Perception to Virtual Design Studio in the Initiation, Realization and Reflection Phase: The Faculties and Students Perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparision physical design studio versus virtual design studio.

Teaching/Learning Activity	Conventional Design Studio (Physical Design Studio)	Innovative Design Studio (Virtual Design Studio) Relevant Parameters
Studio Project Initiation and Interactions	Face To Face Interactions	Online Interactions	Initiation Phase Access to Essential Facilities &Technology Individual Profile Status Design: Teaching & Learning: Process and Resources Realization Phase Pedagogical Settings Teaching and Learning Effectiveness Level Nature of Interactions Reflection Phase Assessments/Appraisal Levels Peer Learning and Related Matters Studio Culture Skills & Behaviour
Site Study	Field Trips	Virtual Site Visits
Case Studies	Study Trips Interaction In Person With Project Architects/Consultants	Virtual Tour Interaction Online With Project Architects/Consultants
Design Studio	Institutional Studio Settings	Virtual Eco-System Based
Project Work Framework	Brief Specification Based - Individual Or Group Activity In Physical Design Studio Settings	Brief Specification Based - Individual Or Group Activity In Virtual Eco System
Collaborations And Peer Interactions/Learning	Physical Live Contact Level	Remote Virtual Contact Interaction
Reviews	In-Person Project Presentations	Remote Project Presentations
Studio Pedagogue Interventions	Expert Tutorials/Studio Mentorship/In-Person Review And Feedback	Expert Tutorials Online/Studio Mentorship/Review and Feedback - Virtually
Portfolio	In-Person Submissions and Presentations	Virtual Submissions and Presentations
Prototypes	Physical Prototypes	Virtual Prototypes

Figure 1. Virtual design studio discourse constituents.

Table 2. Initiation Phase (hosting): survey Questionnaire parameters.

Index		Faculty Survey Questionnaire Description	Student Survey Questionnaire Description
Initiation Phase (Hosting)	Access to Essential Facilities & Technology	The section focuses on the faculty members’ access to essential facilities and technology for hosting VDS, such as workstations, network connectivity, hardware, and software applications. It also explores whether the institution had resources to facilitate virtual learning via learning management systems and web-based portals.	The section focuses on students’ access to essential facilities and technology for VDS, including workstations, network connectivity, hardware, and software applications. Effectiveness of LMS provided by Institution. It also explores whether the institution provided orientation programs and web-based portals to facilitate VDS.
	Individual Profile Status	The section assesses the challenges faced by faculty members during the migration from conventional face-to-face studios to virtual design discourse. It explores changes in their responsibilities, teaching hours, and the need for skill upgradation in technology. Additionally, it delves into the necessity for research on instructional methodologies to facilitate VDS.	The second section assesses students’ profile status during VDS, including the challenges faced in migrating from conventional face-to-face studios to virtual design discourse. It explores changes in their commitment levels and learning hours/workload distribution. It also asks about their perception of faculty members’ preparedness and the need for skill upgradation in technology.
	Design: Teaching & Learning: Process and Resources	The section analyzes the nature of teaching and learning methods adopted in VDS, including the use of learning management systems, digital resources, online tutorials, and virtual exploration platforms. It also considers interactions with project architects/consultants and the use of CAD/BIM software applications and virtual meeting platforms.	The section reviews the nature of teaching and learning methods adopted in VDS, including the effectiveness of the course organization in virtual mode, access to learning management systems and digital resources, and the impact of online tutorials, discussions, and virtual exploration platforms on their learning experience.

Table 3. Realization Phase (approach & contents framework): survey Questionnaire parameters.

Index		Faculty Survey Questionnaire Description	Student Survey Questionnaire Description
Realization Phase (Approach & Contents Framework)	Pedagogical Settings	The section examines the role of pedagogical models in VDS, exploring the adoption of learner-centric instructional approaches, the significance of Bloom’s taxonomy, and the relevance of learning theories like constructivism and experiential learning.	The section aims to assess students’ perspectives on the pedagogical approaches used by faculty members in VDS, including student-centric instructional approaches and the use of multi-disciplinary approaches.
	Teaching & Learning Experiential Level	The section focuses on the effectiveness perceived by faculty members in discharging teaching and related activities during VDS, including preparation time for tutorials, engagement levels, and student participation.	The section considers students’ experiential levels during VDS, covering the quality of tutorials, reviews, engagement levels, and self-appraisal of their work, including drawings, visualizations, and models.
	Nature of Interactions	The section evaluates the ease and quality of interactions within the VDS as perceived by faculty members. It encompasses project discussions, design exploration, feedback in crits, and mentoring interactions.	The section assesses the level of easiness and quality of interactions in VDS, including project discussions, interactions during design development, and feedback in crits from the perspective of students.

Table 4. Reflection Phase (progress appraisal): survey Questionnaire parameters.

Index		Faculty Survey Questionnaire Description	Student Survey Questionnaire Description
Reflection Phase (Progress Appraisal)	Assessments/ Appraisal Levels	The section examines the effectiveness of feedback and assessment methods in the virtual design studio. This includes faculty members’ perspectives on verbal and written feedback during tutorials and crits, as well as their assessment of reports and portfolios. The appraisal is done through self-comparison to the experience in a physical design studio setting.	The section evaluates students’ contentment regarding assessment and appraisal levels within the VDS. This involves assessing their satisfaction with verbal and written feedback during tutorials and crits, as well as the assessment of reports and portfolios, in relation to their experiences in the physical design studio.
	Peer Learning	The section examines peer learning and its effectiveness, encompassing peer interactions, collaboration, and team spirit, as perceived by faculty members among students during virtual discourse.	This section explores students’ viewpoints, in terms of the effectiveness of peer learning and associated activities. This encompasses factors such as peer interaction, positive mutual interactions, and collaborative work.
	Studio Culture	The section evaluates the importance of studio culture components in VDS, including the studio community, mutual support, peer learning, and student involvement in extracurricular activities, from the viewpoint of faculty members.	The section delves into the significance of studio culture within VDS from the perspective of students. It addresses aspects like the relevance to the studio community, mutual support, peer learning, and student engagement in extracurricular activities.
	Skills & Behavior	The section investigates the enhancement of skills and behavior within the context of VDS. This encompasses areas such as time management, presentation skills, and the overall advancement of one’s profile as an academician.	The section examines individual skill and behavior development during VDS, including time management skills, design skills, presentation skills, and overall profile development as student architects.

Table 5. Analysis insights: access to essential facilities & technology.

Stage 1	Initiation Phase: Access to Essential Facilities & Technology
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Access to workstation	Faculty	78	196.35	7266.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	154.56
2	Workstation settings & working environment	Faculty	78	173.78	9026.00	0.309	Not Significant
		Students	250	161.60
3	Access to network connectivity	Faculty	78	189.81	7775.50	0.005	Significant
		Students	250	156.60
4	Virtual learning; delivery via the learning management system	Faculty	78	180.56	8497.00	0.059	Not Significant
		Students	250	159.49
5	Access to hardware	Faculty	78	169.96	9324.50	0.550	Not Significant
		Students	250	162.80
6	Access to software	Faculty	78	195.40	7340.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	154.86
7	Access to orientation programs	Faculty	78	182.35	8357.5	0.047	Significant
		Students	250	158.93
8	Access to web-based portals/cloud computing	Faculty	78	186.22	8056.0	0.018	Significant
		Students	250	157.72

Table 6. Analysis insights: individual profile status.

Stage 1	Initiation Phase: Individual Profile Status
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Ease of migration to VDS	Faculty	78	168.60	9430.00	0.645	Not Significant
		Students	250	163.22
2	Nature of responsibilities	Faculty	78	142.74	8053.00	0.013	Significant
		Students	250	171.29
3	Nature of workload	Faculty	78	173.32	9062.00	0.321	Not Significant
		Students	250	161.75
4	Nature of proficiency status	Faculty	78	188.96	7842.00	0.006	Significant
		Students	250	156.87
5	Role of skill up gradation	Faculty	78	198.71	7081.50	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	153.83

