You are here:

Blended learning in design education: An analysis of students' experiences within the disciplinary differences framework

, , Bilkent University

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 30, Number 1, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education


Blended learning has already become an indispensable part of education in many fields. However, the majority of existing research on blended learning has assumed homogeneity of disciplines. This study suggests that research highlighting disciplinary effects and differences is much needed to effectively develop courses and tools consonant with the characteristics of each discipline. To help close this research gap, this paper focuses on design education and analyses student experiences in a “blended design studio” that combined the Moodle learning management system, live videoconferencing, and social networking media (Facebook) with traditional face-to-face learning (design studio). Students’ perceptions of the methods and tools were elicited through structured and open-ended questions and qualitative variations in responses were categorised. Subsequent quantitative analysis revealed that the characteristics of soft-applied fields require customisation in blended courses and educational system designs in several ways.


Pektas, S. & Gurel, M. (2014). Blended learning in design education: An analysis of students' experiences within the disciplinary differences framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Adams, J., Hyde, W., & Murray, B. (2013). Design education: international perspectives and debates (editorial). International Journal of Art and Design Education, 32(2), 142-145.
  2. Arbaugh, J.B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 37-44.
  3. Ardaiz-Villanueva, O., Nicuesa-Chacon, X., Brene-Artazcoz, O., Lizarraga, M.L., & Baquedano, M.T. (2011). Evaluation of computer tools for idea generation and team formation in project-based learning. Computers& Education, 56, 700-711.
  4. Bender, D.M., & Vredevoogd, J.D. (2006). Using online education technologies to support studio education. Educational Technology& Society, 9(4), 114-122.
  5. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-213.
  6. Bliuc, A., Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2011). A blended learning approach to teaching foreign policy: student experiences of learning through face-to-face and online discussion and their relationship to academic performance. Computers& Education, 56, 856-864.
  7. Ginns, P., & Ellis, R.A. (2009). Evaluating the quality of e-learning at the degree level in the student experience of blended learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 652-663.
  8. Gürel, M. Ö. (2010). Explorations in teaching sustainable design: a studio experience in interior design/architecture. International Journal of Art& Design Education, 29(2), 184-199.
  9. Ham J.J., & Schnabel, M.A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: social networking as facilitator of design education. Architectural Science Review, 54, 108-116.
  10. Hew, K.F. (2011). Students' and teachers' use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 662-676.
  11. Hornik, S., Saunders, C.S., Li, Y., Moskal, P.D., & Dzuiban, C.D. (2008). The impact of paradigm development and course level on performance in technology-mediated learning environments. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Discipline, 11, 35-58.
  12. Howsen, R.M., & Lile, S. (2008). A comparison of course delivery methods: An exercise in experimental economics. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 7(1), 21-28.
  13. Joy, E.H., & Garcia, F.E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significantdifference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 33-39.
  14. Lopez-Perez, M.V., Perez-Lopez, M.C., & Rodrigues-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers& Education, 56, 818-826.
  15. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135-146.
  17. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417.
  18. Novakova, K., Achten, H., & Matejovska, D (2010). A design studio pedagogy for experiments in collaborative design, Future Cities: 28th ECAADE Conference Proceedings,. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from
  19. Osguthorpe, T.R., & Graham, R.C. (2003). Blended learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
  20. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students experiences and preferences in elearning. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 292-297.
  21. Park, J.Y. (2011). Design education online: learning delivery and evaluation. International Journal of Art& Design Education, 30(2), 22-33.
  22. Pektas, S.T. (2007). A structured analysis of CAAD education. Open House International, 32(2), 46-54.
  23. Pektas, S.T. (2010). Effects of cognitive styles on 2D drafting and design performance in digital media. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 63-76.
  24. Pektas, S.T., & Demirkan, H. (2011). Experiences with Moodle as a communication tool for design teamwork: a users' perspective. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 28(2), 227-241.
  25. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, New York: Basic Books.
  26. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: towards a new design for teaching in the professions, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  27. Schön, D. (1988). Towards a marriage of artistry and applied science in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 4-10.
  28. Smith, G.G., Heindel, A.J., & Torres-Ayala, A.T. (2008). E-learning commodity or community: Disciplinary differences between online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 152-159.
  29. Smith, G.G., Passmore, D., & Faught, T. (2009). The challenges of online nursing education. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 98-103.
  30. So, H., & Bonk, C.J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a Delphi study. Educational Technology& Society, 13(3), 189200.
  31. Türkkan E.E., Basa I., & Gürel M. Ö. (2010). The interaction between the design studio and curriculum courses: A Bilkent University Case. Open House International, 35(3), 66-75.
  32. Yang, Y.F., & Tsai, C.C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72-83.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact