See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268258304

Quality Learning Environments: Design-Studio Classroom

Article in Asian Culture and History · June 2012

DOI: 10.5539/ach.v4n2p165

CITATIONS READS

31 8,775

2 authors:

Asem Obeidat Raed Al-share

University of Sharjah Al-Balqa' Applied University
8 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Asem Obeidat on 28 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

Quality Learning Environments: Design-Studio Classroom

Asem Obeidat1 & Raed Al-Share2

1
Interior Design, Yarmouk University, Irbid Jordan
2
Faculty of Engineering Technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Amman Jordan
Correspondence: Raed Al-Share, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, P.O. Box
15008, Amman 11134, Irbid Jordan. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: February 22, 2012 Accepted: April 12, 2012 Published: July 1, 2012
doi:10.5539/ach.v4n2p165 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ach.v4n2p165

Abstract
Design education requires a specific setting that facilitates teaching/learning activities including lecturing,
demonstrating, and practicing. The design-studio is the place of design teaching/learning activities and where
students/students and students/instructor interaction occur. Proper interior design improves not only the function
of such learning environment but also the confidence of its users involved in the teaching/learning process. This
study finds impetus in the lack of research data relative to the design of the design-studio classroom, most crucial
space in design and architectural education. The purpose of the study is to examine the design-studio classroom
environment and to determine, by the perception of its users, to which level this specific environment assures
users’ needs and objectives. A survey was developed and distributed to a purposive sample of design and
architecture educators. Ninety four responds were collected. The results of the study support the stability of
earlier findings that the physical environment has a direct impact on the satisfaction of the space users. The
findings suggest that lighting, noise, glare, air quality, temperature, seats comfort and possibilities of
arrangement are all essential environmental features in the achievement of an appropriate pedagogic
environment. Likewise, it was found that designated workstations are important part of the teaching/learning
process of design. It also emerges from this study that lighting is the most important feature.
Keywords: design-studio, design education, interior design, learning environment
1. Introduction and Purpose
It is becoming more evident that learning environments such as schools and universities are less equipped to
fulfill students and instructors pedagogic needs than other environments (Lyons, 2001). More often than not,
learning environments are uninteresting and uninviting (Kennedy & Agron, 2004). Research findings suggest,
however, that a high quality interior design improves not only the function of a learning environment but also the
confidence of its users involved in the teaching/learning process (Webber, Marini, & Abraham, 2000).
The interior design of spaces such as offices, dining halls, libraries, auditoriums, and classrooms should satisfy
the minimum requirements of making these spaces more functional, healthier, and more enjoyable. Students and
instructors suffer from interior problems of classrooms such as inadequate lighting, noise, glare, poor air quality,
inappropriate temperature, uncomfortable seats and inflexible seating arrangement (Rydeen, 2003). The
classroom is the most important area in a school. It is an environment that includes various aspects such as
psychological, cultural, social, and physical. It is where students and teachers spend a large amount of their time
and, hence, it is an environment that is assumed to promote a reasonable level of concentration in learning
activities such as discussing, reading, drafting, drawing, writing, and practicing. Designers ought to pay enough
attention to environmental aspects when designing classroom environments. They should create a
human-centered environment that supports teaching/learning processes and enhances students’ and instructors’
performance (Rydeen, 2003).
Classrooms vary in size and function, depending on what teaching/learning activities are intended. Lecture-based
teaching/learning activities, for instance, may require a different setting than other demonstration-based
activities. Interior design teaching/learning activities, which may include lecturing, demonstrating, and
practicing, require a specific setting that should be designed to facilitate such activities. The design-studio

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 165

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

classroom is the most crucial space in interior design and architectural education; such space facilitates learning
and social activities and influence student's interests and curiosity (Smith, 2011; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000).
Such learning environment has been described as a place where students carry out their projects while
administered by their instructors (Lackney, 1999). Its space could fit up to twenty students interacting with each
other; each has his/her own drafting table, tools, and other educational belongings. Demirbas & Demirkan also
pointed out that the design-studio classroom could be (a) a learning environment that facilitates interior design
teaching/learning processes during regular class hours; (b) a learning environment that enables interior design
students to work on their own project in their spare of time; and (c) a learning environment that could serve both
concepts at the same time; students could work on their own projects while others are enjoying a class. Interior
design students may spend much of their time in such classroom environments; therefore, these classrooms
should facilitate such objectives and provide conditions supportive of these multiple activities.
The purpose of the study is to examine the design-studio classroom environment, and to determine, by the
perception of its users, to which level this specific environment assures users’ needs and objectives.
2. Significance of the Study
As the ultimate purpose of this study is to create a typical design-studio classroom environment that satisfies the
users’ needs, this study will assist others who are coping with these specific learning environments such as
researchers, interior designers, facility managers, policy makers, and architects. Outcomes of the study will
contribute to improving such environments in use today, and will provide basic guidelines for designing future
ones, as well. This study will also benefit design and architecture educators in their teaching processes; it will
enable them to employ various teaching methods and instructions. In addition, design and architecture students
will have a better environment for learning, one that would enable both individual and group learning, use
various learning resources, and even allow users to enjoy learning times.
3. Research Questions
Learning environments vary in size and type depending on the function and type of learning anticipated,
including discussion, meeting, training, seminar, workshop, or project work. The design-studio classroom is a
learning environment that should support design teaching/learning activities both during and outside of class
hours. Such activities may include collaborative learning, problem-solving, lecturing, team-work, and
one-on-one teaching activities. Designers need to determine the function and teaching mode of each environment
in order to provide a supportive design (Webber et al., 2000).
Specifically, this study attempts to study the importance of the designated design-studio workstation in a typical
design studio-classroom setting. This will be achieved through the examination of the physical interior elements
(i.e., space layout, color, lighting, hearing, furnishing, and seating arrangement) as pertaining to the workstation
and its correlation to the overall composition of the design studio-classroom and its consequences on the
pedagogic performance. To do so, the following three research questions will be addressed:
1) How important is to have a designated design-studio workstations in the design programs?
2) What are the factors, both positive and negative, and characteristics of the design-studio classroom
environments that are most important for teaching/learning process of design?
3) How do design and architecture educators use the design-studio classroom environment in their
teaching procedures?
4. Literature Review
The impact of design on human life was examined generally in several previous studies. Evans & McCoy (1998)
indicated that to attain a well designed environment that fits well with human needs, it is important for designers
to understand how a physical environment impacts its users. The built environment affects human behavior
either negatively or positively (Sommer, 1969; Altman, 1970). As pointed out by Demirbas &. Denirkan (2000),
learning environments are assumed to be more useful for the educational purposes if they are designed to meet
user’s needs; it is the place where creativity begin. As a consequence, there are several aspects of the classroom
environment that may affect teaching-learning activity. One example is the effect of physical surroundings
(Webber et al., 2000).
The classroom is a place where the teaching/learning process occurs, where students and instructors spend
extended time and formulate social/academic interactions. Such interactions occur within the physical context of
interior elements such as furniture, color, light, temperature, and space. In fact, surrounding elements may not
merely create a pleasant atmosphere; they also facilitate a particular behavior and affect students’ performance