Table 7 Analysis Insights: Design: Teaching & Learning: Process and Resources

Stage 1	Initiation Phase: Design: Teaching & Learning: Process and Resources
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Access to LMS	Students	250
		Faculty	78	198.71	7082.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	153.83
2	Access to digital resources	Faculty	78	201.82	6849.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	152.86
3	Quality of online tutorials	Faculty	78	207.88	6366.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	150.96
4	Dependence on world wide web/portals	Faculty	78	204.06	6664.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	152.16
5	Effectiveness of virtual interactions	Faculty	78	160.77	9459.00	0.670	Not Significant
		Students	250	165.66
6	Usage of virtual exploration portals	Faculty	78	168.87	9409.00	0.623	Not Significant
		Students	250	163.14
7	Effectiveness of virtual tours	Faculty	78	214.71	5833.5	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	148.83
8	Effectiveness of virtual site visits	Faculty	78	168.87	9409.00	0.623	Not Significant
		Students	250	163.14
9	Use of CADD/BIM applications	Faculty	78	146.45	8342.00	0.044	Significant
		Students	250	170.13
10	Use of virtual meeting platforms	Faculty	78	250.35	3054.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	137.72
11	Use of virtual presentation platforms	Faculty	78	167.38	9525.00	0.746	Not Significant
		Students	250	163.60
12	Consideration of learning preferences	Faculty	78	201.24	6884.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	153.04
Index	Faculty: Were you aware of E-Learning Architecture Framework directives while preparing the teaching strategy and course contents?			Students: Was the course organized effectively in virtual mode incorporating various digital tools and techniques?
				Strongly Disagree		2.8%
				Disagree		27.6%
1	Yes	29.5%		Neutral		46.4%
	Neutral	0		Agree		22.4%
	No	70.5%		Strongly Agree		.8%

Table 8. Analysis insights: design: pedagogical settings.

Stage 2	Realization Phase: Pedagogical Settings
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value		Assessment
1	Characteristics of teaching style	Faculty	78	240.47	3824.00	<0.001		Significant
		Students	250	140.80
2	Nature of learners	Faculty	78	162.36	9583.00	0.590		Not Significant
		Students	250	165.17
3	Student-centric instructional approaches adopted by the faculty members	Faculty	78	231.41	4531.00	<0.001		Significant
		Students	250	143.62
4	Multi-disciplinary approaches used in teaching and learning. (Students Response)				Yes	40%
					No	60%
5	Satisfaction levels with the overall instructional methods adopted by the faculties. (Students Response)				Never	8.8%
					Seldom	20%
					Sometimes	54.4%
					Often	16%
					Almost always	0.8%
Faculties’ Response to Pedagogical Aspects
1	Can teaching and learning be emphasized by stressing learning theories?				Yes		59%
					No		41%
2	Learning by making use of experiential and value-based approaches helps students to co-construct information and knowledge. Such an approach is always better than passive learning.				Strongly Disagree		Nil
					Disagree		1.3%
					Neutral		12.8%
					Agree		42.3%
					Strongly Agree		43.6%
3	Awareness of Constructivist theory				Yes		57.7%
					No		42.3%
4	Experiential learning is critical in design discourse (teaching and learning)				Strongly Disagree		Nil
					Disagree		Nil
					Neutral		12.8 %
					Agree		43.6 %
					Strongly Agree		43.6 %
5	Awareness of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory				Yes		12.8 %
					No		87.2%
6	Need for a learning network linked via online connectivity; constituted by learners, faculties, expert personals, and other digital resources spread across time and space.				Strongly Disagree		2.6 %
					Disagree		20.5%
					Neutral		46.2 %
					Agree		30.8 %
					Strongly Agree		2.6 %
7	Awareness of Connectivism Theory				Yes		16.7 %
					No		83.3%

Table 9. Analysis insights: teaching and learning effectiveness level.

Stage 2	Realization Phase: Teaching and Learning Effectiveness Level
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Preparation time/quality: tutorials	Faculty	78	233.20	4391.50	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	143.07
2	Engagement level/Participation level during tutorials	Faculty	78	139.05	7765.00	0.005	Significant
		Students	250	172.44
3	Preparation time & quality: reviews/crits	Faculty	78	226.04	4950.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	145.30
4	Engagement level/Participation level during reviews/crits	Faculty	78	118.51	6163.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	178.85
5	Consistency Levels	Faculty	78	110.47	5535.50	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	181.36
6	Quality of drawings	Faculty	78	121.94	6430.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	177.78
7	Quality of visualizations	Faculty	78	158.12	9252.50	0.479	Not Significant
		Students	250	166.49
8	Quality of models	Faculty	78	135.41	7481.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	173.58

Table 10. Analysis insights: nature of interactions.

