Purpose: This study explored the virtual design studio as a transformative learning model for the disaster and resilience context, including the factors that affect students' perceptions and experiences of the quality of this adaptation.Design/methodology/approach: Data obtained from 248 students who took online design studios during the lockdown in 15 universities in Jordan highlight many factors that make the experience of the online design studio more challenging. Despite these challenges, strongly positive aspects of the online studio were evident and widely discussed.Findings: A model of a hyper-flexible design studio in which students can have a direct contact with their instructor when needed – in addition to online activities, reviews and written feedback – is highly recommended for the beginner years. This HyFlex model will enrich students' learning and understanding of the fundamentals of design and ensure that technology solutions deliver significant and sustainable benefits.Originality/value: For students, studying architecture necessitates a fundamental shift in the learning mode and attitude in the transition from school. Beginner students are often surprised by the new mode of learning-by-doing and the new learner identity that they must adopt and adapt to in the design studio. Moreover, due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, architecture teaching has moved online. Both instructors and students are experiencing dramatic changes in their modes of teaching and learning due to the sudden move from on-campus design studios to a virtual alternative, with only the bare minimum of resources and relevant experience.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether and how the use of video-based learning resources by architecture students contributes to the development of high-order cognitive abilities in light of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, as well as how satisfied these students are with this integration into their coursework. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants who completed a two-phase questionnaire (n = 52) and focus-group interviews (n = 16). This study provided empirical evidence of the advantages of this integration in establishing a student-centered atmosphere, and as a cost-effective, accessible, and sustainable strategy for enhancing blended learning in the field of architectural history. Nonetheless, the examination of the narratives suggests that this strategy primarily nurtures low-order cognitive abilities. To maximize the potential of this pedagogical strategy to improve student learning outcomes, educators must develop curricula that nurture high-order thinking using Bloom’s taxonomy taking into consideration the characteristics of each discipline. Learning activities should go beyond memorization and recall of facts, allowing students to apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate their knowledge, as well as consider concepts from multiple perspectives.

Purpose: This cross-sectional study investigated differences in the learning styles of 127 undergraduate architectural students (first year through to final year) to examine the relationship between learning styles and learning autonomy.Design/methodology/approach: For the investigation, the Felder and Solomon index of learning styles and the Macaskill and Taylor autonomous learning scale were used to identify how these variables relate to one another and how this relationship differs by gender and level of study.Findings: The study provides evidence of a statistically significant impact of studio-based learning on both learning autonomy and style. Our findings, in conjunction with the absence of consistent findings from literature, provide suggestions for making learning in the studio more inclusive for all students. The authors also suggest that looking for learning style differences in the design studio is redundant. This is not intended to ignore the importance of learning styles, but when differences of learning preferences are apparent in one design studio, such finding would provide support for that specific learning setting, and only then conclusions can be drawn and suggestions can be introduced to help its learners, but not to be generalized to other studios.Originality/value: Learning styles in the design studio literature has revealed only a few fragmentary and sometimes contradicting evidence that cannot be generalized. Although previous studies have explored learning styles in architecture in some detail, much uncertainty still exists about the relation between learning styles and other learning concepts such as autonomy, especially within studio-based subjects. In this research, the authors interrogated and critically review learning styles as applied to different design settings from different countries.

The purpose of the design studio, which is the core of architectural education, is to educate the students to understand the nature of design, to think independently, to act in “designerly ways”, and to become “reflective practitioners”. The student must take on a new mode of learning, in which the main way to learn is by doing, and in which there is no one correct way to approach the design problem. The previous aspects associated with the studio — together with the open-ended, exploratory, and iterative nature of the design process — place the student at the center of the learning experience. Tutors in this context are facilitators of learning, rather than knowledge experts, and are expected to pay attention to the challenges that face students in adapting to this new learning environment and in assuming a new learner identity. Hence, this study employs longitudinal mixed approaches to uncover an emic perspective of the ways architecture students conceptualize learning in their first year and what distinguishes them from students in other disciplines.

This research provides an important opportunity to advance our understanding of the evolving conception of learning in the design studio and specifically how first year students at architecture schools adapt to their new learning environment.