 70% of the students in the design studios reported that they were missing the community spirit in the studio. For the planning studios, the share was lower (35%). Without spontaneous interaction and peer support, some respondents said it was also difficult to know what was expected and what was enough. However, there were also positive experiences. Some respondents stated that the collaboration was even better than they had expected.

5.3 Teacher-student interaction

Experiences of whether there were enough opportunities to get feedback from teachers varied considerably between the different kinds of studios. In the strategy-oriented studios, 85% of the respondents indicated that the opportunities were adequate, whereas in the design-oriented studios the share was only 33%. Almost 70% of the respondents from the design-oriented studios further reported that the quality of teacher feedback suffered from the online setting, whereas only 30% of the strategy-oriented studio participants indicated the same. According to the open responses, the participants felt that spontaneous interaction and asking were easily left aside and minor questions that arose during the meetings were left unanswered as the interaction in the online setting was more formal than typically in the on-site sessions.

Some respondents reported that spontaneous and in-depth interaction with the tutors suffered due to the remote mode. The quality of individual feedback decreased due to the prioritization of group feedback sessions which, on the other hand, also supported mutual learning opportunities. This challenge was experienced especially in the individually-oriented design studios, as explained by one respondent:

“The quality of tutoring decreased. Most of the tutoring was in groups so that students would see the works of each other. So, there was very little time for individual tutoring and the discussion was on a very general level. As well, the tutoring wasn’t as much dialogue as it was a monologue. I assume this is because we were not able to use physical means - such as drawing”. (Studio 1)

5.4 Workload and wellbeing

35% of the respondents did not think the workload of the studio was too high, whereas 15% indicated that it was. As much as 90% of the students estimated that they had adequate ICT skills to participate in the studio online. There were no notable differences between the different types of studios.

65% of the respondents reported that they felt isolated during the pandemic. The responses were similar for both studio types. Some respondents experienced that for introverts the situation might have been at times less stressful, as they were able to join the session without as much social pressure. On the other hand, the ones who hoped to have more engagement with their fellow students experienced a lack of motivation, increasing competition between students and a lack of experimentation with new methods. Moreover, half of the students indicated that it was generally difficult to focus on university courses during the pandemic.

5.5 Shortcomings and opportunities

The respondents identified clear organization of the course, the availability of adequate and on-time information, and clear assignments and scheduling as the main opportunities. As one respondent explained:

“More important than being online/remote is that the course is well organized and there is adequate information available. The course was fairly well organized, there were clear assignments and schedule.” (Studio 3)

Providing an online option also in the future was seen as an opportunity to increase flexibility as long as the working groups would not mix remote and on-site participants too much. Some respondents suggested that the in-class time could be reserved for discussions and group work by utilizing pre-recorded asynchronous online lectures in the future. One student described how this could also benefit the studios in the future:

“It wasn’t this studio, but another course had pre-recorded lectures and the “in class” time was meant for meaningful discussion. I think this would be great for a studio course like planning studio, where some of the lectures felt like they could have been asynchronous, and the studio time better spent on group work.” (Studio 4)

The main challenge was the experience that the studio lacks its unique characteristics when organized remotely:

“In my opinion, Studio courses should be conducted offline, because the interaction and feedback will be more timely and flexible. This is what clearly distinguishes the Studio course from other courses.” (Studio 4)

6 Lessons learned: Evolving the studio towards mixed modality

While the studio has a long tradition in architecture and planning education, characterized among other things by the importance of face-to-face tutoring and co-creation, the concept of the studio should not be “untouchable”. Studios as a learning environment can and should evolve too, alongside other societal changes. The urgent need for solutions in organizing HE while complying with the pandemic social restrictions revealed that while it is possible to hold the studio as an online course, simply taking the pre-existing courses to an online environment is not satisfactory for neither teachers nor students. Conscious decisions and changes must be made to find ways to adapt studio teaching to the increasing digitalization of HE and unlock the full potential of studios. This section aims to initiate the discussion on the lessons that can be learned from the experiences of digitalization during the pandemic.

The urgency of the pandemic showed the endurance of university teaching staff to cope with the sudden digitalization of education (Katsavounidou, 2022; Kim, 2022). While the studio teachers managed to conduct the courses, the effects of the pandemic urgency were evident in the organization of the analyzed studios. Although the digitalization of education is not a new phenomenon, the pandemic revealed that neither students nor teachers were fully acquainted with online teaching tools and practicalities. The instructors lacked opportunities for mutual learning among colleagues and sharing of best practices, as the situation was equally urgent for all. Moreover, institutional support at the university level was only available after the first pandemic year when the instructors had already found their own ways to cope with the situation. Overall, teacher and student experiences suggest that the studios improved during the second pandemic year.

In response to the first research question related to teachers’ and students’ experiences of the four studios during the pandemic, challenges were found in both design-oriented and strategy-oriented studios. The challenges relate to (1) the pedagogical aims of the studio, and (2) the socio-technical settings of online education.

Pedagogically, the objectives of Professional socialization and Field experience faced significant challenges. Given that professional socialization has been traditionally considered an important factor in studio education (cf. Long, 2012; Wenger, 2000), the findings show constraints in conveying tacit knowledge through virtual means. It was difficult to create a dynamic atmosphere supportive of spontaneous discussions beyond the planned agenda of each session. Such opportunities for interaction between teachers and students outside formal supervision feedback meetings, as well as between students and external actors from companies and public sector organizations in the critique sessions are however crucial to further students’ understanding of the professional discipline. Other pedagogical objectives such as Synthesis, Comprehensive planning approach, Contract, and Adaptation of procedures to real cases were integrated smoothly into the four studios. According to both teachers and students, the studios managed to support the acquisition of content-related knowledge and skills relatively well. Finally, regarding the learning output and gaining professional knowledge in the teamwork-aligned planning studios, digitalization had no significant effect. Thus, online teaching was comparatively more efficient in planning studios. Using the terminology of Higgins et al. (2009), the analysis suggests that Creativity and Collaboration were more challenging to achieve in the online studio than Criticality, Citizenship and Contemplation.

Regarding the socio-technical settings, virtual studio education was framed by the digital interfaces of online meeting platforms such as Zoom and Teams. Typical in-class activities including sketching and building models could not be adequately replicated online. Some students found online learning boring and lacked collegiality and group spirit. These challenges existed in all studios but were even more visible in the design studios where students worked mostly alone. Moreover, teachers lacked motivation especially when students did not use their cameras. Nonverbal communication remained challenging or non-existent, and participants needed to work harder to send and receive signals when faced with zoom-fatigue (cf. Bailenson, 2021). Thus, the studio as a project-based, social learning environment (cf. Wenger, 2000) faced constraints in its social setting, no matter whether focused on design or planning.

It should be noted, however, that neither teacher nor student experiences were exclusively negative. The online setting led to better scheduling and better timekeeping during feedback sessions and presentations. Due to the possibility to join from anywhere, students had fewer absences and could rewatch recorded lectures. Focused discussions, for example on advanced design proposals, worked well because of the screen sharing functions of the online tools. The use of shared platforms for collecting ideas (e.g., Miro and Flinga) were considered useful to overcome some of the limitations of communication in forums such as Zoom and Teams. Finally, the switch to online teaching enabled several studios to invite guest lecturers from academia or practice without requiring them to travel to the university.

Regarding the second research question about integrating digitalization in studio education, we want to highlight a few opportunities emerging from the findings. The greatest opportunity seems to be revisiting the traditional forms of representation used in studios. Although sketching and physical models, typically more important in design studios, should not be forgotten, the use of digital media has added new forms of representation, e.g., digital site models in which designs can be embedded. Furthermore, expanding the participation of guest critics and guest lectures beyond the geographical locations is another significant opportunity. However, in our understanding, hybrid teaching, i.e., having learners both on campus and online, proved deficient.

Therefore, we suggest an evolution of the studio towards mixed modality, i.e., a combination of in-class and online learning activities which enriches the learning process by employing the best of both settings. The suggested mixed modality may enable a better setting of the studio to harmonize the intended learning objectives and activities with the teaching methods and modality. In a post-pandemic world, such a transformation should not take place as ERT, but needs to be acknowledged already in curriculum planning (cf. Biggs & Tang, 2007) to allow sensitive alignment with intended learning objectives, learning activities and assessment of the studios in question, as well as in relation to other available studio courses. Generally, a combination of on-site and online teaching can lead to time savings for both students and teachers and can add some variation to the studio experience. Transparent course scheduling is crucial to keep a mixed modality studio well organized and hassle-free.

The transformation towards mixed modality may take place through various tactics, five of which are listed below. First, guided site visits may be enhanced by introducing time for free exploration and data collection alongside joint activities that increase collegiality. Second, lectures from course teachers and guests can easily be delivered online and be made available in an asynchronized audio-visual archive to ensure flexible access for students who need to adjust their schedule with other activities (e.g., work, sick leave). If delivered in an asynchronous manner, enough time needs to be reserved for students and teachers to discuss such materials, ideally in a face-to-face setting where conversations are usually livelier. Third, the co-creative character of studios requires that teachers and students know each other and can collaborate on an equal footing. Regular on-site sessions can build trust to enable collaboration in occasional online sessions too. The use of multiple pieced-together apps, for example to facilitate the collection of ideas and discussion, can improve communication and ensure engagement of all involved. Fourth, review or critique sessions should always take place on campus and involve the whole class of learners to enhance the social setting of the studio and ensure that students are aware of the work of others. Especially in studios focused on individual work, such interactions are crucial for learners not to feel isolated, and to inspire them to improve their own work. However, in group work-focused studios, students also benefit from sharing their experiences and struggles with a bigger class. Furthermore, holding mid-term and final critiques in person can foster a spontaneous atmosphere and informal conversations which may help in aiding professional socialization and collecting feedback. Fifth, clear rules framing online teaching should be agreed upon to regulate the blending of the home environment and the in-class environment from the viewpoint of privacy. If digital education is to be integrated into studio learning, academic roles should mandate all parties involved to use cameras, especially with the possibilities to use preselected backgrounds.

7 Conclusion

In this article, we have shown that the digitalization of studio education in architecture and planning entails both opportunities and shortcomings. However, the article does not raise them for the purpose of assessment as the urgency of distance learning did not allow intentionality in course planning (e.g., Hodges et al., 2020). Instead, it aims to raise discussion on the future of the studio in the age of digitalization.

As the analysis shows, different challenges were found related to the objectives and requirements of the course, and between design-oriented or strategy-oriented studios. In both planning and architectural design studios, structured tutoring conversations between the instructors and students were not ideal. However, the problems were more substantial in design studios than in planning studios, as the group work setting of the latter compensated for the communication challenges to a degree. In the design studios, review discussions felt strange especially in the early stages, i.e., before the creation of design concepts. On a general level, these studios witnessed a lack of competition because students had no awareness of each other’s ideas (cf. Salama & Wilkinson, 2007). Simultaneously, the instructors noted a reduced level of creativity in the students’ designs. Furthermore, the iterative refinement process, through which the concepts are to be developed, suffered from the limitation to use detailed digital models instead of rough models (cf. Demirkan & Hasirci, 2009; Hettithanthri et al., 2023) or the unsuitability of the used software to foster creativity. While the instructors were concerned about the decline of using models and learning how to develop ideas through them, students did not seem to mind the switch to digital forms of representation. In the planning studios, where the contribution is based on complex reasoning derived from different interpretations of analytical tasks, the competition between the groups was largely independent from the awareness of other groups’ work, as they typically represent a more cooperative learning environment.

Generally, we have argued that distance learning can fulfill the pedagogical objectives of a studio in sustaining synthesis experience, applying judgment and values in selecting analytical methods and resolutions. However, it seems that professional socialization was difficult to achieve when the studios were held online (cf. Heumann & Wetmore, 1984; Long, 2012). Thus, the article suggests evolving studio education towards mixed modality in order to capitalize on the opportunities that digitalization offers to HE. It is clear that each course needs to find its own ways to combine online and on-site modes of teaching, but we regard a discussion on mixed modality essential to improve studio education in programs teaching architecture and planning. Although this research studied four different studios and involved both faculty and students in 2020 and 2021, the results are still limited and studying best practices further may help in mutual learning. The insights offered by the pandemic need further constructive and comprehensive dialogue involving learners, educators, heads of education, and pedagogical experts. The article calls for more in-depth research compiling both qualitative and quantitative data to shape a robust interpretation of online teaching and create innovative perspectives of the future of studio learning. Therefore, after the release of the pandemic emergency, faculty should be eager to develop initiatives to improve their studio courses to be more engaging, challenging and equally inspiring, and to make the best use of the rise of digitalization in HE.