Stage 2	Realization Phase: Nature of Interactions
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Project discussions	Faculty	78	156.58	9132.00	0.376	Not Significant
		Students	250	166.97
2	Interactions at progressive stages	Faculty	78	146.61	8354.50	0.046	Significant
		Students	250	170.08
3	Design explorations & progressiveness	Faculty	78	147.76	8444.50	0.065	Not Significant
		Students	250	169.72
4	Feedback & consistency	Faculty	78	166.06	9628.00	0.861	Not Significant
		Students	250	164.01
5	Punctuality levels for discussions and review	Faculty	78	142.54	8037.50	0.016	Significant
		Students	250	171.35
6	Mentoring & well-being related interactions	Faculty	78	174.46	8973.00	0.266	Not Significant
		Students	250	161.39

Table 11. Analysis insights: assessments/appraisal levels.

Stage 3	Reflection Phase: Assessments/Appraisal Levels
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Verbal feedback was given during tutorials VDS	Faculty	78	181.19	8448.50	0.061	Not Significant
		Students	250	159.29
2	Written feedback was given during tutorials VDS	Faculty	78	191.65	7632.00	0.003	Significant
		Students	250	156.03
3	Verbal feedback was given during crits VDS	Faculty	78	196.62	7245.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	154.48
4	Written feedback was given during crits VDS	Faculty	78	190.30	7737.50	0.004	Significant
		Students	250	156.45
5	Assessment of reports VDS	Faculty	78	190.96	7686.50	0.003	Significant
		Students	250	156.25
6	Assessment of portfolios VDS	Faculty	78	183.41	8275.00	0.037	Significant
		Students	250	158.60

Table 12. Analysis insights: peer learning and related matters.

Stage 3	Reflection Phase: Peer Learning and Related Matters
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Peer Interaction and exchange levels VDS	Faculty	78	173.03	9084.50	0.341	Not Significant
		Students	250	161.84
2	Positive mutual interactions related to sharing positive crits and being useful to others VDS	Faculty	78	167.67	9502.50	0.724	Not Significant
		Students	250	163.51
3	Positive mutual interactions and facilitation related to technical know-how sharing VDS	Faculty	78	183.50	8268.00	0.035	Significant
		Students	250	158.57
4	Collaborative work and team spirit VDS	Faculty	78	180.47	8504.50	0.076	Not Significant
		Students	250	159.52

Table 13. Analysis insights: studio culture.

Stage 3	Reflection Phase: Studio Culture
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Sense of belonging	Faculty	78	175.98	8854.50	0.195	Not Significant
		Students	250	160.92
2	Mutual support	Faculty	78	169.22	9382.00	0.594	Not Significant
		Students	250	163.03
3	Peer learning	Faculty	78	159.21	9256.00	0.595	Not Significant
		Students	250	165.47
4	Mutual growth	Faculty	78	165.78	9650.50	0.887	Not Significant
		Students	250	164.10
5	Relationships	Faculty	78	162.33	9581.00	0.811	Not Significant
		Students	250	165.18
6	Motivation Emotional Wellness	Faculty	78	162.02	9556.50	0.784	Not Significant
		Students	250	165.27
7	Extracurricular activities	Faculty	78	150.42	8652.00	0.117	Not Significant
		Students	250	168.89
8	Tutor & Students Interactions	Faculty	78	157.59	9211.00	0.444	Not Significant
		Students	250	166.66
9	End Semester Exhibitions	Faculty	78	163.99	9710.00	0.955	Not Significant
		Students	250	164.66

Table 14. Analysis insights: skill & Behaviour.

Stage 3	Reflection Phase: Skill & Behaviour
Index	Indicators	Category	N	Mean Rank	Mann Whitney U	P Value	Assessment
1	Time management & punctuality	Faculty	78	215.74	5753.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	148.51
2	Development of technical skills	Faculty	78	206.71	6457.50	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	151.33
3	Development of presentation skills	Faculty	78	210.59	6155.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	150.12
4	Overall Development	Faculty	78	197.31	7191.00	<0.001	Significant
		Students	250	154.26

Figure 2. AI hybrid pedagogical process schema.