Integrating video feedback into architectural design education to engage diverse learning styles

Figures & data

Figure 1. Product of phase 1: first studio session exercise of student no. 7 experimental group.

Figure 2. An example of the video feedback by the instructor.

Figure 3. Product of stage 2: second studio session exercise of student no. 25.

Figure 4. Learning style distribution of the experimental group and the control group.

Table 1. Distribution of all students among the four learning styles

Learning styles	Experimental group		Control group
	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Accommodating	2	15.38	1	7.69
Diverging	0	0	0	0
Assimilating	1	7.69	4	30.77
Converging	10	76.93	8	61.54
Total	13	100	13	100

Table 2. Average raw scale and range values of the two groups

The experimental group (KV)	RO	AC	AE	CE	AC-CE	AE-RO
Mean (std. dev.)	25.08 (5.63)	33 (5.74)	36.31 (4.62)	24.77 (4.89)	8.23 (8.90)	11.23 (9.82)
Range	15–33	24–40	29–47	19–39	−15 to 17	−3 to 29
The control group (KN)	RO	AC	AE	CE	AC-CE	AE-RO
Mean (std. dev.)	30.31 (5.12)	32.62 (4.52)	35.69 (5.06)	21.69 (3.64)	10.92 (6.89)	5.38 (9.41)
Range	16–29	29–47	22–41	18–36	−1 to 20	−3 to 29

Where: (CE) Concrete Experience, (RO) Reflective Observation, (AC) Abstract Conceptualization, (AE) Active Experimentation, (AC-CE) Abstract Conceptualization-Concrete Experience, and (AE-RO) Active Experimentation-Reflective Observation.

Table 3. Pearson correlation of learning style dimensions

	RO/AC	RO/AE	AC/AE	RO/CE	AC/CE	AE/CE	RO/AC-CE	AC/AC-CE	AE/AC-CE	CE/AC-CE	RO/AE-RO	AC/AE-RO	AE/AE-RO	CE/AE-RO	AC-CE/AE-RO
The experimental group (KV)	0.02	−0.71**	−0.23	−0.36	−0.50	−0.15	0.24	0.84**	−0.02	−0.89**	−0.91**	−0.14	0.94**	0.09	−0.13
The control group (KN)	−0.32	−0.71**	−0.07	−0.19	−0.42	−0.14	−0.11	0.88**	0.03	−0.80**	−0.93**	0.14	0.92**	0.03	0.08

Where: (CE) Concrete Experience, (RO) Reflective Observation, (AC) Abstract Conceptualization, (AE) Active Experimentation, (AC-CE) Abstract Conceptualization-Concrete Experience, and (AE-RO) Active Experimentation-Reflective Observation.

Figure 5. Average grades in the experimental group for four learning styles through phases 1 and 2.

Figure 6. Average grades in the control group for four learning styles through phases 1 and 2.

Table 4. T-test: paired two samples for means for the experimental group

	Phase 1	Phase 2
Mean	18.53	42.92
Variance	75.93	37.74
Observations	13	13
Pearson correlation	.26
Hypothesized mean difference	0
df	12
t Stat	−9.49
P (T ≤ t) one-tail	.00000031285
t Critical one-tail	1.78
P(T ≤ t) two-tail	.00000062569
t Critical two-tail	2.17

Table 5. T-test: paired two samples for means for the control group

	Phase 1	Phase 2
Mean	14.76	31.69
Variance	97.69	83.39
Observations	13	13
Pearson correlation	.20
Hypothesized mean difference	0
Df	12
t Stat	−5.07
P(T≤t) one-tail	.000135884
t Critical one-tail	1.78
P(T≤t) two-tail	.000271769
t Critical two-tail	2.17

Table 6. Distribution of Mann Whitney U test results on feedback factors for both groups after stage 3

Variable	Group	$\bar{X}$	Sd	Mean Rank	U	P
Development	Experimental (SV)	4.50	0.41	14.31	159.00	0.03
	Control (SN)	4.43	0.44	12.62
Understandability	Experimental	4.33	0.62	13.00	177.00	0.004
	Control	4.40	0.36	12.92
Encouragement	Experimental	4.49	0.44	15.31	146.00	0.08
	Control	4.66	0.44	7.92