Home⇛JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Journal⇛vol. 64 no. 2 (2026)

Advancing Quality Education in Architecture: A Comparative Study on Traditional and Digital Learning Approaches

Lynne Ivy Illaga | Antoniette M. Almaden | Nicole Grace Ceniza | Carla Nicole Francisco | Jezrael Philip Fuentes | Jeliane Marie Santillan | Trexie Margarette Tagbar

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study compares traditional and digital learning methods in developing design and visualization skills among fourth-year architecture students at a private higher education institution in Cebu City, Philippines. It focuses on four core competencies: accuracy, creativity, efficiency, and spatial understanding guided by Design Thinking, emphasizing empathy, ideation, and iterative problem-solving. The study explores how pedagogical strategies shape student outcomes. A quantitative comparative design was employed, involving 187 randomly selected students. Data were collected through a validated questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired t-test. Results showed that digital methods significantly enhanced accuracy and efficiency, especially in tasks requiring precision and technical output. Traditional methods, meanwhile, better support creative thinking and conceptual planning. Students reported that a blended approach combining both methods offered the most balanced and effective learning experience. The study concludes that a flexible, student-centered blended learning model best supports skill development in architectural education. This approach not only improves learning outcomes but also advances Sustainable Development Goal 4 by promoting inclusive, quality, and future-ready education. Furthermore, it aligns with internationalization by fostering digital fluency and pedagogical adaptability across diverse learning environments. The findings underscore the value of integrating thoughtful pedagogy with technology to prepare architecture students for the evolving demands of global design practice.



References:

  1. Al-Matarneh, R., & Fethi, I. (2016). Assessing the Impact of CAD Tools on Architectural Design Quality-A case study of graduation projects in Jordan. In Parametricism Vs. Materialism: Evolution of Digital Technologies for Development [8th ASCAAD Conference Proceedings (pp. 331-50). https://bit.ly/4jtW2x3
  2. Al-Rqaibat, S., Al-Nusair, S., & Bataineh, R. (2025). Enhancing architectural education through hybrid digital tools: Investigating the impact on design creativity and cognitive processes. Smart Learning Environments, 12(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00370-9
  3. Saleh, A., & Ansari, A. A. (2019). Analyzing new trends in architecture pedagogy (teaching methodology in architecture education). International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 8(5).
  4. Araujo, N., & Eiji, J. (2024). Integration of blended learning in architecture: From digital design to parametric fabrication. 7744–7747. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2024.2065 
  5. Boumaraf, H., & İnceoğlu, M. (2020). Integrating 3d printing technologies into architectural education as design tools. Emerging Science Journal, 4(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2020-01211
  6. Ceylan, S., Şahin, P., Seçmen, S., Somer, M. E., & Süher, H. K. (2024). The contribution of digital tools to architectural design studio: A case study. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15(7), 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2024.102795
  7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  9. Darwish, M., Kamel, S., & Assem, A. (2023). Extended reality for enhancing spatial ability in architecture design education. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(6), 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.102104
  10. Davis, D. (2024). Modelled on software engineering: Flexible parametric models in the practice of architecture (Doctoral dissertation, RMIT University).
  11. Dizon, E. V., Florencondia, D. N. T., & Villar, D. M. J. (2024). The impact of digital technology on contemporary architecture in pampanga. Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 7(11), 490–505. https://www.irejournals.com/
  12. Dutt, A. K., & Ansari, A. M. A. A. (2022). Analyzing Evolving methodologies & teaching pedagogy for building construction taught in architecture. International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology, 9(1), 17–21. https://ijirt.org/IJIRT | An UGC Compliant Peer reviewed Journal | International Open Access Journal
  13. Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
  14. Fakhry, M., Kamel, I., & Abdelaal, A. (2021). CAD using preference compared to hand drafting in architectural working drawings coursework. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(3), 3331–3338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.01.016
  15. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)90022-1
  16. Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, 35(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.09.001
  17. Ismail, M. A., Mahmud, R., & Hassan, I. S. (2012). Digital studio vs. Conventional in teaching architectural design process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.003
  18. Iyer, A. G. (2015). Review of approaches to learning adopted by architecture students in the coursework of architectural design. Archi DOCT, The e-Journal for the Dissemination of               Doctoral           Research           in           Architecture.,           3(1),           21–30. http://www.enhsa.net/archidoct/Issues/ArchiDoct_vol3_iss1.pdf 
  19. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (Seventh edition). SAGE. https://bit.ly/49kH2wM
  20. Kaba, I., & Abdou, S. (2022). Learning styles of architecture and interior design students: A review of the literature. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 37, 88–100. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v37i1.7699
  21. Kalay, Y. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design. https://bit.ly/4jtPGxD
  22. Kara, L. (2015). A critical look at the digital technologies in architectural education: When, where, and how? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 526–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.506
  23. Kim, M. J., & Maher, M. L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies, 29(3), 222–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.006
  24. Kocaturk, T. (2017). A socio-cognitive approach to knowledge construction through blended learning. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, Vol 5 No 1 (2017): Special issue: Blended Learning in Architecture and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.5278/OJS.JPBLHE.V5I1.1544
  25. Kraus, M., Rust, R., Rietschel, M., & Hall, D. (2022). Improved perception of aec construction details via immersive teaching in virtual reality. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2209.10617
  26. Mihaela, H., & Armenciu, D. (2024). Exploring innovative teaching methodologies in architectural education for urban sustainability and energy efficiency. 20 ARCHITECTURAL EXPERIENCES - Proceedings- International Conference of Architecture and Design 30-31/10/2023.
  27. Moanis, Y., & Makram, A. (2024). A framework to enhance flexible blended architectural design education. Environmental Science & Sustainable Development, 9(3), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v9i3.1102
  28. Peimani, N., & Kamalipour, H. (2022). The future of design studio education: Student experience and perception of blended learning and teaching during the global pandemic. Education Sciences, 12(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020140
  29. Pektas, S. T., & Gurel, M. O. (2014). Blended learning in design education: An analysis of students’ experiences within the disciplinary differences framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.372
  30. Porat, R., & Ceobanu, C. (2024). Enhancing spatial ability: A new integrated hybrid training approach for engineering and architecture students. Education Sciences, 14(6), 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060563
  31. Rodriguez, C., Hudson, R., & Niblock, C. (2018). Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12535 
  32. Royeras, J. T., & Sumayo, G. S. (2024). Vocabulary knowledge and inferential reading comprehension of senior high school students: A descriptive-correlational inquiry. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(3), 1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v3i3.8164
  33. Šafhalter, A., Vukman, K. B., & Glodež, S. (2016). The effect of 3d-modeling training on students’ spatial reasoning relative to gender and grade. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115620430
  34. Saghafi, M., Franz, J., & Crowther, P. (2014). A holistic model for blended learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(4), 531-549.
  35. Saghafi, M. R. (2021). Teaching strategies for linking knowledge acquisition and application in the architectural design studio. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(2), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-01-2020-0005
  36. Saighi, O., & Zerouala, M. S. (2018, June). Computer and traditional tools in design activity: Experimental study on students of architecture. In Proceedings of the international conference of contemporary affairs in architecture and urbanism-ICCAUA (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 491-511).
  37. Sediadi, E., & Semlali, A. (2022). The role of digital architecture in students’ design best practices: International Webinar on Digital Architecture 2021 (IWEDA 2021), Yogyakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220703.020
  38. Sen Bayram, A. K., Özgüven, Y., & Cantürk, E. (2020). Traditional vs digital—Understanding design                        process             in             architectural             education.             481–488. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2020.1.481
  39. Sen, G., Adeboye, A., & Alagbe, O. (2021). The influence of architecture students’ learning approaches on their academic performance in two nigeria universities. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.2.8
  40. Bendre, S., & Holey, A. (2022). Integrating traditional knowledge systems into the architectural curriculum – A pedagogical approach. International Journal of Engineering Research  &                         Technology                      (IJERT),          NCA          –          2022,          10(3). https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTCONV10IS03022
  41. Tahir Abdul Rahman Siddiquee, Fadzidah Abdullah, Aliyah Nur Zafirah Sanusi, & Mohd Khalid Hasan. (2023). The paradigm shift from traditional to blended learning methodology in architecture education. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 33(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.33.1.7591
  42. Tang, H. H., Lee, Y. Y., & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: A protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme. Design Studies, 32(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.06.004
  43. Team, S. (2025, June 11). Computer-aided design: Bringing efficiencies to the civil engineering  profession  -  snyder  &  associates  -  engineers  and  planners. https://www.snyder-associates.com/computer-aided-design-bringing-efficiencies-to-the-civil-engineering-profession/
  44. Tovey, M. (2016). Design pedagogy (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315576695
  45. van Passel, P., & Beeloo, J. (2019, September). Experiences in using blended learning to optimise design sketching education. In 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, E&PDE 2019: Towards a new Innovation Landscape.
  46. Villa, D., & Zuccoli, F. (Eds.). (2023). Proceedings of the 3rd international and interdisciplinary conference on image and imagination: Img 2021 (Vol. 631). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25906-7
  47. Wang, D., & Ilhan, A. O. (2009). Holding creativity together: A sociological theory of the design professions. Design Issues, 25(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.5
  48. Wang, X., Love, P. E. D., Kim, M. J., Park, C.-S., Sing, C.-P., & Hou, L. (2013). A conceptual framework for integrating building information modeling with augmented reality. Automation in Construction, 34, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.012
  49. Wang, L. (2022). Student intrinsic motivation for online creative idea generation: Mediating effects of student online learning engagement and moderating effects of teacher emotional support. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 954216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954216
  50. Yaseen, R. H., & Hameed, A. M. (2019). The impact of the architectural studio technique on the development of architectural teaching and learning: Students of the third stage of the architecture department as a case study. International Review of Civil Engineering (IRECE), 10(4), 207. https://doi.org/10.15866/irece.v10i4.16663
  51. Yıldırım, E. (2024). The Impact of Manual vs. CAD/BIM Methods in Early Technical Drawing Courses on Third-Year Architectural Design Studio Success.
  52. Yildirim, T., & Yavuz, A. O. (2012). Comparison of traditional and digital visualization technologies in architectural design education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.120
  53. Yıldızoğlu, N. (2024). Sketching versus digital design tools in architectural design. Journal of Computational Design, 5(2), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.53710/jcode.1504947

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic