Evaluation for the Development of Instruction in the Interdisciplinary Building Technology and Architectural Design Course Based on Architectural Professional Principles and Project-Based Learning

Abstract

This research originates from the significance of educational development initiated in 2011 when the Department of Architecture and Planning set a primary goal to enhance academic content for courses in architectural design, building technology, and professional support subjects to better align with actual professional practice. This development followed a curriculum revision that shifted the former Building Type–Based Learning approach toward an interdisciplinary course entitled Interdisciplinary Studies in Building Technology and Architectural Design, adopting a thematic interdisciplinary learning model that emphasizes application-oriented integration through Professional Practice–Based Learning to reflect real architectural practice. Additionally, the curriculum incorporated Project-Based Learning as a key instructional method. These pedagogical transitions led to the need for evaluation in order to identify approaches for further improving instructional practices. This research had two main objectives: (1) to evaluate instruction and study the needs and satisfaction of students, and (2) to explore methods for improving and developing teaching in the course Interdisciplinary Building Technology and Architectural Design, based on professional architectural principles and project-based learning. As for Research Methodology, the research employed a quantitative survey design, utilizing five key professional architectural components: content integration, instructional techniques, physical learning environment, instructor personality, and assessment and evaluation. The sample group consisted of 197 students and graduates from the Bachelor of Architecture Program, Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, who took the course during academic years 2015–2018. A questionnaire was used as the research instrument. Statistical methods included frequency, mode, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and content analysis. A developmental evaluation was conducted using a Feedback Loop approach, which involved discussing the development process as a continuous outcome of cyclical evaluation. The process consisted of four stages: (1) collecting feedback data, (2) analysing feedback, (3) responding to the feedback, and (4) monitoring outcomes and returning to collect feedback in subsequent cycles. Data collection was carried out over five academic years (2015–2019), encompassing five evaluation cycles. During this period, project-based learning activities with varying levels of difficulty and complexity were implemented. Different architectural programs were simulated, including large-scale office buildings, large-scale hotels, and large-scale hospitals, with increasing design complexity over the five-year cycle. The results from each cycle were used as feedback inputs for continuous improvement. The results showed that the teaching of the course, based on architectural professionalism and project-based learning, met learners’ needs at a good level (x̄ = 4.18, S.D.= 0.72) Content integration was rated very good (x̄ = 4.24, SD = 0.67); instructional techniques were rated good (x̄ = 4.10, SD = 0.78); the physical learning environment was rated fair (x̄ = 3.42, SD = 1.02); instructor personality was rated very good (x̄ = 4.65, SD = 0.54); and assessment and evaluation were also rated very good (x̄ = 4.49, SD = 0.62). The research also identified the top three areas of improvement desired by students: (1) enhancement of internet connectivity and performance, (2) improvement of collaborative workspaces for meetings and physical model testing, and (3) improvement of classroom facilities to be more convenient, clean, and spacious. These findings align with the principles of professional architectural education and project-based learning, The research results reveal that the most urgent factors requiring development are related to the physical learning environment. In order of priority, the improvement of internet infrastructure to support learning is identified as the highest priority, followed by the development of appropriate spaces for group work and meetings, and the provision of suitable lecture classrooms. These three factors recorded mean satisfaction scores of x̄ = 2.89, 3.54 and 3.81 respectively, with corresponding development percentages of 57.83%, 70.88%, and 76.28%. In terms of teaching and learning factors, the findings indicate a need to improve curriculum integration by reducing both the workload and the level of difficulty and complexity of assignments. With respect to instructional techniques, the results suggest the importance of clearly defining teaching methods that reduce the volume of tasks requiring extensive demonstration of production skills. Notably, the analysis of both closed-ended and open-ended questionnaire data from the 2019 academic year shows consistent results, yielding mean scores of x̄ = 3.77and 3.78 respectively, with development percentages of 75.37% and 75.54%.

The findings of this study indicate that the enhancement of the physical learning environment, the improvement of internet systems, and the provision of efficient group workspaces are critical factors that require increased investment to effectively support learning. In addition, project-based learning instruction should be refined by adjusting the level of difficulty and complexity to an appropriate standard, thereby reducing the range of required operational skills to fit within a reasonable timeframe. These improvements would enable more effective learning in accordance with professional architectural practice and project-based learning principles.