166 ISSN 1916-9655 E-ISSN 1916-9663

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

and satisfaction (Bitner, 1992). According to Clitheroe, Stokols, & Zmuidzinas (1998); these elements would
either be supportive or unsupportive of students’/instructors’ performance. For instance, fixed seats may not
always enable group discussion if they are fastened to the floor. In contrast, movable seats will be more
supportive for interaction in the classroom and, therefore, may increase academic performance (Webber et al.,
2000). When the physical surroundings of an environment fulfill the users’ needs and support their activities, a
synomorphic relationship arises between users and such surroundings (Wicker, 1984). The concept of
synomorphy, according to Wicker, represents a “good-fit” between a thing and its container. A well-fit between
a physical environment and its users occurs when everyone in such setting is comfortable, as once a classroom
environment accomplishes its function by being appropriate both physically and psychologically for the number
of students.
Physical and psychological human dimensions are important to bear in mind at this stage in order to address
various patterns and needs of the users. In general, when a user is not fully satisfied with a specific environment,
physically or psychologically, he/she tends to search for proper conditions (Lang, Burnette, Moleski & Vachon,
1974). As human beings are socially interconnected, they usually tend to search for elements that are supportive
of social interaction. Students need to connect with each other in the classroom, both socially and academically.
Therefore, it is important to create supportive space layouts to ensure various interaction patterns among users.
For example, supportive space layouts with flexible seating arrangements enable different patterns of interaction,
connect people with each other, and facilitate collaboration and team-work (Sommer, 1967; Mehrabian &
Diamod, 1971). Unsupportive layouts, however, decrease such connection and interaction. Spaces that
discourage interaction patterns are considered dull, empty, huge, and meaningless (Sommer, 1967). One
example of such a notion is a back-to-back seating arrangement which prohibits team-work and collaborative
learning in classroom environments (Osmond, 1959; Douglas & Giffort, 2001). Yet, seating arrangement in
design-studio classroom is considered supportive when interaction among students/students and
students/instructors is encouraged and collaborative learning is ensured.
Teaching/learning style plays a major role in shaping the classroom space layout. As indicated by Webber et al.
(2000), a particular teaching style may require a specific setting. In this case, flexibility in seating arrangement to
facilitate teaching methods, learning objectives, and diverse learning abilities will be essential.
Educational institutions ought to consider the importance of learning environments and their impact on the
teaching/learning process; they should provide appropriate and supportive physical settings. The way the
classroom is designed, according to Herman Miller, Inc., (1994), affects students’ inspiration, concentration,
behavior, well being, and performance. Well-planned learning environments, in this regard the design-studio
classroom, with flexible and comfortable furniture, appropriate lighting and temperature will positively support
teaching/learning experience (Douglas & Robert, 2001; Webber et al., 2000).
Students and instructors spend extended periods of their time in classrooms; in fact interior design students and
instructors may spend longer time in the design-studio classroom. Students and instructors should, therefore, feel
comfortable and satisfied. Demirbas & Demirkan (2000) pointed out that living procedure should be assured in
such learning environments especially when students use it in their spare time. Design-studio classroom, they
add, should serve as a pedagogical means that provides comfort and enjoyment.
5. Methodology
A survey was developed and distributed to a purposive sample of design and architecture educators. The survey
instrument included 13 questions designed to address the three main research questions. Two of the survey
questions provided background information about the participants, while the rest of the questions addressed their
perceptions regarding studio classroom environments.
Because this study inquire about the perceptions of design and architecture educators who are actively involved
with matters pertinent to the teaching of design in Jordan, the researchers decided to use a convenience
purposive sample. The sample consisted of the members of the Design and Architecture Association in Jordan
and others interested and professionals in the design field.
The survey was sent to 500 participants and was conducted as an online questionnaire emailed to all members
via their e-mail addresses. There were 85 participants who didn’t participate in the survey because of undelivered
messages. Only 94 out of 415 of the participants responded, 86 of the respondents answered all questions. The
responses of the remaining eight members were not considered because they missed some of the critical
questions.

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 167

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

Survey questions were developed carefully to address the main questions of the study. Firstly, to address the
importance of the design-studio workstations, part of the survey questions examined its availability and the
number of workstations assigned in each program. Secondly, to address characteristics and features of the
design-studio environment, participants were asked to rank the interior environmental features based on the
importance. In addition, participants were asked to indicate other interior features that influence the process of
teaching/learning interior design. Finally, to examine how design educators use the design-studio in their
teaching process, they were asked to indicate their preference of communication strategies to deliver design
information. In addition, they were asked to indicate their preference over tools to be used in the design-studio,
such as hand drafting and computers.
6. Findings
Findings of the study indicated that 40.7% of the design programs in Jordan already have designated studio
workstations. While 55.8% don’t have any, 60.5% of them are planning to make designated workstations
available in the future and 30% of the participants said that they do not have any plan to do so in the future. The
majority of the design programs that have designated studio workstations provide workstations for every student
in their program, 3 programs provide it only for graduate students, 5 programs provide it for seniors, and 7
programs provide it for both seniors and juniors (see Table 1).

Table 1. Implementing designated studio workstations in interior design programs in Jordan

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid every student in the program
27 31.4 31.4 31.4
graduate student only 3 3.5 3.5 34.9
senior student only 5 5.8 5.8 40.7
senior and junior 6 7.0 7.0 47.7
none 45 52.3 52.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Numbers of designated studio workstations in design programs vary; the majority of these programs (30.2%)
indicated that they have more than 6 workstations, 27.9% provide 1-3 workstations. Only 5 programs provide
4-6 workstations (see Table 2).

Table 2. The availability of designated studio workstations in interior design programs in Jordan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1-3 24 27.9 43.6 43.6
4-6 5 5.8 9.1 52.7
more than 6 26 30.2 47.3 100.0
Total 55 64.0 100.0
Missing System 31 36.0
Total 86 100.0

The number of students enrolled in design studio sections also varies; most of the programs (48.8%) have 16-20
design students enrolled for each section; 26.7% of design programs have 10-15 students in each section; 16.3%
of programs have 21-25 students in each section, while only 4 programs have large sections, more than 25
students in each (see Table 3).

Table 3. Students’ enrollment in interior design programs in Jordan

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid under 10 3 3.5 3.5 3.5

168 ISSN 1916-9655 E-ISSN 1916-9663

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

10-15 23 26.7 26.7 30.2

16-20 42 48.8 48.8 79.1
21-25 14 16.3 16.3 95.3
more than 25 4 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Having a designated design-studio workstation in design programs is very important; the majority of respondents
indicated that it is highly desirable to students learning. In addition, 36% of respondents said it is desirable to
have designated workstations in design programs. Only 2 respondents believe that it is merely somewhat
desirable (Table 4).

Table 4. The importance of designated studio workstations in the interior design programs in Jordan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid highly desirable 43 50.0 50.0 50.0
desirable 31 36.0 36.0 86.0
neutral 10 11.6 11.6 97.7
somewhat undesirable 2 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Teaching design may differ from teaching other areas; it may require specific communication strategies, such as
“telling” and “demonstrating”. Design educators may prefer a specific communication strategy that he/she
considers it as a powerful one. This study indicated that only two educators prefer the telling strategy, while
seven instructors prefer demonstrating technique. Clearly, the majority of design instructors who participated in
this study prefer both strategies; 75.6% indicated that they use telling and demonstrating in their teaching. 14%
of participants prefer other strategies than telling and demonstrating such as investigating, inquiring, drawing,
team-projects, guiding, listening, seeing, and confirmation (see Table 5).

Table 5. Preferences among methods of teaching interior design in interior design programs in Jordan
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid telling 2 2.3 2.3 2.3
demonstrating 7 8.1 8.1 10.5
both telling and demonstrating 65 75.6 75.6 86.0
9 12 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Interior environmental features vary in promoting design teaching/learning activities; they either promote or
inhibit teaching/learning process. The participants were asked to rank the importance of specific interior
environmental features (furniture, flexibility of furniture arrangement, color, lighting, and temperature) in the
design-studio classroom. Responses indicated that lighting is the most important interior feature of the
design-studio environment; 30.2% of the respondents have selected it as “very important”. Furniture and
flexibility of furniture arrangement were ranked in the level after lighting. 24.4% of respondents selected those
two features as the most important. Temperature was selected as “very important” by 16.3% of the participants,
while only 7% of the respondents selected the color feature as a very important feature. Lighting in design-studio
classroom was the most important feature among other participants of this study. Findings of the study show that
36% of the respondents selected lighting as very important one (see Tables 6).
Table 6.The importance of lighting in design-studio classroom

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 169

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Highly Desirable 26 30.2 30.2 30.2
Desirable 31 36.0 36.0 66.3
Neutral 17 19.8 19.8 86.0
Somewhat desirable 7 8.1 8.1 94.2
Undesirable 5 5.8 5.8 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Furniture was in the second place; 33.7% said that it is very important. Flexibility was in the third place since
20.9% respondents selected it.14% of the respondents was ranked temperature as very important. Color was the
less to be selected as very important; only 2.3 believe it is a very important feature of the design-studio
classroom.
Ranking such features as “unimportant” was as follows: color was believed to be the unimportant feature of the
design-studio classroom; 59.3% of the respondents indicated that. 11.6% are equally ranked both arrangement
flexibility and temperature in the second place. While 5.8% ranked lighting to be in the third place, only 2.3% of
the respondents believed that furniture is unimportant feature.
The most ranked feature as “somewhat important” one was temperature; selected by 32.6% of the participants.
24.4% believed that color is fairly important, while flexibility was in the third place. Finally, furniture and
lighting were believed to be somewhat important by 10.5% and 8.1% of the participants. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10
illustrate the importance of furniture, arrangement flexibility, temperature, and color in design-studio classroom
environment.

