Learning Gaps in Structure and Construction Education in Architectural Programs: A Study of Student and Tutor Perceptions

Carissa

doi:10.9744/acesa.v8i2.00139

Authors

Carissa Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9744/acesa.v8i2.00139

Keywords:

architectural education, learning gaps, student perception, structure and construction, thematic analysis

Abstract

Structure and construction form part of the technical backbone of any architecture degree, yet students consistently find them one of the hardest areas to engage with — particularly when they are expected to apply structural knowledge at the same time as they are still developing a design project in a parallel studio. This paper reports on a qualitative study conducted in Structure Studio III, a third-semester course at a private university in Bandung, Indonesia, that runs alongside Design Studio III. We collected open-ended questionnaire responses from 117 undergraduate students and 8 studio tutors, then analysed them using thematic analysis supported by frequency counts. Four recurring patterns emerged from the data: inadequate mastery of basic structural concepts (raised by 76.1% of students; confirmed by all tutors), persistent difficulties with technical drawing (70.1%; all tutors), the challenge of running a technical course in parallel with a design studio (63.2%; 87.5% of tutors), and a range of organisational constraints that limit how much learning can actually happen in a session (60.7%; 75% of tutors). Tutor responses also drew attention to something the existing literature has not examined: a significant step-up in demand between Structure Studio II and Structure Studio III that students are not adequately prepared for. Taken together, the findings point not to students lacking aptitude but to a series of structural misalignments in how the curriculum is sequenced and coordinated. We conclude with a proposed framework for staging competency development across the three structure courses and coordinating more deliberately with the design studio.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allen, E., & Zalewski, W. (2010). Form and forces: Designing efficient, expressive structures. John Wiley & Sons.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Charleson, A. W. (2008). Structure as architecture: A source book for architects and structural engineers. Elsevier.

Ching, F. D. K. (2015). Building construction illustrated (5th ed.). Wiley.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Docherty, M. (2017). Teaching structures in architectural education: Bridging the gap between engineering and design. Journal of Architectural Education, 71(2), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2017.1288464

Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural research methods (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Holzer, D. (2015). The BIM manager’s handbook: Guidance for professionals in architecture, engineering and construction. Wiley.

MacDonald, A. J. (2001). Structure and architecture. Architectural Press.

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740

Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. Spon Press.

Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001

Pérez-Gómez, A., & Pelletier, L. (2000). Architectural representation and the perspective hinge. MIT Press.

Salama, A. M. (2016). Spatial design education: New directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. Routledge.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass.

Stevens, G. (1998). The favored circle: The social foundations of architectural distinction. MIT Press.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schon: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2008.03020063