Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of Undergraduate Students in Design Studios

Abstract

The paper discusses the importance of computer as a supporting approach in architecture. This approach is expected to foster the students' design skills in design studios. The approach is an educational tool for tutors that could guide the students and increase their creativity in their design. It considers the concepts and the practice of digital architectural design that influence architectural education. The approach is a catalyst for creativity, experimentation, critical thinking and the sustained growth of creative communities. The core of design studio is the notions, methods and skills of digital architectural design. The instruments used for this research was an investigation that made for the work of the fourth year students designs at the architectural department at University of Jordan, by testing design process and product of students' work: first using manual skills, and then using computer-aided programs. The results revealed that the computer-based design approach was able to foster students' design skills as well as to develop their creativity in design. Ninety-one percent of 44 students were found improved in design process using computer-based approach that depends on computer programs. This was done in design studio by improving students' way of thinking, developing their abilities to direct their own learning and pushing them for new definitions in developing their future work.

Full text

Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 9 (2015) 902-910
doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2015.08.003
Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster
the Architectural Skills of Undergraduate Students in
Design Studios
Sarinaz Sari Suleiman, Kholoud Hassouneh and Wae’l Al-Azhari
Department of Architecture, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
Abstract: The paper discusses the importance of computer as a supporting approach in architecture. This approach is expected to
foster the students’ design skills in design studios. The approach is an educational tool for tutors that could guide the students and
increase their creativity in their design. It considers the concepts and the practice of digital architectural design that influence
architectural education. The approach is a catalyst for creativity, experimentation, critical thinking and the sustained growth of
creative communities. The core of design studio is the notions, methods and skills of digital architectural design. The instruments
used for this research was an investigation that made for the work of the fourth year students designs at the architectural department
at University of Jordan, by testing design process and product of students’ work: first using manual skills, and then using
computer-aided programs. The results revealed that the computer-based design approach was able to foster students’ design skills as
well as to develop their creativity in design. Ninety-one percent of 44 students were found improved in design process using
computer-based approach that depends on computer programs. This was done in design studio by improving students’ way of
thinking, developing their abilities to direct their own learning and pushing them for new definitions in developing their future work.
Key words: Teaching architecture, design studio, computer-aided design programs, design skills, design assessment, design
creativity.
1. Introduction
The job market in Jordan pushes forward to deliver
more skills in digital media. Educators started to
rethink and examine architectural education in the
light of digital technology. The demands for architects
who have computer skills have increased since late
1990s of the last century.
Since then, in the University of Jordan, computer
design programs changes gradually become a main
tool in design process and presentation, oppositely,
free hand sketches and manual tools become limited.
The evolution of these changes in western countries
has been literate and documented well. However, it
seems that this procedure is unrewarded in Jordan and
there is a severe lack of research and documentation in
Corresponding author: Sarinaz Sari Suleiman, M.Sc.,
teacher, research field: teaching architecture. E-mail:
s.suleiman@ju.edu.jo.
this area [1, 2].
The conventional architectural design studio is
primarily based on a multi-disciplinary and
multi-layered knowledge fields. Architectural design
shows aesthetical skills of designer. Meanwhile,
designers should take into consideration structural,
mechanical and environmental technology issues,
beside social, cultural and psychological behavioral
aspects [1].
Digital media as used in design studio can bring
important changes to the architectural design process,
the design studio praxis, the design outcome and the
way in which students envision and describe
architecture [2, 3].
Architectural design education produces flexible
professionals that are adaptable for the future, by
increasing the students’ skills in interdisciplinary
work and fully integrate information technology [4, 5].
D
DAVID PUBLISHING

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
903
Future architectural education should accept,
encourage and function with the signatures of
different beliefs, cultures and individuals. The
architectural practice and education of tomorrow will
not be based on one model or approach but in many
models and approaches. In other words, hybridity and
multiplicity are the road to the future [4]. What has
been missing is the approach and theory to bridging
the gap between analog and the digital media.
Although we have known that there is a territory lying
between them, we have not had the necessary maps to
explore it systematically [6].
At this stage, this challenge is methodological and
paradigmatic rather than technical as a result, schools
find themselves today in the odd situation of having a
hybrid productive environment with little or no
elaborated pedagogy and theory to deal with it [6].
The paper aims to test the importance of computer
programs, as it is taught in Jordan, to help students
develop their skill in interdisciplinary work. Other
objectives are:
 defining the role of computer programs 3D
product (imagining, alternatives, building materials
and presentation) and examining the role of computer
programs of scale proportion, order and algorithm;
 comparing design process approaches, using
computer and manual;
 communicating the design process, in addition to
the final result.
2. Methodology
A reflection-in-action was done while design is in
process. Teaching approach depends on six criteria:
authenticity and complexity in methods of assessment;
use of summative assessment as the main driver for
learning; extensive opportunities to develop and
demonstrate learning; rich in formal feedback; rich in
informal feedback; developing students’ abilities to
direct their own learning, evaluate their own progress,
and support the learning of others [7]. This could be
summarized in:
 defining main points of creativity;
 defining main points of assessment in the design
studio;
 data collecting about traditional way of design
and computer programs that are used in design;
 making a comparison between designing using
traditional way and designing by computer in
analyzing student’s works in both cases;
 concluding advantages and disadvantages of both
cases above.
3. Hypothesis
There are two hypotheses below:
(1) Hypothesis 1: Digital media are stronger for
design development as they demand higher levels of
geometrical definition and abstraction, and the
elaboration and coordination of complexity and
details;
(2) Hypothesis 2: The levels of creativity and
exploratory attitude increase creativity.
3.1 Creativity Assessment
Is the design creative or not? A question that
always arises while evaluating students’ projects. It is
hard to find one system that may apply to all projects.
Architectural design is based on multi-disciplinary
knowledge, which makes it hard to evaluate.
Evaluation of students work is the sum of functional,
technological and aesthetical aspects.
The concept of “creativity” is broad in scope and
difficult to define. Consequently, there is no single,
clear indication of how it can be enhanced in a
learning environment [8]. Learning and teaching for
creativity can be achieved successfully when a teacher
understands the nature of their own pedagogical
reasoning.
The poetic dimension of architecture expresses
itself through the materials that constitute the
architectonic event: places, forms, spaces, surfaces,
colors, light and symbols. The works of architecture,
in fact, reach poetic communicative values through

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
904
the way they became part of a place, the way they
discover, interpret and give back its elements and its
potentialities, through their spatiality, both external
and internal, through the language of the forms they
present, through the sensations their surfaces and
colors arouse, through the playing of light and shadow,
through the expressive tensions, the relations and the
cross-references that they determine, through, often,
all these things put together [9].
All creative processes require profound previous
knowledge of the phenomenon or product to be
developed incremental creativity involves
long-standing and significant knowledge, ripened
through self-reflection, experience and evaluation of
the generated elements. The process of evaluating a
product once it has been produced generates
knowledge, whose accumulation results in the
experience proper of design’s daily activities [10].
Many artists and architects believe that computer
offers creative opportunities, but at least two
conditions are necessary for creativity: First, the
computer program must offer new possibilities, rather
than simply aping existing ones; Second, we must
never forget this and the program must be in the hands
of an artist who can be creative in the medium [3].
In Rogers and Fasciato’s [11] study, they suggest
that creativity is an individual characteristic and
expression, and hence cannot be assessed. However,
Balchin [12] concludes that the best complex
composite instrument should assess not only the
product, but also the four Ps (product, process, person
and press) [13].
King and Anderson, as cited by Kleiman [14],
sincerely believe that it is the product that is used to
evaluate the personality behind the product, and hence
it is the product that needs to be evaluated [13].
3.2 Design Studio Assessment
The architecture studio creates a context where
active learning occurs through group or individual
problem-based projects [15].
Challenge of identifying a problem, defining its
limits and developing a creative approach to solve it,
aids in the development of reasoned judgment,
interpersonal skills, reflection-in-action and critical
reflection on practice which forms the basis of
architectural education.
Evaluation is essential part of education because it
helps instructors to recognize student’s learning level
and make decisions for further educating steps. It also
helps students revising their designing process based
on given comments [15].
Studio assessment can be categorized into
categories: product, process, technology, reflective
practice, person, content knowledge, hard skills, soft
skills, technology, learning approach/style, reflective
practice, professional and innovative practice, and
interdisciplinary collaboration.
Concentrating on the design process itself, rather
than only on the end product that encompasses formal
properties and techniques, is an excellent way to asset
students’ work. It is important to adopt a
process-centered approach to studio work that results
in the integration of both conceptual and practical
thinking [16].
The aim of improving and fostering students’ skills
depends on the design process by analyzing students’
skills, pointing out reflection on action notes,
assessing students’ progress and giving feedback to
them [7].
3.3 Investigation Methodology of the Investigation
3.3.1 Authenticity and Complexity in
Problem-Based Learning
The aim was to give students’ project that meets
with authenticity and complexity in problem-based
learning.
Problem-based learning reflects the way people
learn in real life [7, 17]. Authenticity and complexity
are inherent in the design project briefs issued to the
students of architecture, and reflect true professional
practice. An architectural brief is provided for a

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
905
building with a prescribed programme, and students
are set the task of providing a design solution of
“commodity, firmness and delight”. This drive to
authenticity is supported by tutor-directed and
self-directed research, examples being visits to the
chosen site and buildings of relevant typologies,
presentations and tutorials by architects and
consultants experienced in the building type, and
discussions with relevant clients and end-users.
3.3.2 Portfolio Assessment
A portfolio is a structured collection comprising
evidence and critical reflection on that evidence [7].
Summative assessment is based upon the cumulative
output of the preceding weeks of formative
assessment and feedback. A portfolio submission is
required which, together with the final proposals,
collects and demonstrates all the iterative
developmental work by the student.
In the submission of the final presentation, students
were asked to submit the work of preceding week.
This provides us with clear evidence of the student’s
learning journey. Marking down each stage besides
writing down note gives a holistic evaluation of
teaching process and learning outcomes.
3.3.3 Opportunities to Develop and Demonstrate
Learning
Students are afforded the opportunities on a weekly
basis to develop and demonstrate the skills and
learning that will be required to complete the
summative assessment. Interim reviews are
programmed into the curriculum to consolidate the
formative assessment protocols. In the second project,
the digital presentation (PowerPoint, PDF or similar)
provides a structured and current portfolio of the
student’s proposals: Content may include photographs
and computer sketches of the site, materials found in
situ, initial sketches, diagrams of sun-paths, prevailing
wind directions, site conditions, images of
architectural precedents, photographs of scale models,
as well as the graphic conventions of architectural
communications—plans, sections and elevations.
From time to time, tutorials and reviews are
structured with pairs of students, allowing one student
to note the key points of the other’s review—this can
be used to supplement the staff comments. The
recording student also benefits from the potential for
application of these comments in aspects of their own
personal project.
3.3.4 Formal Feedback Provision
Formal feedback, from a variety of tutors and
practitioners, is provided at intermediate reviews in
written form. This practice is being stipulated as part
of the students’ portfolio submissions [7]. Studio
design projects conclude with a final review which
will assign relevant feedback to the project learning
outcomes as a final summation of the work which
needs to be addressed. Tutors provide weekly sheets
for the students which stipulate the tasks that the
students should address in the week ahead, and
benchmark the expected level of progress of students
within the cohort. The iterative process of the studio
tutorial allows the tutors to monitor the students
progress effectively. Any misunderstandings in
communications or expectations can be attended to in
the following session. The formative assessment and
learning strategies are therefore inextricably
interlinked, the feedback actively influencing the
course of action [7].
3.3.5 Informal Progress Feedback
In the past, design tutors have used their
professional judgment alone to judge student
performance—the “connoisseur” model. However, the
use of hidden criteria may not be particularly
beneficial to student learning [7, 18].
Two factors are considered critical to the success or
otherwise continual formative assessment: firstly, the
ability of tutors to communicate implicit assessment
criteria explicitly; secondly, tutorials are required to
take care in the use of language [7, 19]. Architecture,
as with many other subjects, has established a jargon of
acronyms, similes, and figures of speech which are
familiar to the practitioner, but may be unfamiliar to

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
906
newcomers to the subject area [7].
The tutor must be aware of the unfamiliarity of
such language to new students, and endeavor to either
explain the principles clearly, or communicate without
reliance on specialist terminology. In either case, this
will benefit the student, not least in future dealings in
the professional arena [7].
3.3.6 Learning Outcomes
Defining learning outcomes explicitly gives precise
assessment all through design process for tutors and
helps students developing their own designs. For this
experiment, they are listed as follows:
 reaching and recording context and place;
 developing a solution that is fit to Amman
context;
 exploring the nature of internal and external
space interaction;
 investigating primary technology and materiality;
 recording the process in sketchbook;
 order and geometry;
 presentation.
4. Case Study
4.1 Definition
Two different projects were given to the students.
The first project (manual-based project) was the
design of Jordan Expo computer and the second
project (computer-based project) was the design of a
four-star hotel. Both of the project sites were chosen
in the commercial zone in the city center of Amman
where architectural typology is traditional vs. modern.
The area of the site for each project is 7,000 m2 and
the total project built up area was 5,000 m2.
The program of the first project, Jordan Expo, was
defined by tutors: It consists of galleries, theater,
administration, services and outdoor facilities. The
program of the second project, a 4-star hotel, was
restricted by the regulations of Ministry of Tourism in
Jordan. The program consists of lobby, multipurpose
hall, administration, restaurant, accommodation,
services and outdoor facilities.
The experiment was made through 44 students in
the 4th year of Architecture Department at University
of Jordan.
The design process was divided into site analysis,
defining program, concept, preliminary design, design
development and final presentation.
In the first project, students were encouraged to
focus on manual techniques. Students start by their
own concept along with the systematic and scientific
analyses of information. Tutors let students design as
they got used to. Besides, tutors do a reflection in
action when possible. While the second project
computer-aided programs were encouraged through
design process, students start the first project by their
own concept along with the systematic and scientific
analyses of information. Then students design an
algorithmic order as a base for their design
development. They use elementary units of behavior
(functions) connected by through rationally defined
and measurable relations.
In both projects, issues such as massing, proportion
and geometrical definition, composition, materiality,
skin, context, access/deliveries, circulation, fire safety,
security, details of furniture and climatic passive
solutions were clarified and assessed by tutors.
4.2 Experimental Frame Work
The experimental framework is shown in Fig. 1.
4.3 Results
As a result of comparing the outcome of the two
projects using the previous methodology and
assessment, the results of the experimental frame
work are discussed below.
In the site analysis phase (Fig. 2), 13 students with
a percentage of 30% as percentage were better in
manual in this phase; 14 students, around 32%, were
equal; while 17 students with a percentage 38% were
better in computer. In this phase, computer and
manual seem to give almost equal students
understanding of the site constraints (context). Students

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
907
Fig. 1 Diagram shows the experimental framework.
Fig. 2 Students’ grades in the site analysis phase
assessment.
Fig. 3 Students’ grades in the conceptual phase
assessment.
who were better in manual sketches show better
details of the site. While students who were weak in
freehand took a benefit from computer programs:
They turned photos into sketches effect.
In conceptual phase (Fig. 3), 59% of student were
better in manual in comparison of 38% of those in
computer and one student of around 3% remains the
same. This indicates that, in this stage, students
depend on manual because there are too many design
variables to deal with in their mind that are not mature
enough.
Fig. 4 shows the geometrical definition phase, a
comparison between student marks computer vs.
manual skills.
Eight students (18%) were better in manual than
computer, five students (11%) were the same and 31
students (71%) were better in geometrical definition
and in generating more complex forms.
In manual-base project, most students tried to do it
simple: easy for drawing and take less time. While in
the computer-based project, students dare to test more
complex geometries.
In the design development phase (Fig. 5), four
students (9%) got the same grades. They got equal
skills both in manual and computer and 91% were
better in design process using computer-aided
programs.
In the first project, it was remarked that most
students have less numbers of alternative and most of
20
15
10
5
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
Grades
Students’ numbers
Computer Manual
Assessment
Assessment
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
4th year students
Manual-based
Computer-based
Site analysis
Site analysis
Concept
Concept
Geometrical definition
Geometrical definition
Design development
Design development
Total sum Total sum
Comparison charts
Final presentation Final presentation
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
Students’ numbers
Computer
Manual
Manual
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
Grades
Grades

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
908
Fig. 4 Students’ grades in the geometrical definition
assessment.
Fig. 5 Students’ grades in the design development
assessment.
Fig. 6 Students’ grades in the final presentation
assessment.
them could show tutors just one alternative each class.
It was noticed that details in plans were narrowed to
wall and openings and there was no time to furnish the
plans appropriately. Besides, tutors pointed out that
shade and shadow were missed in elevations as well
as different building materials. While in the second
Fig. 7 Students’ grades as a total summation of
assessments.
Fig. 8 Shift in students’ total grades.
project, computer process, it was obviously noticed
the fully detailed furnished plan and sections, besides,
it is easy to test different alternative, materials shade
and shadow.
In the final presentation phase (Fig. 6), four
students (9%) were better in manual submission, five
students (11%) got same grades while the rest 80%
were better in computer submission. This shows that
computer programs help students to present their
intended material, cast shadow, etc. in a fully rendered
images. So, the weakness in freehand sketches was
overcome.
As a total sum of all the process (Fig. 7), we found
that eight students (18%) were better in manual skills,
half of them with slight difference (only 2~3 grades
1%) while 36 students (82%) were better in computer.
The shift in grades chart (Fig. 8) shows the shift in
students’ grades that number of students who got
better grades increased while C+, C, and D grades
became less in computer-based process.
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
20
15
10
5
0
Grades
Students’ numbers
Computer Manual
20
15
10
5
0
Grades
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
Students’ numbers
Computer Manual
20
15
10
5
0
Grades
Students’ numbers
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
Computer Manual
20
15
10
5
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
Grades
Students’ numbers
Computer Manual
Grades
Computer
aproach
Manual
aproach
Number of students
A B+ B C+ C D

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
909
Table 1 Comparison between computer-based project and manual-based project.
Design aspect Computer versus manual
Computer-based project Manual-based project
Record context (site analysis) Computer gives (generate) abstract ideas to site
scenes Sketches made student more sensitive to site scenes
Main idea concept Some students lose it gradually, through
development Most of the students try to keep the outline of it
3D imagining More (2-3) alternatives Only one alternative, takes more time and effort
Human scale Stretching lines can be done easily, most
student lost scale and proportion Human scale under control
Geometric definition
(order and algorithm)
Computer encourage students to test more
complicated module Simple module, equal grid
Function in plan Having more options of solution Limited options, due to time consuming
Presentation Render materials more clear, students with low
hand quality benefit from computer program Talented students can express better
Architectural details Full details, furniture, landscape, etc. Less details
Submission requirements Submit all requirement on time Missing parts of requirement, such as details,
furniture, and casting shadows
Feedback Eye cannot catch all possible comments All possible comments is in hand
5. Conclusions
The results above show that about 30% of students
were better in manual skills in the conceptual phase,
while 38% were better in computer skills. On the
other hand, more than 70% were better in geometrical
definition and in generating more complex forms
using computer. As a result of that, 91% were better in
design process using computer-aided programs and
80% were better in computer submission.
Depending on the percentages above, the final
grades show that 82% of them were better in
computer and getting higher grades.
The paper found out that some students miss order,
proportion and human scale when they design using
computer, others go in a safe mode by designing using
perpendicular grid. To encourage students to be more
creative, flexible, and to avoid previous problems,
students were asked to reconsider a new dynamic
module or algorithmic diagrams. The reflection in
action notes that comes out through the design process:
to develop a design methodology that helps student to
develop their projects by their own reflections, has
been summarized in Table 1.
6. Recommendations
Today, state of productive and cultural calls for a
dynamic equilibrium between the digital and the
manual systems of architectural representation. We
need both media as each one opens different paraxial
territories which are inaccessible by the other. And
what is even more important, their interaction
generates synergistic opportunities that transcend by
far their own individual strengths. The diversity of
tools and approaches offers not only more choices but
also luminal conditions in the new break through lie.
The architectural practice and education of tomorrow
are not ahead in the digital but between the manual
and the digital, and not in one medium/approach but
in many media/approaches. This inclusivity assertion
has a strong ideological stand consistent with a
humanistic understanding and ethics of architecture.
As this paper has pointed out, what is happening on
campus is far more advanced and promising regarding
the assimilation of the digital into architecture than
what we find in the “real world”. In this sense,
research on media interaction theory, methodology
and pedagogy can play a leading role in guiding our
discipline into the future.
References
[1] Eilouti, B. 2007. “A Problem-Based Learning Project for
Computer-Supported Architectural Design Pedagogy.”
Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education 5

Developing Computer-Based Design Approach to Foster the Architectural Skills of
Undergraduate Students in Design Studios
910
(3): 197-212.
[2] AI-Qawasmi, J. 2005 “Digital Media in Architectural
Design Education: Reflections on the E-Studio
Pedagogy.” Art, Design and Communication in Higher
Education 4 (3): 205-22.
[3] Bryan, L. 2002 “CAD and Creativity: Does the Computer
Really Help?.” Leonardo 35 (3): 327-31.
[4] Bermudez, J. 1999. “The Future in Architectural
Education.” In 87th ACSA (Association of Collegiate
School of Architecture) Annual Meeting Proceedings,
321-5. Accessed July 9, 2014. http://faculty.cua.edu/
bermudez/papers/acsa1999-2.pdf.
[5] Hargrove, R. 2011. “Fostering Creativity in the Design
Studio: A Framework towards Effective Pedagogical
Practices.” Art, Design and Communication in Higher
Education 10 (1): 7-31.
[6] Bermudez, J., and King, K. 2000. “Media Interaction and
Design Process: Establishing a Knowledge Base.”
Automation in Construction 9: 37-56.
[7] Holgate, P. 2008. “Assessment for Learning in
Architectural Design Program.” Northumbria Built and
Virtual Environment Working Paper Series 1 (2):
194-208. Accessed July 9, 2014.
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/static/5007/bepdf/vol1no
2june08.
[8] Corcoran, K., and Sim, C. 2009. “Pedagogical Reasoning,
Creativity and Cooperative Learning in the Visual Art
Classroom.” International Journal of Education through
Art 5 (1): 51-61.
[9] Alfano, F. 2003. “The Poetic Dimension of Architecture:
Possibilities and Limits in the Teaching of Architecture,
Four Faces—The Dynamics of Architectural
Knowledge.” In Proceedings of the 20th EAAE
(European Association for Architectural Education)
Conference Stockholm-Helsinki, 1-9.
[10] Luz, M., and Jiménez, N. 2000. “Design’s Own
Knowledge.” Design Issues 16 (1): 36-51.
[11] Rogers, M., and Fasciato, M. 2005. “Can Creativity Be
Assessed?.” Presented at the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Glamorgan. Accessed July 10, 2014.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/150029.htm.
[12] Balchin, T. 2005. “Assessing Students’ Creativity:
Lessons from Research.” Higher Education Academy
April: 1-5. Accessed July 10, 2014.
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk.
[13] Eshun, E. F., and de Graft-Johnson, K. G. 2011. “Learner
Perceptions of Assessment of Creative Products in
Communication Design.” Art, Design and
Communication in Higher Education 10 (1): 89-102.
[14] Kleiman, P. 2004. “On Assessing Creativity: Some
Considerations.” The Higher Education Academy.
Accessed July 10, 2014. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
assets/documents/resources/database/id561_On_assessing
_creativity_some_considerations.doc.
[15] Hassanpour, B., Utaberta, N., Zaharim, A., and Goh
Abdullah, N. 2011. “Students’ Perception of the
Evaluation System in Architecture Studios.”
International Journal of Social, Education, Economics
and Management Engineering 5 (5): 93-9. Accessed July
10, 2014. http://waset.org/publications/10331/students-
perception-of-the-evaluation-system-in-architecture-studi
os.
[16] Ozturk, M. N., and Turkkan, E. E. 2006. “The Design
Studio As Teaching/Learning Medium—A
Process-Based Approach.” International Journal of Art
and Design Education 25 (1): 96-104.
[17] Biggs, J., and Tang, C. 2011. Teaching for Quality
Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
[18] Webster, H. 2001. “The Design Diary: Promoting
Reflective Practice in the Design Studio.” The Higher
Education Academy. Accessed July 10, 2014.
http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/aee/pdfs/websterh.pdf.
[19] Sara, R., and Parnell, R. 2004. The Review Process.
CEBE Briefing Guide Series No. 3. Accessed July 10,
2014. http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/publications/
briefguides/pdf/BriefingGuide_03.pdf.