Table 7. The importance of furniture in design-studio classroom

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Highly Desirable 21 24.4 24.4 24.4
Desirable 29 33.7 33.7 58.1
Neutral 25 29.1 29.1 87.2
Somewhat desirable 9 10.5 10.5 97.7
Undesirable 2 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Table 8. The importance of arrangement flexibility in design-studio classroom

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Highly Desirable 21 24.4 24.4 24.4
Desirable 18 20.9 20.9 45.3
Neutral 19 22.1 22.1 67.4
Somewhat desirable 18 20.9 20.9 88.4
Undesirable 10 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Table 9. The importance of temperature in design-studio classroom

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Highly Desirable 14 16.3 16.3 16.3
Desirable 12 14.0 14.0 30.2
Neutral 22 25.6 25.6 55.8

170 ISSN 1916-9655 E-ISSN 1916-9663

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

Somewhat desirable 28 32.6 32.6 88.4

Undesirable 10 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Table 10. The importance of color in design-studio classroom

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Highly Desirable 6 7.0 7.0 7.0
Desirable 2 2.3 2.3 9.3
Neutral 6 7.0 7.0 16.3
Somewhat desirable 21 24.4 24.4 40.7
Undesirable 51 59.3 59.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0 100.0

Participants were asked to supply other critical features they valued to promote design teaching/learning process.
As stated by respondents, these features included integration of digital technology (e.g., computers and relevant
software, printers, TV/V, projection, wireless internet communication), audio-visual equipment, good access to
workstations, good acoustics and acoustical privacy, smart-boards, whiteboards and display boards, display areas
and stimulating art and design works, ample spaces, access to resource library and interior finish materials,
connection to other studios like architecture and art, ergonomic seating, personalization of space, music, safety,
privacy, water fountains, couches, natural light, storage space for each station, and enabling teamwork and
hands-on-activities.
Respondents were also asked to supply features they thought detracting from the environment indicated features
that inhibit design teaching/learning process. These are: improper equipment, shortage of workstations, improper
room shape and inadequate workspace, lack of storage spaces, layout of workstations which inhibits attention to
instructors, bad acoustics, inadequate ambient conditions such as lighting and temperature, lack of control over
environmental elements as temperature and light, lack of natural light and nature view, lack of internet access,
lack of computers, plotters and printers, lack of proper technology, non-functioning furniture and inflexibility of
furniture arrangement, workstations inadequate size, poor sightlines, lack of circulation hierarchy, computer
monitors interfering with viewing, noise, high panels, glare, inadequate HVAC, lack of proximity to resource
library/samples, lack of privacy, lack of acoustical privacy, lack of space to sit side-by-side with students, lack of
space for informal discussion, lack of visual aesthetics, lack of places to keep personal effects, lack of ownership
of the environment, unsuitable workstation for both hand drafting and computer, access to space after class
hours, and inaccessibility to workstations.
For better teaching/learning outcomes, the design-studio classroom should be designed carefully; an ideal
environment that is to be used by design students may include hand drafting and/or computer capabilities and
others, as well. This study indicated that 86% of the respondents believe that the ideal design-studio classroom
should enable both drafting and computer capabilities.
Only one respondent preferred hand drafting capability solely. 11.6% of the respondents indicated that
Workstations should facilitate all modes of design communication such as model building/cutting area,
assembling material samples, reading, accessing references, drawing, and CAD.
7. Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the configuration of the design-studio classroom environment in Jordan in
order to design a typical one that is more effective. The researchers believe that findings of the study provide
reasonable answers to the main research questions.
(1) How important is to have a designated design-studio workstations in design programs in Jordan?
Regarding the importance of designated design workstations, saliently the designated design workstations are
very important to design programs in Jordan. Findings of the study indicated that almost 50% of the design
programs already have designated work stations for their students and they will continue to have it in the future.
Also, 60% of programs currently not providing such workstations are planning to provide them for their
students. This study considers that designated workstations are important part of the teaching/learning process of

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 171

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

interior design. In addition, findings of the study suggest that designated workstations should be provided for all
students in all levels; such workstations were believed to be supportive of teaching/learning design.
(2) What are the characteristics and factors of the design-studio classroom environments that are most important
for teaching/learning process of design in Jordan?
This study suggests that all interior environmental features assumed by the researchers to influence
teaching/learning process, are important to be considered in design-studio classroom. Each feature has different
level of impact. It emerges from this study that lighting is the most important feature. It may be true that because
the process of learning design dealing with lines, shapes, and colors, require proper lighting. It is assumed by this
study that a design-studio classroom requires specific furniture such as drafting table and stools. And thus, such
furniture should be useful and comfortable, as well. Drafting tables may accommodate storage spaces and proper
space for a computer. Stools also need to be comfortable, adjustable, and movable. Flexibility of arranging
furniture in design-studio classroom is essential; student may need to rearrange their tables in different ways to
facilitate both self-study and team-project, and assist other levels of interaction as well. Based on the findings of
the study, furniture and flexibility of arranging furniture are very important features of the design-studio
classroom; it support teaching/learning process. Color of the design-studio classroom is not an important issue
based on the findings of this study.
(3) How do design educators use the design-studio classroom environment in their teaching procedures?
Regarding the configuration of design-studio classroom environment, this study suggests that such environment
should facilitate various teaching methods. The findings indicate that design educators use both telling and
demonstrating teaching methods. This may be true because, in order to learn design process, students need to be
taught both basic theory and application foundations and to apply such basics by sketching and so forth.
Educators use traditional lecturing to deliver theoretical information and one-to-one teaching to guide students
through these processes. In order to accomplish such teaching objectives, the study suggests that design-studio
classroom should support different teaching methods and enable various patterns of interaction.
8. Implications
The purpose of the study was to examine the design-studio classroom environment, particularly designated
workstations, its importance, its characteristics, its effect on teaching/learning, and its usage among design
educators. Workstations should be assigned for all students in design programs and should facilitate learning, not
only during class hours, but also in students’ spare time as well. Findings suggest that such workstations are very
important for the process of teaching/learning design; students will have a suitable place to work on their own
projects, while they may not find an alike in their homes. These workstations should be designed carefully in
order to be useful and effective for the users, hence, designers need to pay enough attention to what should be
incorporated with it for a more supportive learning environment. There should be specific furniture such as
drafting tables and stools.
Drafting tables should be proper to have room for computers and computer screens. Furthermore, drafting tables,
stools, and storages should be flexible to rearrange. They should be movable, adjustable, and comfortable. In
addition, design-studio workstations should accommodate enough storage spaces and pleasant to make it more
functional and enjoyable. In addition, as indicated by participants, the design-studio classroom should enable
technology tools such as the internet and data show. It should also accommodate other facilities such as
TV/VDT, printers and plotters, display areas, resource library, and access to interior finish materials.
Designers, facility managers, and policy makers of such learning environments, should consider interior
environmental features that affect design teaching/learning process. Proper lighting sources, for instance, will
make such environment more effective. As findings of this study suggest lighting is the most important aspect of
the design-studio classroom, designers should consider both quantity and quality of lighting source to be used, in
addition to its locations in the interior space.
Also, another interior environmental feature is temperature. It should be considered cautiously when designing
classroom environments. This study shows that temperature could affect design teaching/learning process,
therefore, design-studio classroom should accommodate both heating and cooling systems. Besides, control over
temperature in such environments is essential.
9. Limitations of the Study
Findings will direct researchers’ attention to formulate a superior inquiry regarding the design-studio classroom
environment. Therefore, a purposeful sample of design educators was thought to be proper at this stage. Findings
of this study may not be generalizable enough to all educators of design programs in Jordan. In addition,

172 ISSN 1916-9655 E-ISSN 1916-9663

www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

important information could be obtained from larger group of educators and from students, designers, facility
managers, and policy makers, as well.
Online survey is a very effective method nowadays; distributing the survey is faster and data analysis is more
accurate. For uncontrollable reasons, some surveys did not reach selected participants and others could not open
it. Participants who answered all questions were only 86; therefore, the researchers believe that more respondents
would be more effective and more generalizable for the body of design educators.
10. Conclusion
The impact of physical learning environment is a very important issue; need to be considered cautiously at the
beginning stage of the designing process. Not only interior designers, but also educators, facility managers, and
stake holders should pay enough attention to what contribute to make such environment more effective and
useful. Users of the learning environment should be involved in the designing process; those who are intended to
occupy them and whether to suffer or have the benefit of them.
Design-studio classroom environment is a sole environment; designed to facilitate design and architectural
education; it is the most usable environment in such disciplines. Design educators and students spend much of
their time in the design-studio; both theoretical and practical teaching/learning processes are accommodated in
such an environment. Previous studies, (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000), indicated the importance of having
designated design-studio workstations. Findings of this study verify that such workstations are very important to
be offered for all levels of design students. Consistent with previous studies (sommer, 1967; Webber et al., 2000;
Webber et al., 2000; Douglas & Robert, 2001) on physical classroom environments, findings of this study
support that physical environmental features have direct impacts on students and educators satisfaction, hence,
they should be considered carefully. Lighting and temperature are very important features of the design-studio
classroom interior environment that should take precedence in the design process. Interior features of the
design-studio classroom should be carefully handled. Furniture should be suitable, movable, adjustable, and
flexible. Storage spaces should be enough and reachable by all design students.
Not only traditional hand drafting methods are implemented in the design-studio classroom; but also the
computer usage is increasingly becoming a common tool. Consequently, an effective environment should be
created carefully to facilitate teaching/learning process and to support its users’ performance as well. The
design-studio classroom should be functional, comfortable, and enjoyable. This study corroborates Demirbas &
Demirkan (2000) in their description of the design-studio classroom that should support various
teaching/learning methods and pleasant working conditions need to be provided.
References
Altman, I. (1970). Territorial behavior in humans: an analysis of the concept. In L. Pastalan & D. Carson (Eds.),
Spatial Behavior of Older People (pp. 1-24). Michigan: The University of Michigan-Wayne State
University.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicecapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of
Marketing, 59, 57-71.
Clitheroe, H. C., Stokols, D., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1998). Conceptualizing the context of environment and
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 103-112.
Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2000). Privacy dimensions: a case study in the interior architecture design
studio. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 53-64.
Douglas, D., & Gifford, R. (2001). Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: a lens model
approach. Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 295-309.
Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When building don’t work: the role of architecture in human health.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 85-94.
Hall, E. (1969). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday Co.
Herman Miller, Inc. (staff) (1994). A research summary from Herman Miller, Inc. environments for learning.
Michigan: Herman Miller, Inc.
Kennedy, M., & Agron, J. (2004). No buildings left behinds. American School and University.
Lackney, J. A. (1999). A history of the studio-based learning model. Educational Design Institute, Mississippi
State University. Retrieved from http://www.edi.msstate.edu/articlesStudio.html

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 173

 www.ccsenet.org/ach Asian Culture and History Vol. 4, No. 2; July 2012

Lang, J. T., Burnette, C., Moleski, W., & Vachon, D. (Eds.) (1974). Designing for human behavior: architecture
and behavioral sciences. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
Lyons, J. B. (2001). Do school facilities really impact a child’s education? An introduction to the issues. The
University of Georgia. Retrieved from
http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/sdplcontents/learning%20environments.html
Mehrabian, A., & Diamond, S. G. (1971). Seating arrangement and conversation. The American Journal of
Sociology, 34(2), 281-289.
Osmond, H. (1959). The relationship between architect and psychiatrist. In C. Goshen (Eds.), Psychiatric
Architecture. Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
Rydeen, J. E. (2003). Focusing on Human Factors. American School & University. Retrieved from
http://asumag.com/mag/university_focusing_human_factors/
Smith, K. (2011). Curiositas and studiositas: Investigating student curiosity and the design studio.
International Journal of Art & Design Education, 30, 161-175.
Sommer, R. (1967). Sosiofugal space. The American Journal of Sociology, 72(6), 654-660.
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. Englewwod Ciffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Webber, L., Marini, M., & Abraham, J. (2000). Higher education classrooms fail to meet needs of faculty and
students. Journal of Interior Design, 26(1), 16-34.
Wicker, A. W. (1984). An introduction to ecological psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

174 ISSN 1916-9655 E-ISSN 1916-9663

View publication stats